Derby Trail Forums

Derby Trail Forums (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/index.php)

- The Steve Dellinger Discourse Den (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=4)

- - Obamacare (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43456)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 802203)

asking the appellate court to reconsider the case is one delaying tactic. of course the hope would be that they change their decision, which would be a slim chance at best.

Haven't the appellate courts already ruled 3-2 in favor of the Affordable Care Act mandate provision?

Or were that the lower courts, with the appellates in favor 2-1?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=of61E...eature=related

:confused::confused::confused::confused:

http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-...150806791.html

SCOTUS has decided to take on the healthcare law...

Good. The Obama administration pushed for it to happen before the election. Four out of five courts have upheld it.

“The latest decisions on the Health Care Law was made by some extremely conservative judges who are friends of Scalia and Thomas, and they were scathing in their attacks against the arguments regarding most of the bills' stipulations.

These were among the most conservative of judges and many of the legal interpretations of the decision which I have read indicated that the decisions were designed to warn Thomas, Scalia and Roberts that the Law should stand and that there were firm foundations for its' legitimacy.

It is as if those conservative judges were warning the conservatives on the Supreme Court that were they to overturn it, then they would come under harsh criticism for having done so, and that even they, the most conservative of judges within the Appellate system were secure that the country had the right to make this law.

Thomas, of course, doesn't care about legal precedents or whether it is constitutional, he has been bought and paid for by the Kochs and other right wingers.

However, the Appellate ruling was clearly aimed at he, Scalia, and the rest about keeping their hands off the legitimacy of it, and let's just hope they are scared off by it.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social...118098193.html

the obama admin didn't push for it to be heard. they tried to delay it, including asking the appellate court to re-hear the case. he didn't want it to be ruled on in an election year. they recognized that anything other than a full pass from scotus would cause a lot of issues, that the act would have to be re-worked if any portion of the law was struck down.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 817667)

the obama admin didn't push for it to be heard. they tried to delay it, including asking the appellate court to re-hear the case.

:zz: I think you have that backward. Where did you hear about them asking an appellate court to rehear? I've kept a close eye on this, and I've never seen that. What appellate court? They have asked lower appellates to SKIP hearing, to get it heard by Federals and closer to the Supremes more quickly.

They have the opportunity to delay, even now, and they did not take it, as was all over the news last week when they announced they hoped the Supremes would take it. They announced in January they want it heard before the election. Yes, they WANT it heard before the election, because they are quite confident will be upheld. They want it out of the election mix as passed and done.

Quote:

The longest argument, set for two hours, will consider whether Congress had the power under Article 1 of the Constitution to enact the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Article 1 outlines the types of laws Congress may pass, such as those that regulate interstate commerce. The Justice Department has argued in the lower courts and in its petition to the Supreme Court that the health care law's "individual mandate," which requires virtually all Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty on their tax returns, falls within Congress' power under the commerce clause of Article 1.

The cases granted Monday come up from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which struck down the individual mandate by a 2-1 vote, holding that the provision exceeds the scope of the commerce clause.

Majorities on the 6th Circuit and the D.C. Circuit have disagreed, siding with the Obama administration that the law falls within the clause's broad boundaries as articulated by the Supreme Court over the past seven decades.

The justices will also hear 90 minutes of oral argument on whether the entire health care law must fall should they find that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. The 11th Circuit found the mandate could be severed from the rest of the law and therefore refused to throw out the whole law. That ruling reversed Judge Roger Vinson's decision at the district court level that the mandate was not severable. The National Federation of Independent Business urged the Court to reinstate Vinson's decision, which remains the only one in the country to strike down the health care law in its entirety.

http://www.healthcarelawreform.com/

Posted on October 11, 2011
by J. Peter Rich and Webb Millsaps

Quote:

The Obama Administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the constitutionality of the individual mandate, a provision in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that the Administration once referred to as the “linchpin” of the sweeping 2010 health reform law.

Quote:

The Administration, which could have requested that the Eleventh Circuit re-hear the case en banc, filed their Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (the Petition) on September 27, 2011.

