3 ms·

This ruling is actually very good for individual freedom. I'm happy to see that the supreme court made an intelligent ruling. I'm 54 and semi-retired. I have pr

by hwstar 11y ago

This ruling is actually very good for individual freedom. I'm happy to see that the supreme court made an intelligent ruling. I'm 54 and semi-retired. I have pre-existing conditions and if we went back to the way things used to work, I'd have to become employed full time again. I hate everything American employment stands for. Age discrimination, employment-at-will, invention agreements, covenants not to compete, and binding arbitration to name a few. At least now, I can continue to live off my investments and rental income, and contribute to the open source community in the areas of hardware and software design. The taste of freedom is exhilarating!!

ikeboy 11y ago
Are you getting subsidies from the government while living in a state that didn't set up an exchange? If not, this ruling has no effect on you.
- hwstar 11y ago
  I'm in California. A state with its own exchange. If this ruling had gone the other way, it would have affected me eventually. I would not expect Congress to do anything, and the state of California may not have been able to react quick enough with state legislation to stabilize things. There would have been a domino effect as more people in red states cancelled their insurance and left only the very sick with insurance. The effect would have reached the states with their own exchanges. The whole thing would have likely collapsed.
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    I don't get why it would affect other states. The only people cancelling would be people who couldn't afford without the subsidies. Are you saying the whole system only works because of the subsidies? But it wasn't that much worse before, and all the other provisions would have remained.
    - hwstar 11y ago
      Yes, it would be unworkable without the subsidies. There are 34 states using the Federal exchange. Most of these states are in the south and midwest. The income per capita in these states is much lower than the states with their own exchanges. It is estimated that 70% of those covered would cancel their insurance in these states if the subsidies were eliminated. The remaining 30% would try to hang on as they probably really need the insurance due to pre-existing conditions. Insurance companies would not be able to make a profit off of the remaining 30% and they would raise unsubsidised rates to try and compensate. As they raised the rates, more people would drop out and then the insurance companies would start raising rates in the states with their own exchanges, and on employers who offer health insurance to employees to compensate. The whole thing would have come crashing down.
      - ikeboy 11y ago
        Why are the people getting subsidies and are poor also the ones the insurance companies are profiting most off of? If you don't assume such a correlation, then the worst that will happen is a slightly smaller economy of scale. Am I missing something? Also, if an insurance company is losing money in a state, stopping to service that state is strictly better for profits than continuing and raising money by raising prices elsewhere. One state shouldn't affect others like that.

by hwstar 11y ago

ikeboy 11y ago

Are you getting subsidies from the government while living in a state that didn't set up an exchange? If not, this ruling has no effect on you.

hwstar 11y ago
I'm in California. A state with its own exchange. If this ruling had gone the other way, it would have affected me eventually. I would not expect Congress to do anything, and the state of California may not have been able to react quick enough with state legislation to stabilize things. There would have been a domino effect as more people in red states cancelled their insurance and left only the very sick with insurance. The effect would have reached the states with their own exchanges. The whole thing would have likely collapsed.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  I don't get why it would affect other states. The only people cancelling would be people who couldn't afford without the subsidies. Are you saying the whole system only works because of the subsidies? But it wasn't that much worse before, and all the other provisions would have remained.
  - hwstar 11y ago
    Yes, it would be unworkable without the subsidies. There are 34 states using the Federal exchange. Most of these states are in the south and midwest. The income per capita in these states is much lower than the states with their own exchanges. It is estimated that 70% of those covered would cancel their insurance in these states if the subsidies were eliminated. The remaining 30% would try to hang on as they probably really need the insurance due to pre-existing conditions. Insurance companies would not be able to make a profit off of the remaining 30% and they would raise unsubsidised rates to try and compensate. As they raised the rates, more people would drop out and then the insurance companies would start raising rates in the states with their own exchanges, and on employers who offer health insurance to employees to compensate. The whole thing would have come crashing down.
    - ikeboy 11y ago
      Why are the people getting subsidies and are poor also the ones the insurance companies are profiting most off of? If you don't assume such a correlation, then the worst that will happen is a slightly smaller economy of scale. Am I missing something? Also, if an insurance company is losing money in a state, stopping to service that state is strictly better for profits than continuing and raising money by raising prices elsewhere. One state shouldn't affect others like that.