Because insurers don't know which way the Supreme Court will rule come June, they reportedly are thinking of pricing their policies for 2016 based on the worst-case scenario of a plaintiffs' victory. Those rates will be higher than they would have been if the Supreme Court had never agreed to take King v. Burwell.
I am an annoying friend. I am the person that gets unfollowed on Facebook and that people avoid mentioning certain topics around. I am the friend constantly sharing petition and calls to action, political articles and news stories. At parties, I am the one that shouts at friends to go vote, and lectures siblings when they don't update their voter registration address
Boehner and McConnell called this week for a major change in health reform's requirement that larger employers offer health coverage to employees who work 30 or more hours a week or face a penalty. However, raising the threshold for mandating coverage would make a shift toward part-time employment much more likely -- not less so.
Health reform will cut the rate of uninsurance nearly in half. CBO estimates that health reform will reduce the share of the non-elderly population without insurance from 20 percent in the law's absence to about 16 percent in 2014 and about 11 percent in 2016 and beyond. That's 26 million more people with health coverage.
Delaying health reform's individual mandate for five years, as a House bill would do to offset the cost of permanently cancelling scheduled cuts in Medicare payments to physicians, would mean about 13 million more uninsured Americans in 2018 compared to current law, with similar increases in most years that the mandate isn't in effect.
Since the new health insurance exchanges launched last October, there's been a seemingly endless stream of news stories, mostly about rollout problems, health insurance cancellations, enrollment numbers, or personal anecdotes that are quickly repurposed as political fodder. But what about the shopping experience?