ACA Supreme Court Tuesday
 

Judges asked hard questions. As they should. Good analysis here:

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-coh...oberts-kennedy

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/s...170042500.html

I want to know if anyone can protest in front of the Supreme Court? I'd like to see the Occupy protestors attempt it.

So what I'm saying is look at those paid shills for Obama. How shameless.

Yeah, but this is depressing. From the article:

"One other note: As somebody who knows the policy issues, the hearing was incredibly frustrating to watch. Both judges and lawyers, on both sides, seemed not to understand the specifics of the health care market and why it would (or would not, depending on your legal philosophy) make the mandate constitutional. But, of course, that's a pretty good argument for why judges should leave legislative judgment to the legislative branch."

Nothing better than people who don't understand an issue getting final say on it.

I'd like to see all of Congress take a test on Obamacare. Spare the sour grapes routine. Take the loss like a champ.

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_ne...h-care-mandate


just read this on msnbc, not looking too promising for obama's signature legislation according to the writer.
but who knows?

Strike it down and then vote him out. At this point you could put Curly from The Three Stooges in office. At least he wouldn't race bait.

lol
never thought i'd see someone accuse the justices of being too stupid about something to make a proper ruling.
but really, the details aren't what matters-it's what that old, moldy piece of paper says that matters. and rightfully so. as long as the justices are able to know what's constitutional, that's all that matters.

I've read "court watcher" reports today that look now like it will be a 6-3 win, and a 5-4 defeat.

That the judges are asking very tough questions can mean they are clearing all doubt from their minds, or doubling down on what they are concerned about.

We won't know until June.

I'm more optimistic, after reading stuff about today, that it will be 5-4 or 6-3 in favor. If it is overturned, we must go to national single payer to control our skyrocking healthcare costs, so some on the far left are hoping for a defeat. The judges did acknowledge that in the discussion today, which points in favor of upholding the mandate.

Hah single payer. You're living in fantasyland. They don't have enough printer ink at the treasury to maintain that monstrosity.

It's over. Best case scenario is they let it slide and it fails miserably on its own. The people who don't work for exempt companies will be forced to buy their insurance on the exchange or face a tax.

What are they going to do about jobs? Pay isn't increasing. Are they going to throw everyone who doesn't pay the tax in debtor's prison?

Good luck trying to bleed a turnip.

:tro:


there are myriad issues with health care, we all know that. but this issue would be best handled by the states, which is where it belongs. arkansas for example has arkids, which works much better than medicare.
the attempts on deciding who needs premium supplements/grants based on income alone is a bad move. what is good money in one state or region is not in another. a family of four making close to 90k annually here or in texas, missouri, etc probably wouldn't have a need for help paying their insurance-in new york city, they would need assistance. and that's just one of the many issues with the health care law. does our way of doing things medically need changing? absolutely. but obamacare isn't the cure.

That's why Obamacare allows and encourages each state to set up a state-specific, individualized exchange.

Vermont, for example, is going with a more advanced single payer system as the state Obamacare exchange.

BTW, the Republican states that are refusing to do so, will get the generic federal "one-size-fits-all" exchange.

Here's detail, with a map, from January on where each state is in the exchange setup process: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...ernors-exposed

Yes, I wish the public were far better educated on Obamacare. Because at this point, if it is overturned (other than the mandate alone), every single American looses current protections it has given them against insurance company consumer abuses.

The state of Kentucky has a similar program for low income families. I believe it's like medicaid. Heck a startling percentage of Kentuckians are getting a subsidy on their prescriptions where they pay a few dollars for name brand. Guess who is paying that?

It's insanity. Eventually the rent comes due. They may be able to kick the can another decade but at some point it's all going to collapse.

Have you not learned that math and logic have no place here?

What do you think about Obamacare extending the life of Medicare 20 years?

One opinion about the oral arguments today, predicts a 7-2 win (with Thomas and Scalia dissenting)

Sounds like a forecast, I have read 12 in most opinion pieces but see nothing that is written in the actual law yet. Though I am only on page 677 so far. As a small business owner whose employees make a decent wage all I have seen so far has not been pleasant.

