The W
Views: 100057087
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
25.10.14 1943
The W - Current Events & Politics - So, the SCOTUS rules on Obamacare tomorrow
This thread has 9 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 4.68
Pages: 1 2 Next
(38 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (22 total)
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 5 days
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.63
What are the odds it remains unchanged?

I can't see the individual mandate standing, personally. Either way, it's probably the biggest SCOTUS ruling in my lifetime.

What do you guys think will happen?




YOUR 2012 NCCA Tournament Bracket Challenge Winner
Promote this thread!
Big Bad
Scrapple








Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 1 hour
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.68
I'm dicey on the details. Is the court voting on the whole thing en masse, or can they pick and choose which provisions can stand?



"It breaks your heart. It is designed to break your heart. The game begins in the spring, when everything else begins again, and it blossoms in the summer, filling the afternoons and evenings, and then as soon as the chill rains come, it stops and leaves you to face the fall alone." --- Bart Giamatti, on baseball
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 5 days
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.63
They can rule parts of the law unconstitutional, and leave the rest intact, or they can rule the entire thing unconstitutional and strike it down entirely (similar to the recent Arizona Immigration Law decision).

The GOP has promised to basically repeal any parts that are left, which I personally disagree with.

Interstate policies and no exclusion for pre-existing conditions are both important parts of the bill.

If they were to repeal the rest of the bill, they need to do something to get those provisions back into law.




YOUR 2012 NCCA Tournament Bracket Challenge Winner
Mr. Boffo
Scrapple








Since: 24.3.02
From: Oshkosh, WI

Since last post: 454 days
Last activity: 414 days
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.95
    Originally posted by StaggerLee

    The GOP has promised to basically repeal any parts that are left, which I personally disagree with.


Do they have the votes to overturn a presidential veto, or is that threat mindless posturing?
lotjx
Scrapple








Since: 5.9.08

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 3 hours
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.24
I will be shocked if it stays at all. Scalia loves being the Most Powerful Man in America and lord it over everyone. Clarence Thompson's wife is running an conservative organization out to kill it, its already had an uphill battle. The arguments the government gave were pretty weak too, when the simple argument is every who is born and dies in America has to deal with the health care system. Even if you are born at home, you still have to go into the hospital to do all the paperwork and get test done. If you die, you still go to a morgue. So, you should pay for it. On top of the other years of your life when you are in the hospital for other reasons. Also the fact, the guys and gals deciding this thing are getting free health care.

The real problem for the GOP is that if its all together thrown out including the popular items like getting rid of pre-existing conditions and expanding it out to 30 million people. Its going to cause problems, especially if its a 5-4 vote. It will be seen as a conservative win, but they threw out the baby with the bath water. Which will hurt them since they including the creator of this thing, Mitt, have no plans to do anything about health care regardless of what they say. The first time, someone gets a plug pulled or deny coverage due to pre-existing condition and it goes on the evening news, its going to be PR disaster for them.

I think it will hurt Obama, but I don't think it will kill his Presidency. He at least go something 10 years ago was seen as a pipe dream passed. I also think if it does go to a 5-4 vote, he will use it as another example of conservatives undermining his presidency for their own agenda with no real plan. Yet, its still a major loss for him no matter how you cut it.

(edited by lotjx on 28.6.12 0846)


The Wee Baby Sheamus.Twitter: @realjoecarfley its a bit more toned down there. A bit.
Corajudo
Frankfurter








Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 109 days
Last activity: 4 days
#6 Posted on
The individual mandate was upheld, with Roberts joining the majority in a 5-4 ruling. Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-to-rule-thursday-on-health-care-law/2012/06/28/gJQAarRm8V_story.html

The Court did strike down the expansion of Medicaid, but that's not exactly the lead story. I've definitely paid more attention to this ruling than any since Bush-Gore.
lotjx
Scrapple








Since: 5.9.08

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 3 hours
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.24
And I am shocked.



The Wee Baby Sheamus.Twitter: @realjoecarfley its a bit more toned down there. A bit.
pieman
As young as
he feels








Since: 11.12.01
From: China, Maine

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.30


And Chief Justice Roberts saves the plan.

