Early Retirement & Financial Independence Community

Early Retirement & Financial Independence Community (http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/)
-   Health and Early Retirement (http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f38/)
-   -   King v Burwell (ACA Subsidies) Decision Announced (http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f38/king-v-burwell-aca-subsidies-decision-announced-77779.html)

MichaelB 06-25-2015 08:10 AM

King v Burwell (ACA Subsidies) Decision Announced
 
The US Supreme Court today released its decision on King v Burwell. In effect, it concurs with the view that the federally run marketplace exchanges may provide subsidies to eligible consumers. In other words, the exchanges and insurers can continue to operate as they do now, and consumers can continue using the exchanges to get their healthcare policies in the upcoming open enrollment period.

Details on the ruling can be found at SCOTUSblog SCOTUSblog

rbmrtn 06-25-2015 08:12 AM

Subsidies affirmed
 
Opinion just released. Decision of the Fourth Circuit is affirmed in King v. Burwell. 6-3.

rbmrtn 06-25-2015 08:26 AM

Here's a link to the opinion, http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...4-114_qol1.pdf

ERD50 06-25-2015 08:28 AM

I saw the title, thought maybe it was a boxing match decision? I don't follow sports, and didn't know this issue by name.

So what does this mean to someone in a state on their own exchange, and someone on a state on the fed exchange?

-ERD50

brewer12345 06-25-2015 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 (Post 1607795)
I saw the title, thought maybe it was a boxing match decision? I don't follow sports, and didn't know this issue by name.

So what does this mean to someone in a state on their own exchange, and someone on a state on the fed exchange?

-ERD50

It means you can go back to sleep. Nothing will be changing.

rbmrtn 06-25-2015 08:32 AM

You can keep your subsidy on the Federal exchange, if you get one. They used a line of thought that I had previously mentioned as an argument.

If a State chooses not to follow the directive
in Section 18031 to establish an Exchange, the Act tells the
Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish “such Exchange.”
18041. And by using the words “such Exchange,” the Act
indicates that State and Federal Exchanges should be the same

audreyh1 06-25-2015 08:39 AM

Whew!

Not that I was using the subsidy, but still....

easysurfer 06-25-2015 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by audreyh1 (Post 1607802)
Whew!

Not that I was using the subsidy, but still....

I think the decision is a win-win-win for both sides and no chaos come re-enrollment time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 (Post 1607795)
I saw the title, thought maybe it was a boxing match decision? ...

-ERD50

Probably more action then that Manny Pacquiao vs Mayweather fight :laugh:

audreyh1 06-25-2015 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by easysurfer (Post 1607804)
I think the decision is a win-win-win for both sides and no chaos come re-enrollment time.

Probably more action then that manny pacquiao vs mayweather fight :laugh:

Exactly - there was going to be major disruption otherwise.

There may be some early retiree wannabes who waited for this decision.

MichaelB 06-25-2015 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rbmrtn (Post 1607793)

Thanks for the link.

aaronc879 06-25-2015 09:07 AM

:dance:

NW-Bound 06-25-2015 09:09 AM

The SCOTUS opinion acknowledges that ACA "contains more than a few examples of inartful drafting", but rules that the intention was for all exchanges to be available for subsidy, based on the context of the act, if not its wording.

The dissenting view holds that it is not SCOTUS job
"to judge the quality of the care and deliberation that went into this or any other law. A law enacted by voice vote with no deliberation whatever is fully as binding upon us as one enacted after years of study, months of committee hearings, and weeks of debate. Much less is it our place to make everything come out right when Congress does not do its job properly. It is up to Congress to design its laws with care, and it is up to the people to hold them to account if they fail to carry out that responsibility."
And we are still waiting for Congress to fix the various "cliffs" in the subsidy formulas.

brewer12345 06-25-2015 09:12 AM

Yee-haw! We are not on subsidy this year due to having a high income (for now), but we do have an exchange policy. I really did not want to see a more reasonable health insurance marketplace being destroyed by an arbitrary court ruling.


Of course now we will see the President do his Church Lady "Superiority Dance" and the other side will foam at the mouth in front of the cameras to drum up campaign funds while secretly breathing a sigh of relief that they do not have to fix a mess.

travelover 06-25-2015 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by utrecht (Post 1607817)
It seems to be that whoever wrote the thing screwed up on the wording. The Supreme Court didn't want to throw the whole ACA into a death spiral by overturning it based on the part about no subsidies on state exchanges, which I understand completely, but if they followed the letter of the law, and not the intent of the law, its pretty clear that it should've been overturned. Not sure how I feel about that. Is the Supreme Court supposed to rule on the law or the intent?

I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that this is a common issue in complex documents. You have to take a single phrase in context to the intent of the entire document.

MichaelB 06-25-2015 09:32 AM

Two threads on the same topic so they were merged. Let's stay away from the politics - please. :)

utrecht 06-25-2015 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by travelover (Post 1607818)
I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that this is a common issue in complex documents. You have to take a single phrase in context to the intent of the entire document.

Probably so, but you would think these law makers would make sure these monumentally important laws would be written better.

PS..my earlier post mentions "no subsidies on State exchanges". I meant it the other way around.

Calico 06-25-2015 10:34 AM

On a personal level, I'm relieved. I live in a state with a federally-run exchange, and while I still w#rk and have insurance through my employer, as I approach 60 it's a huge relief to know I could afford to purchase HI IF anything happened to my j#b.

On a larger level, I'm relieved folks currently purchasing insurance on the exchanges will continue to be able to afford it.

unclemick 06-25-2015 10:52 AM

I hate when I get too old for stuff. At age 72(now 22 yrs ER) I miss the the good old rant and rave against the gods and others when I went 12 years without health insurance early in ER.

heh heh heh - But football season is around the corner. :coolsmiley:

Telly 06-25-2015 10:54 AM

I'm glad to hear it resolved this way. We are on a group plan through DW's employer, and the new increase of it will move it up to $7,500 a year for a high deductible plan covering the two of us. But the ACA is, and now remains, a safe backup plan if something hits the fan before Medicare age. Doesn't lock DW into working for insurance.

In the early 2000s I and the (then) kids went on a private ins. plan, premiums escalated every 6 mos. after a bit, never filed a claim, and we were in excellent health and health record.
But run forward over ten+ years, and DW and I no longer have that nice no-issues-ever record. The ACA no denial on any pre-existing condition clause is a giant help (not that I personally HAVE any ongoing "condition", but underwriters like to deny/exempt about anything they can, no matter how trivial, speaking from my experience with private insurance).

travelover 06-25-2015 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by utrecht (Post 1607822)
Probably so, but you would think these law makers would make sure these monumentally important laws would be written better..............

Two hundred years later, we are still arguing about what the heck a "well regulated militia" is..... ;D


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:58 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.