Federal appeals court appears skeptical of Obamacare, putting future of law in doubt

[MTAtech]

What percentage of people on ObamaCare vote Republican in your estimation?

Since Obamacare is what made no discrimination against preexisting conditions, allowed children under 26 to stay on parent’ Plans and eliminated lifetime caps, it covers 80% of Americans, who have employer provided plans. I think a lot of employed people vote Republican.

Let’s expand upon and compare Tennessee, that refused to expand Medicaid under the ACA, with its neighbor Kentucky, that did expand it. As recently as 2013, just before the ACA went into full effect, the two states looked similar in terms of health care: In both states, about 20 percent of nonelderly adults lacked insurance. Not only did Kentucky expand Medicaid, it also did its best to make Obamacare work.

The result was a two-thirds drop in the uninsurance rate. At the same time, progress in Tennessee was far more limited. At this point, adults in Tennessee are twice as likely as their neighbors to lack health insurance.

And the divergence in destinies was even greater for rural residents. According to a Georgetown University study that covered a seven-year period spanning the introduction of the A.C.A., the percentage of low-income rural adults without health insurance fell 27 points in Kentucky, only six points in Tennessee.

 

[MTAtech]

From a legal standpoint, the ACA is sound. If the ACA tax was removed then there is no mandate which the plaintiffs objected, making their argument moot.

From a a practical standpoint, declaring the ACA unconditional will create chaos. Policies will be null, rural hospitals will close, millions will lose coverage, and ironically, Trump voters will be harmed. West Virginia voted for Trump by 70%. Yet, a third of the state is on Medicaid. Rural hospitals are dependent upon Medicaid and ACA insurance.

 

[JasperL]

Since Obamacare is what made no discrimination against preexisting conditions, allowed children under 26 to stay on parent’ Plans and eliminated lifetime caps, it covers 80% of Americans, who have employer provided plans. I think a lot of employed people vote Republican.

Let’s expand upon and compare Tennessee, that refused to expand Medicaid under the ACA, with its neighbor Kentucky, that did expand it. As recently as 2013, just before the ACA went into full effect, the two states looked similar in terms of health care: In both states, about 20 percent of nonelderly adults lacked insurance. Not only did Kentucky expand Medicaid, it also did its best to make Obamacare work.

The result was a two-thirds drop in the uninsurance rate. At the same time, progress in Tennessee was far more limited. At this point, adults in Tennessee are twice as likely as their neighbors to lack health insurance.

And the divergence in destinies was even greater for rural residents. According to a Georgetown University study that covered a seven-year period spanning the introduction of the A.C.A., the percentage of low-income rural adults without health insurance fell 27 points in Kentucky, only six points in Tennessee.

Got a link for that? I don't doubt the figures at all, I'd just like to be able to cite them.

The other sort of unintended side effect of ACA was that even though Tennessee didn't expand Medicaid, the exchanges made it really easy for people to sign up, so even without expansion the ACA increased Medicaid rolls and lowered the uninsured rate for the poor in this state to decades lows. It wasn't as big a drop as it could have been, but it still helped.

What's killed Tennessee is what you allude to above, which is that the ACA cut reimbursements to hospitals for the uninsured, but we didn't expand, so that failure to lower the uninsured rate in rural areas put the stake through the heart of several rural hospitals. Who could have guessed that turning down $billions in federal money would have an adverse impact on struggling rural hospitals, serving mostly poor, rural whites?

 

[jmotivator]

You’re arguing the GOP was trying to bankrupt insurers when it sabotaged the risk corridors? A rare point of agreement! Not sure why you’re describing deliberate partisan sabotage of the ACA as a design flaw, though. It’s hard to design something to be GOP-proof, particularly given the party’s nihilistic turn.

But to its credit the ACA has proved to be pretty damn GOP-proof, despite ten years of assault on it.

LOL, nope. CMS stated that the plan was not to seek new appropriations to cover those short falls, and would instead pay that money future funds when the insurance kicked in. The Democrats never funded their own system to keep these plans solvent, so the system failed, as designed. The Democrats problem was that, while it failed on time, they had assumed they would still have commanding control of the legislature, it was going to be that clear failure that would fuel the push for Single payer. Aw... darn shame.

It was an awful piece of legislation that was meant to push private insurers off a cliff... now it is ready to step over the edge itself, and not a minute too soon.

 

[JasperL]

LOL, nope. CMS stated that the plan was not to seek new appropriations to cover those short falls, and would instead pay that money future funds when the insurance kicked in. The Democrats never funded their own system to keep these plans solvent, so the system failed, as designed. The Democrats problem was that, while it failed on time, they had assumed they would still have commanding control of the legislature, it was going to be that clear failure that would fuel the push for Single payer. Aw... darn shame.