From my work sources (as I have been in healthcare for 28 years):

SUMMARY: The Affordable Care Act, including its individual mandate that virtually all Americans buy health insurance, is constitutional. There were not five votes to uphold it on the ground that Congress could use its power to regulate commerce between the states to require everyone to buy health insurance. However, five Justices agreed that the penalty that someone must pay if he refuses to buy insurance is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing power. That is all that matters. Because the mandate survives, the Court did not need to decide what other parts of the statute were constitutional, except for a provision that required states to comply with new eligibility requirements for Medicaid or risk losing their funding. On that question, the Court held that the provision is constitutional as long as states would only lose new funds if they didn't comply with the new requirements, rather than all of their funding.

The bottom line: the entire ACA is upheld, with the exception that the federal government's power to terminate states' Medicaid funds is narrowly read.









Dionysus
Boerewors








Since: 10.7.11

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 6 hours
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.89
    Originally posted by Mr. Boffo
      Originally posted by StaggerLee

      The GOP has promised to basically repeal any parts that are left, which I personally disagree with.


    Do they have the votes to overturn a presidential veto, or is that threat mindless posturing?


The political playbook (for both parties) is generally to perpetually run on an issue to get their people elected. If and when they obtain a majority in the Congress/Executive/Court, they will then have some of their legislators "have a change of heart" so as to require the public to vote in more legislators from that party. Actually overturning it would be bad for them, because then they couldn't run campaigns promising to overturn it anymore.
TheOldMan
Landjager








Since: 13.2.03
From: Chicago

Since last post: 117 days
Last activity: 2 hours
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.67
I don't think there was anyone out there that had the Daily Double winner that is Kennedy voting to overturn the mandate and Roberts voting to affirm it.

That said, I think Roberts saved the GOP from themselves, in so far as if every conservative was against the law and the 5 conservatives on the court overturned it against the 4 liberals, the Republicans would own every problem with the healthcare system until the Democrats passed a "Medicare-for-all" extension. (There never was a viable 'replace' in the GOP's "Repeal and Replace" promise.)

I'm guessing it was less the electoral consideration as that Roberts could see that Medicare-for-all was the only response the Democrats would have. It would be an infinitely worse outcome for Republicans and their backers to end up cutting private health insurance companies out of all that government-subsidized guaranteed 'profit'. And during the run up to this decision, even the ConservaDems were talking out loud that the party would have to look at different solutions if this law fell.

I haven't read anything yet about the Medicaid expansion getting dumped (I assume this is based on a states' rights argument by the conservatives). What I'd been hearing in the last few weeks is that just losing the mandate may not have had such a large effect on the law, if the government could still offer low-income families the subsidies.

Ironically, since the media decided long ago that the mandate was the whole ballgame, this gets played by the Washington Press Corps (bless their hearts) as a big win for the President.



TheOldMan
Landjager








Since: 13.2.03
From: Chicago

Since last post: 117 days
Last activity: 2 hours
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.67
I'll make a separate post for the sake of clarity on the Medicaid Expansion issue.

    Originally posted by SCOTUSblog (scotusblog.com)
    The Court’s decision on the constitutionality of the Medicaid expansion is divided and complicated. The bottom line is that: (1) Congress acted constitutionally in offering states funds to expand coverage to millions of new individuals; (2) So states can agree to expand coverage in exchange for those new funds; (3) If the state accepts the expansion funds, it must obey by the new rules and expand coverage; (4) but a state can refuse to participate in the expansion without losing all of its Medicaid funds; instead the state will have the option of continue the its current, unexpanded plan as is.

    ...

    The consequence was a bottom line of 7 Justices – (Roberts), Breyer, Kagan and the four dissenters – finding the expansion unconstitutional. But a different majority – (Roberts), Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan – held that the remedy for the violation was to strike down only the provision allowing the federal government to withhold all Medicaid funds unless a state agrees to the expansion.


In other words, two of the four liberals on the court agreed with the 5 conservatives that it was too coercive for the government to tell the states "take the expanded Medicaid plan or take nothing", but Roberts joined the four liberals on the court in saying that if you make the expanded plan optional for a state to opt-in, that passes constitutional muster.

