- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 18 States Sue to Challenge Loss of Subsidies
Posted on 10/13/17 at 11:06 pm to bonhoeffer45
Posted on 10/13/17 at 11:06 pm to bonhoeffer45
quote:
Expect to see insurers themselves filing suits as well.
This is going to be a cluster frick.
I don't think you quite understand
They cant go back and sue for something that's not part of a law. Otherwise anyone could sue for not getting a govt payment of some kind each month.
1
Posted on 10/13/17 at 11:07 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
I don't think you quite understand
They cant go back and sue for something that's not part of a law. Otherwise anyone could sue for not getting a govt payment of some kind each month.
Keep reading the thread, this was addressed. I even posted the specific clause in the law for the lazy.
Posted on 10/13/17 at 11:07 pm to WONTONGO
Think of it...Liberal federal courts,then supreme court says president can spend taxpayer money without congress. Democrat and liberals heads would explode and brain bits all over the USA....
Posted on 10/13/17 at 11:10 pm to Maytheporkbewithyou
quote:
I didn't see a list of the states. Do you know which 18 states are suing?
New York, California, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and the District of Columbia
Posted on 10/13/17 at 11:32 pm to bonhoeffer45
Yeah, you don't have a clue what you are talking about. This has nothing to do with subsidies. It's about CSRs. And guess what? Insurance companies haven't been getting the CSRs for a couple years anyway. The payments that he signed to stop, had already stopped when it went to court.
Posted on 10/13/17 at 11:42 pm to Fratigerguy
quote:
Yeah, you don't have a clue what you are talking about. This has nothing to do with subsidies. It's about CSRs. And guess what? Insurance companies haven't been getting the CSRs for a couple years anyway. The payments that he signed to stop, had already stopped when it went to court.
I'm sorry to break it to you, but it is you who is not quite understanding this, Trump has been paying them up until this announcement:
LINK
Now, insurers have been anticipating this potentially happening, so many have already submitted premium increases making that assumption, but many others have not, and a group of health economists have done a good job inventorying how states and individual insurers within that state are planning to respond:
LINK /
LINK /
The way this works is the law mandates insurers in the market administer the CSR's. Economic subsidies that bring down the out-of-pocket costs for qualifying participants. The insurer is than reimbursed by the government after the fact, as pointed out in the clause I highlighted in my earlier post.
Trump has decided not to pay that reimbursement. The effect of which are the things I have mentioned.
This post was edited on 10/13/17 at 11:57 pm
Posted on 10/13/17 at 11:42 pm to dr smartass phd
Thanks
Posted on 10/14/17 at 12:07 am to bonhoeffer45
Didn't the president just sign a law that allowed individual payers to create their own market? So couldn't they just abandon the subsidized market and force insurers to close up shop.
Posted on 10/14/17 at 12:10 am to bonhoeffer45
Where did you get your law degree? Your analysis is lacking.
Posted on 10/14/17 at 12:32 am to WONTONGO
Well then Congress can get off their arse and try to pass something if they don't like it, since what Trump is EO'ing is absolutely illegal and has already been deemed so.
Posted on 10/14/17 at 12:42 am to dr smartass phd
quote:
Think of it...Liberal federal courts,then supreme court says president can spend taxpayer money without congress. Democrat and liberals heads would explode and brain bits all over the USA....
And if the president can unilaterally spend money without authorization from Congress, it would follow that the president can choose NOT to spend the money.
By the way, bonehuffer, aren't the premium increases subject to being nixed by state insurance regulators? Democrats know that if the rate increases are disallowed, the insurer will simply stop selling policies in that state.
Posted on 10/14/17 at 12:48 am to C
quote:
Didn't the president just sign a law that allowed individual payers to create their own market? So couldn't they just abandon the subsidized market and force insurers to close up shop.
He didn't sign a law, he signed an executive order to direct departments to look at ways to expand association plans.
Technically, nothing on that front has actually changed yet.
The argument on their end is that by forcing states to allow association plans from other states to operate in their borders without that home state regulating them, it will lead to increased competition and bring down costs. I have heavy skepticism about this argument. For one, several states already allow outside insurers to operate under outside laws in their border and so far have had zero insurers try and do so. That is because building a network is not easy. Hospitals and such have little incentive to give good rates to new insurers over established customer bases. Which can harm their competitiveness in their own established markets.
This post was edited on 10/14/17 at 12:57 am
Posted on 10/14/17 at 12:48 am to BBONDS25
quote:
Where did you get your law degree? Your analysis is lacking.
My analysis?
Be specific, what I am saying that is not accurate in your mind?
Posted on 10/14/17 at 3:40 am to bonhoeffer45
quote:
ax payers are on the hook for more money, people in the individual market without subsidies look to have more expensive plans as insurers raise premiums to offset the cost sharing subsidies they will no longer be reimbursed for, and people qualifying for subsidies have to worry about the uncertainty and chaos seeing insurers flee their area. Democrats can now point to this action as Trump taking ownership of healthcare and deliberately attempting to sabotage the market.
LINK
You don't get it. Individual market was blowing up well before Trump took office. 23 million in 2014. 20 million in 2016. And 17 million in 2017(see link). People will continue to get priced out of this market regardless of Trump EO or subsidy loss. The damage was done when Obamacare was signed into law.
