Obamacare watch...Supreme Court Decision

[Jiro]

That was pretty basic....If you don't follow that, it is probably best that we move on. Enjoy your "victory"!

I don't presume to read your mind or always know whatever you say as your definition of "provide" is apparently different but it appears that while you are not being forthcoming, it seems to imply your intention here is only to quibble around.

As you know - there's nothing "pretty basic" about Obamacare. It's quite complex.

 

[Jiro]

That's right. Now the gate is open for taxing anything they want.

It's always been like that since Day 1.

income tax, remember?

 

[TXgolfer]

I don't presume to read your mind or always know whatever you say as your definition of "provide" is apparently different but it appears that while you are not being forthcoming, it seems to imply your intention here is only to quibble around.

As you know - there's nothing "pretty basic" about Obamacare. It's quite complex.

Quibble around? I am the one that said move on

 

[Reba]

If it moves, tax it.

It doesn't even have to move to be taxed. Hence, we have property taxes and death taxes.

 

[TXgolfer]

It doesn't even have to move to be taxed. Hence, we have property taxes and death taxes.

This basically is the first validation of a non commerce, non use Tax. Very interesting

 

[kokonut]

Yep Basically the court upheld the commerce clause (excellent) but granted almost unlimited taxing power which should scare the piss out of most independents.

they argued before the court that it is a tax whence before they said the mandate wasn't a tax. Exactly right, unlimited taxing power. It continues to be an ongoing and vicious cycle of taxing when the problem is spending.

Watch your grocery bills go up. Everything that we use will go up. And the poor will be the biggest hit. O just unwittingly declared war on the poor, and everybody else that they must pay more. So much for his sacrifice and his family.

 

[Jiro]

they argued before the court that it is a tax whence before they said the mandate wasn't a tax. Exactly right, unlimited taxing power. It continues to be an ongoing and vicious cycle of taxing when the problem is spending.

Watch your grocery bills go up. Everything that we use will go up. And the poor will be the biggest hit. O just unwittingly declared war on the poor, and everybody else that they must pay more. So much for his sacrifice and his family.

how? the poor are exempted from it. Obama actually declared war on the riches..... which is long overdue.

 

[Foxrac]

they argued before the court that it is a tax whence before they said the mandate wasn't a tax. Exactly right, unlimited taxing power. It continues to be an ongoing and vicious cycle of taxing when the problem is spending.

Watch your grocery bills go up. Everything that we use will go up. And the poor will be the biggest hit. O just unwittingly declared war on the poor, and everybody else that they must pay more. So much for his sacrifice and his family.

You are wrong about that.

 

[TXgolfer]

they argued before the court that it is a tax whence before they said the mandate wasn't a tax. Exactly right, unlimited taxing power. It continues to be an ongoing and vicious cycle of taxing when the problem is spending.

Watch your grocery bills go up. Everything that we use will go up. And the poor will be the biggest hit. O just unwittingly declared war on the poor, and everybody else that they must pay more. So much for his sacrifice and his family.

We will have to wait and see. I think the impact on the poor will be dramatic. People don't like being taxed. Also, there will very likely be a shift from charitable giving to campaign contributions in the coming months. I think we have to come up with creative protests to break the system....

 

[Foxrac]

We will have to wait and see. I think the impact on the poor will be dramatic. People don't like being taxed. Also, there will very likely be a shift from charitable giving to campaign contributions in the coming months. I think we have to come up with creative protests to break the system....

Wishful thinking...

 

[Jiro]

funny line I saw in reddit - "Congratulations Republicans: The Individual Mandate that you created and supported for 20 years (before Obama adopted it) has survived the Supreme Court"

Why Republicans Oppose the Individual Health-Care Mandate : The New Yorker

In the brief, Stuart Butler, the foundation’s health-care expert, argued, “Many states now require passengers in automobiles to wear seat-belts for their own protection. Many others require anybody driving a car to have liability insurance. But neither the federal government nor any state requires all households to protect themselves from the potentially catastrophic costs of a serious accident or illness. Under the Heritage plan, there would be such a requirement.” The mandate made its first legislative appearance in 1993, in the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act—the Republicans’ alternative to President Clinton’s health-reform bill—which was sponsored by John Chafee, of Rhode Island, and co-sponsored by eighteen Republicans, including Bob Dole, who was then the Senate Minority Leader.

