• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    Seagrl on Long Debate Night
    William on Long Debate Night
    William on Long Debate Night
    HerStoryRepeating on Long Debate Night
    William on Long Debate Night
    William on Two things about Trump
    Kathleen A Wynne on Two things about Trump
    Catscatscats on Two things about Trump
    William on Two things about Trump
    William on Two things about Trump
    Catscatscats on Two things about Trump
    Kathleen A Wynne on Two things about Trump
    Catscatscats on Two things about Trump
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on I’d hate to be this DOJ lawyer…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Two things about Trump
  • Categories


  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama Bernie Sanders big pharma Bill Clinton cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donald Trump Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare OccupyWallStreet occupy wall street Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans research Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

    June 2019
    S M T W T F S
    « May    
     1
    2345678
    9101112131415
    16171819202122
    23242526272829
    30  
  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • Matching Donations Finished
      The $1,000 in matching donations has now been met. The fundraiser will continue till Friday midnight, and any donations will be more than appreciated, but they won’t be matched. A sincere thank you to the matching donor, and to everyone who has donated. The 16 reviews and the booklet on how to think will be […]
  • Top Posts

  • Advertisements

Obamacare subsidy rules overturned by Republican judges.

Is this the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning?  From ThinkProgress:

On Tuesday, two Republican judges voted to rewrite this history. Under Halbig v. Burwell, a decision handed down by Judge Raymond Randolph, a Bush I appointee, and Judge Thomas Griffith, a Bush II appointee, millions of Americans will lose the federal health insurance subsidies provided to them under the Affordable Care Act — or, at least, they will lose these subsidies if Randolph and Griffith’s decision is ultimately upheld on appeal.

[…]

The two Republicans’ decision rests on a glorified typo in the Affordable Care Act itself. Obamacare gives states a choice. They can either run their own health insurance exchange where their residents may buy health insurance, and receive subsidies to help them pay for that insurance if they qualify, or they can allow the federal government to run that exchange for them. Yet the plaintiffs’ in this case uncovered a drafting error in the statute where it appears to limit the subsidies to individuals who obtain insurance through “an Exchange established by the State.” Randolph and Griffith’s opinion concludes that this drafting error is the only thing that matters. In their words, “a federal Exchange is not an ‘Exchange established by the State,’” and that’s it. The upshot of this opinion is that 6.5 million Americans will lose their ability to afford health insurance, according to one estimate.

Done in by a drafting error.  Huh.

I think I am being too hopeful about it being the end of the beginning and that maybe the country will get serious about a national healthcare policy that includes true universal responsibilities and cost controls.  After all, if you’re still receiving insurance from your employer, there’s probably no rush on your part.  You probably feel either distant compassion for those of us poor souls who have to put up with this ACA crap or indignant that we are insufficiently grateful for the miserly coverage we are forced to pay for.

But the Republicans might have done us a favor for being the obstinate, selfish, mean-spirited, take-no-prisoners, uncompromising assholes that they are.  At some point, the sheer weight of all of this pigheadedness, coupled with insurance insecurity, may actually provoke a backlash against them and we could end up with Democratic congresspersons motivated to actually fix the gigantic flaws in this byzantine, unworkable and deeply unsatisfying act.

Well, we can dream.

Update: Top comment from the NYTimes article on the same subject shows the bitterness towards the Democrats who compromised too much:

Kevin Rothstein

is a trusted commenter Somewhere East of the GWB 1 hour ago

Someday, our nation will adopt single payer. The Democrats in name only in Congress sold the people down-the-river by failing to adopt a public option.

The blame lies with Sen. Max Baucus and the former Senator from Aetna, Joe Lieberman, among others.

We also have a president who was not willing to argue forcefully enough for the public option, as Obama is also a centrist Democrat elected to maintain the status quo while pretending to offer hope and change, just as another centrist Democrat, from a town called hope, allowed Wall Street to hijack his better angels.

That’s assuming they actually had better angels, Kevin.

Advertisements

PPACA FAQ: Affordability and Subsidies (Part 2)

(This would be so much more fun if I was writing about a plan for universal health care for everyone. Medicare for Everyone or whatever.  Put us all in one bucket and let us all wait in the same lines.)

