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 don't see how. The countries that have national healthcare have VAT taxes ranging from 10% to 20%+ to pay for it. Do you think Americans would agree to burden the middle class and below with taxes that will hit them the hardest to fund national health care?
Simple. Money. It all boils down to money. National healthcare systems are cheaper. Healthcare in the US is pushing 20% of GDP. The tipping point is approaching.
Think of a sliding scale based on income. Medicare already has a variation of it today.
#1 the supreme court has already ruled the ACA constitutional. Period.
They ruled the penalty was constitutional. Now, they have to look at the constitutionality of a law that was written specifically to NOT treat all equally.
Quote:
#2 WORST case is they will say only state ran exchanges get subsidies.....thats it.
Not really. There have already been murmurs about the restrictions on subsidies causing the law to be unconstitutional.
Last year the court ruled 9-0 that the Administration can't just ignore or change laws they do not like. They would have to rule the exact opposite to rule for Obamacare here.
Simple. Money. It all boils down to money. National healthcare systems are cheaper. Healthcare in the US is pushing 20% of GDP. The tipping point is approaching.
Think of a sliding scale based on income. Medicare already has a variation of it today.
I know health care is costly. That's why the countries that have national health care charge everyone VAT taxes. We'll have to do the same in the US if people want national health care.
Actually the Court does have a choice, it can review the law based upon legislative intent or it could use strict scrutiny. Legislative intent would look at the law in its entirety including statements made members of Congress and the Executive branch. Under strict scrutiny the Court would rule based upon exactly what the law states. Which they will go with is the $64,000 question (that should be subjected to inflation).
Intent would be the force of coercion being wrought upon the States.....as stated in the Law.
Take a look very carefully at exactly WHY SCOTUS ruled that not all states had to expand Medicaid to comply with the ACA.
Hint: unconstitutional coercion.
Quite the stretch to argue though for this. Seriously.
But again....the supreme court doing anything at this point will truly damage Republicans. With a inability to fux something they can fix with a one or two sentence bill.....people are going to get really tired of Republicans not governing.
I know health care is costly. That's why the countries that have national health care charge everyone VAT taxes. We'll have to do the same in the US if people want national health care.
And yet, based on many other countries experiences with national healthcare systems, the US could spend 30%-50% less than it currently does on healthcare with a national system. No VAT needed.
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.
