I hate watching videos, so sorry about that--but this one is short! About 20 seconds.
-
I"m not positive it was the right video because it was 1 min 30 sec? But I sort of wish it was longer because I don't really understand. It is saying that healthcare costs for those in 37 states could (will?) go up if the supreme court rules a certain way on the case. But it is talking about government subsidies of healthcare and I wasn't aware that most people get that? Is it talking only about people who have gotten healthcare through the obamacare exchange? In which case this is still a problem but I think it is overreaching to say it affects most of the middle class. Or are those of us who have healthcare through an employer getting government subsidies I'm unaware of and those rates are going to go up?
-
@Mae: it's talking about the states being able to opt out of the government subsidies because there is a clause saying "exchanges set up by the states". (It would only affect the people getting subsidies under ACA, not employer provided health care). In my state's case, even though it is a red state, the exchange was set up by the state, so I'm not sure they'd be able to opt out... But we haven't even done the Medicaid expansion yet. I don't see what is to keep people from moving to blue states for better health care though?
-
@Mrs. Jacks: I don't think it is so easy to just move to another state for better healthcare. Even if your healthcare sucks, unless you are in seriously dire straits the idea of selling your home, finding new jobs, leaving your family and all your friends and possibly the place you have lived your entire life to start a life somewhere else for healthcare is not really a reasonable solution.
-
@Mae: I agree, but for a certain strata of people who don't own a home, have transient jobs or are underemployed, I can see how it would be appealing. I know lots of homeless move to places with better benefits/weather (and I know that's not the same thing).., but you have to have a pretty modest income to qualify for subsidies in many places.
-
Ugh. I feel like this is sort of a step backwards. I won't be directly affected by the decision as I receive healthcare through my employer, but I really feel for the millions of Americans who could lose healthcare coverage.
-
Oh man, from all your comments I'm afraid to even watch the video...DH's employer doesn't offer insurance. We have always paid a ridiculous amount for shitty coverage, and are finally in a slightly better though still at times frustrating place thanks to the subsidies...it's the main reason we've been able to afford me going back to finish my degree. I hate the fact that in this country, if your employer doesn't offer health insurance you're basically screwed.
-
@wonderstruck: I totally agree. What kind of crappy 3rd world country takes away a person's healthcare when they get laid off? Or have a medical issue that means they can't work?
Except we're supposed to be a 1st world country......it's hard to tell sometimes, looking at our social structure, wealth divide, haves and have nots, health care policies, etc.
-
@wonderstruck: I didn't actually watch the video because I don't have my headphones with me, but I Googled the case and this was one of the first articles that came up:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/24/obamacare-supreme-court_n_6746490.html
-
@lawbee11: Thanks, my laptop is old and hates videos so articles are better!
Looks like my state is one that will not be affected by this, but I feel awful for those who will be. If I lived in a different state, I would end up in a situation with two really sick kids, an employer that doesn't offer health insurance, an insurance bill that is more than 25% of our monthly income, plus a super high deductible that leads to high medical bills. It's a horrible situation that most people just ignore unless they are one of the families being directly affected.
I feel like too many Republican politicians are so stuck on sticking it to Obama that they just do not care one bit about figuring out a solution for families in situations like this. The ACA certainly isn't perfect, but I don't see them offering any other realistic options.
-
@lawbee11: So, if I understand it correctly, the issue is that the states that didn't set up their own exchanges are the ones that are affected? Because they didn't, the federal government stepped in and set up an exchange, and those are the ones that are in jeopardy?
-
@looch: That was my understanding of it as well.
-
@looch: Yes, exactly. Here's a list. There are 14 states that have state-based marketplaces. Those are the only ones that would be unaffected.
-
@wonderstruck, @lawbee11: thanks!
-
The WSJ is live-blogging about this (oral arguments are this morning) if anyone is interested:
Reply
Subscribe to our newsletter
- Google Plus
- Stumbleupon
- Twitter
- Facebook
- Pinterest
- Favorite0
14 comments