PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court upholds Obama health care law


Vis
06-28-2012, 09:33 AM
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/06/Supreme-Court-rules-on-Obama-health-care-plan-718037/1#.T-xqEJHa_c4

The Supreme Court upheld President Obama's health care law today in a splintered, complex opinion that gives Obama a major election-year victory.Basically. the justices said that the individual mandate -- the requirement that most Americans buy health insurance or pay a fine -- is constitutional as a tax.

Chief Justice John Roberts -- a conservative appointed by President George W. Bush -- provided the key vote to preserve the landmark health care law, which figures to be a major issue in Obama's re-election bid against Republican opponent Mitt Romney.

The government had argued that Congress had the authority to pass the individual mandate as part of its power to regulate interstate commerce; the court disagreed with that analysis, but preserved the mandate because the fine amounts to a tax that is within Congress' constitutional taxing powers.

The announcement will have a major impact on the nation's health care system, the actions of both federal and state governments, and the course of the November presidential and congressional elections.

A key question for the high court: The law's individual mandate, the requirement that nearly all Americans buy health insurance, or pay a penalty.

Critics call the requirement an unconstitutional overreach by Congress and the Obama administration; supporters say it is necessary to finance the health care plan, and well within the government's powers under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

While the individual mandate remained 18 months away from implementation, many other provisions already have gone into effect, such as free wellness exams for seniors and allowing children up to age 26 to remain on their parents' health insurance policies. Some of those provisions are likely to be retained by some insurance companies.

Other impacts will sort themselves out, once the court rules:
-- Health care millions of Americans will be affected – coverage for some, premiums for others. Doctors, hospitals, drug makers, insurers, and employers large and small all will feel the impact.

-- States -- some of which have moved ahead with the health care overhaul while others have held back -- now have decisions to make. A deeply divided Congress could decide to re-enter the debate with legislation.

-- The presidential race between Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney is sure to feel the repercussions. Obama's health care law has proven to be slightly more unpopular than popular among Americans.

Not since the court confirmed George W. Bush's election in December 2000 -- before 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq, Wall Street's dive and Obama's rise -- has one case carried such sweeping implications for nearly every American.

Passed by Democrats along strictly partisan lines and still 18 months short of full implementation, the law is designed to extend health coverage to some 32 million uninsured people, ban insurers from discriminating against those with expensive ailments, and require nearly all Americans to buy insurance or pay penalties.

Its passage on March 23, 2010, marked the culmination of an effort by Democrats to overhaul the nation's health care system that dates back to Harry Truman's presidency. The most recent effort by President Bill Clinton in 1994 fell victim to Republican opposition. Since then, lesser changes have been enacted, including creation of a separate Children's Health Insurance Program in the states.

Vis
06-28-2012, 09:39 AM
In a 5-4 decision on Thursday, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the individual mandate in President Barack Obama’s health care law is constitutional.

The mandate required individuals to purchase health care coverage or face fines beginning in 2014. Supporters had insisted that the mandate was essential for controlling health care costs, a key goal of the law.

Protesters began to gather outside the Supreme Court this morning, both for and against the Affordable Care Act, which was signed into law on March 23, 2010. Critics have said that the law is an unacceptable incursion of government into the rights of health care providers and citizens. Supporters maintain that the law will make the U.S. health care system more just and less predatory.

(This post will be updated as more information becomes available.)

UPDATE: In what many consider a surprise ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts has ruled in favor of the mandate, whereas Justice Kennedy sided with the minority. Liberal justices issued concurring opinions, which means they did not dissent in the decision, but neither did they wholeheartedly accept it.

Roberts wrote the majority opinion. Dissenting justices argued that the entire act is unconstitutional.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/28/supreme-court-upholds-individual-mandate/?utm_source=Raw+Story+Daily+Update&utm_campaign=856fbfefc2-breaking_ACA6_28_2012&utm_medium=email

Atlanta Dan
06-28-2012, 12:04 PM
Lots to sort through here.

