Obamacare vs The Supreme Court - Round 2

How about this gem from this week from jon gruber

"Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass. . . . Look, I wish . . . that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not."

And yet another Gruber tape

"Referring to the so-called "Cadillac tax" on high-end health plans, he said: "They proposed it and that passed, because the American people are too stupid to understand the difference."

The Gruber tapes certainly makes the court case more interesting. I hope the conservatives on the court invalidate the subsides for the federal exchange. It would cause widespread anarchy and millions of people to lose their health care coverage. Numerous hospitals across the country would probably go bankrupt. Conservatives will be in charges of both parts of congress so it will fall upon them to fix the mess.

It will be interesting to see what they come up with. Maybe another expensive and unpaid for program like their past expansion of Medicare or perhaps they will be so paralyzed by their own base that they will be able to do nothing and allow the ongoing anarchy during their tenure. Which would allow the Democratic 2016 presidential nominee to ride in like a white knight and offer to fix the mess made out of the healthcare system by conservatives.

For conservatives it is the age old problem of you break it you buy it. I can guarantee you the two most unhappy people in DC if this thing gets invalidated are going to be Mitch Mc Connell and John Boehner.

First thing that will happen to them is that they are going to get gang raped by lobbyists from the insurance industry, the hospitals and the pharmaceutical companies demanding they fix this mess immediately and that their fix contain even fatter payouts to them than Obamacare gave them.

malibber2 is mistaken. The Court cannot "invalidate" the subsidies offered through the Federal Exchange. The provision in The Obamacare Law itself expressly excludes the subsidies for the Federal Exchange. The Court should recognize this and validate The Law as written.
Actually, this is sorta like what already happened with the first Obamacare challenge brought before the Supreme Court. The Democrat Representatives and Democrat Senators who passed the Law and the Democrat President who implemented it all said the "individual mandate" was not a tax. If, in fact, it were not a tax, the Supreme Court could have invalidated the Obamacare Law. But the Supreme Court recognized that as written it was, in fact, a tax, . . . and. therefore they validated the Law, as written.

DonDiego hopes it is not just the Conservatives who recognize the subsidies are not in agreement with The Law. Any Supreme Court Justice who finds the Federal Exchange subsidy legal is either incapable of comprehending the written English language or a political operative, neither of which is desirable in a Justice.

DonDiego supposes malibber2 overstates the outlook for "widespread anarchy". DonDiego has been warned of "widespread anarchy" before, and it hasn't happened yet. And if it does, DonDiego might not notice it f'r a while up heh' in the hills, . . . and when he does he'll be at least a mite better prepared for it than lots of folks.
But the cause of any unpleasantness which does ensue will be the specific provisions of the Law, a Law passed solely by House Democrats, and Senate Democrats (and a Socialist), and mis-implemented (i.e. ignoring the pertinent subsidy provision) by a Democrat President.
Perhaps those responsible should have acted more openly and honestly. (But, as Professor Gruber has made clear, then the law would not have been passed.)

In any case DonDiego observes the Law is already heading for trouble. There is a significant drop off in enthusiasm among those who actually pay premiums. The rising premium costs combined with already high deductibles are not providing the current enrollees as pleasant a health-care experience as they had anticipated. And although they may feel pinched, because the "penalty tax" is tripling this year [of course the penalty wasn't even collected this year, by Presidential fiat, but it's triple what should've been collected], the more they learn the more they are reluctant to continue with The Obamacare.

This should serve as a valuable lesson. If anyone (say, someone in Government), says he can provide something (say, healthcare) of superior quality to more citizens at lower cost (without, say, increasing the quantity or quality of the actual healthcare services and lowering the real costs) he is lying. And, if on top of all that, he says it is mandatory that you participate, well, . . . that oughta set off a tiny alarm bell in one's head.
DonDiego would've thought everyone already knew this, . . . but, apparently, there is a sucker born every minute. And there's millions and millions of more minutes coming.

If the Law is validated by the Supreme Court, as written, . . . those receiving subsidies from the Federal Exchanges will no longer receive them. The Law will still be in place, . . . just those on Federal Exchanges will have to pay the full premium if they wish to purchase The Obamacare Insurance. Which they won't.
And then The Obamacare will collapse.

DonDiego can only hope that any "fix', if indeed the Congress feels obligated to "fix" anything, will be Constitutional and implemented honestly and legally, . . . and without impossible promises. Oh, . . . and transparently ! Unlike The Obamacare.

Good luck with all that...
There are a million reasons why all hell will break loose if the GOP gets their way by repealing Obamacare but I only need to point to one......The medicare prescription drug donut hole.

Every medicated senior (even the hateful, anti-Obama ones that pretend like they hate the law) will see an out-of-pocket charge for their drugs that will add thousands of dollars to their spending budget overnight. You want a recipe for political apocalypse? There you go.

There's a little devil inside of me that secretly is rooting for the critics in this challenge. I cant think of anything more entertaining than watching Mitch McConnell at a town hall with a 100k of freshly uninsured constituents. And the fact that those same constituents overwhelmingly voted against Obama because of the very law they hate...but at the same time they're pissed cause its repealed...? Well you get the idea. Its would be excellent TV if nothing else.

..but it aint gonna happen ...so the little angel inside of me can rest easy

"freshly uninsured constituents"

If the case is won, it will only eliminate some of the subsidies.

Nothing within this thread has addressed anyone repealing The Obamacare.

The United States Supreme Court has agreed to review the implementation of The Obamacare. There is a dispute between those who believe The Law as written provides subsidies to those who purchase Obamacare through both the State Exchanges and the Federal Exchange, and those who believe the subsidies are only available through the State Exchanges.

If the Court rules narrowly against the question of the subsidies in relation to the Federal Exchanges, . . . based upon a straightforward reading of the statute and the intent of the statute's creators as presently being revealed by, f'rinstance, Professor Gruber, . . . the only immediate effect might be suspension of those subsidies. [Subsequently DonDiego would expect the healthcare insurance structure of The Obamacare would collapse, first in the States without exchanges, . . and likely beyond.]

Of course, the Supreme Court can do pretty much whatever it wants once it commences its review of The Obamacare Law. It could declare the entire Law invalid, rather than simply declaring The Law must be implemented in accordance with the written provisions vis-a-vis exchange subsidies.

So poor old DonDiego supposes the Supreme Court is unlikely to "repeal" Obamacare. The Medicare Donut Hole provisions of The Law need not be touched.

Hoops: Yes, this will impact people in only 36 out of 50 states. Recall how many threads there were about people simply not being able to keep their old polices. Now they won't have a policy at all and will be getting a bill from the IRS for a couple of years of subsides paid on their behalf.

Don Diego I agree with PJ on this. Mitch Mc Connell and John Boehner want to spend the next two years talking about how bad Obamacrare is and holding show votes that don't mean anything. Now they are facing the prospect of actually having to come up with a health care plan of their own instead of talking about Obama's.

Oh and the court doesn't have to repeal the whole thing simply ruling the subsides invalid instantly kills non-employer provided insurance in 36 out of the 50 states. Don't get me wrong I am not upset about it at all. In fact I am absolutely giddy at the prospect of the Republican majority having to pass fixes to Obamacare that a conservative group forced or come up with an entire new health care plan of their own.

DonDiego is content now that he knows pjstroh is "entertained" by the issue and malibber2 is "giddy" over it.

They moved the tax from the UAW employees, and then charged the tax to the insurance companies. Again, hide the tax and confuse the easily confused Democrat voter.