Thread: The Future of Obamacare

Even The Uninsured Are Growing Sour On ObamaCare
ow.ly

Happy Anniversary: Video Highlights Democrats’ Obamacare Lies One Year After The Disastrous Rollout

If you like your plan, you can't keep it



BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
October 1, 2014 7:47 am


One year after the debut of healthcare.gov, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) released a video to remind voters of the most enduring lie circulated by President Obama and Senate Democrats about Obamacare: “If you like your plan, you can keep it.”
Fact-checking website Politifact dubbed the statement 2013′s “lie of the year” after employers were forced to change or cancel their employees’ plans to comply with Obamacare.

In the video, Democratic Senators Mark Pryor, Kay Hagan, Mary Landrieu, Jeff Merkley, Mark Begich, and Mark Udall are shown repeating the lie, interspersed with testimonies from President Obama himself, followed by media coverage of the epic collapse of healthcare.gov after its October 2012 rollout.

The NRSC ended the advertisement with a strong message: “Democrats lied about it then, and they’re still lying about it now.”


“Over the past six years, Barack Obama and Washington Democrats have proven that they not only don’t have the right solutions to get America growing again, but they lack the credibility to be trusted to keep their promises,” NRSC Press Secretary Brook Hougesen told The Hill.

A poll released in August 2014 showed a majority of Americans–53 percent–reported having an unfavorable view of Obamacare.

http://freebeacon.com/politics/happy-anniversary-video-highlights-democrats-obamacare-lies-one-year-after-the-disastrous-rollout/


Oh and who could ever forget "You Have To Pass It To Read It"...THEN .. "Our Moron Politicians" allowed this to happen!!!! This is another NEVER FORGET moment they need to pay for!!! Never Ever Forget, either their Incompetance or Attempt at Control of all of us and ours. Term limits are too good for them they all need to be impeached for "deriliction of duty" for their failure of Representation to their constituents, and for working against the best interest of our Country and the American People... There are many things we need to never forget, and this is one of them....

Originally Posted by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.

The letter, signed by attorneys general from Republican-dominated states including Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas and Virginia, [but not South Carolina -ED.,] called the rule change “flatly illegal under federal constitutional and statutory law.”
. . .
All state legislative bodies have an obligation to liberty and to their citizens to follow the example of legislative chambers in states such as South Carolina, Missouri, and Oklahoma by voting to nullify unconstitutional ObamaCare mandates.

Please forgive my propensity for schadenfreude, glee at harm, or joy about others' misfortunes. It's not that I gloat over bad news, seize upon any shadow in the light, notice only the miscues and wrong notes, or snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. It's just so very hard to be positive, being an electron.

But you do know that many moons - nearly 12, to be exact - after the S.C. House passed H.3101 by a vote of 65-39, a bill sponsored by 37 of 124 Representatives, the S.C. Senate executed a death by a thousand cuts, offering failed amendment after failed amendment, until the momentum for passage passed away.

On Mar. 19, 2014, with 9 P.M. rapidly approaching, and with so many Senators disrespected by their amendments being ruled out of order (6) or soundly voted down (3: y-0, n-39, a-1; y-14, n-25; y-9, n-31), the second of the three required readings failed (y-9, n-33). Of the 17 S.C. Senators who offered amendments, the only one who eventually voted for the bill was Sen. Davis, whose two amendments were complete rewrites of H. 3101. After about four hours of deliberations and an overwhelming 9-33 vote against H. 3101, the S.C. Senate adjourned at 8:59 P.M..

Search for "SECOND READING FAILED" at www.scstatehouse.gov/sess120_2013-2014/sj14/20140319.htm#p118 .

CNS News

Judge: IRS Obamacare Rule 'Is Arbitrary, Capricious, and Abuse of Discretion'


October 2, 2014 - 1:10 PM

---

In his decision, U.S. District Judge Ronald White concluded Tuesday that the IRS rule altering the Obamacare law and providing billions in subsidies is "arbitrary, capricious and abuse of discretion":
"The court holds that the IRS rule is arbitrary, capricious, and abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.706(2)(A), in excess of summary jurisdiction, authority or limitation, or short of statutory right, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(C), or otherwise is an invalidation of the ACA [Affordable Care Act], and is hereby vacated. The court's order of vacatur is stayed, however, pending resolution of any appeal from this order."

