Affordable Care Act UPHELD by Supreme Court
by Josh K - 6/28/12 7:19 AM
Ruling just in, Obamacare is legal.
Now pass the popcorn, 'cause this is gonna be good. Toni?
by: Josh K June 28, 2012 7:19 AM PDT
0 people like this thread
A sad day
Everything I'd read recently suggested there was almost no way this would pass muster with the Supreme Court. It appears that, though polls show that the great majority of citizens are not in favor of the individual mandate, the government has the authority to ram it down their throats based on their right to tax. Seems a stretch but such is how it goes in the new US of A. Very sad indeed.
Popcorn in hand
The mandate was upheld, but as a TAX, and tossed out as part of Commerce. That means that every person who files a tax return, even if they owe no taxes and gets a refund, including EIC types, will have that tax taken from their refunds.....that isn't going to be enough to pay for Obamacare and once people realize that that's how it will be even partially paid for, that 49% of the population who already pays nothing in taxes will NOT be happy campers because they count on those refunds. That will also cause the economy to stagnate because it's that much less that will going into it. Can you say 'voters'?
The other thing that that WAS allowed by the Court is that the States now won't have to implement Obamacare....they had the threat of having the Feds cut off their Medicaid if they didn't do as the Feds said about setting up exchanges, and that threat is gone. That means that the millions of people that Obamacare was 'supposed' to have covered via Medicaid STILL won't have insurance because the States can now ALL opt out and still cover the people they already have on the books and NOT cover the additional people.
This is NOT what BO wanted to have happen.....and he'll be spinning this every which way but loose when he comes on tv later to claim a victory because the decision really takes the legs out from under the Act. You already have 27 States that have refused via the lawsuits to comply, NJ Governor Christy vetoed implementing it without a lawsuit. That's alot of States already that have told Obamacare to stick it....won't be long before the rest follow suit without having to file lawsuits.
BO's taxation will NOT be popular with the vote around the corner because he kept telling people it was NOT a tax, when in fact it is (many of us kept telling you that but did you listen?) and now the people find out he lied about THAT too. Good luck............this has now turned into a HUGE campaign issue. BO trying to explain how he didn't lie to his base trying to explain how the program will be paid for now that millions won't be covered and Romney letting them all know how he DID lie and screwed the country without benefit of Vaseline
Up until now the main factor in the upcoming election was said to be jobs and the economy. Could this make ObamaCare a main factor with Obama being pro-ObamacCare v.s. Romney campaigning promising to work to repeal it? If the election becomes about ObamaCare, consider the current statistics about the number of voters who want it repealed or severely limited.
interesting thought you had there, J.
However, I would say that one of the main themes of this years election campaigning would have been Obama Care, whether it hat been gutted by the SCOTUs, or not.
Toni, if it's a tax, consider that The authority to initiate tax increases or spending proposals rests with the House, That could have a big bearing on the future.
1. The only people who will have something withheld from their refunds are those who do not get insurance. If you have insurance, you won't see any change to your refund or tax owed.
2. The ruling does NOT say states do not have to implement the plan. The only thing that was struck down was a Medicaid requirement.
You are right though, that the Republicans will get some mileage out of the "it's a tax" part of the ruling.
The single most expansion of tax increases
for the middle class, Josh.....this is the biggest historical lie to the American people. The IRS now will be going after law abiding tax payers for not having insurance. And the money they collect from those who choose not to buy insurance, Josh, will be a pittance compared to what they will need to pay for this joke. This tax increase alone will be nearly $2T....which will be added to the National Debt.
Many were very surprised that Justice Roberts was the deciding vote when everyone considered Anthony Kennedy to be the swing vote. Even though the Act itself said that it would be a penalty and publicly Dems were touting it that way, the attorneys argued before the Court that it was actually a tax so Roberts voted that way.....he has done the Republicans a huge favor ruling the way he did, and you have to wonder if some of that decision was because of the crap Roberts took during BO's State of the Union address, even if Roberts didn't do it conciously. Payback can be a real b....