By not pursuing the potential interim step of an en banc re-hearing the Administration has made it more likely that the Supreme Court will hear the case and make its ultimate ruling on the matter prior to the November 2012 election.

when the last court ruled, there were many articles about obama and his admin looking at ways to delay any supreme court hearings til after the election.
i'm glad they doj has decided not to move forward with that, and that it will be heard.

At least the court will rule before the majority of taxes come into effect. If the law is ruled unconstitutional what kind of damages can the victims expect from violating their constitutional rights? The cast of Jersey Shore comes to mind. ;)

Here is the list of Obamacare taxes.

Quote:

Individual Mandate Excise Tax(Jan 2014): Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance must pay an income surtax according to the higher of the following

1 Adult
2 Adults
3+ Adults

2014
1% AGI/$95
1% AGI/$190
1% AGI/$285

2015
2% AGI/$325
2% AGI/$650
2% AGI/$975

2016 +
2.5% AGI/$695
2.5% AGI/$1390
2.5% AGI/$2085

Exemptions for religious objectors, undocumented immigrants, prisoners, those earning less than the poverty line, members of Indian tribes, and hardship cases (determined by HHS)

Employer Mandate Tax(Jan 2014): If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $2000 for all full-time employees. This provision applies to all employers with 50 or more employees. If any employee actually receives coverage through the exchange, the penalty on the employer for that employee rises to $3000. If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer).

Combined score of individual and employer mandate tax penalty: $65 billion/10 years

Surtax on Investment Income ($123 billion/Jan. 2013): This increase involves the creation of a new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single). This would result in the following top tax rates on investment income

Capital Gains
Dividends
Other*

2010-2012
15%
15%
35%

2013+ (current law)
23.8%
43.4%
43.4%

2013+ (Obama budget)
23.8%
23.8%
43.4%

*Other unearned income includes (for surtax purposes) gross income from interest, annuities, royalties, net rents, and passive income in partnerships and Subchapter-S corporations. It does not include municipal bond interest or life insurance proceeds, since those do not add to gross income. It does not include active trade or business income, fair market value sales of ownership in pass-through entities, or distributions from retirement plans. The 3.8% surtax does not apply to non-resident aliens.
Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans($32 bil/Jan 2018): Starting in 2018, new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($10,200 single/$27,500 family). For early retirees and high-risk professions exists a higher threshold ($11,500 single/$29,450 family). CPI +1 percentage point indexed.

Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax($86.8 bil/Jan 2013): Current law and changes:

First $200,000
($250,000 Married)
Employer/Employee
All Remaining Wages
Employer/Employee

Current Law
1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed
1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed

Obamacare Tax Hike
1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed
1.45%/2.35%
3.8% self-employed

Medicine Cabinet Tax($5 bil/Jan 2011): Americans no longer able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin)

HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike($1.4 bil/Jan 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.

Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka“Special Needs Kids Tax”($13 bil/Jan 2013): Imposes cap of $2500 (Indexed to inflation after 2013) on FSAs (now unlimited). . There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education.

Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers($20 bil/Jan 2013): Medical device manufacturers employ 360,000 people in 6000 plants across the country. This law imposes a new 2.3% excise tax. Exemptions include items retailing for less than $100.

Raise "Haircut" for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI($15.2 bil/Jan 2013): Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction for medical expenses to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). The new provision imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI; it is waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only.

Tax on Indoor Tanning Services($2.7 billion/July 1, 2010): New 10 percent excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons

Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D($4.5 bil/Jan 2013)

Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike($0.4 bil/Jan 2010): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services

Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals(Min$/immediate): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and collection" rules set by HHS

Tax on Innovator Drug Companies($22.2 bil/Jan 2010): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year.

Tax on Health Insurers($60.1 bil/Jan 2014): Annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year. The stipulation phases in gradually until 2018, and is fully-imposed on firms with $50 million in profits.

$500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives($0.6 bil/Jan 2013)

Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2(Min$/Jan 2011): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns.

Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting($17.1 bil/Jan 2012): Requires businesses to send 1099-MISC information tax forms to corporations (currently limited to individuals), a huge compliance burden for small employers

“Black liquor” tax hike(Tax hike of $23.6 billion). This is a tax increase on a type of bio-fuel.