The Chief Justice puts some limits on the scope of the Commerce Clause by upholding the constitutionality of the individual mandate under the separate power to tax and strikes down the power to coerce Statas that do not buy into the expansion of Medicaid under the ACA.

The dissent of the 4 Justices which would strike down the entire statute reads like the majority opinion that I expected to read

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

As noted in this article, in the long run the statute may have been saved while some long term limits on federal power have been laid down by the Chief Justice

Obama Wins the Battle, Roberts Wins the War
The chief justice’s canny move to uphold the Affordable Care Act while gutting the Commerce Clause.

Roberts' genius was in pushing this health care decision through without attaching it to the coattails of an ugly, narrow partisan victory. Obama wins on policy, this time. And Roberts rewrites Congress' power to regulate, opening the door for countless future challenges. In the long term, supporters of curtailing the federal government should be glad to have made that trade.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/scocca/2012/06/roberts_health_care_opinion_commerce_clause_the_re al_reason_the_chief_justice_upheld_obamacare_.html

Vis
06-28-2012, 12:18 PM
Lots to sort through here.

The Chief Justice puts some limits on the scope of the Commerce Clause by upholding the constitutionality of the individual mandate under the separate power to tax and strikes down the power to coerce Statas that do not buy into the expansion of Medicaid under the ACA.

The dissent of the 4 Justices which would strike down the entire statute reads like the majority opinion that I expected to read

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

As noted in this article, in the long run the statute may have been saved while some long term limits on federal power have been laid down by the Chief Justice

Obama Wins the Battle, Roberts Wins the War
The chief justice’s canny move to uphold the Affordable Care Act while gutting the Commerce Clause.

Roberts' genius was in pushing this health care decision through without attaching it to the coattails of an ugly, narrow partisan victory. Obama wins on policy, this time. And Roberts rewrites Congress' power to regulate, opening the door for countless future challenges. In the long term, supporters of curtailing the federal government should be glad to have made that trade.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/scocca/2012/06/roberts_health_care_opinion_commerce_clause_the_re al_reason_the_chief_justice_upheld_obamacare_.html


It leaves open coercion, just not an absolute loss of funding. The Commerce Clause ruling doesn't change any existing case law or, to my knowledge, apply to any existing statute. It doesn't gut the clause, it merely blocks one direction of expansion. I quibble with the sensationalism of the article's wording.

Vis
06-28-2012, 01:27 PM
For amusement purposes only:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/people-moving-to-canada-because-of-obamacare

MasterOfPuppets
06-28-2012, 02:54 PM
YAY...we gettin free stuff mach !!! :celebrate ...:dancing:

.......or is this just free stuff for illegals...:wtf:

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Uploads/Graphics/002-0725214337-Socialism.jpg

Steelboy84
06-28-2012, 03:21 PM
For amusement purposes only:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/people-moving-to-canada-because-of-obamacare



"Really? You're all going to be leaving the United States? You promise?"


:applaudit:

Vis
06-28-2012, 03:24 PM
YAY...we gettin free stuff mach !!! :celebrate ...:dancing:

.......or is this just free stuff for illegals...:wtf:

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Uploads/Graphics/002-0725214337-Socialism.jpg

Love the cartoon. Is that Romney in the long coat?

Buddha Bus
06-28-2012, 03:27 PM
Love the cartoon. Is that Romney in the long coat?

Nope. Abraham Lincoln, welfare-vampire hunter. :sofunny:

Vis
06-28-2012, 03:29 PM
Nope. Abraham Lincoln, welfare-vampire hunter. :sofunny:

Or Scott Walker.

Buddha Bus
06-28-2012, 03:33 PM
Or Scott Walker.

I thought he played Peter(head) Venkman. :doh:

Who you gonna call?

