SCOTUS to rule on Obamacare sometime this week

[erynthered]

How is not a distraction? Or useful?

 

 

Really?

 

To repeal the biggest tax increase in american history, for one. two, why wait till november when they can use that tax increase to to get themselves re-elected

[Taro T]

This just happened with the Arizona immigration law too. I doubt it is new.

Wrong.

 

Arizona SB 1070:

 

Sec. 12. Severability, implementation and construction

 

A. If a provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of the act that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this act are severable.

 

That law did include a severability clause, so that if part of it was invalid the rest could stand.

[WilliamCody]

Except there are windows for enrollment. If you are hell bent on not being covered when you are sick, you will still **** yourself. What you suggest simply isn't true. We've covered this in the original ACA thread but of course conservative nutballs wouldn't pay attention to the actual text I presented.

 

Mind posting that here or providing a short synopsis?

[dayman]

To me, it only functions how it's written. And it's not written as a tax.

 

The bill doesn't function as it was written. It now functions with a bit of editing by the Court.

 

 

As written you are penalized by TAX collected by the IRS in the normal course of it's tax collection, there are no criminal penalties. So how does it function as written?

[WilliamCody]

Really?

 

To repeal the biggest tax increase in american history, for one. two, why wait till november when they can use that tax increase to to get themselves re-elected

 

The point is that it's not going to pass the Senate or veto until November, and maybe not even then. So yeah, it's useless right now.

[fjl2nd]

It is obvious.

 

 

You may have heard, there is an election in November.

 

and the voters in each of the congressional districts deserve to know where their congressperson stands on the issue of repeal.

 

Not just campaign rhetoric, but an actual demonstration.

 

Let them show where they stand, so the people can make a proper choice......and that goes for either position.

 

 

 

.

 

Haven't they already voted on a repeal or no? I honestly don't know.

[Joe Miner]

Which may or may not have the fund to support them because this program is being scaled back all over. My ultimate question is does the "tax" or "penalty" or whatever you want to call it ultimate go towards providing healthcare for someone or does it get simply lost in the government's money pile?

 

Not a serious question right?

 

We just need a lockbox for the ACA tax money, so that it will be there to cover the costs of ACA.

 

When has Congress ever been able to keep their hands out of a cookie jar filled with money?

[IDBillzFan]

Except there are windows for enrollment. If you are hell bent on not being covered when you are sick, you will still **** yourself. What you suggest simply isn't true. We've covered this in the original ACA thread but of course conservative nutballs wouldn't pay attention to the actual text I presented.

So let me get this right: if you don't get insurance, you only pay $1400 a year in taxes, and then if you get sick, you just go to the ER, they take care of you like they currently do, you don't have to pay the bill AND you don't even NEED insurance?

 

You're right. That IS a better plan. Wow. ACA really does reform health care.

Edited June 28, 2012 by LABillzFan

[WilliamCody]

To me, it only functions how it's written. And it's not written as a tax.

 

The bill doesn't function as it was written. It now functions with a bit of editing by the Court.

 

Laws gain meaning as they are interpreted and applied, not written.

Edited June 28, 2012 by WilliamCody

[dayman]

Mind posting that here or providing a short synopsis?

 

 

I'm reading through the opinion slowly and talking here but you can find it in the other thread. The gist of it is the CMS will promulgate regulations regarding insurance companies closed enrollment periods that deal with that issue.

[Taro T]

1) Absolutely that has happened countless times

 

2) The only thing struck down regarding Medicaid expansion is that if a State refuses to expand the Medicaid as the ACA demands then they cannot lose the existing Medicaid funding as a penalty, they still don't get the additional funds etc...if states want to give the finger to their people under 133% of poverty line feel free at their own political peril. Millions of people now should have access to healthcare, poor people won a huge victory provided they don't live in a state with a suicidal governor...

Not to pull a NJ Sue, but I don't suppose you have some examples of the 'countless times' that has 'absolutely' happened in the past?

[WilliamCody]

Not a serious question right?

 

We just need a lockbox for the ACA tax money, so that it will be there to cover the costs of ACA.

 

When has Congress ever been able to keep their hands out of a cookie jar filled with money?

 

It was a serious question. Were there any provisions for the use of the tax in the bill?

[erynthered]

The point is that it's not going to pass the Senate or veto until November, and maybe not even then. So yeah, it's useless right now.

 

 

It would demenstrate to the voter before the elections who the idiots were that voted for the biggest TAX INCREASE in American history.

