Immaterial. The LAW is not popular

Competition and choice are increasing. In the 41 states releasing exchange participation
carrier data, the number of health insurers increased by 26 percent between 2014 and
2015.2 In the 19 states with complete filings, the number of products grew 66 percent,
with most in the silver tier.
 Gross premiums for most 2014 plans are likely to increase. In the 19 states, proposed
gross premiums are increasing for 65 percent of all exchange renewal products (plans
offered in 2014 that were re-filed for 2015).
3 In 2015, therefore, enrollees could see a median increase of 4 percent when they receive their renewal notifications.
4 However, the actual increase they pay could be less than half that amount, given that many people will have the option of switching to a lower-price plan.
Price leadership volatility is high; in many rating areas, proposed 2015 premiums are
lower than 2014 premiums. Because price leadership is likely to turn over in 59 percent of
the rating areas, over half of QHP-eligible individuals could have a new lowest-price
carrier (either a higher-priced 2014 competitor that lowered prices substantially or an
aggressively priced new entrant). Two-thirds of the rating areas with a less expensive
lowest-price silver plan in 2015 have a new price leader.
 The changes in net premiums for the subsidy-eligible are likely to vary significantly. Net
premiums (the cost of products after subsidies) for the lowest-price silver plans are likely
to increase for 70 percent of subsidy-eligible individuals in the 19 states and decrease for
29 percent of that population (1 percent will see no change). The extent of the potential
increases and decreases varies by market and income; individuals at the high end of
subsidy eligibility (200 to 400 percent FPL5) are likely to see the highest increases.

If there's one thing Americans cannot tolerate, it's finding out they've been duped. Obama is at 39 or 40 percent. It won't be long until these days will be "the good old days" for him.

Is the McKinsey Center for Health Care a truly "Neutral" source? Or is it another Obama-Cheerleader made to look respectable?

It depends on who you ask, Ricky. But he's right: there is a lot of disgruntlement over the law. I have observed that some of it comes from people who thought they were getting free health care

freeman3 wrote:You know, we're not talking about something that happened 40 years ago...we were here when the ACA was passed. Increasing health coverage was always a huge part of how the ACA was presented. And what the poll numbers suggest is that a healthy majority people prefer having the ACA to not having the ACA. That's the key. Since the Republicans have no serious ideas on health care, the ACA is staying. And don't be too sure of any part of the ACA being gotten rid of without Obama's consent--that will take Democratic votes and there will be a lot of pressure on Democrats to not embarrass the president.

freeman3 wrote:Yeah, your best bet is with the Supreme Court. I read the two cases and I think a rational Supreme Court would look at the conflicting provisions and essentially find that there is no conceivable reason to have people on state exchanges have access to tax credit while those on federal exchanges don't, and the conflict is a result of sloppy draftmanship and not congressional intent, but we shall see. The following is my favorite case on statutory construction, a court looking at a case and deciding whether an "and" should be read as an "or". http://law.justia.com/cases/california/ ... supp6.html

I don't think the Supreme Court needs to go far as that case did in interpreting the statute in a reasonable manner.

By this way article has cites to the two cases if you are interested. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/08/us/po ... .html?_r=0

freeman3 wrote:Mr. Gruber said in January 2012 that “if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits" . Do you have a source for the claim that it was done to bribe Red states?

Here is an explanation for why he said that:

" Tim Jost, a Washington and Lee University law professor and longtime backer of the health-care overhaul, said Friday afternoon that when Mr. Gruber made his remarks, it wasn’t known whether the federal government had the ability to operate exchanges on behalf of the states. Mr. Jost said that by January 2012, the federal government had already proposed offering tax credits to people using the federally run exchanges and that Mr. Gruber would have known this.

“What I think he meant was that at that point in 2012 it wasn’t clear whether the federal exchange would be up and running in 2014, so that if you as a state want to make sure that people in your state get premium tax credits, you’ll be safer if you set up a state exchange,” Mr. Jost said.



http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/07/2 ... dy-debate/

It sure did not make sense to threaten people that they could not get tax credits if they did not set up a state exchange when the federal government was already offering tax credits on the federal exchanges.

See, this is why it pays for Republicans to wait a couple of years and then take comments out of context.

What’s important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits—but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that's a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this.

What exactly is an Obama cheerleader? Name a few and explain why they are so

You might test some of your perceptions about things in the poll on perceptions.
Personal experience generally is the one thing that can alter some of these perceptions

freeman3 wrote:First, here are some responses to the charge that the American people were lied to with regard to the bill.
http://m.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/13/ ... nbsp-wrong
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1202 ... tory-wrong

As to Gruber's comments supporting the Supreme Court case (1) he did not write the bill, and (2) it's pretty difficult to argue that the bill's intent was to coerce Red states into setting up state exchanges or else they would not get tax credits (as if Red States would put the interests of their poor over obstructing Obamacare anyway) when the whole point of the Supreme Court case was that tax credits were given regardless of whether state exchanges were set up. What's the argument--they somehow changed their mind on this? I have not heard a coherent argument on this from Republicans.

Now if the point was to lie about whether people get tax credit in states without exchanges then unless you can find a more extensive campaign than Gruber, well, then that 's on Gruber. Maybe he lied about the effect or maybe he was mistaken about the bill. Given that there is no evidence that anyone else was saying what he said about tax credits and that tax credits were ultimately given regardless of whether a state exchange was set up (and this was already publicly stated by the federal government in 2012), I would say he was just mistaken.
Also see this.http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1188 ... as-mistake

If the whole point was to coerce Red states into compliance wouldn't you expect more than a legion of one person saying it one time? For Red states to be blackmailed don't they have to know about it first? One person saying it one time does not exactly get out the message very well.