Which is good news for in-need/at-risk people in "blue" states, I guess. But I can't disagree with the logic, as the Chief Justice said, the court isn't there to protect people with the consequences of their political choices. This reminds me of back in the 70s when Congress voted for a national 55mph speed limit in response to the energy crisis, and forced states to comply by withholding federal highway funds unless they dropped to the 55mph limit.

With another 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court still appears to be on an ideological razor's edge. When the case came up, a large majority of constitutional scholars thought that there was no chance of the mandate being overturned, because there was such clear precedent on the books. Today, this outcome is viewed as an upset. By voting as he did, Roberts averted a long, loud discussion about the court in an election year.



Lexus
Bierwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: Stafford, VA

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.56
If you think only blue states will take the expanded funding, you're nuts. No one entity is quite as good at obtaining and using government funds as your local state, city, county, parrish, or township. The county I live in banked a ton of federal money over the past ten years, and we're in Virginia. Granted, those were PATRIOT Act dollars, but free money is free money.

So when is the federal government sending auditors to calculate return on investment?



"Laugh and the world laughs with you. Frown and the world laughs at you."
-Me.
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 5 days
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.63
I don't see how something that, in the text of the law, is called a fine, can be renamed a tax. Can't wait for President Romney gets his mandatory purchase of fire arms, and anybody who doesn't will get a big $50,000 fine. After all, if the government can force you to buy one product, they can force you to buy anything they want. Like that 10 year old car you own? Too bad the government says it will cause too much pollution, and you need to buy a new one. Slippery slopes all around.



YOUR 2012 NCCA Tournament Bracket Challenge Winner
BigDaddyLoco
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 10 hours
Last activity: 10 hours
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.28
I've been with the same big company for 12 years now, and my insurance has gone up tremendously over that time. I imagine insurance worries is a big reason why people are having such a hard time finding full time work. I know we never hire full time people anymore.

I'm just curious what happens now. I have a feeling I am going to be seeing a huge hike in my rates again, maybe the biggest I have ever seen. I know I would want affordable insurance if I lost my job, but I wonder if because I have a job if my insurance is no longer going to seem affordable.
Mr. Boffo
Scrapple








Since: 24.3.02
From: Oshkosh, WI

Since last post: 454 days
Last activity: 414 days
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.95
I work for a small business of less than 50 employees. I just did a search for health insurance quotes and the absolute cheapest plan I could find for myself was $48.48 per month (almost $600 a year) for a network plan with a $10,000 deductible and 20% coinsurance. Baring the possibility of catastrophic injury, I don't see any reason why I shouldn't just take the penalty/tax for at least the first two years (when the penalty starts at $95 and $325 per person respectively).
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 5 days
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.63
I just became eligible for insurance through my employer. In the information package, it shows my employer pays $177 every two weeks per person covered. That's more than $4600 annually. Why any employer would pay out $4600/employee rather than the $1500/year penalty is beyond me. At just the 100 or so people we have at work (not including dependants who are covered)that's a $310,000 savings for the company (again, not including any cash saved by family members being eliminated, which they DONT get fined for).

And people are naive enough to think this is going to save them cash and/or they will be able to keep their current coverage? Not possible.
This is a big burden to the middle class who all the politicians claim to care about.


Edit:I can't math.

(edited by StaggerLee on 28.6.12 2257)


YOUR 2012 NCCA Tournament Bracket Challenge Winner
hansen9j
Andouille








Since: 7.11.02
From: Riderville, SK

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 1 day
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.59
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    I just became eligible for insurance through my employer. In the information package, it shows my employer pays $177 every two weeks per person covered. That's more than $4600 annually. Why any employer would pay out $4600/employee rather than the $1500/year penalty is beyond me.
Well, isn't their current choice to pay out $4600/employee rather than $0/year? Why would the introduction of a penalty cause employers that are offering existing coverage to drop it?



The Big Bossman raised the briefcase.

