Entire ACA upheld by Supreme Court

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

The Supreme Court reiterated today, in the decision, that people do not have to purchase the product, and can choose not to pay the fine.

Sounds like a mandate to me...if you don't have to purcahse the product or pay the fine then how is it mandatory?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Sounds like a mandate to me:zz:...if you don't have to purcahse the product or pay the fine then how is it mandatory?

if they can't fine...er, tax, then there's no mandate. it would still blow up the whole package. that was why the health providers went for this plan, it makes people buy it.
the only way, from what i've read, to keep from paying the fine is if the coverage price exceeds a set percentage of your income. but with subsidies being what they are, i don't see how that could occur.

[Clip-Clop]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=rL7ak__MGyw

This was great stuff.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=rL7ak__MGyw

This was great stuff.

how in the hell can it be deficit neutral?? how can doubling medicaid rolls not cause an increase in spending? how can subsidizing premiums not cost money?
in what fuci<ing thomas more utopian fantasy land does this **** work? is believable? it's not logical!! if you have x amount on medicaid now...you double that-what does that do to the cost of providing that care alone? well, i would think one could safely extrapolate that if you double the membership of a group, that would also double the cost of covering that group. that's just medicaid. what about the subsidies? who will pay that? and if your stop loss is a certain amount, who is funding that? with what? monopoly money??
adding people with pre-existing conditions-who will pay for those? high risk coverages, who will pay? all the' free' add ons, where will that money come from?

oh, wait...let me guess, because hospitals are going to magically cut their costs, right? LMAO. yeah, sure they will. sure they will. and that'll make up aaaallll the difference.

dear god. and people think that'll happen. HA!

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Danzig

how in the hell can it be deficit neutral?? how can doubling medicaid rolls not cause an increase in spending? how can subsidizing premiums not cost money?
in what fuci<ing thomas more utopian fantasy land does this **** work? is believable? it's not logical!! if you have x amount on medicaid now...you double that-what does that do to the cost of providing that care alone? well, i would think one could safely extrapolate that if you double the membership of a group, that would also double the cost of covering that group. that's just medicaid. what about the subsidies? who will pay that? and if your stop loss is a certain amount, who is funding that? with what? monopoly money??
adding people with pre-existing conditions-who will pay for those? high risk coverages, who will pay? all the' free' add ons, where will that money come from?

oh, wait...let me guess, because hospitals are going to magically cut their costs, right? LMAO. yeah, sure they will. sure they will. and that'll make up aaaallll the difference.

dear god. and people think that'll happen. HA!

They will, because they will only be paid what the gov't thinks is fair.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

They will, because they will only be paid what the gov't thinks is fair.

lol
yeah, sure. that's why people are throwing money at health providers stock right now, because we all know how profitable things are when there are price controls.

well, at least it'll be interesting to watch how it all turns out.

[Riot]

"Obamacare a big tax hike on middle class America? No."
by Joan McCarter

Chief Justice John Roberts (who might want to think about increasing his security detail) is today's number one traitor for the Right. Roberts did conservatives a solid in one thing, however—he gave them their talking point by declaring that the individual mandate isn't really a mandate, but a tax. With some help from Rush Limbaugh, that's the new narrative from Republicans.

Speaker John Boehner calls it a tax hike. Ditto Rep. Joe Walsh (R-FormerlyADeadbeatDad), calling it a "new tax on middle class America." Sarah Palin, of course, piled on.

So did Mitt Romney, putting himself in some dubious company by declaring the same thing: "Obamacare raises taxes."

Well, not really, as Chris Hayes explains:

There is a difference between something being a tax and being permissible under congress' taxing authority.
— @chrislhayes via web

The Supreme Court ruling gives the federal government taxing authority, which is by no means the same as the imposition of a broad new tax.

No, this is not a massive tax increase on the American people. It's a penalty paid by people who choose not to purchase insurance. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that it will hit about 4 million Americans, about 1 percent of the population.

Now, it's refreshing that Republicans care about a different 1 percent for a change, but that still doesn't make this a tax hike.

And what's (way, way) more, most of the federal spending for the ACA is in tax credits for middle class people to help them afford insurance. Which is actually more like a tax cut.

Facts aside, since you know Republicans won't be swayed by them, here's the other part that Republicans, particularly Romney, have to tread carefully around. It's exactly how Mitt Romney expanded health insurance coverage in Massachusetts. If you don't buy health insurance in Massachusetts, guess what?

You pay a tax, as Mr. Romney explains at that link.

You pay a tax and take personal responsibility. (Remember that phrase, Mr. Romney? It's a real favorite in your set. Or was.)

The individual mandate isn't the route most of us on the left would have taken toward universal health coverage. But it's the route settled on by pragmatic, moderate political leaders like Barack Obama. And Mitt Romney.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Sounds like a mandate to me...if you don't have to purcahse the product or pay the fine then how is it mandatory?

If too many people (so it affects the pricing) choose to defy the law, then the Congress can insert collection language regarding the penalty so it will stick.

Kinda silly decision for folks to make, when the choice is

a) affordable comprehensive health care, you pay according to your income level

b) no health care

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

If too many people (so it affects the pricing) choose to defy the law, then the Congress can insert collection language regarding the penalty so it will stick.

Kinda silly decision for folks to make, when the choice is

a) affordable comprehensive health care, you pay according to your income level

b) no health care

Who will handle the collection of the "penalty"?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

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