Affordable Health Care Act Ruling is Today

[Sal Paradise]

Paul Ryan's statement

RYAN: THE CASE FOR REPEAL AND REPLACE GROWS STRONGER

June 28, 2012

WASHINGTON – Earlier today, the Supreme Court of the United States delivered a disappointing ruling in Florida v. the United States Department of Health and Human Services, affirming that the federal mandate to purchase government-approved health insurance imposes a tax on the American people.
In the response to today’s decision, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin issued the following statement:

“The federal government is tasked with protecting our cherished liberties – not infringing upon them with mandates and intrusions into our lives. Today’s ruling affirms another broken promise by President Obama, who misled the American people in selling the law by insisting that the federal mandate was not a tax.
“Despite today’s disappointing decision on the law’s constitutionality, there is no question that the law remains terrible policy. It is bad news for individuals, whose personal health care decisions are threatened by greater government control. It is bad news for workers, whose paychecks and jobs are threatened by the hundreds of billions of dollars of new tax hikes and crippling uncertainty from the massive law. It is bad news for seniors, whose health security is threatened by the bureaucratic restrictions to access from the law’s changes to Medicare. It is bad news for future generations, whose prospects for greater opportunity are stifled by the trillions of dollars of new debt that will result from this law.
“It is incumbent upon citizens and their elected leaders to clear this partisan roadblock with full repeal, and advance common-sense, patient-centered solutions. We can still ensure universal access to quality, affordable health coverage without a budget-busting federal government power grab. I remain committed to advancing reforms that realign incentives so that individuals and their doctors – not government bureaucrats or insurance company bureaucrats – are the nucleus of our health care system. This requires reforms to equalize the tax treatment of health insurance, invite true choice and competition, and ensure critical programs like Medicare and Medicaid can deliver on their promise in the 21st century.“Today’s decision strengthens the case for repeal and replace. With the right leadership in place, I am confident we can advance real health care solutions for the American people. It is now in the hands of the American people to determine whether this disastrous law will stand.”

[dj-chefron]

Former GOP Spokesman: 'Is Armed Rebellion Now Justified?'

Lansing attorney does not like Supreme Court Obamacare ruling
http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/17151

[AD]

while i like some stuff in the bill, i'm concerned for those people that don't have a job or living paycheck to paycheck in order to make ends meet. what about those people that might not want insurance because it's an extra expense? now we're going to have new taxes, penalties and fees if people or businesses don't comply? why not just socialize the whole fuckin' healthcare system and cover everyone? not sure how i feel about all of this.

[Armento]

while i like some stuff in the bill, i'm concerned for those people that don't have a job or living paycheck to paycheck in order to make ends meet. what about those people that might not want insurance because it's an extra expense? now we're going to have new taxes, penalties and fees if people or businesses don't comply? why not just socialize the whole fuckin' healthcare system and cover everyone? not sure how i feel about all of this.

If i understand correctly, the bill is supposed to expand medicare qualifications, so more people with low incomes can get free healthcare. I don't think anyone is trying to get unemployed people to pay for HMOs

For people living from paycheck to paycheck it is even more important to have insurance, because one illness can completely destroy their life, lose their house.. etc

[Sal Paradise]

while i like some stuff in the bill, i'm concerned for those people that don't have a job or living paycheck to paycheck in order to make ends meet. what about those people that might not want insurance because it's an extra expense? now we're going to have new taxes, penalties and fees if people or businesses don't comply? why not just socialize the whole fuckin' healthcare system and cover everyone? not sure how i feel about all of this.

People that can't afford insurance get a voucher to purchase insurance. This is all based on your annual income. I don't know the #'s. People that don't get insurance pay an income tax penalty.

[AD]

If i understand correctly, the bill is supposed to expand medicare qualifications, so more people with low incomes can get free healthcare. I don't think anyone is trying to get unemployed people to pay for HMOs

For people living from paycheck to paycheck it is even more important to have insurance, because one illness can completely destroy their life, lose their house.. etc

People that can't afford insurance get a voucher to purchase insurance. This is all based on your annual income. I don't know the #'s. People that don't get insurance pay an income tax penalty.

thanks, guise. i wasn't sure how all that worked out since i haven't read all the "fine details." this is why i come to the pee. much better info that the foolishness being said on FB and other sites.

[AD]

i just hope this really does lower the prices for me cause i'm paying an arm and leg for my shitty hmo right now. oh, and i love how these mother fuckers can't deny you if you have a pre-existing condition either.

[TAB.]

People that can't afford insurance get a voucher to purchase insurance.

Is the penalty for failing to comply gonna be jail, garnishments, etc? I look out my window and see all these chronically unemployed, third world living cats. They got until 2013 the get with the program or else. I guess we'd have to look to Massachussetts implementation of this mandate to see how those low income folks fared.

