We have already discussed how Republicans are trying to create an Obamacare gap by refusing Medicaid expansion funds to upgrade Medicaid to cover all under 133% of the federal poverty level. This would create a coverage gap between the percentage at which red states cut off Medicaid eligibility (as low as 25% of federal poverty level) and 133%, when federal subsidies kick in. If this was not bad enough for America, Republicans are now trying to deprive people in the states they control of federal health care subsidies for those over 133% of the poverty level.
Critics of the new health care law, having lost one battle in the Supreme Court, are mounting a challenge to President Obama’s interpretation of another important provision, under which the federal government will subsidize health insurance for millions of low- and middle-income people. Starting in 2014, the law requires most Americans to have health insurance. It also offers subsidies to help people pay for insurance bought through markets known as insurance exchanges.
At issue is whether the subsidies will be available in exchanges set up and run by the federal government in states that fail or refuse to establish their own exchanges.
Critics say the law allows subsidies only for people who obtain coverage through state-run exchanges. The White House says the law can be read to allow subsidies for people who get coverage in federal exchanges as well.
The law says that “each state shall” establish an exchange. But Washington could be running the exchanges in one-third to half of states, where local officials have been moving slowly or openly resisting the idea.
The dispute has huge practical implications. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that 23 million uninsured people will gain coverage through exchanges and that all but five million of them will qualify for subsidies… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <NY Times>
This should not fly. The intent of the law is clear. States are required to set up exchanges. The ability of the federal government to set up exchanges is provided only as a remedy to be used when states willfully violate the law. The notion that a states residents may be punished by state governments, because those state governments refused to meet their legal obligations, is absurd. Nevertheless, there is no depth to which Republicans will not stoop.
Every penny Democrats spend on providing health care for worthy families
is a penny Republicans can’t give to unworthy billionaires!
10 Responses to “Republicans Plan to Keep YOU Uncovered”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
There are a lot of RepublicanT governors who are already saying they will do everything in their power to oppose this law. How about we arrest some of them for "breaking the law"?
Patty, this is a civil matter, not criminal.
"This should not fly. The intent of the law is clear. States are required to set up exchanges."
In Florida here, Governor Rick Scott the Medicare Thief refuses to comply with the law… Put him in the Can (jail)…
Love it, but see my reply to Patty.
I find it incredible that Republican/Teabagger governors feel they can opt out with not so much as a 'by your leave' to the people they govern, nor to the law that was upheld by SCOTUS. I suppose these 'opt outees' are going to try to take this issue to SCOTUS now in hopes of dragging things out further. And then there is their cheering section, Sarah 'Guano Bimbo' Palin who is shouting "Be tough!".
I'm with Patty, flaunting the law — arrest these idiots for breaking the law. There is no doubt that it is intentional as is nothing more than an ideological tactic.
Vote Democratic 2012!!!!! Vote Obama/Biden 2012!!!!!
Here is an article from the Toronto Globe and Mail about Canadian expats in the US and US health insurance.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/expats-debate-why-health-insurance-is-a-matter-of-personal-freedom-and-some-us-health-care-horror-stories/article4386934/
The bit about libertarians and their freedom of choice took me back to that first Republican/Teabagger debate in Florida where the crowd yelled "Let him die". And if emergency care were not available, I guess that means that the libertarians have the freedom to die prematurely too!
Lynn, the remedy is not criminal. It's having the feds set up the exchanges.
Excellent link. You guys must be scratching your heads and saying, "Eh?"
Apparently these Republican governors are mostly interested in supporting their party than the people who elected. them.
The people who elected them are fools. Republicans are betting on them staying foolish.
So if States refused to cover, and we still have the mandate, could that be an open door to single payer?
I don't see how, Steve. Single Payer would never have been passed before. Given the makeuo of Congress, it's even less likely now.