they still can't denied health insurance for pre existing condition or kick kids off their parents insurance. Theres alot in their other than the mandate that everyone wants to focus on.

the exchanges.

It essentially means that there will be no exchanges in that state--because no one will participate in them.

and without the subsidies- MANY of them won't be able to.

participate.

There's not even any funding set up to run the exchanges in the first place.

I could be wrong, and don't have time to look it up right now, but I think that was a fallout from the Supreme Court review - that states couldn't be forced to participate.

They did NOT authorize subsidies for federally run exchanges.

Many posters simply tossed off that people can vote with their feet and move. When informed that poor people can't really do that, there was dead silence. But people knew this could happen, absolutely.

And is being litigated before a very skeptical Oklahoma court.

The drafters screwed the pooch on it.

And the Roberts court is notorious for reading statutes very, very literally.

maybe a word from the agency responsible for administering the subsidies might put to rest your worries:

It seems to directly debunk what was claimed in the OP. I could see disagreeing with it in some fashion but outright ignoring it? I hope the OPer had to run an errand or something, which would explain the lack of response.

The legislature passes legislation in the form of words--it doesn't enact intent. That's their judicial philosophy.

Remember that 4 SCOTUS justices were ready to kill the entire bill over bogus arguments. This claim has much more credibility than the anti-mandate arguments did.

Unfortunately, the language isn't ambiguous.

as an opportunity to sabotage the ACA by the Cato institute. The facts as they exist today are that the tax credits apply to both state and federal exchanges. Until the USSC decides otherwise the current administration, the one that administers laws, will interpret the ACA as it was intended by congress, not as the Cato Fucking Institute sees it.

The problem is that the Cato institute is correct on the statutory language. It's more than a little optimistic to assume that the Roberts court is going to effectively change the statute as it is written.

He'll have no such trouble doing it in this case.

They can rule "the law says what the law says. If it's a mistake, Congress needs to fix it."

The law only permits subsidies for exchanges that the states set up themselves. It does NOT include federally established/run exchanges.

The language is crystal clear.

by states per Section 1311.

The federal exchanges are authorized/created per Section 1321, not 1311.

they are going to have to pay the taxes (federal) anyway so they aren't going to save any money?

Is there any benefit to opting out?

had to be fucked up enough to pass Congress.

You are off propagating and defending as fact CATO talking points.

Section 1311 of the ACA deals with exchanges set up by the states.

Section 1321 of the ACA deals with exchanges set up by the federal government if the state does not do so.

Section 1401 is the section that authorizes subsidies, and it is explicitly limits those subsidies to health plans "which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under 1311."

this was actually well thought out. incompetence would have been drafting it so that states could defy the law through inaction. instead they thought this might happen and drafted a remedy into the law itself so as to avoid needing to go to court or amend the law to fix it.

The section authorizing the subsidies explicitly limits those subsidies to exchanges created by the states (section 1311) not exchanges created by the federal government (section 1321).

Seriously, it's that bad of a screw up. Heck of a job brownie bad.

Section 1311 of the ACA deals with exchanges set up by the states.

Section 1321 of the ACA deals with exchanges set up by the federal government.

Section 1401 is the section that authorizes subsidies, and it is explicitly limits those subsidies to health plans "which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under 1311."

but you could let them opt out.


If the state opts out they will indeed lose their subsidies, and they will be held accountable by the electorates in those states.


Your OP is offensive in language and confusing, at best. The question of setting up or not setting up an exchange is not related to the question of expanding Medicaid.


The question of making states expand their Medicaid was settled by the Supreme Court, who said that you couldn't force a state to increase Medicaid if they didn't want to (the penalty was that they would lose all of their Medicaid subsidy if they didn't) and that states could opt out of the Medicaid expansion.

And yes if a state is stupid enough to not want the extra subsidy then the fault lies with the state officials and not with the ACA.


Given the level of confusion that your OP is shrouded in and the aggressive use of the word 'moron' and it's general tone you would be advised to self delete it.

as subsidies under the exchanges.

This was a rant--this was a drafting error so obvious that it would constitute legal malpractice in the private sector.

