Obamacare and you

[The Minsky Moment]

What is the flaw and why is this bad news?
Presumably the payments are kicking in because the premiums are low.  Wasn't that the objective?

[derspiess]

What is the flaw and why is this bad news?
Presumably the payments are kicking in because the premiums are low.  Wasn't that the objective?

From what I'm reading, the flaw is that the law did not provide for subsidies for those on the federal exchange, just for those on the state exchanges.  So if the ruling holds then people on the federal exchange will lose their subsidies.  I think the LA Times is calling it a "wording glitch".

But I'm sure a simple executive order would close the gap.  Why not, at this point.

[The Minsky Moment]

From what I'm reading, the flaw is that the law did not provide for subsidies for those on the federal exchange, just for those on the state exchanges.  So if the ruling holds then people on the federal exchange will lose their subsidies.  I think the LA Times is calling it a "wording glitch".

Got it.
I didn't open your link - I was responding to the "problem" raised in 11b's link.
Have to check out the DC circuit decision.

[Jacob]

Oops.  I'm shocked that such a well-written piece of legislation contained a flaw of some sort.  I guess they had to pass it before they could check it for errors!

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101819065

Isn't that usually how it is with complex legislation, and the usual process involves some patches after it's passed? That's certainly what I've been led to believe.

[frunk]

Yes, but Congress will insist that it is broken, it's horrible, roll it all back rather than fix things as they come up.

[derspiess]

Oops.  I'm shocked that such a well-written piece of legislation contained a flaw of some sort.  I guess they had to pass it before they could check it for errors!

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101819065

Isn't that usually how it is with complex legislation, and the usual process involves some patches after it's passed? That's certainly what I've been led to believe.

Well, it was also sort of rushed through if you'll recall.

[Jacob]

Well, it was also sort of rushed through if you'll recall.

Yeah, I recall.

What would be ideal - and until recently apparently the standard operating procedure - is a good faith effort to fix these sort of minor glitches to give the legislation a chance to work as designed, but I'm not sure how likely that is at this point.

[CountDeMoney]

Today's rulings don't take away my healthcare coverage, derfetus. So solly.  Maybe next time.

[derspiess]

Today's rulings don't take away my healthcare coverage, derfetus. So solly.  Maybe next time.

I was actually concerned about you, so I checked which states have their own exchanges and saw that Maryland had one.  Your subsidy, if you have one, is safe

[CountDeMoney]

No subsidy, I'm paying my own way at the full advertised cost. So you can't use that one against me.  :suckithaters:

[The Minsky Moment]

Maryland is in the 4th circuit anyways . . .

Checked out the DC Circuit ruling.  2 judges being quite deliberately dense.

[Admiral Yi]

No subsidy, I'm paying my own way at the full advertised cost. So you can't use that one against me.  :suckithaters:

Fat cat.

[grumbler]

Maryland is in the 4th circuit anyways . . .

Checked out the DC Circuit ruling.  2 judges being quite deliberately dense.

We need them on the USSC, stat!  Some current justices can think. Others are named Roberts, Alito, and Thomas (I have no beef with Scalia, even if his votes are almost always "wrong" from my POV; he is a smart guy who has explicable reasons for his rulings).

[derspiess]

Maryland is in the 4th circuit anyways . . .

Checked out the DC Circuit ruling.  2 judges being quite deliberately dense.

How's that?  It sounds like the law only states that those who go through the state exchanges are eligible for subsidies.  If it doesn't mention the federal exchanges, then who has the authority to issue subsidies for those folks?

[The Minsky Moment]

It doesn't say that.

The language is a little goofy because the way the Exchanges are set up and structured under ACA is goofy.  ACA doesn't say - a state can opt-out of creating exchanges.  The section which is directly referenced by the IRS code actually mandates each State to create an exchange.  There is no opt-out.  It defines "Exchange" somewhat self-referentially as the organ established in that state that facilitates the purchase of qualifying health plans.

A totally different section of ACA provides that if a particular State fails to comply that HHS is supposed to do it for them.  There is no such thing as a "federal exchange" in the law.  The term "federal exchange" is just a phrase that some people use to describe what happens when a State doesn't comply.  The actual word that ACA is uses to describe the thing that is created in that instance is simply "Exchange" - i.e. the very defined term used in the section about the State-mandated exchanges.  This ends up being an embarrassment for the DC circuit plurality - they keep using the phrase "federal Exchange" which doesn't exist in ACA and involves sticking a common adjective "federal" in front of a defined term "Exchange".

Is it possible to read this in the way the 2 DC circuit judges did?  Sure if you stand on your head, read it very selectively and grossly out of context, and completely ignore the purpose.  Problem is, the IRS usually gets lots of deference when writing its rules.  By law, their interpretation gets great deference and their reading of the statute can be upheld if it is "possible" reading of the statute.  The DC judges know this and so were forced to argue that not only is their reading correct, but that it is totally plain and unambiguous.  That doesn't pass the laugh test.