Question about ACA

[jflynn4]

If the effort to defund the healthcare law is successful, does that automatically mean that the law is effectively overturned or would it simply eliminate the subsidies and leave the law in effect that ban insurance companies from denying coverage (or charging more) for those currently unable to purchase coverage?

 

[rbmrtn]

Porky got to this thread but it contains info related to what you are asking ( see post #1)

http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f52/minimal-actual-impact-of-budget-fuss-on-ppaca-68424.html

 

[M Paquette]

If the effort to defund the healthcare law is successful, does that automatically mean that the law is effectively overturned or would it simply eliminate the subsidies and leave the law in effect that ban insurance companies from denying coverage (or charging more) for those currently unable to purchase coverage?

Short form: The law remains in place. Mandatory funds appropriated by the law, outside of the discretionary funding covered by the annual appropriations bill remain in place, as they are required funding within a law remaining in effect. Realistically, we are more likely to see a 'no continuing resolution' state come along, in which case discretionary funding stops (affecting many government paychecks) except for emergency and essential services, but again, mandatory funding items remain in effect. (This is what keeps Social Security, pensions, and whatnot running during a 'shutdown'.)

 

[donheff]

If the CR passed with the ammendment to "defund" Obamacare, the underlying law (e.g. exchanges, no pre-existing provisions, etc,) would remain in place but no funds could be spent to implement it. As I understand it that would mean no subsidies, Federal exchanges could not operate, no funds to assist state Exchanges, no funds to pay extensions of state Medicaid. Those changes would leave the health care industry in turmoil. Talk about lack of clarity about expectations.

M Paquette is right. The Senate will simply not agree to this so either the House comes up with some other gimmick or we have a shutdown. Then a couple of weeks later we get to default on our debt. I liquidated a few extra months of funds on the day the market peaked last week on expectation of buy opportunities in October due to this insanity.

Now I am hearing of new ridiculous gimmicks to replace defunding. One is only move forward if all of Congress and all Federal employees have to go on the exchanges with no reimbursement from the government. The idea here is to sell the American public that the Hill and Feds are being forced to eat the same dog food as the rest of the country. Since no one understands how the law works that would be a popular proposal. Of course, the only way it would really be equitable is if all employer HI programs were killed at the same time but how many people will undersatnd that?

 

[pb4uski]

[Mod Edit - Political Comments removed]

 

[MichaelB]

If we leave out partisan comments we can discuss how a disruption in PPACA implementation can impact us.

 

[2B]

[Mod Edit - Political Comments removed]

 

[donheff]

[Mod Edit - Political Comments removed]

 

[pb4uski]

[Mod Edit - Political Comments removed]

 

[donheff]

If we leave out partisan comments we can discuss how a disruption in PPACA implementation can impact us.

I agree that we need to stay away from partisan comments but the topic is highly political and it seems appropriate to discuss how things work which may include pro and con perspectives. Also topics like whether Congress should get OPM supplements seem fair since they really go to the heart of what the law is about in my opinion.

 

[REWahoo]

Slippery slope, doomed to attract porcine attention...

 

[Alan]

Sorry folks but we have decided that the partisan politics requires the closing of this thread