‘Food fear’ hype turns out to be undercover pitch from an industry trade group

Remember that “affordable” part of the “Affordable Care Act?” The part that was going to allow millions and millions of Americans to get low- or no-cost health insurance?

Well if a just-in ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is upheld, that word “affordable” will need to be tossed out the window.

Not that it ever really was “affordable” in the first place, but that’s another story!

The 2-1 court ruling could cripple Obamacare, a law filled with loopholes and weird traps to invade your privacy.

But it looks like one of those traps has just grabbed it by its own leg.

Then again, maybe not — because just hours after that ruling, another Federal appeals court in Richmond, Va. that was reviewing a similar case ruled in Obama’s favor.

So if you thought Obamacare seemed totally confusing — well, now, it’s obvious so do teams of lawyers and judges.

The D.C. appeals panel ruled that Obamacare, as it is written, only allows those tax credits (that come in the form of premium reductions) to be given to those who got their coverage in states that created their own exchanges — just 16.

So all the people who are now expecting free health care in the rest of the coutnry will be out of luck if the earlier ruling stands.

Those credits, or “subsidies” are what Obama supporters claimed would allow over 85 percent of Americans without health insurance to jump on the insurance bandwagon.

And it doesn’t look like the 3-judge panel that issued the first ruling was swayed by anything other than a clear reading of Obamacare. One member, Judge Thomas Griffith said that the panel reached its ruling “with reluctance.”

Perhaps had anyone bothered to read this law in its entirety before Obama shoved it down the country’s throat, well maybe that little tidbit would have been noticed!

It looks like this was the one time Obama was going to give states any power, and it backfired on him big-time. It was assumed that most would want the “joy” of having their own state-run exchanges, but just a handful did. Now you and I could be left footing the bill.

With these conflicting rulings it looks like there will only be two ways to resolve this — rock, paper, scissors or the Supreme Court.

Sources:

“Increasing familiarity is the best way to avoid ingredient-based food fear” Brian Wansink, Aner Tal, and Adam Brumberg. (2014), foodpsychology.cornell.edu