.....if they don't have the insurance they're supposed to have, they aren't law-abiding. And the purpose of the law isn't to collect revenues from the uninsured.
Like I said before, the Republicans will get some mileage out of the "it's a tax" part of the ruling, but at the end of the day, the law they vowed to have struck down was upheld.
The IRS will be collecting
from people who are uninsured, Josh....by withholding part of their tax refund if they aren't already insured. Many people are working one or two parttime jobs that don't have insurance coverage by those employers....they will begin weighing up what a family policy will cost them vs the 'tax' penalty and will leave the workforce because it won't be worth spending the majority of their paychecks on an insurance policy or they will pay the penalty tax. Either way, there will never be enough to pay for Obamacare, even with BO taking $500B out of Medicare that cuts the benefits that seniors already get. The middle class are the ones that will be hit the hardest with this tax increase.
This is a job killer as well because employers with less than 50 people on their payroll aren't required to pay that tax penalty....which means that none will hire that one more person that takes them to 50 people.
States will still be required to set up exchanges, but they won't be required to expand their Medicaid roles from what I've read under threat of losing all Federal funding not only for Medicaid but for other State projects like infrastructure. In order to set up those exchanges, the States will also be looking to increase taxes if they do have to enroll more people because the Act requires them to lower the eligibilty standards so more are eligible for Medicaid. Since all States include Medicaid in their budgets that HAVE to balance every year, you can look for more States to cut public employee union issues in order to do that.
If you thought the Tea Party was a huge influence in 2010....watch what happens this year.
RE: the benefits that seniors already get
Are they paying for them, or are they what you sometimes refer to as "entitlements"?
will find many of their benefits are going to be cut in order to pay the $500B cut that BO is taking from Medicare to pay towards Obamacare. We, on Medicare, pay a monthly premium to continue our coverage in addition to paying for a supplemental insurance policy to have complete coverage. That supplemental insurance premium has steadily been going up at the same time that Medicare premiums have increased and now both will increase even more with less coverage.
Many employees that already have coverage thru their employer will now wonder if the employer will make the decision to kick them out of their current policies so they will have to fend for themselves and find new coverage through the exchanges because it will be cheaper for the employer with more than 50 employees to pay the penalty tax than it will be to keep the coverage they have now.
Nobody wins.....and the country's debt escalates at an even more alarming rate.
RE:it will be cheaper for the employer
it will be cheaper for the employer with more than 50 employees to pay the penalty tax than it will be to keep the coverage they have now.
I guess if a Republican owns the business they could do that and say "Hey Obama made me do it".
I take it then that the employer was providing healthcare out of the goodness of their heart IF they can refuse to keep it.
WHY have healthcare coverage in the first place, if they didn't want to provide it, unless it was in a contract...then they don't have any choice.
North of the border my healthcare insurance covers items NOT covered by medicare...Why wouldn't the same thing work there...reduce the premiums and cover items that won't be covered by medicare and put the difference towards medicare.
You still end up paying the same amount...some to your insurance plan and some to Medicare.
I'm having trouble keeping up
A few months ago you thought the poor weren't paying enough in taxes. Now you're afraid they'll be taxed too much.
Let's try to get past the right-wing hysteria and get at the facts about who would have to pay what:
Reminds me of how kings would treat unfaithful subjects.
If the rules weren't followed, they were punished with higher taxes. The classic example was those who would not accept the king's chosen religious practice. They could remain in the kingdom at a cost. Who'd a thunk that practice was still around?
Actually, not unfaithful, but subjects of the wrong faith,
by Ziks511 - 6/28/12 8:17 PM
Catholics in the time of Elizabeth I had to pay extra taxes. But nice historical reference.