UNIONBUSTERS! :chuckle:


http://www.martincountydemocrats.org/images/cartoons/union-busters.jpg

Buddha Bus
06-28-2012, 03:37 PM
Ooops! I was right! He was in the remake.


http://www.bartcop.com/union_busters.jpg

MACH1
06-28-2012, 03:41 PM
YAY...we gettin free stuff mach !!! :celebrate ...:dancing:



WooooHooooo can't wait.

Shit forgot I was already waitin for free stuff. :doh:
Maybe I can get me some that free obaama money to pay my fine, oops I mean "tax".

SteelCityMom
06-28-2012, 10:09 PM
The health insurance that your company pays for you will show up as INCOME on your W2's.

•Starting in 2013, your W-2 tax form sent by your employer will show the value of whatever health insurance you are given by the company. If you are not at a taxable income level yet, this could throw you into one. Employers are already warning employees that this will happen.

•If you're retired your gross income will go up by the amount of insurance you get.

•This will increase your taxable income. Many companies pay $10,000 to $25,000 a year for health insurance per employee. Add that to your gross pay from now on. For many, it also puts you into a higher tax bracket.

This is the repercussion of what's happening, and if you don't think this effects every single American who legally pays taxes, you're kidding yourself. Directly from the ACA HealthCare bill. This equates to the largest tax increase in U.S. history, and even the largest ever in the world.

MACH1
06-28-2012, 10:55 PM
The health insurance that your company pays for you will show up as INCOME on your W2's.

Actually that started last year. It's in box 12 or 14 on your W2's if'n I remember right.

MasterOfPuppets
06-28-2012, 11:13 PM
soooo...where's the free stuff ....:huh: .... mach said we gettin free stuff http://emoticonszone.com/emoticons-for-msn/Angry-animated-emoticons-smileys-for-msn-yahoo-gmail-skype-myspace-hi5-facebook/images/b2.gif

MACH1
06-28-2012, 11:50 PM
soooo...where's the free stuff ....:huh: .... mach said we gettin free stuff http://emoticonszone.com/emoticons-for-msn/Angry-animated-emoticons-smileys-for-msn-yahoo-gmail-skype-myspace-hi5-facebook/images/b2.gif

Still waiting. :noidea:


fOZ-Etb0k0Q

Stinky Fred
06-29-2012, 09:11 AM
The health insurance that your company pays for you will show up as INCOME on your W2's.

•Starting in 2013, your W-2 tax form sent by your employer will show the value of whatever health insurance you are given by the company. If you are not at a taxable income level yet, this could throw you into one. Employers are already warning employees that this will happen.

•If you're retired your gross income will go up by the amount of insurance you get.

•This will increase your taxable income. Many companies pay $10,000 to $25,000 a year for health insurance per employee. Add that to your gross pay from now on. For many, it also puts you into a higher tax bracket.

This is the repercussion of what's happening, and if you don't think this effects every single American who legally pays taxes, you're kidding yourself. Directly from the ACA HealthCare bill. This equates to the largest tax increase in U.S. history, and even the largest ever in the world.

Does Ocare cover @$$ rape by the federalies?

Atlanta Dan
06-29-2012, 10:36 AM
The health insurance that your company pays for you will show up as INCOME on your W2's.

•Starting in 2013, your W-2 tax form sent by your employer will show the value of whatever health insurance you are given by the company. If you are not at a taxable income level yet, this could throw you into one. Employers are already warning employees that this will happen.

•If you're retired your gross income will go up by the amount of insurance you get.

•This will increase your taxable income. Many companies pay $10,000 to $25,000 a year for health insurance per employee. Add that to your gross pay from now on. For many, it also puts you into a higher tax bracket.

This is the repercussion of what's happening, and if you don't think this effects every single American who legally pays taxes, you're kidding yourself. Directly from the ACA HealthCare bill. This equates to the largest tax increase in U.S. history, and even the largest ever in the world.