Codification of the “economic substance doctrine”(Tax hike of $4.5 billion). This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely-legal tax deductions and other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks “substance” and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed.

http://www.atr.org/comprehensive-lis...#ixzz1diNvavSv

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...OLN_story.html

By Charles Lane, Updated: Monday, November 14, 2:09 PM

Quote:

The court battle over President Obama’s signature health-insurance reform law seems to be going his way. On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the administration’s request to hear challenges to the law and rule on them before July.

That order came just days after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit became the third federal appellate court to rule that the law’s individual mandate — requiring people to buy health insurance or else pay a penalty — was a valid exercise of Congress’s authority to regulate interstate commerce.

The deciding vote on the three-judge panel came from Senior Judge Laurence H. Silberman, a conservative’s conservative, who also wrote the opinion.

Surely that bodes well for the high court, which includes five members nominated by Republican presidents.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dellinger63 (Post 817684)

At least the court will rule before the majority of taxes come into effect.

You keep deliberately ignoring reality, which is that the fines (not taxes) come into effect only AFTER Congress removes the sentence forbidding the IRS from collecting them. They wanted the indivudual mandate up and running for a couple years, to check compliance rates, before the fines kicked in. So the fines are written into the law, but there is a trigger sentence that must be removed, first. Then, the IRS really has no way of collecting them, as they are not taxes, they are fines.

Here: So you are no longer misinformed (deliberately by preference), I suggest you read this memo to Tom Colburn, from the Congressional Research Council, on the PPACA penalties and the IRS, especially pages 4-5 and beyond

http://coburn.senate.gov/public/inde...2-8dea812ac30a

Like this:

Quote:

Collection of the Penalty for Failure to Maintain Minimum Coverage
Section 5000A(g)(2) of the IRC limits the means the IRS may employ to collect the penalty established in
the section. First, the taxpayer is protected from either criminal prosecution or penalty for failure to pay
the penalty. Second, the IRS is prohibited from either filing a NFTL or levying any property in an effort to
collect the penalty.

Quote:

If the law is ruled unconstitutional what kind of damages can the victims expect from violating their constitutional rights? The cast of Jersey Shore comes to mind. ;)

Highly doubtful the law will be ruled unconstitutional, based upon the majority "we say it's constitutional" conservative-backed decisions already rendered by the majority of lower courts.

Damages? Wouldn't there be zero, if the fines haven't been collected?

I think you get your information from the cast of Jersey Shore :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 817674)

Conservatives are starting to realize that this will be deemed constitutional, and they do NOT want that to happen just before the election.

Obamacare at it's best...

A man goes into the hospital for a vasectomy. Before the procedure a very attractive nurse comes in and takes his vitals, then tells him to take all of his clothes off.

When he is fully undressed she instructs him to lie down on the table.

The man obeys.

The nurse then takes all of her clothes off and climbs on top and has her way with him.

Upon the completion of the act the man catches his breath and asks what that was all about.

The nurse informs the patient that studies have shown that before a vasectomy if the man has an ejaculation, he will be more relaxed and that the vasectomy is easier for the surgeon to locate and sever, thereby making the surgery safer, more efficient and quicker.

The nurse then wheels the patient to the operating room. While they

are going down the hall the patient looks through a window to the right and sees six men in a room masturbating.

Curious, the man asks," What are they doing in there"?

The nurse responds, "

They are getting vasectomies too, but you have Blue Cross and they have Obama Care."

And there is this method....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 817688)

You keep deliberately ignoring reality, which is that the fines (not taxes) come into effect only AFTER Congress removes the sentence forbidding the IRS from collecting them.

and you miss the 99% of other taxes

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 817688)

Damages? Wouldn't there be zero, if the fines haven't been collected?

I think you get your information from the cast of Jersey Shore :D

sorry thought the tanning tax was already in effect. Show me where it was repealed/delayed?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dellinger63 (Post 817762)

sorry thought the tanning tax was already in effect. Show me where it was repealed/delayed?