[Armento]

that's good man... high five

making the rounds today...

[TAB.]

This is the effect I'm concerned about. Are Medicaid's days numbered? I'd like to add, some poorer members of my family mistakenly believe the Gov's still gonna have their backs as it has done for decades. We've had this discussion-they don't get it.




http://news.yahoo.com/u-ruling-casts...200523027.html

[djmarbll]

Some are saying that's why Roberts voted the way he did. The recent stain on the SCOTUS starts at Bush v. Gore in 2000. That predates Roberts, but he knows that the image of the SCOTUS is still scarred because of the result of the decision in 2000. Citizens United made it even worse and I think Roberts wanted to restore some faith in the SCOTUS and put it on the right side of history.

I think Chief Justice Roberts went left because of Scalia and Kennedy's bullshit. Scalia's brazen partisanship and Kennedy's b.s. middle of the road fake soul searching (so he can forever play the hold out) would have left Roberts with a legacy of obstructionist political SCOTUS decisions.

Otherwise, I can't fathom how he could be (for him) so far left. He's a Republican and W appointee, man. Yet there he is, liberal?

I imagine I'd be tired of sitting next to Scalia, and Thomas's fake ass. Kennedy is bearable, but you never know if he's going to make sense or hay and he always plays the hold-out. He seems to relish the swing vote on the court. Always middle of the road.

Without this, all Roberts would have in his legacy is a divided SCOTUS...and Citizens United.

[djmarbll]

there is that, but, you gotta remember that historically, the supreme court changes people, sometimes in major ways, most notably earl warren and harry blackmun, will roberts' change be as dramatic? too early to tell

In any case, Roberts showed a lot of courage to go against his own party to cast a final vote. Repubs are calling him a sellout already.

[djmarbll]

just heard a guy in the john say that roberts voted this way to energize the right for romney

I heard that too. But Romney needs the independents to win. His hardline stance on repealing could alienate him with the mainstream, some of which are already benefitting from the Affordable Healthcare Act.

[djmarbll]

not so sure about that, danny talking about running up the score, i'm playing like we twenty points down, because, with his cash and the voter challenges nothing is assured

So true. Romney's fundraising is trumping Obama's. In fact, Obama's had more fundraisers at this time than the last six presidents combined. I get emails about donating to the campaign at least twice a day, and after I make a donation, I still feel like its not enough. In addition, there no ACORN this time around, and voter ID laws in several states are making it more difficult for early voting. I actually signed up to register people to vote thru the National Action Network this year.

[djmarbll]

If you're Mitt, what do you do? Where on the field do you run? Economy is getting better. Foreign policy is tight. A healthcare law for which he himself laid the foundation has been upheld. He burned his bridge to Latinos in the primary. He sold out gays after leveraging them to become governor of Mass. Black folks aren't gonna touch him.

Ain't enough bedfellows to come together to get this guy enough votes. All they have is a lot of money to repeat lies 24/7.

But after Citizens United, money is speech. The right is great at messaging and branding, even if Romney isn't the most convincing himself.

[djmarbll]

hahaha perfect.

More hilarious tweets from conservatives that are moving to Canada because of Obama Care.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/peopl...e-of-obamacare

The funniest thing about this is that these people think America is too socialist for Obamacare, so they respond by saying they wanna move to an even more explicitly socialist nation that's had a national healthcare plan for years, lol.

[neon]

I am so happy today.

[Sal Paradise]

Is the penalty for failing to comply gonna be jail, garnishments, etc? I look out my window and see all these chronically unemployed, third world living cats. They got until 2013 the get with the program or else. I guess we'd have to look to Massachussetts implementation of this mandate to see how those low income folks fared.

What I've gathered from various news reporting is that failure to purchase insurance means a penalty on your income tax. The first two or three years I think (not sure on these specific numbers) is around a $90 penalty. It goes up to like $650 after a couple of years. So you always have the option of opting out of insurance your just going to pay a penalty if you do. Medicaid's umbrella is supposed to get quite a bit larger, covering singles and raising the minimum annual income to qualify. People that make more than that minimum income to qualify for medicaid but can not afford insurance will get vouchers to pay for insurance. Also quite a bit of detail has not been determined, having 18 months or what ever it is before everything kicks in in 2014.

[bomb cola]

Is the penalty for failing to comply gonna be jail, garnishments, etc? I look out my window and see all these chronically unemployed, third world living cats. They got until 2013 the get with the program or else. I guess we'd have to look to Massachussetts implementation of this mandate to see how those low income folks fared.

Chronically unemployed, third world living cats will be exempt from the penalty. The adminsitration did a horrible job of getting some of the basics of this law out. That said, what a great day!

