Who will handle the collection of the "penalty"?

Right now, in the language of the Act, the IRS is specifically forbidden to attempt to collect any penalty. That doesn't even start until 2016.

As has been mentioned here many times over the past two years, that was done on purpose when the act was written, because the government wanted to judge if there was going to be a problem with compliance, or not.

The Congress would have to remove a couple of sentences in the Act to permit collection of fines (enforcement).

Who would pay healthcare penalty - less than 1% of Americans:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...tml?ref=topbar

perry came out today and said (no surprise) no expansion of medicaid, no exchanges. he joins fla, south car, louisiana....
26 states sued fighting obamacare. what will happen with that legislation if over half the country doesn't opt in?

Notice that it is the poorest, most uninsured, least healthy red states doing this: they choose to simply be killing their poor and lower middle-class citizens by denying them the health care access afforded them legally by the #ACA Medicaid expansion.

Those losers need to be kicked out of office.

What happens? Those states still get to take the money, but don't have to use it for it's intended purpose. Their citizens suffer by remaining out of the health care system.

As far as refusing to set up the exchanges, the federal government comes in and does it for the state, if the state refuses. So the state loses any "states rights" to tailor the exchanges specifically to the needs of that state. They get the generic federal plan.

That will affect you, Danzig, as your governor is refusing to follow the benefits the law gives you. Too bad for you.

Ezra Klein's WonkBlog explains it easily and well

If governors opt their states out of the health law’s Medicaid expansion — as many are now threatening to do — it’s the poorest Americans who would find themselves getting the rawest deal.

This set of charts from our graphics department helps explain why: People who earn less than 100 percent of the Federal Poverty Line (about $11,170 for an individual) are ineligible for tax credits to purchase health insurance. In a state like Arkansas, for example, that could be a big deal:

The states whose Republican governors so far say they will refuse to expand Medicaid, or have state-specific health insurance changes for their citizens under the ACA are:

Mississippi
Arkansas
New Jersey
Florida
South Carolina
Louisiana
Texas

Lots of states have said they won't accept the Medicaid expansion; too bad Riot's list doesn't include many of them.

Can you list the other ones? I've just listed the ones where I've seen the govs come out publicly and said they will not.

Kentucky, thank goodness, has a Democratic governor who has already instructed the state to start creating our exchanges - much to the displeasure of our KY Republican senators Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell, who would prefer to have our poorest people continue to be uninsured and not receive health care.

Found two more:

Republican Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin
Republican Gov. Terry Brandstadt of Iowa.

Too bad, poor people of those states - your governor denies you health care. And too bad, insured citizens of those states - you will continue to personally pay for these uninsured (freeloaders) in your ER costs and insurance premium costs.

yeah, too bad i can't see the list. ;)

You list Louisiana, where the only thing the Governor has said is that he'll take the new Medicaid population only if he can block grant the entire program. You also list New Jersey, where while Gov. Christie has criticized that portion of the law, also hasn't said definitively whether he wouldn't take the new population or not.

Arkansas has a Democrat governor, so there's that.

TPM2012
GOP Governors Split On Whether To Implement Obamacare
Benjy Sarlin June 29, 2012, 10:54 AM 11403

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/20...-obamacare.php

Their best shot at eliminating the Affordable Care Act gone, Republican governors say the next step is to ensure Mitt Romney and a Republican Senate have another chance to axe it in Congress. In the meantime, though, the ACA is the constitutionally sound law of the land and each state has to figure out how to actually implement it.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R), in a press call with fellow Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) of Virginia, offered up a pretty simple approach: Just pretend the law doesn’t exist.

“We’re not going to start implementing Obamacare,” Jindal said flatly. Under his watch, Louisiana will not set up any of the required state heath care exchanges where, starting in 2014, Americans will be able to buy subsidized private health insurance.

McDonnell was more cautious. “There’s still some uncertainty at this point as to what the right course is,” he said. McDonnell also said he would be “evaluating the case.”

A bunch of them came out immediately and said they would refuse it, but the pressure is on, as their citizens are angry - the citizens don't want to keep paying for the uninsured freeloaders, when the ACA will instead insure them and pay the majority of the cost across states.

Glad to hear Jindal is changing his mind - one of the poorest and least-insured health care states. I've only read that Christie has said no so far.