You really don't have a clue what the Supreme Court is reviewing regarding the PPACA, do you?

I have been wondering, if the IRS cannot collect the "fines" until Congress says so and Congress says they are not intending to do that then why put the wording in there in the first place?
I think that Congress will start letting the IRS fine people for not buying insurance otherwise the wording wouldnt be in there. Just like the Feds wanting employers to put on an employees W2 how much the company pays for their insurance and then saying they dont intend to tax the employee.
I have a really hard time believeing that the federal government loves me so much and cares about me so much that I should just leave it all up to them and they will always do the right thing for me. :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 817791)

You really don't have a clue what the Supreme Court is reviewing regarding the PPACA, do you?

You realize there are a plethora of taxes associated with Obamacare in addition to the surtax for individuals not buying health insurance.

In fact all of these

Quote:

Employer Mandate Tax(Jan 2014): If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $2000 for all full-time employees. This provision applies to all employers with 50 or more employees. If any employee actually receives coverage through the exchange, the penalty on the employer for that employee rises to $3000. If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer).

Combined score of individual and employer mandate tax penalty: $65 billion/10 years

Surtax on Investment Income ($123 billion/Jan. 2013): This increase involves the creation of a new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single). This would result in the following top tax rates on investment income

Capital Gains
Dividends
Other*

2010-2012
15%
15%
35%

2013+ (current law)
23.8%
43.4%
43.4%

2013+ (Obama budget)
23.8%
23.8%
43.4%

*Other unearned income includes (for surtax purposes) gross income from interest, annuities, royalties, net rents, and passive income in partnerships and Subchapter-S corporations. It does not include municipal bond interest or life insurance proceeds, since those do not add to gross income. It does not include active trade or business income, fair market value sales of ownership in pass-through entities, or distributions from retirement plans. The 3.8% surtax does not apply to non-resident aliens.
Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans($32 bil/Jan 2018): Starting in 2018, new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($10,200 single/$27,500 family). For early retirees and high-risk professions exists a higher threshold ($11,500 single/$29,450 family). CPI +1 percentage point indexed.

Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax($86.8 bil/Jan 2013): Current law and changes:

First $200,000
($250,000 Married)
Employer/Employee
All Remaining Wages
Employer/Employee

Current Law
1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed
1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed

Obamacare Tax Hike
1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed
1.45%/2.35%
3.8% self-employed

Medicine Cabinet Tax($5 bil/Jan 2011): Americans no longer able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin)

HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike($1.4 bil/Jan 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.

Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka“Special Needs Kids Tax”($13 bil/Jan 2013): Imposes cap of $2500 (Indexed to inflation after 2013) on FSAs (now unlimited). . There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education.

Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers($20 bil/Jan 2013): Medical device manufacturers employ 360,000 people in 6000 plants across the country. This law imposes a new 2.3% excise tax. Exemptions include items retailing for less than $100.

Raise "Haircut" for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI($15.2 bil/Jan 2013): Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction for medical expenses to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). The new provision imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI; it is waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only.

Tax on Indoor Tanning Services($2.7 billion/July 1, 2010): New 10 percent excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons

Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D($4.5 bil/Jan 2013)

Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike($0.4 bil/Jan 2010): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services

Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals(Min$/immediate): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and collection" rules set by HHS

Tax on Innovator Drug Companies($22.2 bil/Jan 2010): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year.

Tax on Health Insurers($60.1 bil/Jan 2014): Annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year. The stipulation phases in gradually until 2018, and is fully-imposed on firms with $50 million in profits.

$500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives($0.6 bil/Jan 2013)

Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2(Min$/Jan 2011): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns.

Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting($17.1 bil/Jan 2012): Requires businesses to send 1099-MISC information tax forms to corporations (currently limited to individuals), a huge compliance burden for small employers

“Black liquor” tax hike(Tax hike of $23.6 billion). This is a tax increase on a type of bio-fuel.

Codification of the “economic substance doctrine”(Tax hike of $4.5 billion). This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely-legal tax deductions and other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks “substance” and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed.