What is your ongoing opinion of the Affordable Care Act? (Title Edited)

[elucidator]

As well, this article from the director of the Congressional Beancounting Office…

CBO director: ObamaCare funds were assumed to be for all states.

TL:DR - The CBO “scoring” of Ocare, the whole breakdown of costs, etc. implicitly assumed federal subsidies, otherwise, the numbers would have made no sense. One interpretation matches the numbers, the plaintiffs interpretation is wildly different. So, interpreting the “problem” as nothing more than a typo is affirmed by the numerical information Congress was given, whereas the plaintiff’s interpretation contradicts those numbers.

CBO director: ObamaCare funds were assumed to be for all states

[ElvisL1ves]

@rsa

Poetic justice – they would be hoist by their own petard.

Problem being, so would some tens of millions of real people in the meanwhile.

[Lobohan]

@ElvisL1ves

Problem being, so would some tens of millions of real people in the meanwhile.

I’m pretty sure the GOP doesn’t consider them real people. Just takers, or parasites.

[ElvisL1ves]

More poll data confirming that Obamacare enrollees are generally happy with it.

Bizarrely, 26 percent of them are opposed to Obamacare anyway.

[2ManyTacos]

A blockbuster new report out of the New York Times this morning gets the Dem and GOP drafters of the ACA on the record; they all say effectively the same thing: King v. Burwell is nonsense.

[ElvisL1ves]

Snowe confirms that.

“I don’t ever recall any distinction between federal and state exchanges in terms of availability of subsidies,” said Olympia J. Snowe, a former Republican senator from Maine who helped write the Finance Committee version of the bill.

“It was never part of our conversations at any point,” said Ms. Snowe, who voted against the final version of the Senate bill. “Why would we have wanted to deny people subsidies? It was not their fault if their state did not set up an exchange.” The four words, she said, were perhaps “inadvertent language,” adding, “I don’t know how else to explain it.”

[Iggy]

Presumably the justices’ votes are certain by now and they are just polishing the decision. The media are already eagerly salivating in anticipation.

Per SCOTUSBlog, orders and/or opinions are anticipated only on Mondays through the end of June.
A quick look at the stats for how many opinions each justice has authored so far this term, Kennedy and Thomas have authored the fewest at 3 each. If I count right, Breyer (8), Alito (7), Sotomayor (5), Ginsburg (5), Scalia (5) and Kagan (5) have the most. Roberts has 4.

Best hope for the pro-PPACA side is probably an opinion written by Kennedy or Roberts. Still several opinions to come on a variety of cases.

[2ManyTacos]

Yup, the decision was reached back in March, and for the past two months all the Justices have been doing is polishing it.

[ElvisL1ves]

Polishing it (How? What’s there to polish?), or looking at the way popular opinion is going in case that’s the real basis for their votes.

[2ManyTacos]

Roberts really needs to be looking at his legacy, here. A vote against the government on such stupid and strained grounds will destroy the legitimacy of his court. It will become a laughing stock.

[Iggy]

@ElvisL1ves

Polishing it (How? What’s there to polish?), or looking at the way popular opinion is going in case that’s the real basis for their votes.

The SCOTUS often issues narrowly tailored rulings. In this case the reasoning they use will likely be cited in future cases of statutory interpretation on issues totally unrelated to health care.

So “polishing” can be a balancing act, coming up with language broad enough, or narrow enough, to still maintain a majority while not leading the way to undesired problems in the future.

A justice might write a concurring or dissenting opinion if he/she thinks the ruling goes too far or not far enough in respect to some issue.

[ElvisL1ves]

In a case of what we are assured is “clear statutory construction”?

[2ManyTacos]

Here’s another bit of required reading that explains how the relentless work of TWO rightwing zealots - Michael Cannon (the proud founder of the “Anti-Universal Coverage Club”) & Jonathan Adler - managed to vertically integrate their meritless lawsuit into the rightwing consciousness.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

Great article; thanks 2ManyTacos!

[Snowboarder_Bo]

This just in: [More than 10 million people enrolled this year under ACA.

The 10.2 million sign-ups represent consumers who enrolled in a plan and followed through by paying their first month’s premiums. That number will fluctuate during the year as some people get jobs that offer coverage, and others decide to drop their insurance. For now, it exceeds a target of 9.1 million set last year by HHS Secretary Sylvia M. Burwell.

](http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7517f962f2b64f40b73e142b44d7a828/more-10m-enrolled-year-under-obamas-health-law)

[rsa]

CBO: ACA repeal would increase deficit

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Friday that a repeal of the Affordable Care Act would over the next decade “probably increase budget deficits with or without considering the effects of macroeconomic feedback.”
Depending on those economic considerations, the federal deficit could increase up to $353 billion over the next 10 years as a result of a repeal of Obamacare, the CBO said.

Obamacare’s projected cost falls due to lower premiums under health care law, CBO says

The nonpartisan agency said the Affordable Care Act will cost less for two essential reasons. The first, and most significant, is that health insurance premiums are rising more slowly, and thus requires less of a government subsidy.

In addition, slightly fewer people are now expected to sign up for Medicaid and for subsidized insurance under the law’s marketplaces. That’s because the agency now says that more people than anticipated already had health insurance before the law took effect, and fewer companies than anticipated are canceling coverage. All in all, three million fewer people are expected to sign up for Affordable Care Act provisions by 2025.

[Lobohan]

So, have any of the RW board members apologized for their chicken-little hysteria yet?

[adaher]

Apologize for what? People lost their insurance, tens of millions of the healthiest consumers are staying out of the markets due to a weak mandate and no desire to participate, and premiums don’t reflect the true cost of the patient base until next year’s premiums are announced.

You’re spiking the ball at the 50-yard line. Oh, and the law remains as unpopular as ever, and Democrats remain in the minority in Congress, with a good chance of losing the Presidency as well, in part due to ACA.

[Lobohan]

@adaher

Apologize for what?

About being utterly wrong, and having to make up nonsense to save face?

[adaher]

This word “wrong” doesn’t mean what you think it means.