How's that high horse, Lady Disdain? ;)

You're talking about state exchanges versus the Medicaid expansion. One can set up one without tackling the other. They're not mutually exclusive. Jindal's statement above is that he's not going to set up an exchange, which was well within his rights as a state governor before the Supreme Court ever acted on the law.

Yes, I agree. Yes, talking about the Medicaid expansion, not the state exchanges. Jindal has said he won't participate in either that I've seen - I've not seen him say anything different yet about Medicaid, as you've said, although I hope he does change his mind.

I hope they all change their minds. They are going to be in trouble with the exchanges, however, as those take time to set up, and these govs are delaying that.

If the govs don't set up the exchanges, the Feds will just give the state a federally-run exchange. But if the Gov. declines the Medicaid expansion, the citizens of the state will continue paying for the uninsured "freeloaders" as they are now. And those poor people will remain without health care.

beebe has said he's open to expansion, but i'm figuring that the ledge isn't. it's odd how many down here are 'democrats' but then when you start talking to many citizens here, they're actually very conservative minded. anti-abortion, anti-civil rights, pro-gun, fiscally conservative....the only thing democratic that i know of is they're often pro-union.


yeah, arkansas already said months ago they weren't going to set up an exchange. it's not a requirement, the feds will have one set up. and the scotus removed the medicaid funding rule, so states are free to do as they wish there. they can't be coerced.


i have a webinar upcoming that talks about changes from aca. ought to be interesting.

Actually, what the SCOTUS said was that if a state refuses to expand Medicaid under the ACA, they cannot lose all their current Medicaid funding - only the ACA funding. Losing all their federal Medicaid money was the incentive to expand the program.

That's right - if your state doesn't want to be "coerced" into letting the feds pay for expanding healthcare to the currently poor and uninsured in your state, you will continue to personally pay for those uninsured in your premium costs, doctor and ER costs.

Such a choice, hum? :rolleyes:

Found this update, today:

Six governors say they will opt out of Medicaid. How long will they hold out?
Ezra Klein WonkBlog
Posted by Sarah Kliff on July 9, 2012 at 4:56 pm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...they-hold-out/

If you live in one of the dark-red states, below, citizens will continue to pay for uninsured freeloaders and the poor, as the Gov. has refused the ACA Medicaid expansion the feds will provide:



http://www.advisory.com/Daily-Briefi...caid-expansion

We report you decide..
 

House GOP are focused like a laser on jobs, jobs ... oh, wait. Never mind.
 

Reprinted with permission:

Another day, another Obamacare repeal debate in the House
by Joan McCarter
Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 12:21 PM EDT

For the 31st time in 18 months, Republicans in the House of Representatives are spending today debating a repeal of the Affordable Care Act, with the final vote tomorrow.

This time is extra special, though, since the Supreme Court ruled last month that the ACA is constitutional.

It gives a certain oomph to this iteration of the temper tantrum, the utterly futile "Repeal of Obamacare Act." It will never reach the Senate floor, but if by some miracle it did, it would be vetoed. Like wasting time is going to stop this crop of Republicans.

Demonstrating just how absurd all this is, they actually let Rep. Allen West (R-Crazytown) out in public to act as spokesman.

Not just repealed. Irradiated. Which is complete gibberish, but it's decisive gibberish. But what's not gibberish is what Republicans are intent upon doing, as Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) explains: Of course, it could also be about Republican members of Congress not wanting to lose the very sweet deal that they have for health care.

During the negotiations, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) offered what he thought would be a cute poison pill amendment, requiring that all members of Congress give up their federal employees health benefits, and shop for their insurance on the new exchanges.

Democrats loved the idea, and it was adopted. And now, Republicans want to get rid of it, and keep their very generous health insurance, which they get to keep for their whole lives, if they want to.

So it's lifetime government health care coverage for them, but not for you. That's the Republican vision of freedom.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...the-nbsp-House

Since obama signed the tax cut extension, and wants another....how is it still a bush tax cut?

And i wish they would do away with the ss cut on anyone making above 100k. Why is 250k the magic number??

Matter of fact.....remove the ss tax that the employer pays rather then the employee...how much money would that free to hire more people's?

FTFY. It isn't 1970 anymore.

As a small business owner, I'll say this: if your business has gotten so busy, you need more employees, you hire them. That's the only incentive to hire.

