Breaking: SCOTUS to consider ACA subsidies

[angus]

aha!  I had assumed that was some sort of joke, but that's actually the cover of this week's TIME magazine, as I learned today.  What's really funny is that when my son brought in the mail a few minutes ago--he checks the mail, we give him five dollars every week--he handed me the magazine and asked, "Is that woman really a woman?"  I explained that it was actually a man.

The story begins on page 32 and it's called Mitch's Majority.  I'm just now starting it. "There was a lot of talk about a crisis in the Republican party..., but a funny thing happened on the road to ruin..."

[Cory]

We've allowed an ill-conceived executive-compensation-cap spiral out of control, and now our healthcare system costs 200% of healthcare elsewhere in the developed world. If you do the math, you'll find that the succession of poor regulations cost us about $1.4T every year.

You don't say.....

[Likely Voter]

Interesting additional detail on how the states are reacting to the case:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-11-11/state-obamacare-strategies-take-shape-as-court-case-looms

So in the end if SCOTUS rules against the Obama admin it is likely that a majority of states will still end up getting the subsidies via workarounds. But there will be a handful of states that take the 'screw you' position and refuse the money and free subsidized healthcare for their citizens. West Virginia is a surprise because they have Dem gov who did expand Medicaid via Obamacare. Unclear how you can be for Medicaid expansion (which actually costs the state something) and not the subsidies (which will cost nothing).

[Landslide Lyndon]

I can't fathom how callous and inhuman are the politicians who will refuse the subsidies out of spite or to promote their careers.
The thought that this kind of people not only exists but thrives, makes me sick.

[Skill and Chance]

I don't think many people realize it yet, but this could be the issue of 2016 if SCOTUS rules for the plaintiffs.  There's an incredibly strong incentive for the Republican controlled swing states to make a deal quickly on this, but there's an equally strong incentive for the Tea Party to primary anyone who helps fix it.  In the >R+10 states, they can feel politically safe doing nothing, but imagine the national optics with ads running of now-uninsured middle class people forgoing care in solid R states.

[Cory]

Sixteen states, including Virginia, Pennsylvania and Mississippi, have said in a legal brief in a related case that they assumed insurance subsidies would be available even in a federally run exchange. Others, including Arkansas, Delaware and Iowa, said they set up their markets as partnerships with the U.S. with the same assumption.

At least six states have said they don’t want the subsidies for their citizens. Republican officials in Oklahoma, Alabama, Georgia, West Virginia, Nebraska and South Carolina filed a brief in the related case arguing that people in states with federally run exchanges, including theirs, shouldn’t get the subsidies.

What a bunch of vile, worthless pricks.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I can't fathom how callous and inhuman are the politicians who will refuse the subsidies out of spite or to promote their careers.
The thought that this kind of people not only exists but thrives, makes me sick.

Lyndon, meet the Republican Party. 

[AggregateDemand]

I can't fathom how callous and inhuman are the politicians who will refuse the subsidies out of spite or to promote their careers.
The thought that this kind of people not only exists but thrives, makes me sick.

You also can't understand why feeding birthday cake and pork lard to hungry children isn't the best idea, either. You are only disgusted by your own lack of information and education.

[Landslide Lyndon]

I can't fathom how callous and inhuman are the politicians who will refuse the subsidies out of spite or to promote their careers.
The thought that this kind of people not only exists but thrives, makes me sick.

You also can't understand why feeding birthday cake and pork lard to hungry children isn't the best idea, either. You are only disgusted by your own lack of information and education.

Well, you at least seem to be in a constant diet of BS.

[AggregateDemand]

Well, you at least seem to be in a constant diet of BS.

I moved on from Bachelor of Science a long time ago.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Interesting additional detail on how the states are reacting to the case:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-11-11/state-obamacare-strategies-take-shape-as-court-case-looms

So in the end if SCOTUS rules against the Obama admin it is likely that a majority of states will still end up getting the subsidies via workarounds. But there will be a handful of states that take the 'screw you' position and refuse the money and free subsidized healthcare for their citizens. West Virginia is a surprise because they have Dem gov who did expand Medicaid via Obamacare. Unclear how you can be for Medicaid expansion (which actually costs the state something) and not the subsidies (which will cost nothing).

So those six states are now on record as saying they want to pay taxes specifically to benefit other states than their own. They want their citizens to fund only subsidies for people in other states. Unbelievable.

[IceSpear]

I don't think many people realize it yet, but this could be the issue of 2016 if SCOTUS rules for the plaintiffs.  There's an incredibly strong incentive for the Republican controlled swing states to make a deal quickly on this, but there's an equally strong incentive for the Tea Party to primary anyone who helps fix it.  In the >R+10 states, they can feel politically safe doing nothing, but imagine the national optics with ads running of now-uninsured middle class people forgoing care in solid R states.

I'm not sure they'd care. Kentucky and West Virginia just gleefully voted to take away their own healthcare. They'll find some way to blame Obama.

[Skill and Chance]

I don't think many people realize it yet, but this could be the issue of 2016 if SCOTUS rules for the plaintiffs.  There's an incredibly strong incentive for the Republican controlled swing states to make a deal quickly on this, but there's an equally strong incentive for the Tea Party to primary anyone who helps fix it.  In the >R+10 states, they can feel politically safe doing nothing, but imagine the national optics with ads running of now-uninsured middle class people forgoing care in solid R states.

I'm not sure they'd care. Kentucky and West Virginia just gleefully voted to take away their own healthcare. They'll find some way to blame Obama.

The ads would be directed toward moderates elsewhere.  As in, do you want this to go national?

[pbrower2a]

I can't fathom how callous and inhuman are the politicians who will refuse the subsidies out of spite or to promote their careers.
The thought that this kind of people not only exists but thrives, makes me sick.

You also can't understand why feeding birthday cake and pork lard to hungry children isn't the best idea, either. You are only disgusted by your own lack of information and education.

Stooges of the Koch syndicate. No human suffering is excessive if there is a profit to be derived from it.

Nothing about the ruling elite of America suggests any cause to believe that they will show mercy in the presence of a more lucrative alternative for others that does great harm to others without killing those others outright.

By the way -- I would prefer that people getting food aid get better food than what food aid usually buys. So take candy, chips, sodas, fully-made desserts, etc. off the eligibility list and let them have carrots and peas instead. (As compensation I would let people buy detergents and toiletries instead).