Go Pack Go! Owner of one (1) share.
Let's Go Riders! Owner of one (1) share.
Corajudo
Frankfurter








Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 109 days
Last activity: 4 days
#18 Posted on
    Originally posted by hansen9j
      Originally posted by StaggerLee
      I just became eligible for insurance through my employer. In the information package, it shows my employer pays $177 every two weeks per person covered. That's more than $4600 annually. Why any employer would pay out $4600/employee rather than the $1500/year penalty is beyond me.
    Well, isn't their current choice to pay out $4600/employee rather than $0/year? Why would the introduction of a penalty cause employers that are offering existing coverage to drop it?

Because by paying the fine, they are providing (indirectly) health insurance to their employees and saving money. Before, their employees would not have had health insurance. It boils down to empathy and caring for their employees. The plural of anecdote isn't data, but I do know small business owners who will stop offering insurance and pay the fine/tax because it's cheaper.
Mr Heel II
Lap cheong








Since: 25.2.02

Since last post: 9 days
Last activity: 1 day
#19 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.85
    Originally posted by Corajudo
    Because by paying the fine, they are providing (indirectly) health insurance to their employees and saving money. Before, their employees would not have had health insurance. It boils down to empathy and caring for their employees. The plural of anecdote isn't data, but I do know small business owners who will stop offering insurance and pay the fine/tax because it's cheaper.
Maybe I missed something somewhere, but the 'fine' doesn't actually provide anyone with insurance, does it? The government isn't going to insure you through a fine, are they?

    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    Can't wait for President Romney gets his mandatory purchase of fire arms, and anybody who doesn't will get a big $50,000 fine. After all, if the government can force you to buy one product, they can force you to buy anything they want. Like that 10 year old car you own? Too bad the government says it will cause too much pollution, and you need to buy a new one. Slippery slopes all around.
Exactly. A very dangerous precedent has been set here. And you can bet there are companies and lobbyists looking for ways to exploit this in future laws.

Regardless of who ends up winning the election, the American people need to push for a constitutional amendment to stop that from happening again.
lotjx
Scrapple








Since: 5.9.08

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 3 hours
#20 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.24
Considering Americans with insurance were picking up the bill of the uninsured, its not a dangerous of precedent. It will be dangerous if I had pay for the gun ammo that was used by people who did not have a license for that gun. You can pay the fine, but you sure as fuck better give your employees who ask for some raises and a shit ton of vacation days when they fall ill. Again, you live here, you get sick, you die here and someone else is footing the bill which is one of the reasons health care is through the roof.

What I see coming out of this and after the election if Obama wins with now Mitt running on a repeal, but don't replace platform is a zero win for him. And as Daily Show pointed out, what he will do is basically do ObamaCare without paying for it if he does anything at all. Very fiscally conservative of him. You are going to see more insurance companies come out of the wood work. Instead of Blue Cross and Blue Shield, you will smaller insurance companies with better rates, because now there is a demand for it. We will get what I call "Progressive" Insurance companies where they will come in and match your health savings to others if there is not one already out there. A lot of those companies doing auto and life will get into Health Care, because now there is a giant market out there who needs it, but at the same time they have to be competitive. Eventually the bigger companies will realize this and adjust.

Health Insurance will go up, mainly because no one in a capitalist society can tell a Doctor, $100 for a ten minute visits or the $1000 a room a night that the hospitals have is fucking extortion. It won't happen, so yes, rates will go up, I don't think it will be as terrible as people think. I actually think a lot of the confusion of this being a law or not lead to some of this and the less confusion may lead to them leveling out. But, if you think repealing this thing and going back to step one is going make your insurance less, you are just fucking kidding yourself.

(edited by lotjx on 29.6.12 1118)


The Wee Baby Sheamus.Twitter: @realjoecarfley its a bit more toned down there. A bit.
Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread rated: 4.68
Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread ahead: Multiple dead/wounded at Colorado Theater
Next thread: Sally Ride 1951-2012
Previous thread: State Pen 45, Penn State 3. (Sandusky guilty on 45 of 48 counts)
(38 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Well to Hillary Rosen's RIAA and MPAA (I know you guys are lobbying this) I say, don't flatter yourselves. I wouldn't pirate the shit even if I had broadband.
The W - Current Events & Politics - So, the SCOTUS rules on Obamacare tomorrow Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.505 seconds.