20 states file to repeal Obamacare

[WOT?*]

I couldn't see this as Trump but maybe a Trump/Republican horsehooey thread wouldn't be amiss.



www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-healthcare/twenty-states-sue-federal-government-seeking-end-to-obamacare-idUSKCN1GB06R

A coalition of 20 U.S. states sued the federal government on Monday over Obamacare, claiming the law was no longer constitutional after the repeal last year of its requirement that people have health insurance or pay a fine.
*
*
*
Paxton and Schimel, both Republicans, were joined in the lawsuit by 18 states including Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Utah and West Virginia. It was filed in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Texas.


So, yeah, based on the states that filed and the forum-shopping that gives Texas jurisdiction, pretty sure this is going to go how we all expect. Not that it really matters.

[mbcdefg]

That'll show him.

[seeyalater52]

Every single health law expert thinks this is a bunch of baloney and the legal “reasoning” makes next to no sense. Certainly from a policy perspective it’s completely illogical, since when if somehow the mandate without the penalty for non-compliance were unconstitutional (which experts agree it is not), it would invalidate only the mandate provision, not the entirety of the ACA. And without the penalty frankly you don’t really need the mandate - in popular understanding the tax bill “repealed the mandate” and the public doesn’t know the difference between repealing the mandate and repealing the penalty for not complying with the mandate, since it’s a meaningless distinction.

So in summary this doesn’t have the health policy community too worked up, since the assumption is that the court will reject it.

ETA: but it does definitely matter! If I’m some alternate universe scenario the cort declared the entirety of the ACA unconstitutional that would be catastrophic - the end of Medicaid expansion, the health insurance exchanges, subsidies for purchasing marketplace coverage, protections for pre-existing conditions, essential health benefits. Now, that’s extremely unlikely to happen but it’s sort of terrifying to contemplate.

[WOT?*]

Feb 28, 2018 8:44:26 GMT -5 seeyalater52 said:

Every single health law expert thinks this is a bunch of baloney and the legal “reasoning” makes next to no sense. Certainly from a policy perspective it’s completely illogical, since when if somehow the mandate without the penalty for non-compliance were unconstitutional (which experts agree it is not), it would invalidate only the mandate provision, not the entirety of the ACA. And without the penalty frankly you don’t really need the mandate - in popular understanding the tax bill “repealed the mandate” and the public doesn’t know the difference between repealing the mandate and repealing the penalty for not complying with the mandate, since it’s a meaningless distinction.

So in summary this doesn’t have the health policy community too worked up, since the assumption is that the court will reject it.

I'm not worked up about it at all, thankfully. I think it's a dog-whistle crappy case. I've been trying to decide between huffing in frustration at one more anti-Obama BS matter, rolling my eyes or just plain laughing at the absurdity of these people. I'm not sure about the court rejecting it (because I'm figuring it's Texas) but glad to see that the folks in the know think it'll be tossed.

[seeyalater52]

Feb 28, 2018 8:49:48 GMT -5 WOT?* said:

Feb 28, 2018 8:44:26 GMT -5 seeyalater52 said:

Every single health law expert thinks this is a bunch of baloney and the legal “reasoning” makes next to no sense. Certainly from a policy perspective it’s completely illogical, since when if somehow the mandate without the penalty for non-compliance were unconstitutional (which experts agree it is not), it would invalidate only the mandate provision, not the entirety of the ACA. And without the penalty frankly you don’t really need the mandate - in popular understanding the tax bill “repealed the mandate” and the public doesn’t know the difference between repealing the mandate and repealing the penalty for not complying with the mandate, since it’s a meaningless distinction.

So in summary this doesn’t have the health policy community too worked up, since the assumption is that the court will reject it.

I'm not worked up about it at all, thankfully. I think it's a dog-whistle crappy case. I've been trying to decide between huffing in frustration at one more anti-Obama BS matter, rolling my eyes or just plain laughing at the absurdity of these people. I'm not sure about the court rejecting it (because I'm figuring it's Texas) but glad to see that the folks in the know think it'll be tossed.

Haha I figured you weren’t worked up! Honestly I’m a little surprised that everyone is so blasé about it. I’m not a lawyer or legal type though so I don’t have a real ability to assess it for myself. I think the assumption is that even if by some fluke the Texas court accepts the shoddy reasoning that it will not pass muster on appeal.

[tres3]

it actually makes sense to me. The only reason the ACA survived was because of the power to tax. With the individual mandate gone so is the tax.

(not that I agree with repealing the ACA)

[miniroller]

Sorry to post something only semi-related, but I was just reading this over breakfast & it’s scary as eff being a business-owner in a red state. I already pay cash to see my doctor who works for a corporation that doesn’t accept either of the two ACA choices I’m offered.
Red and Blue States Move Further Apart on Health Policy
www.wsj.com/amp/articles/red-and-blue-states-move-further-apart-on-health-policy-1519813801?__twitter_impression=true
“You’re seeing red and blue states moving further from each other,” said Sam Richardson, a health economist at Boston College. “You’re going to have blue states hang on to what they can. For red states, the more they can dismantle Obamacare, the more they’ll look like before Obamacare. They’ll have higher rates of uninsured, but other innovations.”
...
States with a large share of Democratic legislators, especially those with a Democratic supermajority, are more likely to have generous public health insurance programs and more regulated private insurance than red states, according to a 2015 report by University of Houston researchers.

