Quote:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/08/thousands-still-reportedly-face-coverage-delays-months-after-obamacare/

Thousands still reportedly face coverage delays months after ObamaCare enrollment deadline

Months after the deadline to enroll in a health insurance plan through ObamaCare has come and gone, thousands of Americans have found themselves without coverage due to backlogs or glitches in various enrollment systems, according to a published report.

The Wall Street Journal reports that people in states like Massachusetts, California, and Nevada selected and paid for a private health insurance plan through state-run exchanges, only to find that they were not insured. Others have waited futilely for changes to their coverage brought about by marriage, childbirth or other "life events" to take effect.

As a result, some say they have put off seeking medical treatment or have paid out of pocket for certain expenses.

In Nevada, approximately 150 people have turned to litigation, filing a class-action suit against the state-run exchange and Xerox Corp., which helped set it up.

One of those plaintiffs, Robert Rolain, tells the Journal that he signed up his wife, Linda, this past October for a health plan through the state exchange that was due to take effect March 1. In the interim period, doctors found a tumor on his wife's brain and planned surgery. When Rolain brought his wife to an oncologist to have the procedure done, he was told she wasn't covered, and the surgery was pushed back two months, to May 14. A little more than a month later, Linda Rolain was dead
[...]

Quote:

 

http://www.newsweek.com/decision-case-could-destroy-obamacare-expected-imminentl-257561

Decision Imminent in Case Challenging Obamacare Subsidies

In what could be another blow to the Affordable Care Act following the Hobby Lobby ruling last week, a little-known court case threatens to further unravel President Barack Obama’s health care reform law. A federal appeals court for the D.C. Circuit will soon rule on Halbig v. Sebelius, a case that seeks to block Obamacare subsidies already obtained by more than 5 million people in order to afford the insurance plans they got through Healthcare.gov. A decision could be made in the case by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit as early as Tuesday, CNBC reports.

The heart of the problem lies in the legality of the subsidies. Several catastrophic attempts at state exchanges (like Nevada’s)—as well as the failure by some states to even set up their own exchanges—meant the federal government had to step in and take over. The plaintiffs argue that the tax credits were legal only for people who bought insurance through state-based exchanges, not the federal exchange. Considering that nearly 90 percent of the federal exchange’s insurance enrollees were eligible for subsidies because of low or moderate incomes, there is the potential for an enormous setback that could send millions back into the ranks of the uninsured. Without those subsidies, health insurance plans under the Affordable Care Act could very well become unaffordable.

Other potential consequences include the “death spiral,” where premium rates threaten to skyrocket because of a dearth of young, healthy enrollees and too many sick ones, and the possibility that businesses in some affected states won’t be required to provide coverage for their employees.

[...]

Quote:

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/will-the-supreme-court-get-another-shot-at-obamacare/

Will the Supreme Court get another shot at Obamacare?
By Stephanie Condon/July 8, 2014

The Supreme Court last week chipped away at one part of the Affordable Care Act, but its ruling in the Hobby Lobby contraception case left most of Obamacare intact. Other court cases, however, are making their way through the court system in an attempt to deliver a more fatal blow to the controversial law.

As early as this week, a three-judge panel from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is expected to hand down a ruling on whether the federal government can give subsidies to Obamacare recipients in states with federally-run health care exchanges. If the appeals court rules in favor of the law's opponents, it could cripple the law. More than half of the states rely on federally-run marketplaces, and were subsidies not available in those states, Obamacare could be too costly for many customers.

The case, Halbig v. Burwell, rests on how the court system interprets a poorly-worded sentence in the Affordable Care Act.

Section 1311 of the law says the federal government will give subsidies to eligible consumers who buy insurance from an exchange "established by the State." The Halbig suit -- and three other similar cases -- argue that, consequently, subsidies aren't available to customers in the 34 Obamacare exchanges that were established by the federal government. (Here's a list of which states have state-run exchanges and which have federally-run exchanges: http://kff.org/health-reform/state-indicator/health-insurance-exchanges/ )

Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, and Jonathan Adler of Case Western Reserve University School of Law first made the case against the subsidies, arguing that Congress wanted the subsidies to serve as a reward for states that established their own exchanges. Obamacare's "congressional sponsors created incentives for states to implement much of the law and reasonably expected that states would do so," they wrote.

