Entire ACA upheld by Supreme Court

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

If too many people (so it affects the pricing) choose to defy the law, then the Congress can insert collection language regarding the penalty so it will stick.

Kinda silly decision for folks to make, when the choice is

a) affordable comprehensive health care, you pay according to your income level

b) no health care

Who will handle the collection of the "penalty"?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Who will handle the collection of the "penalty"?

Right now, in the language of the Act, the IRS is specifically forbidden to attempt to collect any penalty. That doesn't even start until 2016.

As has been mentioned here many times over the past two years, that was done on purpose when the act was written, because the government wanted to judge if there was going to be a problem with compliance, or not.

The Congress would have to remove a couple of sentences in the Act to permit collection of fines (enforcement).

Who would pay healthcare penalty - less than 1% of Americans:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...tml?ref=topbar

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by pointman

You mean that insuring another 60 million people won't pay for itself? I thought that Obamacare won't add to the deficit and Riot assured us it wouldn't, how could this be? She even gave us a pie chart.

perry came out today and said (no surprise) no expansion of medicaid, no exchanges. he joins fla, south car, louisiana....
26 states sued fighting obamacare. what will happen with that legislation if over half the country doesn't opt in?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

perry came out today and said (no surprise) no expansion of medicaid, no exchanges. he joins fla, south car, louisiana....
26 states sued fighting obamacare. what will happen with that legislation if over half the country doesn't opt in?

Notice that it is the poorest, most uninsured, least healthy red states doing this: they choose to simply be killing their poor and lower middle-class citizens by denying them the health care access afforded them legally by the #ACA Medicaid expansion.

Those losers need to be kicked out of office.

What happens? Those states still get to take the money, but don't have to use it for it's intended purpose. Their citizens suffer by remaining out of the health care system.

As far as refusing to set up the exchanges, the federal government comes in and does it for the state, if the state refuses. So the state loses any "states rights" to tailor the exchanges specifically to the needs of that state. They get the generic federal plan.

That will affect you, Danzig, as your governor is refusing to follow the benefits the law gives you. Too bad for you.

Ezra Klein's WonkBlog explains it easily and well

If governors opt their states out of the health law’s Medicaid expansion — as many are now threatening to do — it’s the poorest Americans who would find themselves getting the rawest deal.

This set of charts from our graphics department helps explain why: People who earn less than 100 percent of the Federal Poverty Line (about $11,170 for an individual) are ineligible for tax credits to purchase health insurance. In a state like Arkansas, for example, that could be a big deal:

[Riot]

The states whose Republican governors so far say they will refuse to expand Medicaid, or have state-specific health insurance changes for their citizens under the ACA are:

Mississippi
Arkansas
New Jersey
Florida
South Carolina
Louisiana
Texas

That is to say, the less you’ve been doing on Medicaid so far, the more the federal government will pay on your behalf going forward. And that gets to an irony of the health-care law: Red states have, in general, done less than blue states to cover their residents, so they’re going to get a sweeter deal under the terms of the Affordable Care Act.

[slotdirt]

Lots of states have said they won't accept the Medicaid expansion; too bad Riot's list doesn't include many of them.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Lots of states have said they won't accept the Medicaid expansion; too bad Riot's list doesn't include many of them.

Can you list the other ones? I've just listed the ones where I've seen the govs come out publicly and said they will not.

Kentucky, thank goodness, has a Democratic governor who has already instructed the state to start creating our exchanges - much to the displeasure of our KY Republican senators Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell, who would prefer to have our poorest people continue to be uninsured and not receive health care.

Found two more:

Republican Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin
Republican Gov. Terry Brandstadt of Iowa.

Too bad, poor people of those states - your governor denies you health care. And too bad, insured citizens of those states - you will continue to personally pay for these uninsured (freeloaders) in your ER costs and insurance premium costs.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Lots of states have said they won't accept the Medicaid expansion; too bad Riot's list doesn't include many of them.

yeah, too bad i can't see the list.