What about the job creators, won't they create a bunch of jobs when Mittster is prez?....
btw, read or heard somewhere that the Mitt/Bain sending jobs overseas is a myth!...think i heard that on Faux...:)

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/p...191746511.html


interesting....but the dem. party will probably tell them to vote for repeal. one, they want to keep the seat, two, it won't matter anyway because the senate won't vote to repeal.

i was thinking along the lines of small business-most employers are very small businesses, with no ceo's-unless the owner/operator/manager wants to give himself that fancy title. i'm certainly not thinking of titans like gm, ge, etc.

Rebates due out before August 1, 2012
 

healthcare.gov

The 80/20 Rule: Providing Value and Rebates to Millions of Consumers

The new health reform law, the Affordable Care Act, holds health insurance companies accountable to consumers and ensures that American families are reimbursed if health insurance companies don’t meet a fair standard of value.

Because of the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies now must reveal how much of premium dollars they actually spend on health care and how much they spend on administration, such as salaries and marketing.

This information was not shared with consumers in the past.

Not only is this information made available to consumers for the first time, If an insurance company spends less than 80% of premiums on medical care and quality (or less than 85% in the large group market, which is generally insurance provided through large employers), it must rebate the portion of premium dollars that exceeded this limit.[1] This 80/20 rule is commonly known as the Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) rule.

On June 1, 2012, insurance companies nationwide submitted their annual MLR reports for coverage provided in 2011 to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Based on this data, insurance companies that didn’t meet the 80/20 rule will provide nearly 12.8 million Americans with more than $1.1 billion in rebates this year. Americans receiving the rebate will benefit from an average rebate of $151 per household.

Under the new health care law, rebates must be paid by Aug. 1 each year. As a result, 12.8 million Americans will see one of the following:

a rebate check in the mail
a lump-sum reimbursement to the same account that was used to pay the premium if it was paid by credit card or debit card
a direct reduction in their future premiums
their employer providing one of the above rebate methods, or applying the rebate in a manner that benefits its employees.

Here are the expected 2012 rebates:

The fix is on the way..
 

The Republican "Replacement" Health Care plan is "Obamacare", and has been since the Republicans in the House and Senate first introduced "Obamacare" as GOP legislation in 1993. The Republicans have nothing to "replace" with, as the Dems already passed their GOP "It's replacement for Hillarycare" health care plan.

One of the biggest differences between "Romneycare" (Heritage Foundation Individual Mandate Plan) and "Obamacare" is that Romneycare pays for abortions. Obamacare does not.

What!...wait...you must have that backwards...:zz:...I demand an investigation..

The "Romneycare" abortions was added by the current governor of Mass.(Obama's buddy Deval) and the democratic legislature, not Romney. There were many additional mandates added later which is why everyone in Mass. must have the "cadillac" plan to qualify.

Ma'am..if you're gonna speak truth around theses parts, it's best if you just move along.

Strange. Not according to Politifact (below), which says abortion has been covered since day one of the bill being signed into law by Romney.

Do you have any link for the claim you make about abortion not being covered, but was added later by Deval?

(which is rather a moot point, however, as it still makes it true that Romneycare covers abortions, and Obamacare does not)

Actually, she just needs to say where she heard that, before it's called "truth" ;)

This is interesting ... Romneycare has covered abortion since it's inception, and in the first two years of it's existence, abortion rates lowered due to better health care access.

Cool. Less abortion = better, IMO

This is from PoliticsDaily, two years ago, when the ACA was first being discussed:

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03...uce-abortions/

Actually I stand corrected. Riot is right that it was in the original law. Romney vetoed it and the democratic legislature overrode his veto. He vetoed 8 mandates but the legislature overrode every one of them. It's also important to note that the Mass law was only 70 pages long and more importantly, Romney balanced the state budget BEFORE introducing the health care bill.
And no, I'm not going to provide links, pie charts, graphs or anything else. I happen to think the posters here are not as stupid as some believe and are quite capable of looking up info if they are interested and making up their own minds.
Romney was a good governor of this state. How many people know that he never accepted the governor's salary when he was governor? :)

Right or wrong, who cares?? I was just trying to rile sh*t up.:D

Slow night.

Rabblerouser :D

Too bad Romney can't run on his excellent signature legislative achievement with the current GOP makeup :( His policies as Gov. of Mass. were very "typical Republican", for what a Republican used to be. It's sad to see him pretend to be something he isn't, just to please the dominant wingnuts in the current version of "Republicanism".

Karma is a biotch :p