SCOTUS ruling against ACA may increase insurance premiums drastically

[JakeStarkey]

Obamacare Insurance Premiums Predicted To Rise 256 in July for 7.5 million Americans - MainStreet

NEW YORK (MainStreet) — Orit Pennington purchased health insurance through the Affordable Care Act (ACA) federal marketplace, because the state in which he lives, Texas, is one of 34 exchanges where the state didn’t form its own healthcare marketplace. Pennington, who owns a labeling and barcode software business, TPGTEX Label Solutions, was paying close to $750 per month for premiums before the ACA was implemented. They were reduced to $275 per month after a credit of $165 under Obamacare. Currently, under a new marketplace plan, Pennington is saving even more money, paying just $101 a month after his credit, a fraction of what he had been paying before the marketplace opened.

But premium prices like that may end soon for the estimated 7.5 million Americans who qualified for subsidies in the 34 states without state-run exchanges. That’s due to a case before the U.S. Supreme Court, King v Burwell, which challenges the legality of subsidies in these states.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I am willing to speculate that if the court decision damages Obamacare and suddenly, millions no longer have a health plan, then there will be large repercussions for the party that fought for Obamacare to be damaged or destroyed.

This could also make 2016 very interesting, I think...

 

[pepperpot]

I am willing to speculate that if the court decision damages Obamacare and suddenly, millions no longer have a health plan, then there will be large repercussions for the party that fought for Obamacare to be damaged or destroyed.

This could also make 2016 very interesting, I think...

Maybe, maybe not. Americans don't really pay attention to stuff like this. The only thing one can hope is the SC does rule against Obamacare and people will demand single payer immediately and not these high deductible plans. It could end very well.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Those crappy policies bloated by mandate will cease to exist.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am willing to speculate that if the court decision damages Obamacare and suddenly, millions no longer have a health plan, then there will be large repercussions for the party that fought for Obamacare to be damaged or destroyed.

This could also make 2016 very interesting, I think...

Maybe, maybe not. Americans don't really pay attention to stuff like this. The only thing one can hope is the SC does rule against Obamacare and people will demand single payer immediately and not these high deductible plans. It could end very well.

That is very well how it will end. The Dems will go "see, told you the Pubs are trying to kill you, so let's do single payer like we should done fifty years ago," and the public will go (I am imitating jknowgood here in style), "yeah, like, dude, lets vote dems".

What it will do is put the GOP square in the cross hairs for an election year fix.

That will be interesting.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Those crappy policies bloated by mandate will cease to exist.

That's you opinion, nothing more.

 

[pepperpot]

Those crappy policies bloated by mandate will cease to exist.

That's you opinion, nothing more.

Well he isn't far wrong. Consider Americans pay a monthly premium and then on top of that have deductibles of $5K or $10K. Then there is the whole limited network deal and so forth. Imagine what Europeans would think of that? They must think we are nuts. Sure they pay their healthcare via their taxes but then they don't have to pay thousands of dollars on top of that for care and worry if their doctor will be in network or out. Single payer is the only way.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Odds are against it though so don't hyperventilate

 

[JakeStarkey]

Those crappy policies bloated by mandate will cease to exist.

That's you opinion, nothing more.

Well he isn't far wrong. Consider Americans pay a monthly premium and then on top of that have deductibles of $5K or $10K. Then there is the whole limited network deal and so forth. Imagine what Europeans would think of that? They must think we are nuts. Sure they pay their healthcare via their taxes but then they don't have to pay thousands of dollars on top of that for care and worry if their doctor will be in network or out. Single payer is the only way.

That's you opinion, and you are entitled to it.

 

[dblack]

Those in favor of ACA should honestly hope for this outcome. Because as soon as the ink dries on the decision, Republicans will redo "Obamacare" in their own name - the same damn thing, but with different labeling - and then it truly will be a permanent fixture. For those of us opposed to a government takeover of health care, it's far better to let Republicans maintain the pretense of opposition, than to call their bluff too soon.

 

[westwall]

I am willing to speculate that if the court decision damages Obamacare and suddenly, millions no longer have a health plan, then there will be large repercussions for the party that fought for Obamacare to be damaged or destroyed.

This could also make 2016 very interesting, I think...

Considering that obummercare can't exist as they said it would. I don't see this as an issue at all. Obama held off enacting it in its entirety to try and help the Dems in the elections because they all KNEW that it would be a disaster when fully implemented.

This is just more of the same.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It's not a disaster, though you are argument is certainly, westwall.

Thank you don't like it does not matter.

It is here for good in form or fashion.

 

[westwall]

It's not a disaster, though you are argument is certainly, westwall.

Thank you don't like it does not matter.

It is here for good in form or fashion.

If it was so great why did so many get waivers to not have to abide by it? If it is so great why did they refrain from implementing it till after the elections? The truth rears up and bites you in the ass yet again fakey.

 

[JakeStarkey]

westwall, your questions are not evidence.

Answer them, and let's see if you a case.

 

[westwall]

westwall, your questions are not evidence.

Answer them, and let's see if you a case.

I presented you with facts. Your inability to refute them, or even address them is duly noted.

 

[JakeStarkey]

westwall, your questions are not evidence. Answer them, and let's see if you a case.

I presented you with facts. Your inability to refute them, or even address them is duly noted.

Nope, your questions are not evidence. Crunch the numbers, little buddy, it is your affirmation.

 

[JoeMoma]

I am willing to speculate that if the court decision damages Obamacare and suddenly, millions no longer have a health plan, then there will be large repercussions for the party that fought for Obamacare to be damaged or destroyed.

This could also make 2016 very interesting, I think...

There may also be large repercussions for the party that Gruberized the bill through congress. If it's unconstutional for people to get subsidies through the federal exchange, it's the democrat's fault.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am willing to speculate that if the court decision damages Obamacare and suddenly, millions no longer have a health plan, then there will be large repercussions for the party that fought for Obamacare to be damaged or destroyed.

This could also make 2016 very interesting, I think...

There may also be large repercussions for the party that Gruberized the bill through congress. If it's unconstutional for people to get subsidies through the federal exchange, it's the democrat's fault.

I agree that the Democratic majority screwed up if that happens, and we will watch the GOP split asunder in the House on what to do about it.