Posted on 10/14/17 at 3:51 am to bonhoeffer45
quote:
Who Trump thinks he is helping is beyond me.
Trump is helping by blowing up the crap sandwich called Obamacare. Those in the individual market who don't qualify for a subsidy have been seeing large double digit increases since 2014. They just want the ACA to go away. The sooner the better.
Posted on 10/14/17 at 4:18 am to bonhoeffer45
quote:
Tax payers are on the hook for more money, people in the individual market without subsidies look to have more expensive plans as insurers raise premiums to offset the cost sharing subsidies they will no longer be reimbursed for, and people qualifying for subsidies have to worry about the uncertainty and chaos seeing insurers flee their area. Democrats can now point to this action as Trump taking ownership of healthcare and deliberately attempting to sabotage the market.
Who Trump thinks he is helping is beyond me.
I know it's a crazy idea, but hear me out. If the insurance companies aren't required to cover people that can't afford their premiums, then that means that they can lower the premiums for the people that work to pay for their insurance. If the government isn't subsidizing the insurance of people that don't work to cover their own premiums, then we do not need to be taxed as much.
So, the people that Trump is helping are those people that actually work and earn money to pay for their own insurance. I know it's a ridiculous concept in liberalland, but if you don't earn enough money to afford something on your own, you are not entitled to it. If you want insurance, then get a job that allows you to provide for it. I know earning what you get is anathema to dumbass, whiny liberals, but it will do you good to get off the government teat & earn your own way in this life. It builds character. Liberals should try it.
Posted on 10/14/17 at 4:38 am to WONTONGO
Obamacare was designed to fail, or rather designed to be powered by unicorns with rainbows exploding out of their arses. "If you like your whatever, you can keep your altogether." Lie. "The average citizen will save thousands of dollars." Sure. Hello liberals care to defend this?
What would have been accurate to say was people who have satisfactory, affordable health care, or don't need it, will be subsidizing people with pre-existing conditions and subsidizing those who cannot afford comprehensive health care. And there is no fricking way the government can afford to do this, but we are going to lie to you and leave you with this albatross hanging around your neck.
The EO authorizing insurance companies to cross state lines was long needed and might have even made Obamacare a system that survived, if it had been included in Obamacare - a simple fix, but a major oversight. Because after all aren't there portions of Obamacare that are going to be part of the U S health care system going forward now? Covering pre-exsisting conditions and policies for everyone? Again rainbows and unicorns, but reform in these areas was needed.
But now with the refusal of the Fedgov to pay the subsidies to these states, are not millions of people suddenly going to be without a health care policy? Seems like it might be better to let the system implode than to suddenly have the rug pulled out from under millions of...voters.
I'm glad Rand got his way on interstate insuring, but is this one of his ultimatums too that he convinced the Donald to implement? Not sure that ripping this scab off is a good political move. Reform (to the reform) will have to come, but I'm not sure if this is going to be too much shock to the system and a very difficult PR position for the Donald to inflict upon himself.
What would have been accurate to say was people who have satisfactory, affordable health care, or don't need it, will be subsidizing people with pre-existing conditions and subsidizing those who cannot afford comprehensive health care. And there is no fricking way the government can afford to do this, but we are going to lie to you and leave you with this albatross hanging around your neck.
The EO authorizing insurance companies to cross state lines was long needed and might have even made Obamacare a system that survived, if it had been included in Obamacare - a simple fix, but a major oversight. Because after all aren't there portions of Obamacare that are going to be part of the U S health care system going forward now? Covering pre-exsisting conditions and policies for everyone? Again rainbows and unicorns, but reform in these areas was needed.
But now with the refusal of the Fedgov to pay the subsidies to these states, are not millions of people suddenly going to be without a health care policy? Seems like it might be better to let the system implode than to suddenly have the rug pulled out from under millions of...voters.
I'm glad Rand got his way on interstate insuring, but is this one of his ultimatums too that he convinced the Donald to implement? Not sure that ripping this scab off is a good political move. Reform (to the reform) will have to come, but I'm not sure if this is going to be too much shock to the system and a very difficult PR position for the Donald to inflict upon himself.
This post was edited on 10/14/17 at 4:44 am
Posted on 10/14/17 at 5:27 am to GumboPot
quote:
congress never appropriated funds to subsidize insurance companies. Obama simply took $7 billion from the Treasury and spent it on his pet insurance companies. The DC court ruled it unconstitutional. Obama violated Article 1.
Seems such a difficult concept for some.
Posted on 10/14/17 at 5:36 am to NC_Tigah
While we're playing this game, if the courts side with the states to say that authorization from congress isn't needed to spend money, then be on the lookout for a solid gold border wall in less than a year since he would apparently be able to do whatever he wants with our taxes. 
Posted on 10/14/17 at 6:05 am to Maytheporkbewithyou
quote:
I didn't see a list of the states. Do you know which 18 states are suing?
Here ya go. See anything consistent here?
quote:
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman announced Friday that New York, California, and Massachusetts would be spearheading an effort to pursue an injunction against the decision. The lawsuit, filed later in the day with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California shows that Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and the District of Columbia have joined the cause.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News