ACA trouble. Appeals court rules subsidies illegal

[2B]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mo Money Somebody at some point is going to have to clue me in on the "Porky" moniker. Why do you folks call the moderator "Porky"? (Unfortunately, that's the only thing that's funny in connection with the discussion on this DC Circuit ruling....)

When our moderators close a thread, it's traditional to include a little cartoon clip. Porky Pig says "That's all folks!" It's probably a dated reference. I doubt my kids would recognize the reference.

[Fermion]

If Porky shuts down one of the single most important topics for many early retirees (pre Medicare) then Porky should just shut down ER.org.

[Sue J]

Right after that ruling, another ruling by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals -

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/22/5926757...ies/in/5690430

This one rules that subsidies could be offered through the federal exchanges. Two rulings, coincidentally, on the same day.


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum

[PERSonalTime]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mo Money Well, I am going full-steam ahead with my 2015 ER. It's a ruling that's scary for me, here in PA, where there's a federally run exchange. If there are no subsidies, then some news reports (and common sense) suggest that the premiums will skyrocket for those non-subsidized insureds who remain -- like me. I will move. Massachusetts is looking a lot more inviting right now....

Sue J is right. Nothing is going to change anytime soon. This was a 2-1 ruling by one Appeals Court. It's my understand that the 4th Circuit Appeals Court rendered an opposite ruling indicating that the Federal subsidies are legal. The Supreme Court will have to decide this matter, but it won't be anytime soon.

[2B]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sue J Right after that ruling, another ruling by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals - Separate circuit court rules in favor of Obamacare subsidies - Vox This one rules that subsidies could be offered through the federal exchanges. Two rulings, coincidentally, on the same day. Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum

I'm not so sure it was a total coincidence. The 4th Circuit in Richmond is generally considered "liberal" but then so is the DC court. The DC court has had additional members added to make it also be a reliable "liberal" leaning court. I think both of these rulings were 3 judge panels so the full circuit court can rehear the appeal. That heavily favors the ACA subsidies being upheld. This can still be appealed to SCOTUS; but without a conflicting set of rulings by the Appeals courts, SCOTUS could take a pass. This allows the Appeals courts to remain in force. I do think that SCOTUS will eventually get involved if for no other reason that with a 5-4 "conservative" leaning I suspect they want to go on the record even if they will only uphold the Appeals courts rulings.

[2B]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fermion If Porky shuts down one of the single most important topics for many early retirees (pre Medicare) then Porky should just shut down ER.org.

To avoid it, we need to not talk about "fair" and "fix opportunities" and refer to "other groups." There is much I'd like to change, fix and disparage "other groups" but I can't do any more than pontificate. Reality is what we have. The court rulings are just a shift in the reality from yesterday.

[donheff]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2B I'm not so sure it was a total coincidence. The 4th Circuit in Richmond is generally considered "liberal" but then so is the DC court. The DC court has had additional members added to make it also be a reliable "liberal" leaning court. I think both of these rulings were 3 judge panels so the full circuit court can rehear the appeal. That heavily favors the ACA subsidies being upheld. This can still be appealed to SCOTUS; but without a conflicting set of rulings by the Appeals courts, SCOTUS could take a pass. This allows the Appeals courts to remain in force. I do think that SCOTUS will eventually get involved if for no other reason that with a 5-4 "conservative" leaning I suspect they want to go on the record even if they will only uphold the Appeals courts rulings.

Yup, the DC Circuit decision is being pushed for an en banc decision by the whole court and could easily get reversed in which case the Supremes would probably ignore the issue.

[2B]

Quote:

Originally Posted by donheff Yup, the DC Circuit decision is being pushed for an en banc decision by the whole court and could easily get reversed in which case the Supremes would probably ignore the issue.

It's only my opinion but I do expect that Richmond and DC will uphold the subsidies. Then, I do expect SCOTUS to hear it. of course, somebody could always take it to New Orleans. That would probably get us back to conflicting rulings.

Not having read the bill I'm finding out what's in it along with what appears to be many of the people that voted for it. I'm concerned that if the language repeatedly referred to subsidies to only state exchanges that the judicial branch would just brush it aside. Even if the subsidies are thrown out somewhere along the line, I believe the fix by establishing state portals would be very minor.

I very much doubt that this would be the death of the ACA.