It was an awful piece of legislation that was meant to push private insurers off a cliff... now it is ready to step over the edge itself, and not a minute too soon.

Right, and this plan was obvious to you, but Wall Street and investors in stocks of healthcare insurers didn't notice, which is why pretty much all of them have been on a years' long run since ACA passed.

It's amazing you saw what all those investors and the companies themselves missed!

 

[Moot]

again blame obama and liberals for passing an unconstitutional bill.

The SCOTUS ruled the ACA wasn't unconstitutional. So the blame for getting rid of the pre-existing condition protections lies squarely on republicans.

 

[JasperL]

LOL, nope. CMS stated that the plan was not to seek new appropriations to cover those short falls, and would instead pay that money future funds when the insurance kicked in. The Democrats never funded their own system to keep these plans solvent, so the system failed, as designed. The Democrats problem was that, while it failed on time, they had assumed they would still have commanding control of the legislature, it was going to be that clear failure that would fuel the push for Single payer. Aw... darn shame.

It was an awful piece of legislation that was meant to push private insurers off a cliff... now it is ready to step over the edge itself, and not a minute too soon.

FYI:

Marco Rubio Quietly Undermines Affordable Care Act - The New York Times

Rubio is proud of killing the risk corridor payments. Why are you denying him the credit he's due?

 

[American]

The ACA was meant to bankrupt the private insurance system. The reason Democrats are up in arms is that it may die before it has accomplished it's task.

Next to a Soviet gulag, the ACA is about as un-American as you can get.

 

[Taylor]

Do you even remember how this law was passed. There wasn't even overwhelming support from Dems. They had to pay them off with all kinds of deals to get them to vote Yay. So spare us the woe is America bull****.

I sure do. The law should actually be called Pelosicare because she was the one that did all the heavy lifting, wheeling and dealing, and bribes.

 

[jmotivator]

Next to a Soviet gulag, the ACA is about as un-American as you can get.

It's funny too, the subsidies were suppose to drag the law through to 2013, at which point the subsidies end and the insurers start falling out, at which point the Democrats run in again to save the day and offer single-payer and the best and great hope for the citizens.

But they got their ass handed to them in 2010 midterms, and so had to live with the monstrosity they created.

Womp womp.

 

[Greenbeard]

LOL, nope

1. Defunding the risk corridors is proof of intent to destroy private insurers and pursue single payer. (Your premise.)
2. It was the GOP Congress that defunded the risk corridors. (Legislative history.)
3. Ergo the GOP must intend to destroy private insurers and pursue single payer.

Which frankly is the easiest way to understand most of their actions over the past decade. Unless they’re just nihilists.

 

[JasperL]

Next to a Soviet gulag, the ACA is about as un-American as you can get.

That's Poe's Law worthy right there. Nice job.

 

[JasperL]

I sure do. The law should actually be called Pelosicare because she was the one that did all the heavy lifting, wheeling and dealing, and bribes.

LOL. That's some alternative history right there. You've confused the Senate with the House.... E.g. Cornhusker Kickback? Senate. Not that it matters, but you couldn't have been paying attention at that time and make that statement. The sticking point was always getting to 60 in the Senate.

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - Wikipedia

 

[JasperL]

It's funny too, the subsidies were suppose to drag the law through to 2013, at which point the subsidies end and the insurers start falling out, at which point the Democrats run in again to save the day and offer single-payer and the best and great hope for the citizens.

But they got their ass handed to them in 2010 midterms, and so had to live with the monstrosity they created.

Womp womp.

Why are you pounding this baseless garbage?

 

[Greenbeard]

E.g. Cornhusker Kickback?

Which never became law!

 

[MTAtech]

Got a link for that? I don't doubt the figures at all, I'd just like to be able to cite them.

The other sort of unintended side effect of ACA was that even though Tennessee didn't expand Medicaid, the exchanges made it really easy for people to sign up, so even without expansion the ACA increased Medicaid rolls and lowered the uninsured rate for the poor in this state to decades lows. It wasn't as big a drop as it could have been, but it still helped.

What's killed Tennessee is what you allude to above, which is that the ACA cut reimbursements to hospitals for the uninsured, but we didn't expand, so that failure to lower the uninsured rate in rural areas put the stake through the heart of several rural hospitals. Who could have guessed that turning down $billions in federal money would have an adverse impact on struggling rural hospitals, serving mostly poor, rural whites?