However, there's no need to guess congressional intent given the law was passed by Congress four years ago. In fact, seven high-ranking Democrats who helped craft Obamacare, as well as dozens of state lawmakers, filed a brief in the case to explain the true intent of the law.

"The purpose of the tax credit provision was to facilitate access to affordable insurance through the Exchanges--not, as Appellants would have it, to incentivize the establishment of state Exchanges above all else, and certainly not to thwart Congress's fundamental purpose of making insurance affordable for all Americans," they wrote.

Nicholas Bagley, an expert in health law at the University of Michigan Law School, told CBS News that the "the challenger's argument about legislative intent is pretty adventurous."

The argument, he said, attempts to "exploit poorly-drafted statutory language and transform that into a radical re-conceptualization of what the Affordable Care Act was meant to do."

Steven Schwinn, a professor at the John Marshall Law School in Chicago, agreed that the legal basis for the challenge focuses intently on one poorly-drafted phrase.

"So much of the language of the act makes clear the congressional intent was to extend subsidies to federal exchanges," he said. "When you look beyond one sentence... I think the picture is quite clear what's going on in the Affordable Care Act."

Still, during the oral arguments in March, at least one of the three judges from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals panel was skeptical of the administration's arguments in the case.

Should the Obama administration lose, it would very likely request an en banc hearing, Bagley explained, which would require all 11 active judges on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider the case. Given that most of the judges were appointed by Democrats, the administration would have a better chance of winning that round. Yet if the government lost again, it would likely ask the Supreme Court to review the case.

"If the government asks the Supreme Court to review the case, it would be very likely to accept review, especially on an issue of this importance," Bagley said.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration is fending off a challenge to the Affordable Care Act on another front in Wisconsin. On Monday, a federal judge considered whether Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., should be allowed to proceed with his lawsuit against the ACA. Specifically, the lawsuit challenges the federal subsidies for lawmakers and congressional staffers who purchase health insurance through Obamacare exchanges.

The controversy stems from a provision in the law requiring congressmen and their staff to get their insurance from the state-based health care exchanges -- in order to ensure members of Congress weren't receiving special treatment. However, that meant that members of Congress and their staff were the only people in America directly cut off from their employer-provided health insurance subsidies because of Obamacare (whether or not other Americans have been off as an indirect result of the law is a different story). This was particularly troublesome for low-paid staffers.

To work around this problem, the administration crafted a compromise rule, allowing congressional employees getting insurance through the exchanges to still get employer contributions to their premiums.

"It's Congress' role to actually make or change or repeal laws," Johnson said outside of the courthouse on Monday. "They can't do it through presidential fiat."

Before Johnson can proceed with the case, a federal judge needs to determine whether or not the senator has standing -- in other words, whether he has a personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit or has been personally harmed by the president's actions. Johnson argues he has standing because he and other lawmakers were "asked to be complicit in something we do not believe to be lawful." Additionally, he said that providing his staff with subsidies could harm his reputation with his constituents.

Schwinn called the argument "bizarre," given that the Obama administration in this case is actually trying to help, rather than harm, Johnson's staff. He added, "It doesn't even really help them," but rather "puts them in the position they were in prior to the Affordable Care Act."

"It's a very bizarre theory to get into federal court, and in my view underscores the political nature of this challenge and so many challenges to Obamacare," Schwinn said.

After Monday's hearing on the standing issue, Johnson said he was encouraged that U.S. District Judge William Griesbach even entertained his arguments, the Green Bay Press-Gazette reported. The judge said he would issue a ruling on the matter of Johnson's standing in "short order."

• 
  
• “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
  — The First Amendment

Quote:

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/211700-democrats-unveil-bill-to-reverse-hobby-lobby-ruling

Senate Democrats unveil legislation to reverse high court's Hobby Lobby ruling

Senate Democrats introduced legislation on Wednesday to effectively reverse the Supreme Court’s decision last week exempting some employers from having to provide insurance coverage for contraception.

The law would bar for-profit corporations from seeking exemptions from the Affordable Care Act’s mandate that their health plans cover contraception costs. Religious institutions would still be able to opt out.
“Our bill simply says that your boss cannot get between you and your own healthcare,” Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) told reporters. Murray is the bill’s chief sponsor.

[...]

The measure would prevent for-profit corporations from seeking exemptions to any law based on the religious convictions of the employers, noted Marcia Greenberger, co-president of the National Women’s Law Center and a supporter.

[...]

Quote:

 

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/07/09/Why-Obamacare-We-Know-It-May-Not-Survive

Why Obamacare As We Know It May Not Survive

...[Harvard legal scholar Laurence H.] Tribe, 72, a prominent proponent of the Affordable Care Act – who taught both Obama and Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts as constitutional law students at Harvard Law School years ago – warned of the ACA’s prospects for surviving intact during an exclusive, hour-long interview in New York with editors of The Fiscal Times. - See more at:

..."It looks like the panel is quite divided over what to do with what might [have been] an inadvertent error in the legislation or might have been quite deliberate,” Tribe said. “But it’s very specific that only people that go onto a state exchange are eligible for the subsidies. And if that becomes the ultimate holding of the U.S. Supreme Court, where this is likely to end up – that’s going to have massive practical implications for the administrability of Obamacare.”

..."I don't have a crystal ball, but I wouldn't bet the family farm on this coming out in a way that preserves Obamacare."

...“You could argue that as long as a state triggers it by asking the federal government to come in [and establish insurance exchanges] that it’s a state-established exchange, even though it’s a federally run exchange,” Tribe added. That might give some of the justices who aren’t strict constructionists some leeway in looking beyond the law’s specific language, he said.

Quote:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/11/us/politics/boehner-says-obama-lawsuit-will-focus-on-health-law.html
Suit Against Obama to Focus on Health Law, Boehner Says

Speaker John A. Boehner’s lawsuit against President Obama will focus on changes to the health care law that Mr. Boehner says should have been left to Congress, according to a statement issued Thursday by the speaker’s office.

By narrowly focusing the legal action on the Affordable Care Act, Mr. Boehner will sidestep the more politically problematic issue involving Mr. Obama’s executive action offering work permits for some illegal immigrants who were brought to the United States as children
[...]

Quote:

 

http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/10/boehner-will-sue-obama-over-obamacare-employer-mandate/?advD=1248,153371
Boehner Will Sue Obama Over Obamacare Employer Mandate
....“In 2013, the president changed the health care law without a vote of Congress, effectively creating his own law by literally waiving the employer mandate and the penalties for failing to comply with it,” Boehner said Thursday. “That’s not the way our system of government was designed to work. No president should have the power to make laws on his or her own.”

Quote:

 

http://www.cato.org/blog/delaying-employer-mandate-requires-delaying-all-obamacare?utm_content=buffer0cde5&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Delaying the Employer Mandate Requires Delaying All of Obamacare
July 3, 2013

... the Obama administration has abused nearly every power it possesses–and asserted powers it clearly does not possess–to protect Obamacare. A partial list of abuses:

• 
  
• •Obamacare, which Congress passed and President Obama signed, literally and immediately forbade the administration to provide health insurance to members of Congress and their staffs through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. That is, federal law required the Obama administration to throw nearly all members of Congress and congressional staff out of their health plans. But because that might lead Congress to reopen the statute, the Obama administration decided to keep providing that coverage to members and staff in violation of federal law, and has been doing so for three years.
  
  
• •Shortly after its enactment, Obamacare began increasing health insurance premiums. To prevent a(n even greater) backlash, Obama’s HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius started waiving select mandates for select companies and unions. Congress gave her no authority to issue such waivers.
  
  
• •When health insurers began to inform customers how much Obamacare was increasing their premiums, Sebelius threatened to use her powers under the law to bankrupt any insurer that conveyed an unapproved message about the law. All insurers quickly complied.
  
  
• •As it became clear that dozens of states would refuse to implement Obamacare’s health insurance “exchanges,” the IRS announced it would implement the law’s tax credits, subsidies, and taxes in states with federal fallback exchanges – even though Obamacare clearly, repeatedly, consistently, and intentionally prohibits the IRS from doing so. The IRS has literally asserted the authority to tax, borrow, and spend more than $1 trillion contrary to the express will of Congress.
  
  
• •Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling that the federal government cannot coerce states into implementing Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion, the Obama administration continues to coerce states into implementing most of the expansion’s provisions. The Court’s opinion flatly contradicts the administration’s claim that the ruling applied only to one part of the expansion.
  
  
• •When it became clear that Congress would not fund Obamacare’s implementation, Sebelius decided she would again substitute her judgment for Congress’s by using money Congress had dedicated to other purposes. She has since approached companies she regulates to shake them down, tacitly, for funds to implement the law.

[...]

Quote:

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/obamacare-lowers-uninsured-108789.html

The verdict is in: Obamacare lowers uninsured
[That was a given when you count Medicaid]

The evidence is piling up now: Obamacare really does seem to be helping the uninsured.

Survey after survey is showing that the number of uninsured people has been going down since the start of enrollment last fall. The numbers don’t all match, and health care experts say they’re not precise enough to give more than a general idea of the trend.

But by now, the trend is unmistakable: Millions of people who didn’t have health insurance before the Affordable Care Act have gained it since last fall. The law is not just covering people who already had health coverage, but adding new people to the ranks of the insured — which was the point of the law all along.

There’s still a lot of variation in the numbers, too much for health care experts to pin down an exact number with any confidence. But even health care analysts who think the law is a bad idea acknowledge that the evidence suggests the uninsured are being helped. Given the predictions of doom that accompanied the law’s passage and launch, that’s a sweet bit of vindication for the president and ACA supporters.

“It will be better when we’ve got a whole year behind us, so we can tell how much [in the surveys] was noise and how much was reality,” said Douglas Holtz-Eakin of the conservative American Action Forum, a frequent critic of the law. “Having said that, it sure looks like there are more people covered, and that’s a good thing.”

A survey by the Commonwealth Fund found that 9.5 million fewer adults are uninsured now than at the beginning of the Obamacare enrollment season. The Urban Institute’s Health Reform Monitoring Survey found a similar drop, with 8 million adults gaining coverage. And Gallup-Healthways survey reported that the uninsured rate has fallen to 13.4 percent of adults, the lowest level since it began tracking health coverage in 2008.

That was all on Thursday. In recent months, other surveys in the Gallup series have consistently found the same downward trend, and a RAND survey in April estimated that the law extended health coverage to 9.3 million Americans.

That’s not going to end the fights over the health care law — not even close. Republicans say the debate isn’t just about whether the law has helped uninsured people, but about all the side effects, like canceled health plans, higher premiums for some people with individual health insurance, reduced work hours for part-time employees, and the long-term costs to the nation.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who led the battle to defund the law last fall and could fight it again on the presidential campaign trail in 2016, insists the new surveys don’t change the debate at all — because the real issue, in his view, is still the disruption of the canceled plans and higher premiums.

“Four years ago, before the law was implemented, it was possible to have good-faith disagreements about whether the law would work,” Cruz told POLITICO on Thursday. “Today, seeing the utter disaster that has played out … to me, it is the essence of pragmatism to realize that the law isn’t working, and to repeal it and start over.”

And even though the law’s performance has stabilized since the clumsy rollout last fall, there are plenty of ways the side effects could still flare up again — through big premium increases for next year (they’ve been modest so far), another possible round of canceled plans and the potential for angry customers next year if they’ve received too much in subsidies and have to pay them back.

“The Republican argument was never that a trillion or two dollars would never cover any more uninsured. It was that the cost of doing so in higher health care costs and premiums, cancelled policies, increased government control of health care, and a myriad other negatives—were not worth it,” said Republican pollster Whit Ayres.” That argument still holds.”

But the latest surveys have been a huge morale boost for the Obama administration and congressional Democrats, who now have armfuls of statistics to prove that the law is doing what it’s supposed to do: help the uninsured.
[....]

From last post:

 

Commonwealth Fund found that 9.5 million fewer adults are uninsured now than at the beginning of the Obamacare enrollment season.

The Urban Institute’s Health Reform Monitoring Survey found a similar drop, with 8 million adults gaining coverage.

Gallup-Healthways survey reported that the uninsured rate has fallen to 13.4 percent of adults, the lowest level since it began tracking health coverage in 2008.

RAND survey in April estimated that the law extended health coverage to 9.3 million Americans.