ObamaCare: What you should know
|Principal Writer:||Barry Shatzman|
|Understanding The Issue|
|What You Can Do|
|The Rumor Mill|
Reported NewsHealth Care Policy
Related BillsPatient Protection & Affordable Care Act
Related Court Cases(2018) Texas v. United States
WHY CONTRIBUTE WHEN EVERYTHING IS FREE?
We're glad we asked.
If you've read some of our stories thinking...
... You want everyone to understand this
... You want better policies
... You want better conversations
... You want more like this
Then we need you to contribute.
It costs money to publish News in FiVe, and contributions are our only source of funding.
So if this article helped your understanding, please consider a small donation to help us keep doing this and help us reach more people.
Even a dollar or three every so often makes a difference.
In return, we'll keep providing you the most relevant, understandable, and accessible news and information.
It's secure and takes only about a minute.
States can refuse Medicaid Expansion
In 2012 the Supreme Court ruled in NFIB v. Sebelius that the mandate to purchase health care insurance is constitutional.
It also ruled, however, that the federal government could not compel states to expand their Medicaid coverage.
Click here for our discussion of NFIB v. Sebelius.
Subsidies are legal regardless of what exchange a state uses
In 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on a case claiming that wording of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) specifically allowed premium subsidies only for policies purchased on state exchanges - and not on the federal HealthCare.gov exchange used by more than 30 states.
Had the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, millions in those states would have been left unable to afford insurance.
Had that happened, other remedies were possible...
However, the Supreme Court ruled that financially eligible Americans can receive subsidies regardless of whether their state maintains its own exchange or uses the federal one.
Click here for our discussion of King v. Burwell.
Republicans claim ObamaCare invalid without mandate
In the final days of 2017, President Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Among the provisions of the bill - the penalty for not having insurance was reduced to $0.
A group of 20 Republican-led states then sued the federal government. They claimed that, without the mandate, the rest of ObamaCare (or at a minimum coverage for pre-existing conditions) is unconstitutional.
Click here to read our discussion of Texas v. United States.