I was out of town all day yesterday, having flown down to Atlanta, Georgia to address the Society of Actuaries conference. It was a small audience but went very well; a great group and an interesting experience. I was up at 5am to catch the flight down, caught the red eye back at midnight and then had to get my kid to an MRI appointment this morning (nothing serious, it went fine; he has to take it easy the rest of the day while recovering from the anesthesia, but otherwise all is well). Needless to say, I'm pretty exhausted myself.
So...did I miss anything ACA-related the past day or so?
1. The King v. Burwell decision was not announced this morning, so we'll all be alternately twiddling our thumbs and holding our breath until at least Monday.
...because apparently King v. Burwell will be causing them for at least another 4 days.
No decision announced by the Supreme Court today. That leaves Monday the 22nd or Monday the 29th, unless they squeeze in another opinion day in between.
Mild touch of irony: As I noted the other day, the main reason I'm not in a position to post detailed entries this morning is because I'm at the hospital waiting for my son to undergo an MRI.
If the Supreme Court does side with the Republican Party/CATO Institute and kills federal exchange tax credits, we'd be among those who'd lose them.
Now, to be fair, it's a relatively small amount for us, so losing the credits wouldn't destroy us financially. In addition, thankfully, in my son's case, it's not a serious issue.
Even so, we would be among those who'd likely see a massive rate hike (on the order of 50% or more here in Michigan)...meaning that it's conceivable that we wouldn't be able to afford the procedure, say, 7 months from now.
Now, take our situation, increase the seriousness of the medical problem while lowering the household income level somewhat, and the situation becomes far more dire.
As I noted the other day, I'm flying out to Atlanta, Georgia early tomorrow morning to address the Society of Actuaries annual convention (expo? whatever), and won't be back until after midnight. Then, Thursday morning, my kid has an MRI scheduled (nothing serious, but it can't be rescheduled). As a result, I'll be either unavailable or completely wiped until at least Thursday afternoon.
Seeing how the Supreme Court has added Thursday morning (at 10am) to their list of decision announcement dates, there's a 1 in 3 chance that the King v. Burwell decision will be announced right in the middle of the procedure (although most experts seem to think they'll hold off until the 29th anyway).
This means, of course, that several hours could pass after the announcement before I'm able to write anything about it. The irony of this is not lost on me.
In any event, if they make the Big Announcement and any reporters/pundits/etc. wants a reaction/quote from me, please hold off until at least noonish, ok? Thanks!
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.
