nanook 1 #26 June 28, 2012 Quote Rand Paul's comments are laughable. "just because a few people say it's Constitutional doesn't make it so". A few people meaning the SCOTUS. sounds like he is as squirrely as his dad. My question is, does the mandate have to be rewritten to reflect "tax" language and if so does it have to go through approval again?_____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shah269 0 #27 June 28, 2012 Or better yet will my insurance go down? In theory it should right?Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #28 June 28, 2012 Quote Quote Rand Paul's comments are laughable. "just because a few people say it's Constitutional doesn't make it so". A few people meaning the SCOTUS. sounds like he is as squirrely as his dad. My question is, does the mandate have to be rewritten to reflect "tax" language and if so does it have to go through approval again? No. All the Supremes said is that the mandate is constitutional under the taxing authority provision of the constitution. Doesn't make it a tax (in fact they go out of their way to say that it isn't according to the Anti Injunctions Act), or mean any rewrite is necessary.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #29 June 28, 2012 >Or better yet will my insurance go down? In theory it should right? In theory it will go down slightly or (more likely) stay the same. It will tend to go down because the general health of the insured population will rise. Since it will happen gradually it may not drop faster than inflation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #30 June 28, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Rand Paul's comments are laughable. "just because a few people say it's Constitutional doesn't make it so". A few people meaning the SCOTUS. sounds like he is as squirrely as his dad. My question is, does the mandate have to be rewritten to reflect "tax" language and if so does it have to go through approval again? No. All the Supremes said is that the mandate is constitutional under the taxing authority provision of the constitution. Doesn't make it a tax (in fact they go out of their way to say that it isn't according to the Anti Injunctions Act), or mean any rewrite is necessary. No, they said the mandate under the commerce clause was not constitutional The SCOTUS did accept that it is a tax argument Look at Ginsberg’s opinion. She is pissed that they ruled as they did related to the CC. It is a tax The biggest increase ever seen"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loumeinhart 0 #32 June 28, 2012 This is from CNN website (regarding those currently insured) but Im not understanding QuoteBecause the requirement remains for people to have or buy insurance, the revenue stream designed to help pay for the law remains in place. So insured Americans may be avoiding a spike in premiums that could have resulted if the high court had tossed out the individual mandate but left other requirements on insurers in place. http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/28/politics/supreme-court-health-effects/index.html?c=mobile-homepage-t Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #33 June 28, 2012 QuoteCorrect. The court also limited what the fed could push on the states as far as medicare goes This is a big deal and is going unnoticed for the most part right now The states have the right to opt out of the ACA law regarding medicare In effect , the court issed a limiting ruling against the fed It also made it clear that the CC could NOT be used for mandates Anything like this comes up again there will be no debate as it can only be a tax"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #34 June 28, 2012 My understanding is that the states would lose ALL medicaid funding should they do that. While being required to provide it at the same time. I'm thinking some of the legal battles haven't even started. Wasn't it 23 states that sued the first time around??? How the HELL is California going to pay for theirs???? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loumeinhart 0 #35 June 28, 2012 Maybe it's just me, but wasn't Kennedy supposed to be the swing? This whole thing kind of got me interested in learning more about scotus history Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #36 June 28, 2012 QuoteThe court found problems with the law's expansion of Medicaid, but even there said the expansion could proceed as long as the federal government does not threaten to withhold states' entire Medicaid allotment if they don't take part in the law's extension. "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #37 June 28, 2012 Politics? In DC???? hmmm...wonder how that whole contempt thing will pan out today. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #38 June 28, 2012 >Maybe it's just me, but wasn't Kennedy supposed to be the swing? I guess. He's a conservative judge (appointed under Bush) but had been asking some pretty pointed questions about the mandate i.e. "is it really a mandate or is it a tax?" during arguments. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #39 June 28, 2012 Quote It is a tax The biggest increase ever seen Really? So how much more will you be paying?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #40 June 28, 2012 Quote How the HELL is California going to pay for theirs???? The Fed is going to bail them out, meaning we all pay for California's problems.