In September 2012, Oklahoma was the first of several states to challenge the legality of an IRS rule that caused billions in subsidies to be paid out, despite Congress having never authorized those payments.
Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt hailed the state's victory in its lawsuit challenging the implementation of the Affordable Care Act:
"Today's ruling is a consequential victory for the rule of law. The administration and its bureaucrats in the IRS handed out billions in illegal tax credits and subsidies and vastly expanded the reach of the health care law because they didn't like the way Congress wrote the Affordable Care Act. That's not how our system of government works."
Pruitt said the ruling proves that the administration can't change a low by executive fiat:

"The Obama administration created this problem and rather than having an agency like the IRS rewrite a law it didn't like, the administration should have done the right thing and worked with Congress to amend the law. Oklahoma was the first to challenge the administration's actions and today's ruling vindicates what we recognized early on and that is the administration can't rewrite the Affordable Care Act by executive fiat."
He said the victory is just the beginning, because he fully expects the case to, ultimately, be decided by the Supreme Court:
"Today's ruling is a huge win for Oklahoma, but it's just a first step. Since Oklahoma filed the first lawsuit in 2012, others have followed our lead and made similar claims in other jurisdictions. It's likely this issue will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. We look forward to making our case and continuing the effort to hold federal agencies accountable to their duty to enforce the laws passed by Congress."

Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe (R) also praised Judge White's decision, saying that the Obama Administration is trying to fix a legally-dubious law using waivers and exemptions:
"Today's decision is a reminder that the President's broken promises of affordable, accessible health care are the result of broken policy. The Obama Administration has tried to make the law work with waivers and exemptions, but the courts continue to confront the legality of this legislation that was rushed through a Democrat-controlled Congress."
"While it will undoubtedly take time for Oklahoma's case to play out in the federal court system, I am confident in Attorney General Scott Pruitt and that our state's argument will prevail."
Tuesday's decision is the latest in a wave of court losses for Obamacare.
Currently, over a hundred lawsuits have been filed against Obamacare - and Obamacare has lost 91% of the cases decided to-date, (71 losses out of 78 decisions), according to the latest tally by The Beckett Fund.

http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/craig-...obamacare-rule

Republicans Eye Obamacare Showdown in Lame Duck

By Niels Lesniewski and Steven Dennis Posted at 11:16 a.m. today

0

(Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call File Photo)

A group of Senate Republicans have their eye on another Obamacare showdown in the lame-duck session.
The 14 Republicans, led by Marco Rubio of Florida, wrote a letter urging Speaker John A. Boehner to ”prohibit the Obama administration” from spending money on an “Obamacare taxpayer bailout.”
They point to a legal opinion from the Government Accountability Office that said additional funding authority would be needed to make payments to insurance companies under the risk-corridor component of the Obamacare health care exchanges. The Republicans say taxpayers could be on the hook for bailing out insurance companies that suffer losses.
“Without that appropriation, any money spent to cover insurance company losses under the risk corridor program would be unlawful,” the senators wrote to Boehner, later noting Congress needs to act to keep the government operating past Dec. 11, when the existing continuing resolution expires.
“The American people expect us, as Members of Congress, to fulfill our Oath of Office and defend the Constitution,” the senators wrote. “Therefore, we must act to protect Congress’ power of the purse and prohibit the Obama administration from dispersing unlawful risk corridor payments providing for an Obamacare taxpayer bailout.”
The letter writers are mute on exactly what action they think Boehner should take; the House has already authorized a lawsuit over the delay in the employer mandate. The House could also add an explicit prohibition on risk-corridor spending in the next spending bill, but that could provoke another shutdown showdown — which Republican leaders have sought to avoid after last year’s shutdown over Obamacare failed to garner any concessions from the president.
Rubio’s been joined on the letter by John Barrasso of Wyoming, Mike Lee of Utah, David Vitter of Louisiana, Ted Cruz of Texas, Michael B. Enzi of Wyoming, James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Deb Fischer of Nebraska, John McCain of Arizona, John Boozman of Arkansas, Pat Roberts of Kansas, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.
Full text of the letter appears below:

Dear Mr. Speaker:
The recently passed Continuing Resolution (CR), H.J.Res.124, is an example of Congress adhering to one of its primary constitutional duties – commonly referred to as the “power of the purse.” As you know, Article I, section 7, clause 1 says, “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.” Moreover, Article I, section 9, clause 7 says, “No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.”
We write to you out of concern the Administration is planning to spend unappropriated and unauthorized funds through Obamacare’s risk corridor program. In addition to providing financial protection to insurance companies that offered exchange plans through a reinsurance program and a risk adjustment program, Obamacare also contains a risk corridor to distribute money from exchange plans that earned profits to exchange plans that suffered losses. However, the risk corridor program was not designed to be budget neutral and the program, at least as being contemplated by the Administration, puts taxpayers at risk of a large bailout if insurers systematically lose money on exchange plans. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held two hearings this year on the potential Obamacare bailout and released a report which contains the insurance industries’ estimate of risk corridor payments. According to the information provided by insurers, almost all of them expect to receive funds through the risk corridor program for this plan year with an aggregate net receipt likely approaching $1 billion.
The Oversight report detailed how the White House has been actively involved with increasing the size of the bailout, in an apparent attempt to misuse taxpayer money on this bailout regardless of the law. In May 2014, the Department of Health and Human Service’s Office of General Counsel wrote a letter to the Government Accountability Office claiming that the risk corridor collections under Obamacare are user fees. HHS argued that as user fees, they have the ability to collect and spend risk corridor collections for insurance plan year 2014 under very broad authority granted to HHS by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014. However, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a legal opinion in September that concluded HHS would need an additional appropriation in order to make payments in FY 2015 corresponding with the 2014 plan year. Without that appropriation, any money spent to cover insurance company losses under the risk corridor program would be unlawful.
HHS’s new interpretation also contradicts the statutory language establishing the program while misinterpreting the long-standing definition of user fees. The risk corridor program is clearly defined by Obamacare as a “payment adjustment system.” The federal government does not provide a good or service in exchange for the risk corridor collections, which is the purpose of user fees. Rather, the risk corridors subsidize and redistribute collections to health insurance companies that lose money.
As you know, the current CR will expire on December 11, 2014. Congress will undoubtedly have its feet held to the fire by the American people to pass another stop-gap appropriations bill avoiding a government shutdown. Though Congress will determine the expiration date of the next CR later this year, it is likely the next CR will extend to a date in 2015 when risk corridor payments are reconciled.
Unfortunately, President Obama and his administration have exhibited their intent to disregard the law and ignore the Constitution. At the Constitutional Convention, our nation’s founders debated ways to ensure that the Executive would not spend money without Congressional authorization. They agreed that Congress should control public funds (not the President or executive branch agencies) because Congress directly represents the people. The President intends to ignore Congress’s explicit and exclusive authority by spending money on the risk corridor program without an appropriation from Congress.
The American people expect us, as Members of Congress, to fulfill our Oath of Office and defend the Constitution. Therefore, we must act to protect Congress’ power of the purse and prohibit the Obama administration from dispersing unlawful risk corridor payments providing for an Obamacare taxpayer bailout.

Roll Call Election Map: Race Ratings for Every Seat
Get breaking news alerts and more from Roll Call in your inbox or on your iPhone.

video at link below

http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/republicans-obamacare-bailout-showdown/

Diners Upset Over Obamacare Surcharges Added to Their Bills

Posted on October 9, 2014 by Dave Jolly

Eating out is getting more expensive every day. The price of food, especially beef is going up and restaurants naturally have to pass that cost on to diners. Some restaurants are passing more than just the cost of food on to their patrons.

A growing number of high-end restaurants in Los Angeles and San Francisco are surprising customers with an additional 3% surcharge added to their bill. The surcharge is to help cover the costs of employee healthcare which is being mandated by Obamacare.

It’s already bad enough when some restaurants automatically bill you for the tip or gratuity of 15% to 25%. How can it be a gratuity if you are billed for it? I was always taught that a tip is given as a generous way of saying thank you for the service, but I begrudge someone else telling me how much I HAVE to tip.