No problem:

The drop in those uninsured in the two states:
Health Insurance Coverage of Adults 19-64 | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

The Georgetown University study:
https://ccf.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/FINALHealthInsuranceCoverage_Rural_2018.pdf

Rural Hospital closings:
107 Rural Hospital Closures: January 2010 - Present - Sheps Center

 

[JasperL]

No problem:

The drop in those uninsured in the two states:
Health Insurance Coverage of Adults 19-64 | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

The Georgetown University study:
https://ccf.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/FINALHealthInsuranceCoverage_Rural_2018.pdf

Rural Hospital closings:
107 Rural Hospital Closures: January 2010 - Present - Sheps Center

Thanks! eace

I'll edit to add that the Georgetown study that I skimmed is depressing reading. It shows what could have been if we didn't have morons running the state legislature. Unbelievable still that we haven't taken the federal dollars....

One more edit. Tennessee has had 12 rural hospitals close post ACA... I don't know the details of those, but it's sad for those communities no matter the reason, and other than Texas, with several times the population with 17, looks like TN brings home the #1 for most closures.

 

[JasperL]

Which never became law!

Oh, I know that - and I really shouldn't push that stuff back into the right wing puke funnel. My mistake. Slap down accepted! eace

 

[Greenbeard]

It was an awful piece of legislation that was meant to push private insurers off a cliff... now it is ready to step over the edge itself, and not a minute too soon.

Meanwhile, on Planet Earth: ACA marketplaces getting a bit too lucrative for insurers

 

[Objective Voice]

ACA has been a somewhat shaky construct since it was put in place, and the foundation/structure have also been under constant attack.

If we want to address the health care issue, it needs fixed or replaced.
Although for that matter, the issues that existed before it are also still here, in many cases.

That "shaky construct" was first set on shaky grounds when the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could not compel the states to take Medicaid block-grant money or lose their federal Medicaid funding altogether. Once Republican-controlled states got wind of that, they knew that all they had to do was defund ever element of the PPACA's funding mechanisms from the employer mandate (re: Speaker Boehner's lawsuit against Pres. Obama for delaying the employer mandate by 1-year via Executive Order [11/21/2014]). From there, House and Senate Republicans purposely chipped away at funding the PPACA little by little by not including funds for the law in any appropriations bills. That takes us to what's transpired during the Trump presidency, towit: removing the individual mandate and the accompanying tax penalty per the Trump tax cuts.

So, the "shaky construct" you speak of has been purposely dismantled bit by bit by one side of the political divide that never wanted the law implemented in the first place.

 

[Perotista]

[h=1]Federal appeals court appears skeptical of Obamacare, putting future of law in doubt[/h]Federal appeals court appears skeptical of Obamacare, putting future of law in doubt - Los Angeles Times
A panel of federal judges in New Orleans sharply questioned attorneys defending the Affordable Care Act on Tuesday, signaling that the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals may throw out at least part of the 2010 law.




That would set the stage for another showdown before the Supreme Court, which has twice in the last decade been called upon to rule on the landmark law, often called Obamacare.




Such a ruling could also prolong uncertainty over the fate of health coverage for tens of millions of Americans who depend on the law for health insurance and other protections, including the ban on insurers denying coverage to people with preexisting medical conditions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is late-breaking news and it's starting to make me sick to my stomach. Do people understand what this would mean if it goes to the Supreme Court and ruled that provisions in the ACA are unconstitutional?

Healthcare for millions should never be used as political revenge against another political party. This is human life we're talking about here. It would be an end to protections for people with pre-existing conditions. The end of young adults being able to stay on their parents insurance until the age of 26. The end of the regulatory structure of America's health care system that has been built up since the law passed in 2010. Trump has wanted the entire law to be struck down, not just parts of it. The right has been calling 'Medicare for all' as being too radical but the right's intention is something that's more radical in the opposite direction.

The SC has already held up the Constitutionality of the ACA and then Congress went on and tried to appeal it no less than 70 times. The Dept of Justice has a Constitutional duty to defend the law -- the Affordable Care Act. Because they are not doing that, because Donald Trump and Jeff Sessions actually ordered the lawyers at the Dept of Justice to no longer defend the ACA and in fact removed those lawyers from the case. This is a political game, Republicans trying to take away something that was created under Obama. There's 130 million Americans with pre-existing conditions and their ability to get insurance in the future will be put at risk.

None of this would be happening if the Democrats had listened to the American People to begin with. It is my opinion whatever happens to the ACA was brought on by the non-listening democrats back in 2009 and 2010. Had they listened, we wouldn't have these problems.

