- 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 10/14/17 at 8:57 am to Turbeauxdog
Posted on 10/14/17 at 8:57 am to Turbeauxdog
quote:
sabotage the market.
You mean the artificial market.
0
Posted on 10/14/17 at 9:00 am to bonhoeffer45
Taxpayer?
Posted on 10/14/17 at 9:51 am to bonhoeffer45
quote:
sabotage the market
The ACA is what sabotaged the market.
Trump is trying to un-sabotage it.
Posted on 10/14/17 at 9:55 am to THDAY
quote:
Didn't courts already decide this?
Yes. It was shot down as an unconstitutional E.O. of Obama's It's not part of the law. Congress didn't want it so it wasn't part of the bill.~~ Congress is free to act if it wants to.
Posted on 10/14/17 at 11:54 am to frogtown
quote:
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.
Then you pass legislation, which Trump has been incapable of doing.
What this sabotage does, does not kill the market, it simply makes it more unaffordable for that group of people you claim to be concerned about. As I already pointed out, many have anticipated this decision, the way they have dealt with it is to offset their losses from cost sharing subsidies they are required by law to administer, by over-compensating with premium increases. People who get subsidies are insulated by that, people who do not feel the full brunt. Because of that over-compensation, the taxpayer is on the hook for more money than they would of otherwise.
This post was edited on 10/14/17 at 12:01 pm
Posted on 10/14/17 at 11:55 am to chickenpotpie
quote:
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
And when those people who can’t afford insurance get sick and end up in the ER, what happens?
Setting aside that the government already subsidizes pretty much every healthcare market in some way, be it the employer healthcare tax credit to Medicare.
This post was edited on 10/14/17 at 12:00 pm
Posted on 10/14/17 at 12:12 pm to Revelator
quote:
Heck, Pelosi and Schumer come out against Trumps plans evens before they read them.
Silly. Don't they understand that you have to issue the EO to find out what's in it?
Posted on 10/14/17 at 2:47 pm to bonhoeffer45
quote:
Keep reading the thread, this was addressed. I even posted the specific clause in the law for the lazy.
Like I said, you don't seem to grasp the legal issues involved
You simply cannot sue someone that you have no agreement with for money
Posted on 10/14/17 at 3:03 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
Like I said, you don't seem to grasp the legal issues involved
You simply cannot sue someone that you have no agreement with for money
Just saying things over and over doesn't change anything. Just like you on your anti-climate change crusade.
LINK
LINK
These are all lawsuits stemming from the refusal to pay various ACA subsidies the law states will be made. The question of whether the government can back out of these payments is an ongoing question. Courts have both ruled in favor and against insurers. One or some of these cases is likely going to get appealed pretty high up, likely to the Supreme Court.
This is a separate issue from whether the Obama administration had the right to pay the subsidies without congressional appropriation.
Posted on 10/14/17 at 3:09 pm to bonhoeffer45
Anyone can FILE a lawsuit dipshit
The Supremes have already said the payments arent part of the law as written
The Supremes have already said the payments arent part of the law as written
Posted on 10/14/17 at 3:17 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
Anyone can FILE a lawsuit dipshit
The Supremes have already said the payments arent part of the law as written
It takes a judge or jury to win one though. Which the insurers have done.
This is what you are not grasping here. The process is still ongoing in the courts and there are several different issues at play. You have suits stemming from the risk corridor issues and the cost sharing issue.
The law that passed, the one I linked for you, states what I linked, the question is whether the president and the congress have the authority to just not pay that bill.
Posted on 10/14/17 at 3:25 pm to bonhoeffer45
quote:
This is what you are not grasping here. The process is still ongoing
Heard the same shite over the travel ban. it was clearly defined and the left whined, and filed lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit
Guess what?
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News