…is still vulnerable. This should be the key issue in 2014 to retake the Senate.
The latest Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that only 38 percent of the public supports it.
That September poll isn’t the latest; this one (published today) is. The ACA favorable number bounced up to 43%. Meanwhile, support for repeal has dropped to 33%, vs. 49% support for keeping or expanding the law.
ObamaCare was on the November ballot in Missouri. It went down to defeat 62-38.
People don’t want it, Jim. Why do you wish to force it upon them?
Vulnerable? It’s effectively dead in half the states.
Medicaid expansion maybe (I think some governors are posturing, and will take the money when the time comes), but the rest of the law goes forward with or without the states.
It goes forward in the states that choose the implement exchanges. If your state doesn’t implement exchanges, you as an individual can still buy insurance through a federal exchange (or in your state of course), but there is neither a subsidy nor a mandate to do so.
That’s an argument that will probably be settled in court. The legislative intent was to provide subsidies, and enforce the mandate, regardless of whether the exchange was run by the state or the feds.
Nope. The record shows that the legislative intent was that eligibility for tax credits is conditional on states creating exchanges, meaning they would withhold tax credits in states that did not create their own exchanges. That is also what the law, in fact, says, and it’s very clear on this point. You really should read it sometime.
“I think some governors are posturing, and will take the money when the time comes”
Gotta love that free money from the feds. Wonder where they get it from…
Current poll numbers are largely irrelevant. What will be interesting is where the poll numbers go when premiums skyrocket because of adverse selection and more and more people who were previously insured find themselves without insurance because they can’t afford it.
Adverse selection is when only the sick get insurance. The subsidies and mandate will increase the number of healthy people covered, reducing adverse selection.
No. It will increase the penalties paid for the uninsured since that’s cheaper and they can not be prevented from getting insurance when they do get sick. This is adverse selection on steroids.
That isn’t what happened in MA.
To elaborate, adverse selection didn’t increase in MA because people want to have health insurance. It just isn’t affordable. Obamacare, like Romneycare, makes it affordable, with community rating and subsidies.
Jim, you didn’t address what I said. It doesn’t matter how affordable it is if they can get it anytime they want without regard for existing conditions and if the penalty is cheaper than the insurance.
This is the definition of adverse selection.
Obamacare will likely encounter further challenges at the Supreme Court, specifically over the religious liberty issues.
Before or after Obama packs it with more of his cronies?
He has a friendly senate and now “has the flexibility” to appoint anyone he chooses. The supreme court firewall is effectively gone. We will live with that court for decades.
Barring health issues I’d be surprised if any of the right-leaning justices voluntarily retired while Obama’s in office. He may replace Ginsburg or Breyer with younger appointees, but I expect Scalia and Kennedy to stick it out until 2017. And unless there’s major action on the Senate rules (unlikely), the GOP only needs 40 of their 45 votes to block confirmation of Obama’s appointments.
There’s like a half-dozen lawsuits still pending, some of which will end up front of Scotus, others won’t have to. Obama may have a “friendly senate”, but no one’s leaving soon, and those most likely to leave are hard-core lefties anyway.
It is a bit ironic that justice Roberts hands things back to the people, who then elect Obama (assuming they actually did.) Like he said, it’s not his job to be the responsible voter.
Comments are closed.
Switch to our mobile site