Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We will see many workers between 50-65 quit their jobs starting Jan 2014. They were keeping these jobs ONLY for access to health insurance. They will be able to buy the insurance starting in 2014. They have the money to buy it.
We will see many workers of all ages quit their jobs to start small businesses starting in 2014. They wanted to start these businesses for some time but stayed in their current jobs for access to health insurance. Starting in 2014, they can start a small business AND have access health insurance.
With those folks above quitting their jobs, it will open these jobs to other workers.
LOL..it's more than health insurance keeping these older workers at their jobs. There will not be mass quittings over this. Some will go yes, but most are still recouping from huge losses in RE/401K which is the bulk of the retirement nest egg.
The rejection of the Commerce Clause and Nec. and Proper Clause should be understood as a major blow to Congress's authority to pass social welfare laws. Using the tax code -- especially in the current political environment -- to promote social welfare is going to be a very chancy proposition.
All they have to do is make you pay anything though and its legal. See SS, MC, MA, and now it seems OC.
Of course, the individual mandate to buy health insurance was upheld. The country is owned by corporations, and there is no way that the corporations want to see a challenge to the individual mandate to buy auto insurance.
Look for the government to build on this to require the purchase of many other private products, financial and otherwise.
So do I and this decision means they can continue to do that. What does that mean? Well, if you're in that state and can't get insurance, you have to pay the penalty. Such a weird decision. Upheld but struck down the part that forced the states to comply. In essence, Obamacare only was possible by making the states create these exchanges where people could get insurance that couldn't any other way. That part was struck down (part where Fed could withhold Medicare funds if states didn't make these exchanges). However, the part of having to either buy insurance or pay the penalty was upheld. What does this mean? If your state opts out and you can't get insurance, you will NOT get insurance. You will, however, be forced to pay the tax (e.g. the penalty).
It will certainly make for an interesting read this weekend before Independence Day. Now that is irony for you.
I think the summation on this is that Obamacare does NOT mean you can get insurance. It does mean, if you live in a state that opts out, that you could have a tax raise if you can't get insurance on your own. That's about it.
The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part. The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax.
... The Framers created a Federal Government of limited powers, and assigned to this Court the duty of enforcingthose limits. The Court does so today. But the Court does not express any opinion on the wisdom of the Affordable Care Act. Under the Constitution, that judgment is reserved to the people.
So part is this is admittedly unconstitutional but the entirety is upheld? Wow. Do we need to find the unconstitutional part and go through this again? I don't understand that statement in light of the decision.
My interpretation of the Roberts quote is that it is Unconstitutional under the commerce clause, but it IS constitutional under the powers of taxation. Therefore, it IS constitutional.
Congratulations to the lefties! Yay another tax increase! You now have the senate, the presidency and the court. Three left wing rulings this week: illegal immigrants can stay, cap and trade(or equivalent) is ok, and Obamacare is constitutional. What is scary for the right is that our only hope now is Romney.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
