Also, I may have forgotten to mention, King is a Vietnam Veteran, and he could get free healthcare through the VA and be exempt from having to buy healthcare insurance out of pocket at all. This entire fight is a scam – what? You thought a limo driver could fund a legal fight all the way to the Supreme Court on his own, did you? You’re so darned cute. King is nothing but a conservative stalking horse who wants to screw six million people out of medical coverage while he himself gets taken care of under a federal healthcare program.
I've written a lot about how the 2016 policy rate increase request numbers flying around in scary-sounding headlines at the moment are misleading for a bunch of reasons:
1. They may not be weighted by company market share
2. They may not be weighted by metal level
3. The percentages listed may be based on relatively small dollar amounts
Of the 6.5 million people who would lose their federal tax credits, and almost certainly their healthcare coverage (completely apart from the additional 6.5 million who would have an economic boulder dropped on them indirectly) in the event of a King v. Burwell plaintiff win, over 1/3 live in just two states: Florida and Texas. 1.34 million Floridians and 846,000 Texans would be be among the direct casualties...close to 2.2 million between the two of them.
Given that both are completely run by off-the-rails batcrap-insane Republicans in the House, Senate and Governor's office, it's safe to say that you can expect a LOT of stories like the following from the Sunshine and Lone Star states.
A new survey finds that 81 percent those enrolled in ObamaCare plans are satisfied with their health insurance.
The survey from the Commonwealth Fund, a health research group, found that 45 percent of people enrolled through ObamaCare’s marketplaces are “somewhat satisfied,” and 36 percent are “very satisfied.” Fifteen percent are not satisfied.
The 81% number refers specifically to ACA exchange-purchased QHPs; it doesn't include off-exchange enrollments or Medicaid expansion. While the survey doesn't break the numbers out this way, I'd be willing to bet that the 15% who aren't satisfied mostly consist of those who also aren't receiving federal tax credits to help pay for the premiums.
David K. Jones is an assistant professor at the Boston University School of Public Health. Nicholas Bagley is an assistant professor of law at the University of Michigan. Over the past week or so, they and their colleagues have posted a series of 3 pieces detailing the King v. Burwell response situation across 5 states currently at risk of losing their subsidies. The first part covered Florida. The second covered my home state of Michigan along with New Hampshire. The final piece looked at North Carolina and Utah.
The whole series is excellent and worth a read. However, there's one particular bit in the North Carolina section which caused me to #FacePalm so hard I may have caused a concussion, and my eyeballs to roll so far back in my head that I may need an ophthalmologist more than Luis Lang:
A state task force is developing a waiver request that would protect Hawaii’s employer-based health coverage law amidst other Affordable Care Act plans to be offered under the federal platform, the executive administration has confirmed.
...One concern is that employers could opt for cheaper federal plans in lieu of the state plans already in place.
Hawaii’s 41-year-old Prepaid Health Care Act requires employers to offer workers robust health insurance plans. Under the prepaid health care law, the Affordable Care Act’s bronze and silver plans are technically not legal in Hawaii.
Four of the nine health insurers selling Obamacare plans in Indiana are expecting to cut their average rates next year, according to filings with the Indiana Department of Insurance.
So, with all the fuss & bother over the imminent King v. Burwell decision, what's the deal here in the Wolverine state?
Well, first of all, here's what's at risk if the Supreme Court rules for the plaintiffs, Congress fails to pass a simple tweaking of the law to resolve the issue and the state administration fails to "establish" an exchange which passes muster with regard to the minimum legal definition required:
In other words, be very careful to understand the context of the "rate increase" story before drawing any conclusions when reading reports of either "excessively high" or "quite reasonable-sounding" 2016 premium rate change requests.
A couple of days ago I noted that the primary damage (but by no means the only damage) of the Supreme Court ruling for the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell would be for appx. 6.5 million people to have to shell out an average of over $1,600 in extra taxesthis year to keep their current healthcare policy through the end of 2015, plus a likely average 493% hike in premium rates if they want to keep the same policies in 2016.
However, seeing one big blobby spreadsheet isn't exactly conducive to capturing people's attention, so I've taken the liberty of whipping up social media-friendly individual state graphics. Feel free to share widely!
