Supreme Court Ruling on Health Care

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Bay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Could one word take down Obamacare?
Section 1401 of the Affordable Care Act is, on the surface, just as exciting as it sounds. It outlines in excruciating detail the eligibility requirements for an American to receive a tax subsidy to assist in purchasing health insurance
Click to expand...
That’s at first glance, at least. Two experts who recently scoured Section 1401 think they found something huge: a missing word that could undercut the Affordable Care Act’s promise of affordable health insurance
Click to expand...
Case Western Reserve University’s Jonathan Adler and Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon argue in a new paper
Click to expand...
that any federally-established health insurance exchange does not have the authority to dole out health insurance subsidies. Those subsidies are important: They are the $800 billion in tax credits meant to subsidize coverage for low- and middle-income Americans

If that is true — and it’s worth noting that the Obama administration, along with a number of legal scholars, argue that it is not — it would significantly curtail the Affordable Care Act’s ability to do what it’s supposed to do: make health care affordable. And that puts Section 1401 at the center of a burgeoning debate over what Congress meant when it wrote the Affordable Care Act, and how that effects its ultimate implementation

washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/16/could-a-missing-word-take-down-obamacare

Obamacare and the missing words

humanevents.com/2012/07/17/obamacare-and-the-missing-words
 
My reason has already been given. The court, in my opinion, has no power to re-word the law to make it constitutional when as written it plainly wouldn’t be.
 
IRS Ruling On ObamaCare Tax Credits May Be Illegal
ObamaCare directs states to set up insurance exchanges by Jan. 1. If they don’t, the federal government can establish its own exchanges. The IRS ruled in May that insurance tax credits can be used in either system. But some experts argue the health law’s text makes it clear that the subsidies apply in only state-run exchanges
Click to expand...
If so, millions of moderate-income Americans could be forced to get insurance but not be eligible for subsidies
Click to expand...
“The IRS rule is illegal,” wrote Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University, and Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute in a new article in “Health Matrix: Journal of Law-Medicine”
Click to expand...
They claim the IRS rule “is not authorized by the text of (ObamaCare), nor can it be justified on other grounds. Neither the structure, history, nor other indicia of congressional intent support the IRS position”
Click to expand...
A government-run exchange is a place where people can shop and buy the health insurance required under ObamaCare’s individual mandate. Those with incomes from 100% to 400% of the federal poverty level will be eligible for taxpayer-funded subsidies — a tax credit to help pay for the premium. Section 1311 of ObamaCare instructs state governments to establish exchanges. If states fail to do so, section 1321 enables the federal government to do so
Click to expand...
However, as IBD reported last September, the tax credit is available only to people who purchase insurance from “an exchange established by the state under (Section) 1311.” Nowhere does the law say people enrolling in an exchange set up by the federal government are eligible for a tax credit
Click to expand...
The issue matters because the federal government may have to establish exchanges in dozens of states. Thus far, only 12 states — California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, Washington and West Virginia — plus Washington, D.C., have passed legislation setting up a state-based exchange. The governors of New York and Rhode Island have signed executive orders to the same effect
Click to expand...
But governors in Florida, Louisiana, Maine, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Texas have actively opposed a state exchange. As for the remaining 30 states, it is an open question how many will meet the Jan. 1, 2013, deadline to set up a state exchange or have the federal government take over
Click to expand...
Thus, it is conceivable that millions of Americans could be required to purchase health insurance but live in states where they are not eligible to receive a subsidy
Click to expand...
news.investors.com/article/618386/201207170923/irs-ruling-on-obamacare-exchhanges-illegal.htm
 
These little tidbits were sent to me and I am passing them along. I do not vouch for their correctness, but it does give one pause.

Care Highlighted by Page Number
THE CARE BILL HB 3200

JUDGE KITHIL IS THE 2ND OFFICIAL WHO HAS OUTLINED THESE PARTS OF THE CARE BILL.
Judge Kithil of Marble Falls, TX - highlighted the
most egregious pages
of HB3200

Please read this… especially
the reference to pages 58 & 59

JUDGE KITHIL wrote:

**
Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to
all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally.

**
Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an
individual’s bank account and will have the authority to make
electronic fund transfers from those accounts.

**
Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the
government) for all union members, union retirees and for
community organizations (such as the Association
of Community Organizations for Reform Now -
ACORN).

**
Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section
will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their
right mind come up with that?)

**
Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same
regardless of specialty, and the government will set all
doctors’ fees.

**
Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care
according to the patient’s age.

**
Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on
hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an
exception.