(Cross-posted to Corrente)

My plan was to continue the discussion of Affordability and Subsidies with an answer to a remaining after discussion in the comments on The Corrente site regarding this piece of the story:

I’ll list the essentials:

  1. Employee earns $35,000/yr
  2. Employee-only coverage = $275/mo (This is just under 9.5% of her salary)
  3. Employee +children = $500/mo or 17% of Employee Income (The IRS ruling says that only the cost of Employee-Only coverage is considered for affordability. But, PPACA does require an option for dependent coverage on parent’s policies)
  4. There is no spousal coverage option (there is no PPACA requirement for spousal coverage)
  5. Spouse may purchase insurance through an Exchange and would be eligible for a subsidy (because family income is under 400% of poverty)
  6. Employee & Children do not qualify for Subsidies because the Employee’s share of the insurance is affordable.

The question I’ve been hammering on all week (6 hours when I stopped counting) Relates to points 4 & 5 above. He may purchase insurance through the Exchange — but what will he be expected to pay? His wife is already paying 9.5% of the household income (using MAGI which will not be explained here) for her affordable employee-only coverage. Will he be expected to pay another 9.5% of their income before his subsidy kicks in?

Sadly, those 6+ hours didn’t reveal a definitive answer (to me). If I was going to make a guess, I would go to the California Calculator and enter the family’s information and take that for my answer. Their calculator happens to have one of my favorite explainations — the one labeled, “A married couple earning $40,000 per year if one spouse in on Medicare” (You might be able to tell just how frustrating my week has been that I am collecting favorite explanations.) It seems possible that this family’s situation might be comparable to that One Spouse on Medicare situation. But, I’m not at all sure.

For now at least, file this one under Questions Without Answers.

Update:

Commenter t, quoted below gave me an Ah, HA! moment:

No, he won’t be required to fork over 9.5%. Search Mandate exceptions. One of the exceptions of the ACA is that if individual insurance premiums with subsidy cost more than 8% of the MAGI, then the individual is exempt from the mandate. He will not be required to carry insurance at all. If he does carry insurance in your scenario, because he is part of a family of 4, he will qualify for a subsidy that will take his costs quite a bit below 9.5%. Exactly how much below, it’s hard to say. I’m guessing via looking at calculators that it will be in the range of 6.5%, which is still exorbitant.

But yes, this is a sticking point for sure. MAGI in his case should exclude the cost of the other family premiums. But because this law is a complete mess, it doesn’t.

I am predicting pitch forks, tar and feathers by 2014.5

T clarified something I didn’t understand:

1) Mom’s insurance could cost as much as 9.5% of her salary because that is how affordability is defined for employer-offered insurance.

2) But the subsidies for Exchange policies are calculated by which Bucket group your family falls into … see this Table from Wikipedia

Which explains why entering this family’s into the California Calculator, the cost to the family is so far below 9.5%

Still not a firm answer – The mom’s purchase of insurance through her employer (at 9.5% of family income) is within the scope of the PPACA requirements.  And, Medicare (referring to the California Calculator explanation) is NOT within the scope of PPACA requirements.

But, we can be pretty sure that Dad’s premiums will be something under another 9.5% of their household income.

As t says, “still exorbitant.”


What DID I find during that 6+ hours of research? …. Lots and lots and lots of interesting stuff.  And an idea for keeping track of it all. Now I can say that as part of the PPACA FAQ we’ll have an organized resource library to be unveiled as soon as it actually exists!

One of the most interesting essays I found is, “How the Affordable Care Act Will Create Perverse Incentives Harming Low and Moderate Income Workers“. I’m still reading through it (and the over 150 footnotes!) but I can already tell that it will be a very important reference throughout the course of this project.

It cannot be said often enough: Things do not have to be this complicated. We could be talking about the changes coming with Medicare for Everyone. Struggling to understand how the PPACA affects us is not what I expected from the 2008 election.

PPACA FAQ: Affordability and Subsidies (Part 1)

(Cross posted to Corrente)

Question: I read a story yesterday that says some employees won’t be able to afford Health Insurance even if their employers offer affordable plans.  But, I heard that there will be subsidies to help people afford insurance.  Won’t the subsidies help with those plans?

Short Answer: Only the cost to the employee of Employee-Only coverage is considered in determining affordability and subsidies. And to be affordable, Employee-Only coverage must be 9.5% of employee salary or less. If it is then the employee (and dependents if any) is not eligible to purchase health insurance through an exchange or eligible for any subsidy. Without those subsidies, many employees will not be able to afford the plans (either individual or family) offered by their employers.

However, if an employee is self-employed or the employer does not offer affordable health insurance, then the employee can be eligible for subsidies that could limit their share of health insurance premiums to as little as 2% of their income.

Long Answer (here’s how it works)

The AP published this widely distributed story (links flooded my WordPress ObamaCare page) yesterday: Continue reading