[slotdirt]

You list Louisiana, where the only thing the Governor has said is that he'll take the new Medicaid population only if he can block grant the entire program. You also list New Jersey, where while Gov. Christie has criticized that portion of the law, also hasn't said definitively whether he wouldn't take the new population or not.

Arkansas has a Democrat governor, so there's that.

[Riot]

TPM2012
GOP Governors Split On Whether To Implement Obamacare
Benjy Sarlin June 29, 2012, 10:54 AM 11403

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/20...-obamacare.php

Their best shot at eliminating the Affordable Care Act gone, Republican governors say the next step is to ensure Mitt Romney and a Republican Senate have another chance to axe it in Congress. In the meantime, though, the ACA is the constitutionally sound law of the land and each state has to figure out how to actually implement it.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R), in a press call with fellow Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) of Virginia, offered up a pretty simple approach: Just pretend the law doesn’t exist.

“We’re not going to start implementing Obamacare,” Jindal said flatly. Under his watch, Louisiana will not set up any of the required state heath care exchanges where, starting in 2014, Americans will be able to buy subsidized private health insurance.

McDonnell was more cautious. “There’s still some uncertainty at this point as to what the right course is,” he said. McDonnell also said he would be “evaluating the case.”

[Riot]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

You list Louisiana, where the only thing the Governor has said is that he'll take the new Medicaid population only if he can block grant the entire program. You also list New Jersey, where while Gov. Christie has criticized that portion of the law, also hasn't said definitively whether he wouldn't take the new population or not.

Arkansas has a Democrat governor, so there's that.

A bunch of them came out immediately and said they would refuse it, but the pressure is on, as their citizens are angry - the citizens don't want to keep paying for the uninsured freeloaders, when the ACA will instead insure them and pay the majority of the cost across states.

Glad to hear Jindal is changing his mind - one of the poorest and least-insured health care states. I've only read that Christie has said no so far.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yeah, too bad i can't see the list.

How's that high horse, Lady Disdain?

[slotdirt]

You're talking about state exchanges versus the Medicaid expansion. One can set up one without tackling the other. They're not mutually exclusive. Jindal's statement above is that he's not going to set up an exchange, which was well within his rights as a state governor before the Supreme Court ever acted on the law.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

You're talking about state exchanges versus the Medicaid expansion. One can set up one without tackling the other. They're not mutually exclusive. Jindal's statement above is that he's not going to set up an exchange, which was well within his rights as a state governor before the Supreme Court ever acted on the law.

Yes, I agree. Yes, talking about the Medicaid expansion, not the state exchanges. Jindal has said he won't participate in either that I've seen - I've not seen him say anything different yet about Medicaid, as you've said, although I hope he does change his mind.

I hope they all change their minds. They are going to be in trouble with the exchanges, however, as those take time to set up, and these govs are delaying that.

If the govs don't set up the exchanges, the Feds will just give the state a federally-run exchange. But if the Gov. declines the Medicaid expansion, the citizens of the state will continue paying for the uninsured "freeloaders" as they are now. And those poor people will remain without health care.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

You list Louisiana, where the only thing the Governor has said is that he'll take the new Medicaid population only if he can block grant the entire program. You also list New Jersey, where while Gov. Christie has criticized that portion of the law, also hasn't said definitively whether he wouldn't take the new population or not.

Arkansas has a Democrat governor, so there's that.

beebe has said he's open to expansion, but i'm figuring that the ledge isn't. it's odd how many down here are 'democrats' but then when you start talking to many citizens here, they're actually very conservative minded. anti-abortion, anti-civil rights, pro-gun, fiscally conservative....the only thing democratic that i know of is they're often pro-union.