You don't like those healthy tax credits you get? You can use them this year. And if you don't provide your employees with insurance, nothing will change for you. You don't have to. But they will have more affordable insurance private insurance available to them on exchanges. What isn't to like about that?

Pretty simple: you keep providing insurance as you do now, and gain huge tax credits; or you do not have to provide insurance, and nothing changes for you.

What part do you fear is "not pleasant"? What specifically are you talking about?

Extending the life of Medicare isn't written in the law, it's CBO analysis of the impact on the costs of our healthcare.

i wouldn't worry about reading any more of it til after june. of course i'm trying to read states not bothering to set up exchanges as a positive sign as well.


and what's the bolded part in reference to?

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/...t_mandate.html


slate-hearing a 'trainwreck' for obamacare.

Robert Reich: If mandate is overturned, that's the end of private insurance companies - and they know it.

Interesting take on this:

http://robertreich.org/post/19972321637

ACA Supreme Court Tuesday
 

The other thing in favor of upholding the mandate is that the health insurance companies have lots of skin in the game; they would be devastated if the SCOTUS strikes down the mandate, but lets the rest of Obamacare play on.

Listening to NPR tonight, their commentators thought that everything depended on Kennedy, the swing vote. Not a good day for the government.


Ocala Mike

Because I pay my people enough to live on I am ineligible for any tax credits at all based on what I have read in the law itself so where is the benefit, perhaps I will lower their salaries?

a 12 year extension on Medicare as opposed to 20.

it's the Obamacare way!

Do what a lot of other small companies plan on doing. Drop their healthcare and pay the penalty. It's far cheaper and allows the individual employee be responsible for and choose his/her own healthcare policy.

Call it the Obama Backfire Move!

yeah, they keep touting it helping medicare (which is interesting, since every time you mention making changes to that part of entitlements it's not in trouble :rolleyes:) but don't wade into the rest of the story...that the savings in medicare don't cover the increased medicaid costs. so the money that wouldn't have to go in one pocket would go in the other-but would still not be enough to fill the bigger hole.

so yeah, they beat that drum-but it's far from the whole story.

that's exactly what many will do. why wouldn't they? which is why the under a trillion cost the CBO sent to congress (the magic number) is dead wrong. which is why they've already had to adjust the price drastically upwards, and still probably isn't high enough! they're in denial about what businesses will do! if you want them to provide the coverage thru work, it must be worth the businesses while to do so!! that's just common sense.

Why in the world would you choose to lower their salaries for no reason?

Are you saying that they are insured by you now, and you have a small business of less than 25 employees, but because their salaries are high, that is prohibiting you from getting tax credits?

The point is that there is no negative affect upon you from Obamacare. Everything goes along for you as before. There is no change.

You have no mandate to provide your employees with insurance due to your business size.

However, if you would like to start offering insurance to your employees as a benefit, you will get business tax credits and the cost will be quite significantly lower for you.

If they are insured privately now outside of work, nothing will change for them except the consumer protections preventing insurance company abuse. If they do not have insurance, they can purchase it for the first time at lesser cost on the exchanges.

Doubtful.

Small companies with less than 25 employees do not pay a penalty and there is no requirement they offer insurance.

Because small business of 25 employees or less are exempt not required to provide insurance and pay no penalty under the ACA.

They also adjusted the revenues drastically upward, but keep ignoring that ;)

That would be really, really weirdly unprecedented interference in the legislative branch of government, even considering Bush v Gore, for conservative judges to be that judicially active by throwing out clearly legal consumer protections along with the mandate.

We'll find out in June.

The Armageddon-like assessments of the political reporters yesterday didn't stand up to later reading of the transcripts, either.

The insurance companies will be in a meltdown panic if the entire ACA is struck down as half of it is already in place now - they will go out of business - and they know it (see Robt. Reich's column the other day). They need the mandate for financial success, and the conservative judges saving them from the consumer protections won't help.
The other option is single payer which makes them virtually extinct.