[easysurfer]

As long as health insurance, current or future doesn't have a restriction on pre-existing conditions, I'm a happy camper. Not that I have any major ones, but you never know

It will be interesting to see what happens when the dust settles.

[pb4uski]

So the states just "subcontract" the running of their exchange to the feds.........problem solved with a simple contact. I'm not even sure if you need a front end unique to the state in that case since a resident will select the state they reside in at the start of their websurfing.

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pb4uski So the states just "subcontract" the running of their exchange to the feds.........problem solved with a simple contact. I'm not even sure if you need a front end unique to the state in that case since a resident will select the state they reside in at the start of their websurfing.

This may be all that is needed -- perhaps treating each state as its own "virtual exchange" with some of its own state-specific stuff in the front end.

That said, some states may refuse to do even this, especially the ones most ideologically opposed to the law.

[ls99]

Seems to me the language of the law is plain. Refers to states, not the feds.

[nash031]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2B I agree this is going to SCOTUS quickly. This is an interesting legal question. The intent was certainly not reflected in the actual language of the bill. So, what's a law? What we'd like or what it says?

It is interesting.

I expect the SCOTUS decision to be 5-4 declaring subsidies illegal on federal exchanges. I base that on the fact that thus far 4 Democratically-appointed judges say it's legal, and 2 Republican-appointed judges say it's illegal.

How DARE I insinuate that politics factor into the judciary!?!

[foxfirev5]

Quote:

Originally Posted by easysurfer As long as health insurance, current or future doesn't have a restriction on pre-existing conditions, I'm a happy camper. Not that I have any major ones, but you never know It will be interesting to see what happens when the dust settles.

I'm in the same boat. Looking back just a few years ago the big concern was a lack of options and being thrown into a high risk pool at best. In researching the subject I found that it didn't take much to qualify for a pre existing condition.
No doubt it's going to be expensive but at least it's something. Since my DW and I have no desire to live on less than 60k per year we were out of the running for the subsidy for about half the years to 65 anyway. Now it looks like we may have to figure out a new strategy for this never ending game.

[heeyy_joe]

Single payer system here we come!

[Corporateburnout]

I'm glad I live in MA. Even if the ACA is repealed MA will revert back to "Romney care".

[daylatedollarshort]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 This may be all that is needed -- perhaps treating each state as its own "virtual exchange" with some of its own state-specific stuff in the front end. That said, some states may refuse to do even this, especially the ones most ideologically opposed to the law.

That will make for a lot of unhappy campers in the states where people are getting subsidies now.

[DallasGuy]

I'm thinking of people with pre-existing conditions who are now getting their insurance through the federal exchange. If those people get a huge monthly increase because of the removal of the subsidies, they will not be able to get an alternative insurance on the open market (individual policy) that covers their pre-existing condition. My understanding is that if someone applies for insurance on their own (not going through the exchange), the insurance companies can still consider their pre-existing conditions. Is that correct?

So if my statements above are correct, in effect most of those people with pre-existing conditions would be stuck on the federal exchange with much higher premiums with little or no other options other than to move to a state that has it's own exchange. That would be a huge mess, especially if those people previously had a good plan that was discontinued by their insurance company...and forced onto the exchange.

Please correct me if my understanding of this is incorrect.

Edited later: I called my insurance provider, Cigna, and they told me that once a person buys their insurance on the ACA exchange, Cigna will no longer offer a plan to that person that is not on the ACA exchange. So my understanding above was incorrect. So it sounds like a person would have no other alternative other than to pick a cheaper plan on the ACA exchange if/when their premiums rose because of the subsidy removal....or move to a state that has it's their own exchange. Also, pre-existing conditions no longer matter once you switch to the ACA exchange because you can never again apply for coverage that takes pre-existing conditions into consideration.

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by daylatedollarshort That will make for a lot of unhappy campers in the states where people are getting subsidies now.

Yes, it would. And they would have to explain to their constituents why they pay taxes into the federal subsidy program without receiving any of the benefits of said taxes.

[DallasGuy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 This may be all that is needed -- perhaps treating each state as its own "virtual exchange" with some of its own state-specific stuff in the front end. That said, some states may refuse to do even this, especially the ones most ideologically opposed to the law.

I can almost guarantee that Texas will not create their own exchange. I'm screwed!