In a June, 2009, interview on “Meet the Press,” Mitt Romney, who, as governor of Massachusetts, had signed a universal health-care bill with an individual mandate, said that Wyden-Bennett was a plan “that a number of Republicans think is a very good health-care plan—one that we support.”

 

[Foxrac]

funny line I saw in reddit - "Congratulations Republicans: The Individual Mandate that you created and supported for 20 years (before Obama adopted it) has survived the Supreme Court"

Why Republicans Oppose the Individual Health-Care Mandate : The New Yorker

I think Republican Party created individual mandate in 1970's.

 

[Jiro]

Awaiting a Ruling on Obamacare

As the 32 million (and counting) Americans whose access to health insurance depends on the Supreme Court’s ruling on Obamacare hold their breath, here’s a quick look at the top three reasons why the health care law should remain intact.

1. Millions of Americans under Obamacare have access to affordable quality care who wouldn’t otherwise be covered.

The provision of the law that allows young adults to stay on their parents’ health care plans until age 26 has allowed an additional 3.1 million young people who wouldn’t otherwise have been covered gain access to insurance since 2010—in other words, 73 percent of American youth now are covered as a result of this provision.

The ban in Obamacare on pre-existing condition abuses by insurance companies will ensure that providers can’t charge more for or deny coverage to those who have painful, long-term medical conditions such as asthma, heart disease, and cancer. Approximately 60,000 Americans who were previously denied coverage now have insurance through the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan.

The 350 community health centers created by the law have helped 50 million Americans who lived in medically underserved areas and couldn’t easily access insurance or health care.

Women no longer have to worry about arbitrarily being charged more for insurance or being told an essential yet sometimes expensive procedure or medication isn’t covered.

2. The Affordable Care Act lowers health insurance costs for everyone—especially those who need it most.

The Affordable Care Act requires health insurance companies to cover important preventive services, including immunizations, health screenings, and counseling services—all things that more than 85 million people accessed for free in 2011, thanks to the law. Included in these 85 million people are 32.5 million seniors who received free preventive services, including mammograms and colonoscopies in 2011. More than 14 million people have already received at least one preventive service at no cost in the first five months of 2012.

Obamacare also closed important prescription drug coverage gaps in the Medicare Part D program, known as the “donut hole,” saving more than 5.25 million beneficiaries more than $3.7 billion on prescription drug costs.

The individual mandate requiring all Americans to have insurance or else pay a fee will dramatically lower the costs to society and taxpayers of caring for an uninsured persons—which alone totaled $57.1 billion in 2008, the last year for which data are available.

The Affordable Care Act makes it possible for many families in poverty and families of color to afford and access the health care they need by eliminating pre-existing condition abuses, allowing young people to remain on their parents’ plans, and making it easier and more affordable for small businesses to provide insurance coverage to their employees.

Many provisions in the law take the first steps toward closing the disparities that gay* and transgender people and their loved ones face in the insurance market, including refusal to cover certain procedures or medications and coverage of partners, spouses, and family members.

3. If Obamacare is overturned, all of us will be more vulnerable to unfair and unreasonable treatment by insurance companies.

In addition to banning insurance companies from denying or arbitrarily charging more for coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, the Affordable Care Act also eliminates lifetime coverage limits for 105 million Americans. This ensures that those who most need coverage to pay for expensive treatments and care cannot “max out” their health insurance or be denied vital coverage.

Rate-review provisions also protect consumers from unreasonable and inexplicable premium hikes by private insurance companies by increasing transparency requirements and accountability to rate increases. Insurance companies now have to publicly justify raising rates by 10 percent or more and the Department of Health and Human Services has granted millions of dollars to states to boost their abilities to stop these unreasonable increases.

