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.
I can only wonder if Obama even read ACA before he put it out there. He was a lawyer and a professor, and assuming he actually read it, apparently he missed "established by the state". Can only wonder how many eyes were on these four words and didn't catch it.
Now Obama wants to poo-poo the legal wording as a "mistake" and chastises SCOTUS for adhering to the law and their petty interpretation (according to him) of "established by the state". This not something he can fix with a pen by editing ACA at will.
Read the article and see the devastation that could result if Obama loses this one.
There is no other way to "interpret" those four words. The ACA law itself actually defines "state."
"STATE -- In this title, the term ‘‘State’’ means each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia."
The term "Exchange established by the State" appears 10 times in the ACA, including the section that limits subsidies to only those who purchase insurance through an "Exchange established by the State."
There is no other way to "interpret" those four words. The ACA law itself actually defines "state."
"STATE -- In this title, the term ‘‘State’’ means each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia."
This post in itself should be made a sticky for easy reference. This question seems to keep coming up.
The language could not be more crystal clear. And it is backed up by the recorded words of ACA architect Jon Gruber, who explained that it was purposely written this way, and why.
Again, if the executive branch can simply rewrite legislation it does not like, why even have a Congress? We could save billions in salaries, pensions (sometimes 7 figure), staff, flights back and forth between CD and DC, etc.
They'll have to do something. They're not going to abandon the law because one aspect is challenged. Unfortunately, while Congress and the President bicker, a lot of Americans could be put in a world of hurt. Unable to afford their insurance anymore, they'll have to drop it, which will lead to them getting fined come tax time, which they probably can't afford, either.
Wrong. According to the USA Today article posted earlier in the thread:
Quote:
"The law's individual and employer mandates would apply to fewer people if the subsidies are struck down. Insurance premiums would cost millions of families more than 8% of their annual income, entitling them to an exemption from the law's mandate that most individuals buy insurance. Many employers, too, would be freed from having to provide coverage if none of their employees was subsidized."
The ACA will eventually be replaced by a single payer system.
That will only happen if the US switches its progressive federal tax system to a regressive tax system that European countries use to pay for their single payer systems:
Quote:
"UC Davis's Peter Lindert has argued in his book "Growing Public" that European social democracies were only able to develop the programs they did because they used efficient consumption taxes that didn't lower growth as much as progressive income taxes, particularly those on capital income. European countries needed tax systems that could raise a lot of money without hurting growth, and only regressive consumption taxes fit the bill."
As great as universal healthcare sounds in theory, I've yet to see anyone explain how we could afford it here in the US.
I just posted the answer. We'd have to switch to a regressive tax system like European countries have to fund it.
I'm specifically asking those who want that type of health care system if they think the middle class and below would agree to pay the much higher taxes required to fund it.
Exactly. Plus it might work like Delaware corporations where insurers would seek the state with the least restrictions to offer their health insurance plans so you could be getting screwed by that. I may not entirely like the boundaries of the states, BUT it does allow you to know your restrictions. Otherwise you have to track down where the company is selling their plans from and what that state's restrictions are. Other plans just look to repeal the individual mandate or the pre-existing conditions ban which don't help either. The glaring contradiction at the heart of the GOP's Obamacare plans - Vox The GOP has 5 plans to fix Obamacare if the Supreme Court blows it up. They're all a mess. - Vox
I just posted the answer. We'd have to switch to a regressive tax system like European countries have to fund it.
I'm specifically asking those who want that type of health care system if they think the middle class and below would agree to pay the much higher taxes required to fund it.
I doubt they will. It seems like a lot of people are under the impression that it's "free". I'd love to hear from people as well though, I could be wrong.
Last edited by MissTerri; 06-12-2015 at 01:09 PM..
Explain why single payer wouldn't work here. Japan, Italy, and UK all have single payer and I am pretty sure have large non-productive populations.
They also all have VAT taxes to pay for it. Are you on board with that? VAT taxes are regressive. The greatest tax burden is borne by those with the least income.
VAT taxes:
Japan: 8% now, going to 10% in October
Italy: 22%
UK: 20%
It might not cost them much of anything if we would quit wasting trillions in places we have no business wasting the money.
Not true. Other countries who don't play the role of "world police" charge VAT taxes to fund their social programs. The only way to get national health care here in the US is to start charging everyone a LOT in regressive VAT taxes.
They were kicked off plans that didn't meet basic healthcare needs, but were able to buy into plans that did.
Not everyone needs that. Healthy people cover their own basic healthcare out-of-pocket and then have very inexpensive catastrophic policies to cover a serious accident or illness. Doing so significantly reduces their overall health care costs.
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.
