Posted on 06/29/2012 4:14:59 AM PDT by tobyhill
Now that the Supreme Court has upheld President Barack Obama's health care initiative, will Congress have to rewrite it from scratch?
It's not a paradoxical question. The court signed off on nearly all of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, but it struck down one provision, and in doing so — whether it knew it or not — it may have put the poorest Americans at the greatest risk of being left without any health insurance.
Chief Justice John Roberts said as part of the 5-4 decision that states can't be penalized for refusing to join the law's expansion of Medicaid eligibility. Health law experts said that had the practical effect of flipping an all but mandatory program into one a state can choose not to join.
Here's the problem: The ACA creates state health insurance "exchanges," providing tax credits to eligible residents to buy affordable, state-certified health insurance. But the poorest Americans aren't in that eligible pool, because the law assumes they'll be covered by the expansion of Medicaid, which is no longer a given.
(Excerpt) Read more at usnews.msnbc.msn.com ...
That’s an interesting point.
If if if the bill really does exclude these members from the exchanges assuming they will be under medicaid, then Congress will be forced to address this group in the future, because clearly most states aren’t going to sign up for expanded Medicaid.
That gives us a bargaining point to address some of the other aspects of the law.
What I want to know is, now that this is a taxable item, what happens to all the companies that were exempt?
I was thinking the same thing. When it was regulatory fine, HHS - being a regulatory agency - could issue waivers. Now that it is a tax, they can’t do that. I don’t think the IRS can do it unless it is part of the tax code. To do so would be unequal taxation under the law. So each of these exemptions would have to be authorized by the House. I wonder if the unions ( one of the exemptions ) have realized yet that they have been stabbed in the back by this decision. Of course, it will take some congressman with a set of balls ( hard to find one nowadays ) to bring that issue up. It would be fun to watch though :-)
I’m so tired of “the poorest.” They put themselves at the greatest risk. Most of what we pay in taxes and lost liberty is spent in an effort to save the dysfunctional leeches from themselves. Enough.
They’ll be given vouchers.
At the root of 0bamacare, and of most liberal social policies,
is the covetousness and envy and outrage that “the rich have more choices than the poor (more than ME, DAMMIT!)”.
They don’t want to give more choices to everyone, they just want the (no-ruling elite) rich to have LESS choice. And that will never happen. As in Britain, the wealthy will “vacation” to another country that doesn’t have restrictive health policies (like India) to get the treatment that is being denied in their socialist system.
“Chief Justice John Roberts said as part of the 5-4 decision that states can’t be penalized for refusing to join the law’s expansion of Medicaid eligibility.”
Obama has already proved the law of the land consists of the laws he feels like enforcing. Why should he pay attention to this ruling and go ahead penalize states that don’t toe the line?
Already the commies start up the drumbeat for single payer with no cost for wimmen and chillen.
Exactly what is the point of working and saving your money if money does not reduce risk?
The new Amerika: Do as little as possible, save nothing and get as much of other peoples’ money as you can.
The new Amerika: Do as little as possible, save nothing and get as much of other peoples’ money as you can.
Maybe this is what Roberts was doing. He’s hoping somebody will figure this out and file another suit.
What I’d like to know is how did he get the libs on the court to go along with his written oppinion concerning “it’s a tax”.
SHEESH, yet ANOTHER Catch 22 in ObamaCare!
“What I’d like to know is how did he get the libs on the court to go along with his written oppinion concerning “it’s a tax”.”
I think that was the “cost” of him joining their opinion. Their only path to five votes was to go along with the tax nonsense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.