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shah269 0 #41 June 28, 2012 QuoteQuote How the HELL is California going to pay for theirs???? The Fed is going to bail them out, meaning we all pay for California's problems. And i for one forgive California! After all the are the home of the fake tittis and I <3 fake tities! Any one argue with not likeing fake tities needs to hand in their man card! But ok that BS aside! OK so we are all now covered under this "tax" much like SS and medicair and medicaid. So will the cost of health care go down or up or sideways? As someone put it, my health care costs wont' go down...but will the costs of drugs go down?Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #42 June 28, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote Rand Paul's comments are laughable. "just because a few people say it's Constitutional doesn't make it so". A few people meaning the SCOTUS. sounds like he is as squirrely as his dad. My question is, does the mandate have to be rewritten to reflect "tax" language and if so does it have to go through approval again? No. All the Supremes said is that the mandate is constitutional under the taxing authority provision of the constitution. Doesn't make it a tax (in fact they go out of their way to say that it isn't according to the Anti Injunctions Act), or mean any rewrite is necessary. No, they said the mandate under the commerce clause was not constitutional The SCOTUS did accept that it is a tax argument The mandate and its attached penalty are a tax for purposes of its constitutionality, but not for the Anti-Injunction Act. If it were a tax for AIA purposes, this case would not have been decided re the mandate. So it is and isn't a tax at the same time.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #43 June 28, 2012 Children with pre-existing conditions can now get insured? what an outrage!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #44 June 28, 2012 QuoteChildren with pre-existing conditions can now get insured? what an outrage!!! And they can't drop you arbitrarily if you get sick.. Horrors!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #45 June 28, 2012 >Any one argue with not likeing fake tities needs to hand in their man card! I won't argue with you liking fake titties! >As someone put it, my health care costs wont' go down...but will the costs of drugs go down? Probably not. Drugs are already pretty cheap. Indeed the government has mandated that some drugs be sold so cheaply that now manufacturers don't want to make them. There is a serious shortage of "old" cancer drugs for example (drugs that work but are off-patent) because government mandates on maximum pricing under Medicare and Medicaid. However, for newer drugs, prices will likely drop, since overall more people will be using them - so pharms will be able to recover their costs with higher quantities. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #46 June 28, 2012 I look forward to receiving my first tax bill for this program, so that I can send it back, unpaid, with a note telling them where to stick it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #47 June 28, 2012 >I look forward to receiving my first tax bill for this program, so that I can send it back, >unpaid, with a note telling them where to stick it. You do that! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loumeinhart 0 #48 June 28, 2012 Does that mean AIA doesn't apply to the penalty tax? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #49 June 28, 2012 Quote>Or better yet will my insurance go down? In theory it should right? In theory it will go down slightly or (more likely) stay the same. It will tend to go down because the general health of the insured population will rise. Since lifestyle choices are, by far, the biggest factor in most people's health, I don't think having more insured people will make much of a difference in their general health. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #50 June 28, 2012 Quote OK so we are all now covered under this "tax" much like SS and medicair and medicaid. So will the cost of health care go down or up or sideways? Down for people with pre-existing conditions who are not covered by employer plans. Down for people too old for low rates but too young for Medicare. Up for everyone else. For instance, insurance companies are required to charge young people at least 1/3 what they charge old people. Quote As someone put it, my health care costs wont' go down...but will the costs of drugs go down? Heck no. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America is a powerful lobbying organization with a revolving door for compliant Congress Creatures (work to pass something like the Medicare Prescription Drug Act which created Medicare Part D which funnels $100B/year into the industry and they'll make you president with a reported $2.5M/year pay check as of 2010). They have a vested interest in keeping prices high. The health insurance companies also now have incentives to buy more expensive drugs. The law requires 80% of medical insurance premiums to go towards actual medical care. The remaining 20% of twice is much is still twice as much as they were getting; so you can expect insurers to favor new patented drugs which cost more than the old less expensive generics they used to steer customers to. Of course this will be "better" for the patients. Just more expensive. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
