ACA Supreme Court Tuesday

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

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.

[Danzig]

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.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Riot

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.

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

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

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

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.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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.

Originally Posted by Danzig

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.

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.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

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?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

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?

[Riot]

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

Nothing from Thomas but he is assumed to be opposed.

Pretty firm opposition from Scalia who was almost dismissive of arguments favoring the mandate and made the truly absurd broccoli analogy.

Alito seemed critical, with a couple of exceptions, but not dismissive.

Roberts and Kennedy had good questions for both sides. Towards the end I thought both were favoring the Government's position. The search for a limiting rule was evident in Kennedy's question and he was offered a couple. Breyer tried to help out there.

Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor seemed to clearly understand, for several reasons, why this falls within Congress' power.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

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

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.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

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?

Can I get tax credits for providing insurance to my employees?

If you have up to 25 employees, pay average annual wages below $50,000, and provide health insurance, you may qualify for a small business tax credit of up to 35% (up to 25% for non-profits) to offset the cost of your insurance. This will bring down the cost of providing insurance.

Starting in 2014, the small business tax credit goes up to 50% (up to 35% for non-profits) for qualifying businesses. This makes the cost of providing insurance even lower.

Do I have to provide health insurance to my employees?

The Affordable Care Act does not require employers to provide health insurance for their employees.

The Employer Responsibility provision of the Affordable Care Act applies businesses with more than 50 full-time workers. To learn more read the Employer Bulletin on Automatic Enrollment, Employer Responsibility, and Waiting Periods.

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

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

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.

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?