The Affordable Care Act

[bobabode]

In my home, the Golden State of California, uninsured rate is halved.

"Rate of uninsured Californians is halved under Obamacare, survey finds." LATimes

http://www.latimes.com/business/heal...709-story.html

"The percentage of Californians without health insurance was cut in half in the last nine months during the federal health law's expansion of coverage, a new survey shows.
Nationwide, an estimated 9.5 million adults under the age of 65 gained health insurance between late summer 2013 and last month, according to a survey the Commonwealth Fund released Thursday.
The findings suggest that the Affordable Care Act is beginning to achieve its central goal.- Sara Collins, Commonwealth Fund

Those gains during the rollout of Obamacare dropped the nation's rate of uninsured from 20% last year to 15% now. The change was even larger in California with the proportion of uninsured declining from 22% in late summer 2013 to 11% by early June, the survey found.
A separate report in December said there were an estimated 7 million Californians without health insurance in 2012, or 21.2% of the state's population, according to the California HealthCare Foundation. That was the seventh-highest percentage in the country at the time.
California officials expect more detailed figures on how many residents are newly insured to be available this fall from a statewide survey."

[icenine]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5615052.html



Idiotic judges want to kick 10 million off of it.

[bobabode]

http://www.latimes.com/business/hilt...mn.html#page=1

"For a brief moment Tuesday, it looked as though the Affordable Care Act was in big trouble, for a three-judge panel of the federal appeals court for the District of Columbia had overturned federal insurance subsidies for insurance buyers in 36 states.
But the triumph of conservatives' latest "not-so-veiled attempt to gut" the act (I am quoting from Judge Harry Edwards' dissent from the 2-1 majority ruling in the case of Halbig v. Burwell) was short-lived. Within a few hours, three judges of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting in Richmond, ruled the other way in King v. Burwell, upholding the insurance subsidies.
The availability of credits...confronts Klemencic with a choice he'd rather avoid: purchase health insurance at...less than $21 per year or pay a somewhat greater tax penalty.- Judge Thomas Griffith, Halbig v. Burwell

Most legal observers expect the Obama Administration to appeal the D.C. panel's ruling to the full 11-member court, whose Democratic-appointed majority is considered likely to uphold the subsidies. Whether the issue makes it to the Supreme Court is uncertain: If the appeals courts both end up supporting the subsidies, the Supreme Court might let their opinions stand." LATimes

[whell]

Originally Posted by bobabode

[URL]
Most legal observers expect the Obama Administration to appeal the D.C. panel's ruling to the full 11-member court, whose Democratic-appointed majority is considered likely to uphold the subsidies. Whether the issue makes it to the Supreme Court is uncertain: If the appeals courts both end up supporting the subsidies, the Supreme Court might let their opinions stand." LATimes

Interesting. The LA Times apparently believes that loyalty to the Party should trump the rule of law.

Someone queue the Beatles tune "Back in the USSR".

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by whell

Interesting. The LA Times apparently believes that loyalty to the Party should trump the rule of law.

Someone queue the Beatles tune "Back in the USSR".

That's funny dude. Stuck in the 1970's are we?

[bobabode]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...6ed_story.html

I guess legislating from the bench is A-OK with folk like Whell, if it's judicial activism from the right.

"As Judge Andre M. Davis wrote in a concurrence to the 4th Circuit ruling: “Neither the canons of construction nor any empirical analysis suggests that congressional drafting is a perfectly harmonious, symmetrical and elegant endeavor. . . . Sausage-makers are indeed offended when their craft is linked to legislating.”
Here’s what the two Republican-appointed judges on the D.C. panel did to make the sausage disappear entirely: Because the subsidies are established in a part of the law referring to state exchanges, the D.C. Circuit ruled that no one on the federal exchange is eligible for them." WaPo

[JBS...]

Originally Posted by bobabode

That's funny dude. Stuck in the 1970's are we?

That would be the 60's Bob

[Pio1980]

If there is a rational ethical reason to oppose the concept the ACA espouses I have yet to see it here, and the economic equivalent comparison that could be used as argument with seat belt and motorcycle/ bicycle helmet requirements fails to impress as anything but irresponsible symbolism.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by whell

Interesting. The LA Times apparently believes that loyalty to the Party should trump the rule of law.

Someone queue the Beatles tune "Back in the USSR".

Interesting. You ascribe the word 'should' to the LA Timies when nothing like it is found in the original. The LA Times just reported what is 'expected,' without delving into whether it should or should not be so.

Accusing the LA Times of advocating something 'USSR-like' when they did not is arguing with a LIE, isn't it?

[nailer]

Originally Posted by whell

Interesting. The LA Times apparently believes that loyalty to the Party should trump the rule of law.

Someone queue the Beatles tune "Back in the USSR".

As retorts go, this is a good one.