Below are the polls thanks to RCP of public opinion on the ACA when the Senate passed it in November of 2009
CNN/Opinion Research 12/2-12/3 36% for 61% Against/Oppose +25
Rasmussen Reports 11/29 - 11/29 41% for 53% Against/Oppose +12
Gallup 11/20-11/22 44% for 49% Against/Oppose +5
Ipsos/McClatchy 11/19 - 11/22 34% for 46% Against/Oppose +12
Rasmussen Reports 11/21 - 11/22 38% for 56% Against/Oppose +18
FOX News 11/17 - 11/18 35% for 51% Against/Oppose +16
PPP (D) 11/13 - 11/15 40% for 52% Against/Oppose +12

Below are the polls thanks to RCP of public opinion on the ACA when the House passed it in March of 2010
Bloomberg 3/19 - 3/22 38% for 50% Against/Oppose +12
CNN/Opinion Research 3/19 - 3/21 39% for 59% Against/Oppose +20
CBS News 3/18 - 3/21 37% for 48% Against/Oppose +11
Rasmussen Reports 3/19 - 3/20 41% for 54% Against/Oppose +13
Quinnipiac 3/16 - 3/21 36% for 54% Against/Oppose +18
Democracy Corps (D) 3/15 - 3/18 40% for 52% Against/Oppose +12
FOX News 3/16 - 3/17 35% 55% Against/Oppose +20

 

[HumblePi]

None of this would be happening if the Democrats had listened to the American People to begin with. It is my opinion whatever happens to the ACA was brought on by the non-listening democrats back in 2009 and 2010. Had they listened, we wouldn't have these problems.

Below are the polls thanks to RCP of public opinion on the ACA when the Senate passed it in November of 2009
CNN/Opinion Research 12/2-12/3 36% for 61% Against/Oppose +25
Rasmussen Reports 11/29 - 11/29 41% for 53% Against/Oppose +12
Gallup 11/20-11/22 44% for 49% Against/Oppose +5
Ipsos/McClatchy 11/19 - 11/22 34% for 46% Against/Oppose +12
Rasmussen Reports 11/21 - 11/22 38% for 56% Against/Oppose +18
FOX News 11/17 - 11/18 35% for 51% Against/Oppose +16
PPP (D) 11/13 - 11/15 40% for 52% Against/Oppose +12

Below are the polls thanks to RCP of public opinion on the ACA when the House passed it in March of 2010
Bloomberg 3/19 - 3/22 38% for 50% Against/Oppose +12
CNN/Opinion Research 3/19 - 3/21 39% for 59% Against/Oppose +20
CBS News 3/18 - 3/21 37% for 48% Against/Oppose +11
Rasmussen Reports 3/19 - 3/20 41% for 54% Against/Oppose +13
Quinnipiac 3/16 - 3/21 36% for 54% Against/Oppose +18
Democracy Corps (D) 3/15 - 3/18 40% for 52% Against/Oppose +12
FOX News 3/16 - 3/17 35% 55% Against/Oppose +20

The water ran over that dam 9 years ago.

 

[Perotista]

The water ran over that dam 9 years ago.

Yep, it's a done deal. Anything that goes wrong with it once it was passed is the Democrats fault for not listening to the American People. Of course, we know they knew what was better us than all of America did for themselves. They told us so.

And by the way, if the law itself or portions of it get thrown out, whose at fault. I think the one's who wrote it and passed it.

 

[JasperL]

Yep, it's a done deal. Anything that goes wrong with it once it was passed is the Democrats fault for not listening to the American People. Of course, we know they knew what was better us than all of America did for themselves. They told us so.

And by the way, if the law itself or portions of it get thrown out, whose at fault. I think the one's who wrote it and passed it.

The American people want really cheap insurance (free is nice) that covers everything with $10 copays and no waits. If you know anyone who can figure out how to provide this thing that everyone wants, like low taxes and a big military and great roads, and SS and Medicare, then let us know so we can vote them into office pronto.

And since the ACA passed we know that everyone but the Democrats, whose plan sucked, have a great plan and all they need is to get elected and we'll see this new plan. Only problem is the GOP got elected and still can't figure out a damn thing. Two years....nothing!

Weird that. Lots of people are really good at throwing stones, and can't get off their asses and do that thing better.

 

[Perotista]

The American people want really cheap insurance (free is nice) that covers everything with $10 copays and no waits. If you know anyone who can figure out how to provide this thing that everyone wants, like low taxes and a big military and great roads, and SS and Medicare, then let us know so we can vote them into office pronto.

And since the ACA passed we know that everyone but the Democrats, whose plan sucked, have a great plan and all they need is to get elected and we'll see this new plan. Only problem is the GOP got elected and still can't figure out a damn thing. Two years....nothing!

Weird that. Lots of people are really good at throwing stones, and can't get off their asses and do that thing better.

I definitely agree about the stones. The thing I noticed about the Republicans they are a great united party when out of power. When they win, governing shall I say isn't their strong point.