Do we really need two threads on this? (Granted, Terr’s thread is very vaguely named; I’m surprised there’s no clarification in it after four pages.)
How many millions exactly? And were they able to get better insurance through the exchanges for similar prices?
(1) is not an issue if you have universal coverage or, if you prefer, mandatory participation (same thing)
(2) is quite correct, though really all it’s saying is that health care is expensive, and at some point some people will be poor enough that they can’t afford it on their own. It’s self-evident that at some point subsidies are necessary, but my point was that a fully deployed universal community rated system brings the costs down so much (for the two classical major reasons – risk distribution and cost control) that the vast majority can afford it and those that can’t get subsidies. And in single-payer, the subsidies are usually implicit in the tax system. Case in point: in Ontario, with general tax subsidies of the overall system, explicit premium examples are $0 for anyone making less than $21K, $5/month for those making $21K, $50/month for those making up to $72,000, and a maximum of $75/mo for those making more than $200,600. The system can certainly be structured so that the issue of affordability doesn’t arise. But yes, your point was technically correct, and I just throw this out as a matter of elucidation of what is possible.
Look no further than Republicans to support your “screw the poor” platform – those would be the guys refusing free money for expanded Medicaid, and doing everything possible to block or overturn the ACA. Maybe we need a separate thread on this, but if you’re looking for an example of how the system can be arranged so that the poor DO NOT get screwed see my immediately preceding post.
No, unfortunately those pansies are just nicking about the edges, arguing about how to finance healthcare for the poor. I’m one of those Marley alluded to, who actively think they shouldnt be able to get it, period. Can you find someone who agrees with me?
You almost got it. But I’m not asking for an unnamed official’s beforehand guess.
Last I heard it was thought to be under five million, and half of those are grandfathered until 2016. And some number of the remaining got transferred into another policy.
So do you have any actual numbers? I’d like to know them if they’re available.
Don’t thirty something Republican governors stand against the Medicaid expansion? Those guys don’t think the poor should have access to healthcare.
That’s the part I really do not understand. Why are red states refusing federal money? My state is one of them, and the only answer I can discern from what little I’ve read is “because fuck Obama”.
I’m not a big fan of ACA, and I tend to play right field here at the Dope…not guarding the line to prevent a double, but still solidly in right field. Still, if the feds are putting up money…money which will create/maintain jobs, which will generate tax revenue; and potentially improve the healthcare situation in this state, why refuse it?
Like it or not, ACA is the law. Doesn’t it make more sense to work within the law to maximize any potential benefits to this state?
Can you please find a few million more people like you, and get them to vote in GOP primaries? 
Don’t some legislators believe that the federal government should be much smaller, and believe that by not taking federal money, they’re working towards that goal, in part by proving that their state (and thus all states) doesn’t need the federal government, and the money it raised through taxes, to function? That’s the impression I’ve gotten.
If this was a responsible democracy, the legislature would amend the law to better reflect what was intended. That’s what they did after the supreme court decided Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. in a stupid way. (or I suppose if it really was intended that only state-run and not federal-run exchanges get subsidies, let it stand. I highly doubt that was the idea).
But I don’t think you could convince congress to touch it with a ten foot pole at this point, except maybe more useless votes to repeal it in the house.
That’s certainly part of it.
But setting up the exchanges was, as the rollout of the federal exchange demonstrated, a horribly complicated and expensive IT project, working under unrealistic deadlines, and under an administration that was making changes to the law months after passage. Several of the state exchange rollouts were/are worse than the federal.
Given that, and given that the law wasn’t popular in those states to begin with, it made political sense for those governors to let the feds take the blame for the implementation clusterfuck, even if it didn’t make sense in the get-every-last-dollar-from-DC sense. Without looking at the polls and the election results in those states, I’d bet they were right.
No, they just think one specific program created to provide free or low cost healthcare to poor people should be limited to people who are actually poor, and not expanded to cover people above the poverty line.
Heck, even if they were campaigning to eliminate Medicare entirely, even that wouldn’t mean they were arguing poor people should not be able to get healthcare.
It’s doubtful that most people could afford health insurance when making 133% of the poverty line.
Just fewer of them and less often.
So you concede the point. Thanks.
If I may respectfully intervene, I don’t think anyone is “conceding” the point that people who can’t afford health insurance and can’t afford out-of-pocket health care payments should fuck off and die, which I infer to be your solution to health care costs. Please see my earlier post #44 for a cite of an alternative system that works, where death is not a necessary outcome for those of limited financial means. Thank you.
See, this is why we need an opposition party in government. If we had an opposition party, then they would have read the bill and pointed out the flaws in it, and then those flaws could have been fixed. Instead, we have a party that says “Nuh uh, I refuse to read that because reading is hard, but I don’t need to because I just know that there’s death panels or sumthin’ in there”.
Isn’t that the definition of ambiguous? 
But, I agree that the jurisprudence on statutory construction begs the question.
First rule: If the statute is clear and unambiguous on its face, we don’t resort to anything else, but simply apply the statute as written unless doing so would create an absurdity.
The problem in this case, and the debate thereof hinges on this very first rule. At first blush you would think that the fact that you are arguing to a U.S. Court of Appeals with highly paid lawyers on each side making non-frivolous arguments to mean that the statute is per se ambiguous. But many courts have ruled that simply because there is a disagreement in the application does not make a statute ambiguous, but, well, other things do.
So, if you start from that premise, then there is no such thing as ambiguous statute, so Rule #1 never applies.
Then there is the “create an absurdity” language. The majority here said that (going from memory) that it indeed created a very odd statute but not an absurd one. If we are going to split such hairs, then Rule #1 is out the window.
I think that most courts have dispensed with Rule #1 except when they want to use a literal meaning, then it is quoted for effect. Statutory construction rules are a mess. I can string cite cases to reach any result I want.
But in this case, I think that reading the ACA as a whole shows that sloppy drafting and no other legislative purpose left the offending language in place unintentionally.
Well, sloppy redrafting.