In ObamaCare Ruling, It's a Win for GOP, Loss for Low-Income Americans
Republicans 'have tried time and time again to take health care away from the 20 million newly insured Americans,' said Bernie Sanders.
A federal judge on Thursday sided with U.S. House in its challenge to the funding of an Affordable Care Act program that reduced costs for consumers, proving, according to presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders, that Republicans are seeking "new ways to make health care unaffordable."
"Congress authorized reduced cost-sharing but did not appropriate monies for it," federal district Judge Rosemary Collyer, a George W. Bush-appointee, said in her ruling. "Congress is the only source for such an appropriation, and no public money can be spent without one."
The Hill offers the background on the case:
At issue are billions of dollars paid to insurance companies participating in ObamaCare so they can reduce customers' out-of-pocket costs, such as deductibles for low-income people.
The House GOP argued that the administration was unconstitutionally spending money on these payments without Congress's approval.
But the administration said it did not need an appropriation from Congress because the funds were already guaranteed by the healthcare reform law in the same section as its better-known tax credits that help people pay for coverage.
Politico notes, "The ruling, if it stands, could be a significant financial setback for the millions of low-income Americans who benefit from the cost-sharing subsidies, which help people pay for out-of-pocket costs like co-pays at the doctor's office."
USA Today adds that these "Cost-sharing subsidies reduce consumers' insurance payments -- an important feature of the Affordable Care Act, because deductibles are rising. Under the law, subsidies are available to people who earn between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty level, with extra assistance available for those up to 250%. For a family of four, that's about $24,000 to $61,000."
While House Speaker Paul Ryan saw the ruling as a "win" for the American people, Sen. Sanders spoke to the financial reality it could mean in a nation without a Medicare-for-all system. "At a time when the United States is the only major country on earth that doesn't guarantee healthcare to all Americans -- and 29 million people still lack insurance -- it would be a disaster to throw millions of low-income Americans off health insurance," he said.
Republicans "have tried time and time again to take health care away from the 20 million newly insured Americans," Sanders added. "We should be talking about how to make health care a right for all Americans, not finding new ways to make health care unaffordable."
The ruling, the Los Angeles Times reports, "though a setback for the administration, was put on hold immediately and stands a good chance of being overturned on appeal."
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. In a few short weeks, US voters will have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. Our Fall Campaign is underway, and we need your help. To power our newsroom through the rest of the year, we need to raise $125,000 by midnight on October 31. So if you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
A federal judge on Thursday sided with U.S. House in its challenge to the funding of an Affordable Care Act program that reduced costs for consumers, proving, according to presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders, that Republicans are seeking "new ways to make health care unaffordable."
"Congress authorized reduced cost-sharing but did not appropriate monies for it," federal district Judge Rosemary Collyer, a George W. Bush-appointee, said in her ruling. "Congress is the only source for such an appropriation, and no public money can be spent without one."
The Hill offers the background on the case:
At issue are billions of dollars paid to insurance companies participating in ObamaCare so they can reduce customers' out-of-pocket costs, such as deductibles for low-income people.
The House GOP argued that the administration was unconstitutionally spending money on these payments without Congress's approval.
But the administration said it did not need an appropriation from Congress because the funds were already guaranteed by the healthcare reform law in the same section as its better-known tax credits that help people pay for coverage.
Politico notes, "The ruling, if it stands, could be a significant financial setback for the millions of low-income Americans who benefit from the cost-sharing subsidies, which help people pay for out-of-pocket costs like co-pays at the doctor's office."
USA Today adds that these "Cost-sharing subsidies reduce consumers' insurance payments -- an important feature of the Affordable Care Act, because deductibles are rising. Under the law, subsidies are available to people who earn between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty level, with extra assistance available for those up to 250%. For a family of four, that's about $24,000 to $61,000."
While House Speaker Paul Ryan saw the ruling as a "win" for the American people, Sen. Sanders spoke to the financial reality it could mean in a nation without a Medicare-for-all system. "At a time when the United States is the only major country on earth that doesn't guarantee healthcare to all Americans -- and 29 million people still lack insurance -- it would be a disaster to throw millions of low-income Americans off health insurance," he said.
Republicans "have tried time and time again to take health care away from the 20 million newly insured Americans," Sanders added. "We should be talking about how to make health care a right for all Americans, not finding new ways to make health care unaffordable."
The ruling, the Los Angeles Times reports, "though a setback for the administration, was put on hold immediately and stands a good chance of being overturned on appeal."
A federal judge on Thursday sided with U.S. House in its challenge to the funding of an Affordable Care Act program that reduced costs for consumers, proving, according to presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders, that Republicans are seeking "new ways to make health care unaffordable."
"Congress authorized reduced cost-sharing but did not appropriate monies for it," federal district Judge Rosemary Collyer, a George W. Bush-appointee, said in her ruling. "Congress is the only source for such an appropriation, and no public money can be spent without one."
The Hill offers the background on the case:
At issue are billions of dollars paid to insurance companies participating in ObamaCare so they can reduce customers' out-of-pocket costs, such as deductibles for low-income people.
The House GOP argued that the administration was unconstitutionally spending money on these payments without Congress's approval.
But the administration said it did not need an appropriation from Congress because the funds were already guaranteed by the healthcare reform law in the same section as its better-known tax credits that help people pay for coverage.
Politico notes, "The ruling, if it stands, could be a significant financial setback for the millions of low-income Americans who benefit from the cost-sharing subsidies, which help people pay for out-of-pocket costs like co-pays at the doctor's office."
USA Today adds that these "Cost-sharing subsidies reduce consumers' insurance payments -- an important feature of the Affordable Care Act, because deductibles are rising. Under the law, subsidies are available to people who earn between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty level, with extra assistance available for those up to 250%. For a family of four, that's about $24,000 to $61,000."
While House Speaker Paul Ryan saw the ruling as a "win" for the American people, Sen. Sanders spoke to the financial reality it could mean in a nation without a Medicare-for-all system. "At a time when the United States is the only major country on earth that doesn't guarantee healthcare to all Americans -- and 29 million people still lack insurance -- it would be a disaster to throw millions of low-income Americans off health insurance," he said.
Republicans "have tried time and time again to take health care away from the 20 million newly insured Americans," Sanders added. "We should be talking about how to make health care a right for all Americans, not finding new ways to make health care unaffordable."
The ruling, the Los Angeles Times reports, "though a setback for the administration, was put on hold immediately and stands a good chance of being overturned on appeal."