General Discussion

Drale

(7,932 posts)

1. They can't just opt out

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 01:41 PM

Nov 2012

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

62 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Rant: who was the moron who drafted the ACA such that states can opt out automatically? [View all] geek tragedy Nov 2012 OP

They can't just opt out Drale Nov 2012 #1

No subsidies means that that people won't be able to afford the insurance offered through geek tragedy Nov 2012 #4

it doesn't matter if they can't be denied a product that they can't afford. BlueMan Votes Nov 2012 #6

The feds will run it instead - which is probably better n/t sammytko Nov 2012 #2

There will be nothing to run---the lack of subsidies means that no one will geek tragedy Nov 2012 #9

it won't be better if there are no subsidies to allow the poor to buy in. BlueMan Votes Nov 2012 #10

I don't think that was in the legislation... MANative Nov 2012 #3

No, the problem is that they explicitly limited subsidies to state-run exchanges. geek tragedy Nov 2012 #7

That was discussed here back when it was drafted. Starry Messenger Nov 2012 #5

This narrative is being pushed by the CATO Institute ... 1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #8

Unfortunately, the language is pretty clear. geek tragedy Nov 2012 #11

Well ... 1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #49

I would have thought this post at least warranted a response tkmorris Nov 2012 #61

Maybe he/she is on a bathroom break? n/t 1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #62

oh chill. everyone will get the same subsidies, everywhere. Schema Thing Nov 2012 #12

This isn't political bitching--it's a legal argument that the SCOTUS is going to buy. nt geek tragedy Nov 2012 #17

No, it's not. It's a glitch. The intent of the law is not going to be overturned Schema Thing Nov 2012 #19

Courts generally don't care if it's an error. Especially Republican judges. geek tragedy Nov 2012 #20

this claim has ZERO credibility. Schema Thing Nov 2012 #23

Judges care about intent if the language is unclear. geek tragedy Nov 2012 #33

So you are asserting as fact something that has only been theorized Warren Stupidity Nov 2012 #24

You really think the Roberts court is going to give the admin a pass on this? geek tragedy Nov 2012 #28

They didn't buy the legal argument by everyone that ACA was totally unconstitutional. LiberalFighter Nov 2012 #29

Roberts did at first, and he backed down only because the shitstorm would be too big. geek tragedy Nov 2012 #32

That is an old article - here is one from two days ago sammytko Nov 2012 #13

That doesn't deal with the subsidy issue. nt geek tragedy Nov 2012 #15

ugh - the feds will pay that. sammytko Nov 2012 #18

Ugh, no. The law doesn't authorize them to. geek tragedy Nov 2012 #22

No it isn't. And you know better. Warren Stupidity Nov 2012 #25

ACA, Section 1401 only allows subsidies for people enrolled in exchanges established geek tragedy Nov 2012 #30

According to you and the Cato Institute. Warren Stupidity Nov 2012 #56

why would they opt out? brokechris Nov 2012 #14

Because they're Republicans and they want to screw poor people. nt geek tragedy Nov 2012 #16

The whole law Turbineguy Nov 2012 #21

a) morons is vile language. b) this is a bullshit post. Warren Stupidity Nov 2012 #26

Okay, tell us how this language is unclear: geek tragedy Nov 2012 #37

thank you sammytko Nov 2012 #44

quite the contrary, they specifically allowed the feds to set it up in case some states didn't do it unblock Nov 2012 #27

The problem is that they authorized subsidies ONLY for state-run exchanges. geek tragedy Nov 2012 #31

who is the moron that still uses the word 'moron'. grantcart Nov 2012 #34

The problem is that there are no subsidies for people in the federal exchanges. geek tragedy Nov 2012 #35

No the problem is that the Supreme Court said that you could not compel states to expand Medicaid grantcart Nov 2012 #51

Medicaid expansion is a separate issue from the tax credits offered geek tragedy Nov 2012 #52

This post was alerted. Jury voted 4-2 to retain ProgressiveProfessor Nov 2012 #36

This got alerted? Oy. geek tragedy Nov 2012 #41

It is clear to me in context that you are well meaning but incorrect ProgressiveProfessor Nov 2012 #45

I alerted on it. The use of the term "moron" is unacceptable. Warren Stupidity Nov 2012 #54

Yeah, that term is totally never used here. geek tragedy Nov 2012 #55

Is "moronic" an okay term, or is that also unacceptable? hughee99 Nov 2012 #59

Here is a thorough explanation of why you are more than likely dead wrong about this. phleshdef Nov 2012 #38

That's a really weak argument, sorry to say. Two reaons geek tragedy Nov 2012 #42

It seems to be a much stronger argument than the one you are attempting to make. phleshdef Nov 2012 #46

Agency interpretations are accorded some deference geek tragedy Nov 2012 #50

U.S. House of Representatives, the Senate, President Obama... Agnosticsherbet Nov 2012 #39

No, this was a simple screw up. Nobody was demanding that the federal exchanges geek tragedy Nov 2012 #43

Given the rushed nature of the legislation, errors and oversights were ProgressiveProfessor Nov 2012 #47

The IRS is remedying it via interpretation. geek tragedy Nov 2012 #48

Maybe this is making lemonade out of lemons... caraher Nov 2012 #40

i've been trying to get an answer on this for almost 2 weeks nashville_brook Nov 2012 #53

It is not moronic to set up a situation where red states, turn over Roselma Nov 2012 #57

The non profit government option mdohoney Nov 2012 #58

It Was Probably Necessary to Overcome Some Resistance to the ACA On the Road Nov 2012 #60