But add another 3% Obamacare employee healthcare surcharge to a $100 meal and you’re looking at paying a grand total of up to $128, depending on how much they require from you for the tip.

Some diners are not happy about the added surcharge. One unhappy customer used his/her blog to vent some displeasure, posting:

"It's basically management saying 'Obamacare made me do it.' If you want to offset costs, try turning up the thermostat. There's your 3%! Now please pay your workers' health insurance and hush."

I wonder what the same customer would say if he/she had gone into the same restaurant and found it to be uncomfortably warm. Would they have been satisfied to sit there and sweat during their meal if the management had told them they turned the thermostat up in order to save enough on their energy bill to pay for their employee healthcare?

It also tells me that the complainer has no clue as to how much employee healthcare costs an employer. Most of the figures I’ve seen says it costs $7,500 to $15,000 a year to meet the minimum standards invoked by Obamacare. The penalty for not providing healthcare to employees is only a couple thousand dollars. You do the math.

The American Health Policy Institute conducted a study on the additional costs of employer provided healthcare and stated that the Affordable Care Act:

"Imposes additional costs of $4,800 to $5,900 per employee over the course of a decade. The total cost of the Affordable Care Act to all large U.S. employers over the next 10 years is estimated to be from $157 billion to $186 billion.”

"As a result, employers are coping with the high costs of providing healthcare in a number of ways, including changing their employment practices and work-related financial arrangements."

Jot Condie, President and CEO of California Restaurant Association told the media:

"Once it starts you are going to see other segments in the industry, whether coffee shops or ice cream shops, dip their toe in if they see it's manageable and customers do not revolt."

Joe Loeb, Co-owner of Milo & Olive and Rustic Canyon Restaurants told the media:

"We want our staff to have healthcare. It's not because we support Obama or don't support Obama, or are Democrats or are not Democrats."

Some restaurants have considered the idea of just raising the price of items on the menu by 3% but discovered that it would cost them more to preprint menus and make other changes. It’s cheaper for the customers to just pay a flat 3% surcharge than paying higher prices for the food and drinks they consume.

The American Action Forum, a ‘center-right policy institute providing actionable research and analysis to solve America’s most pressing policy challenges’ stated:

“‘ACA has fundamentally changed the healthcare landscape, affecting premiums, small business wages, and employment,’ estimating the costs so far at $22.6 billion in lost income and 350,000 small business jobs. ‘We expect this trend to strengthen as the administration fully implements the employer mandate.’”

The bottom line is that as the employer mandate starts being enforced in January; expect to pay more in surcharges at restaurants and overall higher prices for many goods and services. Employers have to get the extra money from somewhere and the only place available to them is you and me.


Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/17569/d...6XWJzQKHm5r.99

Administration Lowers Expectations for Obamacare's Second Year

Peter Suderman|Oct. 13, 2014 12:02 pm
Whitehouse.govThe administration's confident, determined approach to messaging Obamacare didn't work out so well last year, at least in the sense that it was proven to be bluster totally unsupported by reality, so this year it's trying a less-aggressive strategy: Don't promise so much.

In a somewhat amusing article, Politico describes the new approach as an attempt to "undersell" the health law prior to its second open-enrollment period, which begins next month:

Gone are the promises that enrolling will be as easy as buying a plane ticket on Orbitz. The new head of HHS is not on Capitol Hill to promise that HealthCare.gov is on track. And no one is embracing Congressional Budget Office projections of total sign-up numbers.
Sobered — and burned — by last fall’s meltdown of the federal website, the administration is setting expectations for the second Obamacare open enrollment period as low as possible.
Officials say the site won’t be perfect but will be improved. They refuse to pinpoint how many people they plan to enroll, instead describing general goals of reducing the number of uninsured and providing a positive "customer experience" — not exactly metrics that can be immediately judged.