**
Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care
planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be
required to attend an “end-of-life planning” seminar every five
years. (Death counseling…)

**
Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify
which doctors can write an end-of-life order.

HAD ENOUGH??? Judge Kithil then goes on to identify:

“Finally, it is specifically stated that this bill will not apply to
members of Congress. Members of Congress are already
exempt from the Social Security system, and have a well-funded
private plan that covers their retirement needs. If they were on
our Social Security plan, I believe they would find a very quick
‘fix’ to make the plan financially sound for their future.”
  • Honorable
    David Kithil of Marble Falls , Texas
 
Yup… if they want universal health care then… the politicians need to be on it also.
mary_bobo said:
These little tidbits were sent to me and I am passing them along. I do not vouch for their correctness, but it does give one pause.

Care Highlighted by Page Number
THE CARE BILL HB 3200

JUDGE KITHIL IS THE 2ND OFFICIAL WHO HAS OUTLINED THESE PARTS OF THE CARE BILL.
Judge Kithil of Marble Falls, TX - highlighted the
most egregious pages
of HB3200

Please read this… especially
the reference to pages 58 & 59

JUDGE KITHIL wrote:

**
Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to
all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally.

**
Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an
individual’s bank account and will have the authority to make
electronic fund transfers from those accounts.

**
Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the
government) for all union members, union retirees and for
community organizations (such as the Association
of Community Organizations for Reform Now -
ACORN).

**
Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section
will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their
right mind come up with that?)

**
Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same
regardless of specialty, and the government will set all
doctors’ fees.

**
Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care
according to the patient’s age.

**
Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on
hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an
exception.

**
Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care
planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be
required to attend an “end-of-life planning” seminar every five
years. (Death counseling…)

**
Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify
which doctors can write an end-of-life order.

HAD ENOUGH??? Judge Kithil then goes on to identify:

“Finally, it is specifically stated that this bill will not apply to
members of Congress. Members of Congress are already
exempt from the Social Security system, and have a well-funded
private plan that covers their retirement needs. If they were on
our Social Security plan, I believe they would find a very quick
‘fix’ to make the plan financially sound for their future.”
  • Honorable
    David Kithil of Marble Falls , Texas
Click to expand...
 
I’ve been really worried about this lately. Does anyone know how much a single person making about $20K a year (no health insurance) will now have to pay for the new Obama Tax?
 
Nevermind, I found out on my own. :rolleyes: $695 a year once it reaches full force.
 
flyinghouse said:
Nevermind, I found out on my own. :rolleyes: $695 a year once it reaches full force.
Click to expand...
I’ve seen differring reports. I’ve seen $695, I’ve seen 2% of agi, I’ve seen 2% or %695 whichever is more. It could that much per person or per family too 🤷

I think until the IRS spits out the form and instructions it’s only a guess.
 
’Obamacare’ extends health care benefits to same-sex partners’ children
The Obama administration is giving a new health benefit to same-sex partners — and it’s built on one of the most popular provisions of “Obamacare”
Click to expand...
On Friday, the administration published a proposed rule
Click to expand...
that would extend one of the health care law’s best-known provisions — allowing children to stay on their parents’ health plans until age 26 — to same-sex partners of federal workers

The rule would extend eligibility in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program to the children of an enrollee’s same-sex partner. It also would extend coverage in the federal employees’ dental and vision insurance programs

The Obama administration decision stemmed from a June 17, 2009, administration memorandum asking the Office of Personnel Management to provide certain benefits to federal employees’ same-sex domestic partners

According to the OPM’s website, same-sex partners are not currently eligible for benefits under the FEHBP, but the OPM determined it was able to extend the Affordable Care Act’s under-26 provision to the kids of federal workers’ same-sex domestic partners by tweaking the regulatory definition of “stepchild”

politico.com/news/stories/0712/78776.html#ixzz21DM6d8fa
 
Nearly one in 10 employers to drop health coverage
About one in 10 employers plan to drop health coverage when key provisions of the new health care law kick in less than two years from now, according to a survey to be released Tuesday by the consulting company Deloitte
Click to expand...
Nine percent of companies said they expect to stop offering coverage to their workers in the next one to three years, the Wall Street Journal reported. Around 81 percent said they would continue providing benefits and 10 percent said they weren’t sure
Click to expand...
The companies, though, said a lot will depend on how future provisions of the law unfold, since most of the key parts are scheduled to take effect in 2014. One in three respondents said they could stop offering coverage if the law requires them to provide more generous benefits than they do now, if a tax on high-cost plans takes effect in 2018 as scheduled or if they decide it would be cheaper for them to pay the penalty for not providing insurance
Click to expand...
While small business don’t face fines for failing to offer coverage, companies with 50 or more full time employees face a penalty starting at $2,000 per worker
Click to expand...
Deloitte conducted the study between February and April — before the Supreme Court upheld most of the law — and surveyed corporate and human-resources executives from 560 companies currently offering benefits
Click to expand...
In contrast, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that around seven percent of workers could lose coverage under the law by 2019
Click to expand...
washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/jul/24/nearly-one-10-employers-drop-health-coverage

Will Boehner Fight Or Fold On Obamacare Funding?

cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/will-boehner-fight-or-fold-obamacare-funding
 
Deficit Complicates Health Care Repeal Goal
Congressional Republicans’ goal of repealing the Affordable Care Act continues to run afoul of their efforts to reduce the deficit, at least according to the judgment of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office
Click to expand...
The CBO said Tuesday that President Barack Obama’s signature health care law will cut the deficit by $109 billion over the next decade and is $84 billion cheaper after a Supreme Court ruling in June gave states more flexibility to nix an expansion of Medicaid
Click to expand...
rollcall.com/issues/58_11/Deficit-Complicates-Repeal-Goal-216413-1.html

CBO is supposed to be non partisan, but not according to report from the Daily caller, their estimates deserve to be considering

Obamacare architects preside over forthcoming CBO cost analysis
As the Congressional Budget Office prepares to release its cost analysis report on the Affordable Care Act, The Daily Caller News Foundation has learned that the woman who helped create the statistical models used to score Obamacare has strong ties to the White House as well as the president’s signature legislation
Click to expand...
The Daily Caller previously reported that Melinda Beeuwkes Buntin was formerly a Department of Health and Human Services official under the Obama administration, and that she had personally donated more than $26,000 to Democratic politicians and campaign committees, with $2,300 of that going to President Obama in 2008
Click to expand...
Also in 2008, Buntin was cited
Click to expand...
as an “Obama Spokeswoman,” when she delivered a speech to health industry insiders to “learn more about the Obama/Biden health care plan.” The speech stressed the cost effectiveness of passing the then-candidates’ plan, which would pay for the “$50 – $65 billion health care reform effort by rolling back the Bush tax cuts for Americans earning more than $250,000 per year and retaining the estate tax at its 2009 level”

dailycaller.com/2012/07/23/obamacare-architects-preside-over-forthcoming-cbo-cost-analysis

Heritage on CBO report
Obamacare will cost less
Click to expand...
…. The new CBO scoring shows that the net cost of Obamacare will be $84 billion less over the next 10 years than predicted in its last analysis in March 2012. Spending on the Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program expansion will fall by $289 billion, while increased spending on the exchanges to cover some of those who will no longer qualify for Medicaid will cost $210 billion. The law will now add $1.17 trillion in new government spending over 10 years—paid for by massive tax hikes on all Americans and robbing money from the Medicare program

…. Because more people will be uninsured. Obamacare will cost less because it will insure fewer people. While the Medicaid expansion extended to all individuals below 138 percent of the federal poverty line, the exchange subsidies are only available to those earning between 100 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty level, which means only a portion of would-be new Medicaid enrollees will qualify for subsidies. In 2022, this will add 3 million more to the number of Americans who will still be uninsured under Obamacare

Obamacare falls far short of its promise for universal coverage. Since day one, it’s been clear that Obamacare will not achieve universal coverage, and every time CBO revisits the law, the numbers show just that. In March 2010, when the law passed, CBO predicted that there would be 22 million people still without insurance in 2019. In March 2012, the estimate increased to 27 million in 2022. Now, the number has once again increased—to 30 million. So Obamacare leaves just as many people uninsured as it covers

Massive uncertainty underlies CBO’s estimate. According to CBO, “what states will be able to do and what they will decide to do are both highly uncertain. As a result…[the] estimates reflect an assessment of the probabilities of different outcomes…in the middle of the distribution of possible outcomes.” As CBO points out, states’ decisions to expand or not expand Medicaid hinge on a number of factors, including their budget outlooks. States that decide to expand would face “a large extra cost”

Could ObamaCare Make The Uninsured Problem Worse?

news.investors.com/article/619306/201207250802/obamacare-could-add-to-uninsured.htm
 
Majority of American employers consider Obamacare 'a step in the wrong direction’
A majority of American employers consider the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) “a step in the wrong direction,” according to a new report released yesterday by the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions
Click to expand...
The report, titled “2012 Deloitte Survey of U.S. Employers: Opinions About the Healthcare System and Plans for Employee Health Benefits,” was based on a survey of 560 randomly selected companies that employ over 50 people who currently offer health insurance to their employees. It was conducted between February and April of this year

breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/07/25/A-Majority-of-American-Employers-Consider-Obamacare-A-Step-in-the-Wrong-Direction
 
So, Obamacare makes the uninsured problem worse, raises everyone’s tax, forces Catholic organizations to close, ruins religious liberty, kills more unborn,let all sick old people die without giving them treatment … And still some Catholics want to vote for him? :mad:
 
InLight247 said:
So, Obamacare makes the uninsured problem worse, raises everyone’s tax, forces Catholic organizations to close, ruins religious liberty, kills more unborn,let all sick old people die without giving them treatment … And still some Catholics want to vote for him? :mad:
Click to expand...
It’s a mystery…

LIsa
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top