Juror comments:

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

"morons" - really? clean up the language. Then consider deleting the post too, as it is CATO institute bullshit.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Nov 19, 2012, 12:14 PM, and the Jury voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: This poster is very concerned that people will not be able to get access to health care. I feel his pain. The legislation was a rush job, it has holes, oversights and errors. He seems to think that they cannot be corrected readily. While I disagree, I feel his pain. While it clearly is not criminal behavior, this post is not over the top.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: RW talking points. Take it elsewhere.

====================================

The alerter and juror #6 are clearly off base. The poster is seriously concerned about people in those few recalcitrant states being unable to get the same health care at a reasonable price. That is not right wing or CATO talking points. While I disagree with his wording, it was not worthy of a hide.

Thanks for the words of support.

There was plenty of debate about the constitutionality of the mandate around here. This is an argument on which the wingnuts are on much more solid ground--we effectively have to ask the courts to assume that the language was a drafting error.

Courts HATE to assume a drafting error in legislation.

that should not result in smears and alerts, but some participants at DU seem to enjoy that.

It is right up there with "retard". Your post is bullshit on many levels.

I've never seen an alert for moron before.

First, they note:

But now we seem to be stuck with the textualists delight: a statute whose words clearly say what Congress clearly did not mean.

I think you just WANT to believe this.

The fact is, the amending Congress did after the fact creates ambiguity with what you claim is a clearly worded limitation on subsidies to only apply to state exchanges. The law gives HHS the power to remedy ambiguities in the law. So if HHS says the subsidies apply to federally operated exchanges, then it does, period.

in situations like this. But, the language is sufficiently clear to allow a court to rule against them, if it can overcome standings challenges (nobody has standing to challenge the subsidies).

This was one of the compromises made to get a sufficient number of signatures in the House and Senate so the President could sign the bill into law.

So everybody involved in the process of compromise that brought the entire bill, both the good and bad parts, are "the moron who drafted the ACA such that states can opt out automatically."
I hope this cleared that up.

And I, for one, am glad they did. We are bettter off with the ACA than without.

be set up without subsidies for people who participate.

It's just incredible incompetence on the part of whoever drafted Section 1401.

to be expected. I do not think it was incompetence, criminal or otherwise. I also believe that it will be remedied easily enough.

The best defense is probably arguing for deference to the agency's interpretation.

Next best defense is the standing requirement.

After that, probably arguing that a federal exchange set up under 1321 is actually one authorized by 1311 and should be considered as such for purposes of 1401.

I don't think a legislative fix will be coming until Democrats control both houses of Congress again.

But suppose Republicans do block subsidies in states that failed to set up exchanges. If I'm a state-level Democratic politician this should be a godsend! (Politically, that is, and at a terrific cost to poor individuals... I'd rather the states just set up the exchanges, but given that they won't we can at least make it clear that Republicans are not sticking up for people in their own states).

As sticker shock sets in and the RW noise machine kicks into high gear blaming Obama, just pound the message that it was their Republican governors who decided they had to pay so much for coverage. Better still, spin it as a tax increase on the poor. That might finally get the attention of red-staters who habitually vote against their own economic interests!

Of course, avoiding this kind of political fallout might prevent the nightmare scenario from happening even if the law is badly written...

for an op-ed I'm working on.

In Florida Rick Scott is likely to either not participate in exchanges, OR put forth a non-compliant exchange that only offers the "free market" option (no subsidies).

So I've been reaching out to writers, researchers and analysts in FL, DC and NY to find out if specifically if small businesses in Florida would have the tax credits and the subsidies available.

The best answer I've received is that the tax credit would be available through the IRS (administered federally). BUT, we are still unclear on what this would mean for subsidies. It does appear as if the subsidy side is tied to the state exchange.

So, your OP poses quite a good question.

management of their exchanges to the federal government. It is ironic that Republican-led states fell for it. Now people living in those red states get a hint of how the federal government can and should help citizens no matter what state they live in.

perhaps you missed this feature in reading about the ACA. There are several types of insurance plans available on the aca market one is a government negotiated non-profit plan that will be available even if the state does not set up the machinery for other aca options through the fed governmnet. I suggest you read the following discussion of this plan.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/30/1152771/-A-shocking-Obamacare-fact-no-one-realizes

However, states are notoriously anxious to get federal money wherever it's offered.

The states who are opting out have a powerful incentive to develop their own exchanges and meet the other requirements to get federal subsidies. States who are reconsidering their decision to opt out are undoubtedly having this discussion right now.