[B-Large]

It's not horrific to who? You? I have many family members and employees who beg to differ. But it's still cheaper than health insurance, and since you can wait until you're sick before you get insurance, you need only pay the taxes, then get sick, then get insurance, then get better, then drop insurance until you're sick again.

 

It's a win-win for anyone who, y'know, is a freaking moron.

 

Personally, no. For a family with tight income, yes.

 

Have to honest, I don't think it will come to the underlined above.... I can see a scenario where many people opt out, and then there will be justification in some legislators minds that we need "universal coverage" for these people...

 

your know its coming, I have maintained that has always been the stretch goal of progressives....

[dayman]

So let me get this right: if you don't get insurance, you only pay $1400 a year in taxes, and then if you get sick, you just go to the ER, they take care of you like they currently do, you don't have to pay the bill AND you don't even NEED insurance?

 

You're right. That IS a better plan. Wow. ACA really does reform health care.

 

 

No, you have to pay the bill. If you are under 133% of the poverty line you basically will have medicaid unless your governor hates poor people and refuses to take money to expand under the ACA...if you are over 133% and have no insurance paying the tax year to year and get sick then you get a bill and if it pushes you to bankruptcy then so be it. This bill IS about personal responsibility at it's heart.

 

Not to pull a NJ Sue, but I don't suppose you have some examples of the 'countless times' that has 'absolutely' happened in the past?

 

 

I've read a lot of Conlaw just trust me this is what courts do as a matter of course. Just look at the lower courts in this very case...that's what they were doing. Courts uphold the bill if there is a reasonable construction that allows it, if not the cut out the cancerous part, and if they can't cut out the cancerous part without disrupting the entire scheme of the bill they take the whole thing down. That's just how it's done take me at my word I've read a lot of Conlaw.

[Juror#8]

"So even though Congress wrote a law that doesn't say anything that would make it constitutional, we can see what they meant and we've fixed it up for them."

 

 

 

Yes, doing something is always better than doing nothing.

 

Yes, saying that something needs to be done for 50 years and doing nothing is better than doing something.

[erynthered]

Amid economic recession, a spiraling federal debt, and accelerating increases in government health spending, they proposed a bill that has made these problems worse.“Americans were promised lower health care costs. They’re going up.

 

“Americans were promised lower premiums. They’re going up.

 

“Most Americans were promised their taxes wouldn’t change. They’re going up.

 

“Seniors were promised Medicare would be protected. It was raided to pay for a new entitlement instead.

 

“Americans were promised it would create jobs. The CBO predicts it will lead to nearly 1 million fewer jobs.

 

“Americans were promised they could keep their plan if they liked it, yet millions have learned they can’t.

 

“And the President of the United States himself promised up and down that this bill was not a tax.

 

“This was one of the Democrats’ top selling points — because they knew it would have never passed if they said it was. The Supreme Court has spoken. This law is a tax.

 

“This bill was sold to the American people on a deception. But it’s not just that the promises about this law weren’t kept. It’s that it’s made the problems it was meant to solve even worse.

 

“The supposed cure has proved to be worse than the disease.

 

“So it’s not just that the promises about this law weren’t kept. It’s that it has made the problems it was meant to solve even worse.

 

 

http://www.mcconnell.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=7fc835cd-28a3-44bf-9903-4f8cbbdbff5e&ContentType_id=c19bc7a5-2bb9-4a73-b2ab-3c1b5191a72b&Group_id=0fd6ddca-6a05-4b26-8710-a0b7b59a8f1f

 

 

 

 

[WilliamCody]

It would demenstrate to the voter before the elections who the idiots were that voted for the biggest TAX INCREASE in American history.

 

Yes, it might work as a political stunt. But in terms of generating meaningful action or debate it would be a failure.

[dayman]

Romney speaking now basically saying he wants to do everything ACA does but not by the ACA by some unknown bill...which is strange since we saw what he came up w/ previously as Governor...lol...he should come out and say "if you have preexisting injuries, if you are within 133% of the poverty line, I will !@#$ you....if you are under 26 (and in some cases 30) I may !@#$ you."

[Joe Miner]

As written you are penalized by TAX collected by the IRS in the normal course of it's tax collection, there are no criminal penalties. So how does it function as written?

 

I'll try to simplify this for your special brand of stupidity.

 

Can Congress tax - Yes

Can Congress penalize - No

 

Was this written to be a tax - No

Is it now a tax due to Court ruling - Yes