February 1, 2016
If the House wins its ObamaCare lawsuit, the ruling would be an unprecedented rebuke of a president for brazenly usurping the power of the purse that the Constitution entrusts to Congress.
But the celebration may not last long, because the GOP may be in for a shocker: Eliminating $130 billion or so in unappropriated funds that the Obama administration has carved out for ObamaCare may significantly increase the cost of the law.
That’s the surprising conclusion of a new Urban Institute study which finds that total ObamaCare costs will rise by $47 billion over 10 years if a court ruling nixes the spending program which compensates insurers for reducing deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs charged to low-income policy holders.
Source: If House Wins ObamaCare Lawsuit, Buckle Up For Wild Ride | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis – IBD
January 27, 2016
Some Obamacare enrollees may pay an extra $1,040 if the House’s lawsuit against Obamacare succeeds in stripping funding for the law’s cost-sharing reductions, a new analysis finds.A brief released Wednesday by the center-left think tank Urban Institute concluded that an abrupt halt of payments to insurers for covering low-income enrollees could lead them to pull out of the marketplace or mean enrollees paying higher premiums.
Source: House lawsuit could doom Obamacare: Report | Washington Examiner
October 14, 2015
The Eighth Circuit Court has created the opportunity for religious freedom to win again in the Supreme Court. But it is Judge Daniel Manion of the Seventh Circuit Court who supplies the arguments that should triumph, for everyone’s freedom.
Source: The HHS Mandate: The Legal Argument that Should Prevail at the Supreme Court | Public Discourse
April 28, 2015
If the Supreme Court decides against the Obama administration in the case, leaders in Congress are indeed determined to pass legislation to protect coverage for an estimated six million people. ObamaCare has so distorted the market for individually-purchased and small group health insurance that Congress has little choice but to throw them a safety net.
via Cleaning Up The ObamaCare Mess.
April 16, 2015
Today the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) released a report by finance expert Scot Vorse that shows many states knew as early as 2011 that they might not receive tax credits if they opted out of establishing a state-based health insurance exchange. Whether nonparticipating states had adequate knowledge that they were putting their Obamacare subsidies at risk is a critical question in CEI’s Supreme Court case, King v. Burwell.
Vorse obtained emails related to a January 2012 letter sent by seven states to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). While Obamacare supporters have dismissed this letter as a “spoof,” these state emails show the letter was a carefully crafted and coordinated effort by the states to get detailed information about the exchanges from HHS.
“Notably, the states explicitly asked HHS to explain what authority it had to administer tax credits on federally established exchanges,” Vorse writes.
via New Report Shows States Had Serious Questions about Obamacare Tax Credits in 2011 | Competitive Enterprise Institute.
April 15, 2015
University of Miami Business Law Review.
Full text: http://business-law-review.law.miami.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Miller-Unfair-Coercion-or-Greater-Deference.pdf
April 2, 2015
If the insurer offers no other plan in a state’s individual market, then the law bars the insurer for five years from offering individual market coverage in that state. Should an insurer actually exit the market in this way, it must give those enrolled in the plan 180 days (six months) notice, and anyone losing coverage would be allowed to choose replacement coverage from among the other plans offered by the other insurers in that state’s individual market—regardless of whether those plans are offered inside or outside the exchange.
The bottom line? Anyone affected by the Court’s ruling will have options for maintaining coverage or choosing a different plan.
via How King v. Burwell Could Affect Obamacare Enrollees.