Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Rant: who was the moron who drafted the ACA such that states can opt out automatically? [View all]geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)15. That doesn't deal with the subsidy issue. nt
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
62 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Rant: who was the moron who drafted the ACA such that states can opt out automatically? [View all]
geek tragedy
Nov 2012
OP
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
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
No, the problem is that they explicitly limited subsidies to state-run exchanges.
geek tragedy
Nov 2012
#7
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
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
ACA, Section 1401 only allows subsidies for people enrolled in exchanges established
geek tragedy
Nov 2012
#30
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
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
It is clear to me in context that you are well meaning but incorrect
ProgressiveProfessor
Nov 2012
#45
Here is a thorough explanation of why you are more than likely dead wrong about this.
phleshdef
Nov 2012
#38
It seems to be a much stronger argument than the one you are attempting to make.
phleshdef
Nov 2012
#46
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