[Doug]

Is the penalty for failing to comply gonna be jail, garnishments, etc? I look out my window and see all these chronically unemployed, third world living cats. They got until 2013 the get with the program or else. I guess we'd have to look to Massachussetts implementation of this mandate to see how those low income folks fared.

It's a penalty in name only. The IRS's enforcement mechanism is essentially toothless. The only thing they can do is offset the penalty against tax refunds or credits. From the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation:

The penalty applies to any period the individual does not maintain minimum essential coverage and is determined monthly. The penalty is an excise tax that is assessed in the same manner as an assessable penalty under the enforcement provisions of subtitle F of the Code. As a result, it is assessable without regard to the restrictions of section 6213(b). Although assessable and collectible under the Code, the IRS authority to use certain collection methods is limited. Specifically, the filing of notices of liens and levies otherwise authorized for collection of taxes does not apply to the collection of this penalty. In addition, the statute waives criminal penalties for non-compliance with the requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage. However, the authority to offset refunds or credits is not limited by this provision.

From the Act itself:

‘‘(2) SPECIAL RULES.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law— (A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.—In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.

3) LIMITATIONS ON LIENS AND LEVIES.—The Secretary (or, if applicable, the Attorney General of the United States) shall not— (A) file notice of lien with respect to any property of a person by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this subsection; or (B) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.

[TAB.]

What I've gathered from various news reporting is that failure to purchase insurance means a penalty on your income tax. The first two or three years I think (not sure on these specific numbers) is around a $90 penalty. It goes up to like $650 after a couple of years. So you always have the option of opting out of insurance your just going to pay a penalty if you do. Medicaid's umbrella is supposed to get quite a bit larger, covering singles and raising the minimum annual income to qualify. People that make more than that minimum income to qualify for medicaid but can not afford insurance will get vouchers to pay for insurance. Also quite a bit of detail has not been determined, having 18 months or what ever it is before everything kicks in in 2014.

That's an awful lot of vital details to come, for folks making 27K who can't get medicaid, to be told they have to purchase Insurance at $175 a month(massachussetts estimates) or loss a tax exemption. Carney is mistaken if thinks this only touches 1% of the working Americans.

[bootyvaldovinos]

All they have is a lot of money to repeat lies 24/7.

Which, sadly, worked in the WI gov recall.

[dj-chefron]

The most devastating, criminal, traitorous, scheme in the history of American government (at least in the minds of Right Wingers/Teabaggers such as Sarah "I'm a White Grizzly Bear Momma" Palin, Micheal "The Only Good Negro President is a [Fill in the Blank] One!" Savage and Rush "We Shouldn't Kill All the Liberals - Yet" Limbaugh) was upheld as constitutional by the US Supreme Court yesterday. So what effect did this devastating blow to our democracy have on the barometer of all things economic, i.e., the Stock Markets?


Stocks
Dow: 12,880.09 up 277.83 points for a +2.20% gain
Nasdaq: 2,935.05 up 85.56 points for a +3.00% gain
S&P 500: 1,362.16 up 33.12 points for a +2.49% gain


I guess investors just don't see the infallible logic of the right that the health care reform law, i.e., the PPACA, will inevitably lead to tyranny, the end of Capitalism and the destruction of the American Way of Life. Must be sad day for Republicans and conservatives when even the markets refuse to follow the proper script.

[dj-chefron]

This is fantastic:

Charles Pierce: One of the overlooked elements in Thursday’s decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act is that, beyond the individual mandate and the hysterical politics surrounding it, the act itself is chock-full of innovative ideas and pilot programs and all sorts of other experimental goodness directed toward making easier the lives of people dealing with serious health problems. Like, for example, Alzheimer’s Disease…

Tucked away in the act is a pilot program for 10,000 people called the Independence At Home program. This is a technique first developed by the Veterans Administration by which a patient with a chronic disease, like Alzheimer’s, is treated in his or her own home by a team of doctors, nurse practitioners, geriatric pharmacists, and any other health professional whose specialty is required.

This is not only cost-efficient, being infinitely cheaper than hospitals and nursing homes, but it is a comfort for the patients and their families…
…. The program is the brainchild of Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), whose mother died from Alzheimer’s …. “Let’s just start with pre-existing conditions,” Markey told me on Thursday evening. “If the law had been struck down, you didn’t have those protections anymore. And we know that five million people have Alzheimer’s right now, and that 15 million are going to get it. Let’s go to bankruptcy, then. The law says that just because you got sick, you cannot go bankrupt.”

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/p...

[Sal Paradise]

Long interesting read on Roberts. Apparently he switched his view to uphold the law.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162...alth-care-law/