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.
Basically, it's both and neither. Says gov't can have this power as a tax. However, fed gov't cannot force states to comply by taking away Medicare funds. This law relies on states to set up exchanges (e.g. comply with helping people get insurance). If your state does not comply and you cannot get insurance with the exchange (e.g. already have insurance or already have Medicare), you just have to pay the penalty. It's a mess.
I do understand the state thing as you describe, but I'm just confused on how SCOTUS can rule it Constitutional to force us to buy something. That sets a very slippery precedence. You wait and see how many other things we will be FORCED to buy.
Basically, it's both and neither. Says gov't can have this power as a tax. However, fed gov't cannot force states to comply by taking away Medicare funds. This law relies on states to set up exchanges (e.g. comply with helping people get insurance). If your state does not comply and you cannot get insurance with the exchange (e.g. already have insurance or already have Medicare), you just have to pay the penalty. It's a mess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spankys bbq
I think our current POTUS has quite the record of flip-flopping. Transparency, bringing people together, etc. come to mind. Seems like all politicians are flip-flopper and mostly full of crap.
Yes, congratulations to Obama for having his signature legislation upheld. Legislation that what percentage of this country doesnt want?
For the people by the people no more.
We, the people... More like We, the corporations...
It is a sad day in this country. What else are they going to make us buy next?
Healthcare will now be directly on the backs of taxpayers and corporate America will be free of the burden. Standby for new and ever increasing taxes (on those that pay) to fund this out of control behemoth. Take a look at UK system and you get a precursor of what is in store for us.
Yep.
I do get a kick out of the hyperpartisan lefties gloating about this "victory." The taxes funding the bill were back-loaded (a political stunt) and don't kick in until 2013. Once these ignorant liberals start seeing the bill they have to pay for health care that isn't nearly as good as what they have now, then they may begin to understand why this scheme is a bad, bad idea.
In short, I can't wait to see these liberals start paying, which they will have to do under this bill. They always expect someone else ("the rich" "greedy corporations") to pay for them, but that isn't the way this scheme is set up.
In other words HHS couldn't 'punish' states the way HLS just did to Arizona for challenging their central authority. The balance between the rights of the states and the duties given to the central government is seriously out of kilter. Tom J. said it best. "The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases"
You want taken care of? There is always a price. This ain't about unconditional love, it is about control.
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.
If such a provision exists in the law, and he has the power to use it, that may indeed get Romney more votes. I live in one of those 25 States that has already opted out of setting up State Exchanges or to have anything to do with the AHCA.
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).
I do understand the state thing as you describe, but I'm just confused on how SCOTUS can rule it Constitutional to force us to buy something. That sets a very slippery precedence. You wait and see how many other things we will be FORCED to buy.
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.