You're talking about state exchanges versus the Medicaid expansion. One can set up one without tackling the other. They're not mutually exclusive. Jindal's statement above is that he's not going to set up an exchange, which was well within his rights as a state governor before the Supreme Court ever acted on the law

yeah, arkansas already said months ago they weren't going to set up an exchange. it's not a requirement, the feds will have one set up. and the scotus removed the medicaid funding rule, so states are free to do as they wish there. they can't be coerced.


i have a webinar upcoming that talks about changes from aca. ought to be interesting.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yeah, arkansas already said months ago they weren't going to set up an exchange. it's not a requirement, the feds will have one set up. and the scotus removed the medicaid funding rule, so states are free to do as they wish there. they can't be coerced.
.

Actually, what the SCOTUS said was that if a state refuses to expand Medicaid under the ACA, they cannot lose all their current Medicaid funding - only the ACA funding. Losing all their federal Medicaid money was the incentive to expand the program.

That's right - if your state doesn't want to be "coerced" into letting the feds pay for expanding healthcare to the currently poor and uninsured in your state, you will continue to personally pay for those uninsured in your premium costs, doctor and ER costs.

Such a choice, hum?

[Riot]

Found this update, today:

Six governors say they will opt out of Medicaid. How long will they hold out?
Ezra Klein WonkBlog
Posted by Sarah Kliff on July 9, 2012 at 4:56 pm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...they-hold-out/

If you live in one of the dark-red states, below, citizens will continue to pay for uninsured freeloaders and the poor, as the Gov. has refused the ACA Medicaid expansion the feds will provide:



http://www.advisory.com/Daily-Briefi...caid-expansion

[bigrun]

[Riot]

Reprinted with permission:

Another day, another Obamacare repeal debate in the House
by Joan McCarter
Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 12:21 PM EDT

For the 31st time in 18 months, Republicans in the House of Representatives are spending today debating a repeal of the Affordable Care Act, with the final vote tomorrow.

This time is extra special, though, since the Supreme Court ruled last month that the ACA is constitutional.

It gives a certain oomph to this iteration of the temper tantrum, the utterly futile "Repeal of Obamacare Act." It will never reach the Senate floor, but if by some miracle it did, it would be vetoed. Like wasting time is going to stop this crop of Republicans.

Demonstrating just how absurd all this is, they actually let Rep. Allen West (R-Crazytown) out in public to act as spokesman.

"I don't think it's symbolic," Rep. Allen West, R-Fla., told ABC Monday evening. "Now that we know that the truth is out there that this is a tax, we need to be able to let the American people know where we stand." [...]

"If you've got orders to take a hill, you're going to keep going until you take the hill," West, R-Fla., explained. "The American people don't want this Patient Protection Affordable Care Act. It's heinous, it's onerous. They want it gone so we as their representatives are going to continue to do what they sent us up here to do which is every way that we possibly can make sure that this bad policy, this bad law is irradiated from our rolls."

Not just repealed. Irradiated. Which is complete gibberish, but it's decisive gibberish. But what's not gibberish is what Republicans are intent upon doing, as Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) explains:

"It's more than just whether or not they will do it and its politics. It is about the philosophy that is behind it and who they are willing to hurt and whose side they're on. That's what this vote is about. [...] It's making health care affordable for those who have it and for those who do not have it. That is what Republicans do not want to have happen."

Of course, it could also be about Republican members of Congress not wanting to lose the very sweet deal that they have for health care.

During the negotiations, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) offered what he thought would be a cute poison pill amendment, requiring that all members of Congress give up their federal employees health benefits, and shop for their insurance on the new exchanges.

Democrats loved the idea, and it was adopted. And now, Republicans want to get rid of it, and keep their very generous health insurance, which they get to keep for their whole lives, if they want to.

So it's lifetime government health care coverage for them, but not for you. That's the Republican vision of freedom.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...the-nbsp-House

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by bigrun

Since obama signed the tax cut extension, and wants another....how is it still a bush tax cut?

And i wish they would do away with the ss cut on anyone making above 100k. Why is 250k the magic number??