What this approach amounts to, then, is a refusal to publicly adopt any performance metrics by which the law and its backers might be held accountable. This administration is more or less explicit about not wanting to be judged by any hard and fast measures, instead preferring assessments based on softer, less easy-to-define standards about the customer experience. Back to Politico:

"What we have said is that the experience will be better," Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell told reporters on Thursday. "It will not be perfect. We know that, and we know that there will be issues that will be raised as we go on in the process."
Andy Slavitt, principal deputy administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and one of the people responsible for HealthCare.gov’s technology, wouldn’t make any projections on how the website would operate when open enrollment begins Nov. 15.
"We are much more comfortable talking about results than expectations," Slavitt said Wednesday. "We are extremely focused on meeting our milestones. We’re very focused on making sure that everyone has a good customer experience."

Judging by last year's selective approach to publishing health law data—you know, the "results" of the health care law—and the reluctance to say whether it will continue issuing similar reports on the law's outcomes this year, the administration does not seem to be particularly comfortable talking about results either.
The administration's strategy, in other words, is rather like that of a darts player who throws one against the wall, draws a target around where it stuck, and then claims to have hit a bullseye.

http://reason.com/blog/2014/10/13/ob...s-expectations






Surprise Surprise

REMEMBER THIS AMERICA!!!!!

The truth of what most doctors think about Obamacare is frightening

Restricted content
We're sorry, but the video you are trying to watch is currently unavailable for viewing at this domain.

The next open enrollment for Obamacare is right around the corner. Are you going to be ready?
on.aol.com

What our doctors truly think about Obamacare may frighten you.
Now that American physicians have seen enough of Obamacare to draw informed opinions, only 13 percent of them agree with AMA support of the law.

Photo by John Moore/Getty Images
View all 10 photos


Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images

Most Americans don’t realize there is good reason that only 14 percent of the nation’s 400,000 licensed physicians are still members of the American Medical Association (AMA).

AMA was long the advocate for the nation’s doctors and “abandoned the needs of the physician years ago and has its own agenda,” states Dr. John Tedeschi, a primary-family care doctor in Robbinsville, New Jersey.

“Doctoring just isn’t the same,” Dr. Tedeschi, who has been practicing medicine for more than 30 year says. “The practice of medicine, its costs and medical policies, are now dictated and controlled by groups that don’t know the first thing about medicine, nor the people it serves.”
The AMA, who for decades made their money from physician dues, has been bleeding profusely with membership decline. Membership has declined by over 75,000 since 2002. But somehow, they are reporting growing revenues. In 2012 it was $239 million, with $70 million coming from “Royalty Revenue.”

The AMA is paid, in their partnership with the government, by the medical coding records system they created that is mandated for all doctors and hospitals. They are required to bill the government or private insurance through this system, but the constant changes of the bureaucracies and politics insures a continuing and ever growing cash flow. Forget that it is bankrupting our doctors, slowing our patient care, and creating a whole new variety of grim medical errors. By changing their position for Obamacare, the AMA may be losing credibility with doctors, but they are certainly earning more money.

“At one time, the practice of medicine in America was the envy of the world. Unfortunately, it has now been radically segmented,” Dr. Tedeschi, who lives in Morrisville, PA, indicated.

Dr. Tedeschi explains Obamacare is all about saving money and “where the money IS ultimately spent, is directed to special interest, profit-making organizations.”

The basis of Obamacare’s financial success depends on a formula devised by Ezekiel Emanuel. Emanuel assigns value to people’s lives to distribute health care money among us.

“Benefit to the patient is secondary,” clarifies the doctor. “And physicians have nowhere to turn for help.”

Dr. Tedeschi explained that this radical change has been so choreographed—“better than a Broadway musical”—it happened so “gradually you hardly notice it at first. It’s a slow and deliberate erosion, targeting your family doctor, someone who will soon become a thing of the past.”

“Thanks to politics, insurance companies, special interest groups and other organizations, medicine is changing: the way it’s provided; who it’s provided to; exactly who the providers are; their qualifications; how much it costs and, literally, ‘who lives and who dies,’” the doctor is adamant. “The old saying ‘follow the money’” has never been truer than it is today.

“We’re moving away from the mission of medicine and more towards the business of healthcare, and these two endeavors are not the same thing,” Twila Brase, President of the Citizens’ Council For Health Freedom states. “We’re moving in the wrong direction.”

“When other people hold the dollars, the mission of medicine is compromised,” Brase reminds people frequently. “Whether it’s the government, or an insurance company, the agendas of the people with the money ultimately take precedence over the needs of the patient.”