“If I was chronically ill and didn’t get insurance through an employer and if I was in a red state, I’d be really worried right now,” said Nicholas Bagley, a University of Michigan law professor.
😢😢😢

[kadams767]

Kind of related to miniroller's post, does any have a link or information with statistics on health in various states? Even if it is pretty general and not specific diseases or what have you, I am curious how things look for states that expanded Medicaid vs. those that didn't, the states above vs. others, etc. I hate to frame it as red vs. blue states, but has anyone seen anything like this?

[jeaniebueller]

Is there a link to which states have joined? I can find nothing online

[seeyalater52]

Feb 28, 2018 9:36:54 GMT -5 jeaniebueller said:

Is there a link to which states have joined? I can find nothing online

Texas, Alabama, Wisconsin, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, Missouri, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and West Virginia. Maine and Mississippi are also parties to the suit via their respective GOP Governors Paul Le Page and Phil Bryant.

[seeyalater52]

Feb 28, 2018 9:25:05 GMT -5 kadams767 said:

Kind of related to miniroller 's post, does any have a link or information with statistics on health in various states? Even if it is pretty general and not specific diseases or what have you, I am curious how things look for states that expanded Medicaid vs. those that didn't, the states above vs. others, etc. I hate to frame it as red vs. blue states, but has anyone seen anything like this?

I would write you probably 50 essays on this topic since this is the basis of my entire job, but this Kaiser Family Foundation lit review is the most concise roundup of most of the relevant studies on differences between expansion and non-expansion states in terms of health coverage and access to care, among other factors. Keep in mind that Medicaid expansion hasn't been around in some of these states for that long, so we expect to see much more pronounced health status differences between these sets of states as more time passes. 

www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/the-effects-of-medicaid-expansion-under-the-aca-updated-findings-from-a-literature-review-september-2017/

You can also check out America's Health Rankings, which is a cool data tool about health and health determinant factors. Due to the social determinants factors it's not as clear-cut in terms of overlay with ACA implementation, but it does give a general sense of health status overall. 


www.americashealthrankings.org/

[kadams767]

Feb 28, 2018 10:59:54 GMT -5 seeyalater52 said:

Feb 28, 2018 9:25:05 GMT -5 kadams767 said:

Kind of related to miniroller 's post, does any have a link or information with statistics on health in various states? Even if it is pretty general and not specific diseases or what have you, I am curious how things look for states that expanded Medicaid vs. those that didn't, the states above vs. others, etc. I hate to frame it as red vs. blue states, but has anyone seen anything like this?

I would write you probably 50 essays on this topic since this is the basis of my entire job, but this Kaiser Family Foundation lit review is the most concise roundup of most of the relevant studies on differences between expansion and non-expansion states in terms of health coverage and access to care, among other factors. Keep in mind that Medicaid expansion hasn't been around in some of these states for that long, so we expect to see much more pronounced health status differences between these sets of states as more time passes. 

www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/the-effects-of-medicaid-expansion-under-the-aca-updated-findings-from-a-literature-review-september-2017/

You can also check out America's Health Rankings, which is a cool data tool about health and health determinant factors. Due to the social determinants factors it's not as clear-cut in terms of overlay with ACA implementation, but it does give a general sense of health status overall. 


www.americashealthrankings.org/

Thank you.  The second link looks like what I was wondering about, I will bookmark that to read later. 

[seeyalater52]

Feb 28, 2018 12:23:00 GMT -5 kadams767 said:

Feb 28, 2018 10:59:54 GMT -5 seeyalater52 said:

I would write you probably 50 essays on this topic since this is the basis of my entire job, but this Kaiser Family Foundation lit review is the most concise roundup of most of the relevant studies on differences between expansion and non-expansion states in terms of health coverage and access to care, among other factors. Keep in mind that Medicaid expansion hasn't been around in some of these states for that long, so we expect to see much more pronounced health status differences between these sets of states as more time passes. 

www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/the-effects-of-medicaid-expansion-under-the-aca-updated-findings-from-a-literature-review-september-2017/

You can also check out America's Health Rankings, which is a cool data tool about health and health determinant factors. Due to the social determinants factors it's not as clear-cut in terms of overlay with ACA implementation, but it does give a general sense of health status overall. 


www.americashealthrankings.org/

Thank you.  The second link looks like what I was wondering about, I will bookmark that to read later. 

Do keep in mind that what I said about the expansion data also holds true for the ACA in general. Health data, like most population data, lags really behind. Most of the surveys/studies the underlying model is based on will be from about 2015. It takes a long time for the effects of systems and policy change (positive or negative) to show up in the data, and the shifts will be more pronounced the longer the policy is implemented. Post-ACA implementation is a pretty short window to see health outcomes, even though we know that outcomes that are more easily documented in the short-term, like increased health coverage/insurance enrollment, will definitely lead to better outcomes long-term.

[kayl84]

So just a question... all the people in these states who don’t have health care at all.. what are they going to be stuck with? Because last I checked there was NOTHING in place to get millions of folks healthcare. That was a huge issue with most people who voted Trump in. That he promised to repeal and replace “Obamacare” with something “affordable” and healthcare for everyone.

So what, these folks are going to rely on gofundme’s and Jesus/prayers to get them through?

[somersault72]

@@@ related



I hurried up and ordered my breast pump already because I keep thinking the other shoe will drop. I hope I'm wrong, obviously.