Just got an email with a link that tells the whole factual (scary):eek: story of Obamacare...from a reliable source...;)


http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v...1Be8&vg=medium

:D:tro: HEALTHCARE RATIONING! DEATH PANELS! NOBODY CAN HAVE A HEART ATTACK OR A ROTATOR CUFF SURGERY UNDER OBAMACARE BECAUSE ITS TOO EXPENSIVE! LOL!

Teh stupid ... it burns ....

Riot soon to be on suicide watch...

Then on Tuesday, November 6, 2012 :eek:

As OJ said " look out"

I have a preview of the ruling this June...































CRINKLE







































TRASH CAN

was watching msnbc this morning while doing my daily penance on the elliptical and treadmill...they said the obamacare bill is 2700 pages long, not a 1000. that's the eqivalent of reading war and peace, the pickwick papers, and les miserables...but would feel like you were trying to read james joyces ulysses if it was 2700 pages long. good god. no way those senators and congressmen read it.
they also said something interesting-that hillary clinton had the individual mandate in her plan, and obama was against it then. my how things change.

at any rate, people don't know what all is contained-but they know they don't like being forced to purchase something. the WH is arguing that everyone engages in the health care system, hence the commerce clause would apply...however, everyone doesn't engage in the system.
knowing people up to 400% of federal poverty levels would get subsidized, both for premium and for stop loss is enough to make you go huh? that rule would include most arkansas citizens. all but the very highest income in the top 1-2% of households. you guys want to subsidize 99% of this state?

the healthiest group of people-they're the ones obama is forcing companies to keep on their parents policies til age 26-how does that make sense?
medicaid is already bankrupting state budgets-how can they afford for that cost to double since the qualifying rules would change from 70% above poverty level to the new 120% of poverty level?


the only way to fix medical, and get everyone covered is single payer. all this convoluted bs is just that, bs. it fixes nothing. it is unaffordable. but the pols are too chicken to do what really needs doing.

The GOP had an uncooperative hissy fit on every single thing this president was trying to do from day one. So he compromised by going to a 100%, straight-GOP-health plan from the 1990's, that had already been proven to work, in practice, and lower insurance costs in Mass. There is nothing wrong with this plan. They added more consumer protections. Yet the GOP still had a hissy fit, over their own damn plan.

For goodness sakes: Paul Ryans current budget to destroy Medicare moves it from a government non-profit program, to a privatized for-profit voucher program that is an exact duplicate of the ACA! And he touts all the financial benefits.

The ACA a 100% GOP plan, proven to work in practice in Mass., yet the GOP still didn't put up one vote for it, because they are more concerned with sabotaging this president than helping the citizens of this country.

This was the best the citizens could get against the 100% obstruction of the GOP against this president. Health care is an economic issue, it's out of control here, it's driving this country to poverty. The president was absolutely right to address it.

This president addressed our health care disaster, like every single president, Republican or Democrat, since Johnson has tried to, and finally got something passed with not just a simple senate majority as it needed, but with 60 votes - a clear and overwhelming majority.

The current incarnation of the GOP is done as a political party. They will have an overwhelming disaster this fall, then the brahmins of the party will take back the reins from the John Birch Society/Tea Party/Evangelicals, and try to recover from 2016 on.

the ACA is nothing really different than what exists other than forcing people to by something they can't afford. It needs to be eliminated. Health insurance companies need to be eliminated on the grounds of common human decency...maybe not eliminated completely, but a massive amount of it. It comes down to this question, should basic health care for a sick child be provided for in this country?? It's a simple yes or no question. If you don't like the ACA, you certainly don't like the present system I wouldn't think. As someone with kids I want everyone treated. If an illegal imigrant is walking around with a conageous disease, I want them treated, no questions asked. I really don't understand the concept of anyone wanting anyone sick just walking around. The ACA solves nothing whatsoever with problems with the way things are. The mandate is pretty ridiculous for the most part.

no, it's different. it's a bad attempt at fixing a bad problem.

single payer. that's what's needed. not that it would ultimately end up a great system-but then everyone would be covered and it wouldn't be a convoluted crazy mess.