If those employers are warning that employer provided health insurance benefoits will be taxable income those employers are either attempting to frighten their employees into seeking repeal of the law or are just wrong

The attached article sumarizes the various tax increases

1. A new 10% excise tax on indoor tanning services on services provided after June 30, 2010.

2. The new law gives small firms tax credits as incentives to provide coverage, starting this tax year. Employers with 10 or fewer workers and average annual wages of less than $25,000 can receive a credit of up to 35% of their health premium costs each year through 2013. The credit is phased out for firms larger than that and disappears completely if a company has more than 25 employees or average annual wages of $50,000 or more.

Beginning in 2014, the system changes. The law requires each state to establish a health insurance exchange -- a marketplace where individuals, the self-employed and small businesses can buy health insurance coverage. The government-regulated exchanges would offer insurance policies with different levels of coverage and price tags. Small firms that sign up with one of the health exchanges to be created can receive a credit of up to 50% of their costs -- with the same phaseouts for average income and size as the earlier program. The credit disappears after 2015.

3. A requirement that businesses include the value of the health care benefits they provide to employees on W-2s. Although this was originally required beginning with W-2s for 2011 – those issued early in 2012 – in October, a one-year delay was announced. Employers may voluntarily report the value of health benefits they provide on 2011 W-2s, but this will not be mandatory until the 2012 forms. The amount reported is not considered taxable income.4. Elimination of a deduction employers now take for providing Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage to their retirees to the extent that the federal government subsidizes the coverage. This will not take effect until 2013.

5. Doubling the penalty for nonqualified distributions from health savings accounts, to 20%, beginning in 2011.

6. A limit on the amount that employees can contribute to health care flexible spending accounts to $2,500 a year, but the cap won’t take effect until 2013. This was previously left to the employer's discretion, with many firms choosing a limit of $4,000 to $5,000 or so

7. A ban on using funds from flexible spending accounts, health reimbursement arrangements or health savings accounts for the cost of over-the-counter medications, starting in 2011.

8. Starting in 2013, a 0.9% Medicare surtax will apply to wages in excess of $200,000 for single taxpayers and over $250,000 for married couples. Also, for the first time ever, a Medicare tax will apply to investment income of high earners. The 3.8% levy will hit the lesser of (1) their unearned income or (2) the amount by which their adjusted gross income exceeds the $200,000 or $250,000 threshold amounts. The new law defines unearned income as interest, dividends, capital gains, annuities, royalties, and rents. Tax-exempt interest won’t be included, nor will income from retirement accounts.
.
9. A hike in the 7.5% floor on itemized deductions for medical expenses to 10%, beginning in 2013. But taxpayers age 65 and over are exempt from the cutback through 2016.

10. A new 40% excise tax, beginning in 2018, on high-cost health plans, levied on the portion that exceeds $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families. The provision is aimed mostly at gold-plated plans offered by employers, although it can affect individual policies

11. A new tax on individuals who don't obtain adequate health coverage by 2014 -- this is often referred to as the individual mandate. The tax is to be phased in over three years, starting at the greater of $95, or 1% of income, in 2014, and rising to the greater of $695, or 2.5% of gross income, in 2016.

12. Providing a refundable tax credit, once the individual mandate takes effect in 2014, to help low-income folks purchase coverage. To be eligible, a person's household income must be between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty level, generally around $11,000 to $44,000 for singles and $22,000 to $88,000 for families. The credit is a sliding scale, based on income. Low-incomers get a credit for all costs. Then, as income rises, the credit phases out.

13. A nondeductible fee charged to businesses with 50 or more employees if the firms fail to offer adequate coverage. The fee will equal $2,000 times the number of employees, though it won’t count the first 30 workers in that calculation.

http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/health-care-reform-tax-hikes-on-the-way.html\

There are lots of good reasons to oppose the statute - as usual the debate includes misinformation being cranked out by both sides

SteelCityMom
06-29-2012, 11:15 AM
Well, that's some good news at least. Glad to be misinformed on that aspect of it.

Atlanta Dan
06-29-2012, 12:09 PM
Well, that's some good news at least. Glad to be misinformed on that aspect of it.

