I also noted that if you cross-reference this data with this handy interactive map provided by Enroll America, you can even figure out roughly how many people would be screwed in every county in each state, by dividing the state-wide percentage receiving subsidies by the total number enrolled per county.
No, I'm not the first to use the "Dog Catches Car, Now What?" metaphor for the Republican Party when it comes to King v. Burwell, but I think this classic Warner Bros. cartoon is an even better metaphor...because not only would a ruling for the plaintiffs mean that the dog has finally caught the car, that car has grown much larger since the dog started chasing it.
Back in 2013, when the various "no subsidies for federal exchanges!" cases were originally originally cobbled together by the CATO Institute (there were several essentially identical cases, including King as well as "Halbig v. Sebelius"), ACA exchange enrollments were still theoretical. The websites were either not launched yet or still a mess, and either no one had actually enrolled yet or their healthcare coverage hadn't even kicked into effect yet.
Last week I posted a series of 34 graphics demonstrating just how many people would lose their federal tax credits in the event of the Republican Party winning their King v. Burwell court case at the Supreme Court...along with how much of an unexpected tax hike they'd have to shell out in order to keep their coverage for the rest of 2015. The amount varies by state, but overall it averages just over $1,600 apiece.
This amount is based on a simple formula: These 6.5 million people are receiving an average of $272 in federal tax credits per month. Assuming the Supreme Court cuts off those credits starting in July, that's $272 x 6 months = $1,632 for the rest of this year. Simple.
On All In with Christopher Hayes last night, former GOP Senator Judd Gregg gave an incoherent, nasty and just plain bizarre appearance in which he not only tried to claim that only 4 million people have gained insurance since the ACA was implemented (versus the actual net gain of 14-15 million), but actually tried to mock and insult Hayes when the host tried to correct him...by claiming that Hayes' numbers were the ones which were off.
I'll post the transcript below later, bit here's the actual clip...it's really difficult to capture the sheer craziness of Gregg's ramblings (thanks to Crooks & Liars for the video)
A hospital group in cash-strapped Illinois says the state might be able to set up a health insurance exchange at a lower cost by "leasing" the federal government's technology, an option that could appeal to as many as 34 states where subsides could be jeopardized by an unfavorable U.S. Supreme Court decision.
Schramm has colon cancer. Doctors diagnosed it this fall, after she started feeling stomach pains during an RV trip through Tennessee. Doctors there removed the tumor, and she's now in Austin receiving chemotherapy, which should continue through this summer.
Schramm isn't sure if she will still be able to afford her health insurance come June. She's among the 6.4 million Americans receiving subsidized coverage through Healthcare.gov. A pending Supreme Court case, King v. Burwell, argues that these subsidies are illegal — that the White House does not have the legal authority to give people like Schramm financial help.
...But Schramm doesn't really have the luxury of living without a back-up plan. She knows she needs chemotherapy and knows she can't afford it without health-insurance coverage.
There are 17 decisions left to announce this session, so they could add even more dates, but assuming they don't, this means that the possible decision dates are now reduced to this Thursday, next Monday the 22nd or the following Monday the 29th.
Here's the kicker: If they do make the announcement 3 days from now, I may not be able to post anything about it until several hours later.
For one thing, I'll be pretty exhausted that morning from catching the Red Eye back from Atlanta, Georgia, where I'm addressing the Society of Actuaries on Wednesday the 17th.
I've made a slight modification to The Graph. Instead of projecting just how many would lose their tax credits, the new version plots the likely total loss of actual QHP enrollees either directly (i.e., those who lose their credits...around 6.5 million) or indirectly (i.e, those who are currently paying full price for their premiums but would likely have to drop that coverage due to the massive (50%+) rate hikes being projected by several studies in response to the adverse selection factor...around 1.5 - 2.0 million by my estimates).
Since the ACA requires insurance companies to continue coverage for existing policyholders for 90 days after they fail to make a payment, most of the expected drop-off probably wouldn't officially happen until the end of September (assuming that the tax credits are actually cut off starting with the July premiums).
A couple of weeks ago, I noted that the all five of the Republican Party's assorted "fixes" for their plaintiff winning King v. Burwell have basically been given "junk" status by the American Academy of Actuaries...who aren't exactly known for sticking their noses into public policy debates. These guys are about the least-political, most level-headed bunch around, and they just took a giant dump on the GOP's half-baked KvB "fixes" only a few months after sending a pretty urgent open letter to HHS Secretary Sylvia Burwell in which they stressed that a King plaintiff win, without either Congress or the states taking action to resolve the issue, would likely resolve in massive rate hikes and disruption of the entire individual insurance market.
