It’s my opinion CNBC has pretty much given up on reporting in exchange for storytelling. Naturally you should decide for yourself. But what’s the point of being coached and cowed into a false sense of nobility or being told that you’re doing right by blindly supporting what someone else tells you about Obamacare? You not only risk being on the wrong side of history, the self-righteous, inflated description Democrats increasingly apply to people with different opinions from theirs, but you willingly elect to be on the wrong side of reality.
It’s why I bog down my articles with cites. So start with going and taking a look for yourself at CNBC.com’s latest: “Supreme Court ruling could lead to Obamacare 'death spiral': Mt. Sinai chief,” 6/20/2015, Trent Gillies, http://www.cnbc.com/id/102773527, it’s published for all to see.
When you get to the story read the blurb: “President Obama’s healthcare law stands before the Supreme Court again. If overturned…”
If you’re uninformed, perhaps you’re worried. Or, maybe you believe you’ve taken some noble high road advocating for Obamacare. Either way, this article would speak to you. Unfortunately, it’s imaginary. King v. Burwell has NOTHING TO DO WITH OVERTURNING Obamacare. NOTHING. The best advice for CNBC, facts first.
King v. Burwell is about whether the IRS and the federal government should have paid SUBSIDIES to Obamacare enrollees regardless of whether the individuals who got those subsidies met the criteria established by section 1401 including IRS 36B requiring that people eligible for subsidies have enrolled in Obamacare through an exchange established by the state under section 1311 of the Affordable Care Act. (Easiest way to see the text is to go to Google’s searchable version of the PPACA and put in section 1401 and go down to 36B).
Now, you might believe that CNBC doesn’t KNOW the issue which is one alternative, or perhaps there’s a deliberate intention to mislead readers. This too you can decide for yourself. But there are facts. King v. Burwell has NOTHING to do with overturning Obamacare.
The issue in the Supreme Court case King v. Burwell is whether payments made to all enrollees under premium assistance provisions IN THE LAW were lawful to begin with in lieu of the uncontroverted…Nobody disagrees that the requirement is there…That premium assistance is only available to individuals who enroll in a state exchange established by the state under 1311.
Which brings us to our second issue: Why the heck is Kenneth Davis being interviewed at all? Mt. Sinai Health System ACCORDING TO ITSELF is “…in New York City” (mountsinaihealth.org). New York has a health exchange. THERE IS NO DANGER THAT THE SUPREME COURT DECISION in King v. Burwell WILL IMPACT NYC because enrollees enrolled through an EXCHANGE ESTABLISHED BY THE STATE UNDER 1311 have met that requirement for eligibility for the federal government’s payment of subsidies.
Ridiculous.