Obamacare also has held insurers accountable for excessive profits, banning them from spending more than 20 percent of premium dollars on advertising or executive bonuses. About 13 million Americans will receive a rebate check from insurance companies that weren’t spending enough on patient care.

Obamacare bans insurance companies from charging women more than men—in the individual market, a total of $1 billion more—for the exact same plans solely because of gender.

Insurers are also required under the law to provide consumers with easy-to-understand information about their health plans and costs by September of this year, making it less difficult and daunting to figure out which plan works best for each individual or family—and much less probable that insurance companies can take advantage of those who don’t have access to this important information.

 

[Foxrac]

Awaiting a Ruling on Obamacare

As the 32 million (and counting) Americans whose access to health insurance depends on the Supreme Court’s ruling on Obamacare hold their breath, here’s a quick look at the top three reasons why the health care law should remain intact.

Yup, it means bankruptcy court will be free up and they will be not overwhelmed with all bankrupt cases that related to medical bills.

 

[TXgolfer]

I am just glad states cannot be forced to expand Medicaid. That is a tremendous victory for my side. Sure feel sorry for those that would have been part of that expansion....This tax will hit them hard.

Sure wouldn't want to be the low man on the Totem pole in a company with 60 employees either.

 

[Foxrac]

I am just glad states cannot be forced to expand Medicaid. That is a tremendous victory for my side. Sure feel sorry for those that would have been part of that expansion....This tax will hit them hard.

Sure wouldn't want to be the low man on the Totem pole in a company with 60 employees either.

No, that's not true.

Question: Can the federal government force states to expand their share of Medicaid costs and administration?

The court's answer: Yes, but the justices ruled that the federal government cannot remove existing Medicaid funding if the states choose not to participate in the new program.

Court says on Medicaid that the federal government may not take Medicaid from states that refuse to take part. (That is a limited ruling, without striking it down. In the ruling the court offered the government a way to remedy this potential problem.)

Source: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/28/how-will-supreme-court-rule-on-health-care-law/?hpt=hp_t1

Providing a misled claim make you looks pathological liar so back up any fact before you post.

 

[TXgolfer]

No, that's not true.



Source: Supreme Court upholds health care law - This Just In - CNN.com Blogs

Providing a misled claim make you looks pathological liar so back up any fact before you post.

Umm...

Question: Can the federal government force states to expand their share of Medicaid costs and administration?

The court's answer: Yes, but the justices ruled that the federal government cannot remove existing Medicaid funding if the states choose not to participate in the new program.

Court says on Medicaid that the federal government may not take Medicaid from states that refuse to take part. (That is a limited ruling, without striking it down. In the ruling the court offered the government a way to remedy this potential problem.)

 

[TXgolfer]

This could....could be a tremendous positive for the states that are against Obamacare. Simply chose not to expand Medicaid and it's possible the burdens in your state will move elsewhere making them another state's problem. It will be interesting to see how this all unfolds, but I think there are some tools here to use this law to our advantage.

BTW....Looks like Joe Wilson was right.

 

[Jiro]

This could....could be a tremendous positive for the states that are against Obamacare. Simply chose not to expand Medicaid and it's possible the burdens in your state will move elsewhere making them another state's problem. It will be interesting to see how this all unfolds, but I think there are some tools here to use this law to our advantage.

indeed it is good that federal government cannot hold them hostage for not expanding Medicaid program but I disagree about tax burden part. I don't see how but then... maybe I'll find out for myself when the time comes :Ohno:

BTW....Looks like Joe Wilson was right.

right about... specifically which part?

 

[Foxrac]

Umm...

You didn't state in your post and your post is just saying that high court strike down the provision that force states to expand the Medicaid but... court didn't.

The federal can force state to expand the Medicaid in other way but they can't remove the Medicaid funding from state if they refuse to expand.

It seems reasonable way for this court ruling because some portion of Medicaid is funded by state and some portion is funded by federal. I don't think removing Medicaid funding from state for refuse to expand, is good idea. The federal have to provide funds to state to expand the Medicaid without burden on state budget.

I'm glad that you quoted my post about doubt between you and me, however your post isn't fully accurate so I have to give out the fact.