Obamacare Subsidies

Obamacare Subsidies

By Rick Adamson

6.2.15

© 2015 Rick Adamson  

The Supreme Court is about to rule on whether subsidies (where the Feds pay part of the monthly premium) are available to residents of States which do not have an insurance exchange. Most people who have jobs are covered by their employer’s health insurance plan and this issue will have no effect upon them. In fact, they probably find the subject extremely boring. This issue will have no effect of folks receiving Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, as expanded by Obamacare. However, there are many millions of folks who are not so covered and, as required by law (Obamacare), must arrange for health insurance in other ways.

The meaning of these 6 words are at the heart of a case the Supreme Court is currently hearing. The words relate to those who are eligible for subsidies (subject to income limitations) and they are: “an exchange established by the state.”

If the Court decides against the Administration, subsidies will not be allowed for otherwise qualified persons in the 34 States that did not set up exchanges which would effectively kill ObamaCare. Some folks say these States essentially said to FedGov “no thanks, we do not want your subsidies and we will not set up an insurance exchange.”

Others (including the now famous Dr.Gruber) say these specific words were used in order to coerce the States into participation for fear they would miss out on Federal subsidies for their citizens.

If this happens the law will be promptly amended because the subsidies cannot be taken away. Here is why:

Up to 6.5 million people are receiving subsidies and they will not be happy to lose them. But who are these people? Are they all poor?

 √ Under Obamacare Uncle Sam pays a portion (varies depending on income) of the monthly insurance premium as follows (2015):

Individuals with income between $11,670 and $46,680.

Families of 4 with income between $23,850 and $95,400.

In situations where income is lower than the lowest figure in the range Medicaid provides coverage.

So, no, not all of the people affected are poor. In fact, there are some who are doing quite well and also receiving subsidies. With the median American family income running around $50,000 per year one might argue that subsidies are available for, on average, just about everyone who must purchase their own health insurance.

Just think what the attitude will be toward the Republican controlled Congress if the law is not modified so that the subsidies are continued. Sounds like more of what I call the left wing (progressive) conspiracy at work; tether as many folks as possible to the government and guarantee their support.

And That’s that!

Iran Deal

Understandably, people want to keep Iran from getting a Nuke. It is not clear, however, whether that is possible or whether making deals with them is going to help. 

The most significant part of any agreement with Iran has to do with verification via inspection. Any inspection regime implies the ability to measure something and compare it to a benchmark to evaluate progress. 

In the Iranian instance, we have no starting point - no benchmark. This is because inspectors have never been allowed to evaluate the current state of Iran’s nuclear program. 

The Iranian regime has repeatedly blocked inspections under existing agreements. All we really know about what they have and the progress of their program is what they have told us. We do not even have a starting point! What are we to compare their progress to? 

On top of that, according to another report, international inspectors must "come from nations that have diplomatic relations with Iran." That means there will be no American inspectors allowed into Iran. Why would we agree to that? 

The Arab countries of the Middle East (whether you like them or not) have been allied with the US for decades. They are very concerned that we have allowed their bitter enemy (Iran - non Arab, Persian, Shi’a regime) to pursue the development of its nuclear (military) program. 

A better approach might have been to simply isolate and refuse to do business with them due to their history of deceit and deception. For example, one Saudi Arabian official said, "We have learned as Iran's neighbors in the last 40 years that goodwill only led us to harvest sour grapes." (By the way, his country has vowed to match Iran's nuclear abilities - signal of an arms race). 

Naftali Bennett, Israel's education minister, said, "Today a terrorist nuclear superpower is born, and it will go down as one of the darkest days in world history." Danny Danon, Israel's science minister, said the deal "is like providing a pyromaniac with matches," while another Israeli cabinet minister said the deal gives Iran "a license to kill." 

One might argue that other countries have Nukes, so why not Iran? Iran represents a much different situation than, say, North Korea, because that country was protected by China. India and Pakistan also have weapons but they were protected by the US and China, respectively. The list goes on. 

However, no one is protecting Iran and promoting its development of nuclear weapons, although Russia certainly has an interest in the region. 

Luckily, terrorists have never had access to nuclear weapons. But there is a first time for everything. 

For a brief history of the Middle East, Iran and their eternal conflicts, see here… 

And that's that!