A very old practice, as I understand
by Steven Haninger - 6/29/12 2:59 AM
In Reply to: Actually, not unfaithful, but subjects of the wrong faith, by Ziks511
that probably predates the religious aspects. It was, as I understand, a common form of showing acceptance and tolerance for people who'd otherwise not be easy to control. Muslims were known to impose taxes on able bodied non-Muslims and Christians did the same to Muslims. In exchange, some lesser form of citizenship was permitted which allowed choice of religious practice. Paying a tax could also buy an exemption from military service. One had to make some contribution to greater good of the nation in one way or another and the tax was an option. One had to either show complete obedience and loyalty to the ruler or demonstrate ones acceptance of subjugation. Doesn't sound to me like freedom or something I'd want to live under.
(NT) Everyone taxed Jews
even in America, along with other people called citizens.
was it because they were pale and using tanning booths?
RE: Justice Roberts was the deciding vote
HOW does anyone know that?
Why couldn't someone else have been "the deciding vote"?
Any ONE of the FIVE that voted in the Majority was the deciding vote.
Is he the chairman?
If so, and if the voting was 4 for and 4 against, then he would have the deciding vote.
Or, 4 liberal votes against 4 conservative votes and since he is a conservative, his vote was crucial.
At the end of a week in which the Court has heard oral arguments, the Justices hold a conference to discuss the cases and vote on any new petitions of certiorari. The Justices discuss the points of law at issue in the cases. No clerks are permitted to be present, which would make it exceedingly difficult for a justice without a firm grasp of the matters at hand to participate. At this conference, each justice - in order from most to least senior - states the basis on which he or she would decide the case, and a preliminary vote is taken.
The votes are tallied, and the responsibility for writing the opinion in the case is assigned to one of the justices; the most senior Justice voting in the majority (which is the Chief Justice if he is in the majority) makes the assignment, and can assign the responsibility to him or her self.
Tied votes and lack of quorum
If not all of the nine justices vote on a case, or the Court has a vacancy, then there is the possibility of a tied vote. If this occurs, then the decision of the court below is affirmed, but the case is not considered to be binding precedent. The effect is a return to the status quo ante. No opinions are issued in such a case, only the one-sentence announcement that "[t]he judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court."
It doesn't appear to be the case of him casting a tie breaker vote....they don't have tie breaker votes.
since he is a conservative, his vote was crucial.
So were the other 4 Conservatives and the 4 Liberals.....when something is passed by 1 vote...every vote is crucial...HIS vote may have been a surprise...BECAUSE he is a Conservative, but no more crucial than the others....One person...One vote.
where are the accusations...
... of Roberts being an "activist judge"?
Will he get a pass in the brewing conservative storm?
I had another one of those thoughts, Toni. Will the money the IRS collects for that insurance tax be set aside for use by the health care system (remember the locked box) or just tossed into the General fund, where Congress can use it for some of the unusual projects they come up with?
now that the threat of losing all previous Medicaid and other funds has been taken away from the Feds. They can keep the same people on their Medicaid roles that are on it now and not expand the Medicaid program to include thousands more per state based on the new lower eligibilty requirements. The only question still remaining, which many states are checking on now, is do the States have to set up the exchanges and put those new people into that because part of the Obamacare rules is that if the State doesn't do it, the HHS (Sebilia) will come in, set it up, and charge the state for that cost. Some States right now believe they don't have to do that either and can deny HHS from doing it, other States aren't sure, and some other States had already started the procedure of setting it up when the law was passed two years ago.
Not only upheld, but "Of the nine justices on the bench, Chief Justice John Roberts' vote was decisive in the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling in favour of the law".
I didn't know who he was of course. I see he is, described as having a conservative judicial philosophy in his jurisprudence., and appointed by GWB.
I was convinced the bill was going to be defeated as unconstitutional. I mean, everyone here has told me so.
Still nevermind, I see a conspiracy rising. John Roberts was the same man who fluffed Obama's presidential oath of office. What's the betting someone finds a connection?
That's one way to get rid of him