Millions risk losing cover as Justices take up Obamacare Challenge

This piece shows how many residents could lose health insurance in states that are challenging the ACA on the basis of if the law can provide subsidies in states without their own exchanges. This move could backfire on the governors of these states if it ends up hurting their constituents. This also proves something that many supporters of the ACA said during the debate to pass the law and the early days of implementation. While the law seemed unpopular as more people used the law they would find the benefits from it very helpful.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...97f6aa-ae50-11e4-ad71-7b9eba0f87d6_story.html

Millions at risk of losing coverage as justices take up challenge to Obamacare

Erin Meredith, a fifth-generation Republican who lives in Austin, was no fan of President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, which she considered just another wasteful government handout. She didn’t sign up for a health plan until late last year, when she felt she had no other choice.

By then, Meredith, who is 37 and has two children, had gotten divorced and lost the insurance provided through her husband. Her new job, as an office manager for a roofing company, didn’t offer benefits. About the same time, she learned that her headaches and fatigue were the result of a rare condition that affects the oxygen level in her blood. She couldn’t afford to spend thousands of dollars on doctor’s visits, and her desperation slowly turned to panic.

In November, at a friend’s urging, Meredith looked for a health plan on the federal online marketplace. With an income of about $30,000 a year, she discovered she qualified for a government subsidy of $132 a month. Her premium would be $89 a month.

Now that she has coverage, she doesn’t want to lose it. “I can still feed my kids and put gas in my car,” she said. “I’m not trying to go to Cancun or carry a Michael Kors bag. I drive a 2009 Mazda, and I’m just trying to make it in my little apartment and not be on government assistance.”

Meredith is one of about 6 million people whose subsidized insurance hangs in the balance as the Supreme Court takes up a case that poses the most serious challenge to the Affordable Care Act since the court found the law constitutional more than two years ago.

The plaintiffs in King v. Burwell insist that people who buy coverage on the federal exchange are not entitled to subsidies, noting that the law says financial help is available for those who enroll through exchanges “established by the State.” The Obama administration argues that Congress clearly intended to help everyone who qualifies for it. The oral arguments are scheduled for March 4.

About the only thing both sides agree on is that the subsidies are critical to the health-care law, whose second open enrollment season ended Sunday. If the Supreme Court bars subsidies for people in 34 states, some say, the law will unravel and the number of uninsured will soar. Others say that the White House and Congress may come up with a solution. And still others say that at least some states will rush to set up exchanges. But any alternative would raise a host of legal and practical questions and could be difficult to implement.

Sixteen states and the District of Columbia have created their own exchanges, but three of them — Nevada, New Mexico and Oregon — are having technical problems, so they are using the federal exchange and Web site, HealthCare.gov. The remaining 34 states, including Texas, rely to varying degrees on the federal exchange. Eighty-seven percent of people who have signed up in these states are eligible for subsidies, according to the administration. The average amount is $268 a month, which lowers the premium by 72 percent.

“If they’re not going to participate in Obamacare and I’m not going to have these financial benefits, which will force me to pay $220 a month for coverage, do you know if Greg Abbott, our governor, has any plan to offer something comparable?” Meredith asked in an e-mail. “I understand and support his efforts to put Washington back in its place. I just don’t want that to come at the cost of hard-working Texans and their ability to maintain medical coverage.”

Like Meredith, many of the people who receive subsidies through the federal exchange are white and live in the South, according to a recent Urban Institute analysis. Half have full-time jobs. Many live in states such as Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina and Texas — states led by Republican officials who oppose the health-care law and have balked at setting up their own exchanges. Another big group lives in the Midwest, in states such as Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and Wisconsin.

The health law offers subsidized private insurance to people who can’t get coverage through their job, Medicaid or Medicare. In many cases, people receiving subsidies work as day-care aides, waiters, bartenders and retail clerks. Some are self-employed or early retirees. To qualify for subsidies, they must earn between $11,500 and $46,680 a year as individuals, or between $25,850 and $95,400 for a family of four. In most cases, the payments, which are referred to as tax credits, go directly from the federal government to insurance companies.
more at link.

 

I think many Republicans in Congress see the writing on the wall and will change the law even if the USSC decides against the subsidies. The ACA is gradually doing what Obama and the proponents said it was. As more and more people use it the more popular it will get.