Now that American physicians have seen enough of Obamacare to draw informed opinions, only 13 percent of them agree with AMA support of the law. Survey results from Jackson & Coker, a national physician recruitment firm confirm this. The AMA spends about $22 million a year since 2010 lobbying for Obamacare.

Despite 70 percent of U.S. doctors indicated they disagreed with the AMA on Obamacare, the White House used a stage propaganda event in the Rose Garden to lie to the American people in 2011. Obama’s staff actually handed out white lab coats to help legitimize the credibility of the health care plan.

Recent surveys of thousands of doctors indicate Obamacare is having a negative impact on healthcare for their patients. Almost 60 percent of doctors think they will most likely retire in the next five years because of the destructive Obama health plan. Doctors who originally voted Obama in 2008 changed their minds and voted against him by totals of over 15 percent.

“We are now told how much time we can spend with each patient,” Dr. Tedeschi explains. Doctor are mandated “what tests we can and cannot request. We are now forced to re-certify more frequently and answer questions, in many cases, unethically, just to serve their (Obamacare) financial needs.”

“We are told what kind of treatment can be provided to older patients, a type of ‘too old to treat’ approach because of the life expectancy of the patient and the cost to the federal government,” claims Dr. Tedeschi. With Obamacare, age 75 seems to be the magic age of when government healthcare declines for the benefit of the plan and not the patient.

“Even prescription medications that will effectively help the patient are routinely rejected by insurance companies and Medicare in favor of less expensive, ‘generic’ drugs that are archaic and simply don’t do the job,” Dr. Tedeschi states. “And we are aware, of course, of the conflict of interest of insurance companies having stock in the drugs that they do approve. It’s really sad.”

http://www.examiner.com/article/the-...id=db_articles


Now Remember this, they all voted it in against all our calls, & letters,(which they ignored) all our pleas, all our yells, and everything else we all did to stop this... Remember this, they totally ignored us all of them voted it in, because they had to "pass it to read it"!!!! 2016 is coming!!! Remember that!!!!! Now also ask yourselves this!!!! Who is exempt from Obamacare?????

Supreme Court Will Hear New Challenge to Obamacare

Nov. 7, 2014 1:00pm
Associated Press



The justices said they will decide whether the law authorizes subsidies that help millions of low- and middle-income people afford their health insurance premiums.
AP Photo/Susan Walsh

A federal appeals court upheld Internal Revenue Service regulations that allow health-insurance tax credits under the Affordable Care Act for consumers in all 50 states. Opponents argue that most of the subsidies are illegal.
The long-running political and legal campaign to overturn or limit the 2010 health overhaul will be making its second appearance at the Supreme Court.
The justices upheld the heart of the law in a 5-4 decision in 2012 in which Chief Justice John Roberts provided the decisive vote.
In the appeal accepted Friday, opponents of the subsidies argued that the court should resolve the issue now because it involves billions of dollars in public money.

The court rarely steps into a case when there is no disagreement among federal appellate courts, unless a law or regulation has been ruled invalid.

But at least four justices, needed to grant review, apparently agreed with the challengers that the issue is important enough to decide now.
In July, a Richmond, Virginia-based appeals court upheld Internal Revenue Service regulations that allow health-insurance tax credits under the Affordable Care Act for consumers in all 50 states.

On that same July day, a panel of appellate judges in Washington, District of Columbia, sided with the challengers in striking down the IRS regulations. The Washington court held that under the law, financial aid can be provided only in states that have set up their own insurance markets, known as exchanges.

The administration said in court papers that the federal government is running the exchanges in 34 states and that nearly 5 million people receive subsidies that allow them to purchase health insurance through those exchanges.

For those federal exchange consumers, the subsidies cover 76 percent of their premiums, on average. Customers now pay an average of $82 on total monthly premiums averaging $346. The federal subsidy of $264 a month makes up the difference.

But in October, the entire Washington appeals court voted to rehear the case and threw out the panel’s ruling, eliminating the so-called circuit split. The appeals argument has been scheduled for December 17, but that case now recedes in importance with the Supreme Court’s action to step in.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014...-to-obamacare/