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.
The GOP should be happy, this will help end the current healthcare system as it's currently set up, which is technically Socialism. Those who are insured paying for those who are not. My guess...they still won't be happy.
Indeed.
I guess all that talk about "personal responsibility' was just that, talk.
These types claim to be constitutionalist but in reality the constitution is only supported by them when things go their way... If not they through it out the window...
sort of like how the democrats act when the 2nd Amendment is upheld in the people favor and not their own way.
His job is to determine constitutionality of a law, which he did, not enforcement of a law. Learn about US Government, its branches and their responsibilities. That will be a good starting point.
They should be PROUD of him for being a republican and doing his job properly. What kind of a judge would they want him to be? Maybe he should posts polls on right wing websites to help him determine which way to vote?
Wow, these people shock me just a little more everyday.
And it goes further than that. The Medicare funding expansion mandate to the states was the teeth that forced the states to set up the exchanges. If your state opts out, what's the penalty? For the states, nothing. For the individual, raised taxes (caveat to say if you are unable to get health insurance). So, as it stands right now, in 25 states that opted out, they can continue to do so. If you live in those states and could not get health insurance except under expanded Medicare, you will continue to not be able to get health insurance. You will, however, have to pay the penalty since Obamacare was just ruled a tax.
The Medicaid expansion was about much more than the exchanges. The expansion was to cover every person in the state that fell below the 133% federal poverty line threshold. That coverage creates a burden. Providing an insurance exchange does not create a burden. States have plenty of incentive to create the insurance exchange, and the states have the ability, now, to opt in for the insurance exchange and opt out for other parts of the Medicaid expansion. States will be able to pick and choose, in essence, to best serve the state's needs. In states where individual taxes end up going higher, those states will face pressure from their own citizens, to expand or not, as the voters decide.
Wrong. My insurance is officially done away with by Obamacare in 2014. I do not get to keep it. Now the IRS can seize my home and property if I do not buy an totalitarian statist approved plan.
Your state can opt out. You can opt out.
For a $95.00 penalty then IRS will seize your property?
1.To supporters, even the Supreme Court said they did not want to disclose what they thought of the law (basically they all know the ACA law is very flawed).
2. Do people realize how we are going to pay for this law? It's not going to cost X amount. Anytime government is involved the cost end up being 3X-4X the quoted budget.
The Medicaid expansion was about much more than the exchanges. The expansion was to cover every person in the state that fell below the 133% federal poverty line threshold. That coverage creates a burden. Providing an insurance exchange does not create a burden. States have plenty of incentive to create the insurance exchange, and the states have the ability, now, to opt in for the insurance exchange and opt out for other parts of the Medicaid expansion. States will be able to pick and choose, in essence, to best serve the state's needs. In states where individual taxes end up going higher, those states will face pressure from their own citizens, to expand or not, as the voters decide.
Yes. Correct. It's a such an odd decision. When you look at this in practicality, this law will be even more of a mess. After all, the SCOTUS doesn't rule on if the law is a good idea or not, just constitutionality. It's constitutional as a tax. States do not have to help the federal gov't ensure people get health insurance or be held to the penalty of not getting Medicare funding. That was ruled unconstitutional. Personally, I do not see where Obamacare helps anyone get health insurance with this ruling. It does raise taxes though.
ETA: I keep typo-ing myself there. I meant Medicaid expansion.
Attainable! Even the most watered down Individual Policy is roughly $104 a month so a little over $20 a week. People spend more than that on starbucks. You could even buck the system and continually do short term policies in 6 month increments for $50 a month. Bottom line all too often people run to the emergency room and leave the taxpayers on the hook for their bills. We cannot continue to do this so if they are forced to pay a tax on their taxes so be it! At least they are making some type of contribution instead of having all of the brunt fall on the taxpayers.
When you think about it, this is right up the GOPs alley. Forcing at least some accountability instead of it all being left to the taxpayers. The GOP has long been against the whole freeloading principle.
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.