SC Mom - just wanted to make clear I was not accusing you of any effort to fog the issues

:drink:

There is just so much nonsense out there by proponents and opponents of the Act

But at least this issue will be addressed, as it should be, by the voters rather than through a judicial veto

SteelCityMom
06-29-2012, 12:13 PM
No, not at all Dan.

This whole debacle is confusing for many. I will concede that there are some decent things about the bill, such as companies not being allowed to deny for preexisting conditions, but there is soooo much wrong with it too.

Vis
06-29-2012, 12:57 PM
SC Mom - just wanted to make clear I was not accusing you of any effort to fog the issues

:drink:

There is just so much nonsense out there by proponents and opponents of the Act

But at least this issue will be addressed, as it should be, by the voters rather than through a judicial veto


That's because it's a piss poor compromise of a law. But it's a step in the right direction not the wrong direction.

MasterOfPuppets
06-29-2012, 01:52 PM
SC Mom - just wanted to make clear I was not accusing you of any effort to fog the issues

:drink:

There is just so much nonsense out there by proponents and opponents of the Act

But at least this issue will be addressed, as it should be, by the voters rather than through a judicial veto
perhaps a bit more transparency on the part of the administration could have squashed most of the "rumors" , regarding the bill. the way they rushed to push it through reeked of deception. i mean here we are months after it passed and people are still confused ? why not just dumb it down so everybody can understand it and flood the media with it ? the media is all over the poor state our economy is in. there's no confusion there , so why can't they clarify the questions people have about this bill that was shoved down our throats ?
everything the government touches turns into a big steaming pile of shit that politicians use to line their pockets and suck tax payers dry , so its no wonder people are leery of it.
maybe dick cheney and haliburton will open a health insurance management division ...:thumbsup:

Mayberry, still in Iraq, testified by video from questions prepared by the committee. He said that KBR routinely sold expired food rations to the Army. The interviewer asked, "Are you saying that Halliburton deliberately falsified the number of meals they prepared and then submitted false claims for reimbursement and that they did this to make up for past amounts auditors had disallowed?" Mayberry firmly answered "Yes." He said that serving expired food ration was "an everyday occurrence, sometimes every meal." He explained that Halliburton systematically overcharged for the number of meals as well, saying, "they were charging for 20,000 meals and they were only serving 10,000 meals." Dorgan later commented, "obviously there's no honor here, by a company that would serve outdated food to our troops in Iraq."

you can go in for a kidney transplant , get a kidney from a dead mexican thats been lying in the arizona desert for 6 weeks , and they'll charge the government for 2 kidneys...:applaudit:

Fire Haley
06-29-2012, 02:14 PM
Obama is trying to screw us again....


Obama to Soldiers: Pay Up - Threatens to veto bill unless it hikes health care fees for service members

The Obama administration on Friday threatened to veto a defense appropriations bill in part because it does not include higher health care fees for members of the military.

“The Administration is disappointed that the Congress did not incorporate the requested TRICARE fee initiatives into either the appropriation or authorization legislation,” the White House wrote in an official policy statement expressing opposition to the bill, which the House approved in May.

http://freebeacon.com/obama-to-soldiers-pay-up/

ricardisimo
06-30-2012, 03:01 AM
Why do we have to make our bad situation worse. Why can't we just have socialized medicine like everyone else? Or the lack of it like before? Why enforce profiteering?
:doh:

BrandonCarr39
08-01-2012, 11:35 AM
The 5 Supreme Court Justices that voted to uphold Roe V Wade in 1992 - O'Conner, Kennedy, Blackmun, Souter, and Stevens - were all appointed by Republican Presidents. And now another GOP appointee provided the "swing vote" to uphold Obamacare.

Now that should tell everyone how corrupt the entire system is, shouldn't it?

Vis
08-01-2012, 11:40 AM
The 5 Supreme Court Justices that voted to uphold Roe V Wade in 1992 - O'Conner, Kennedy, Blackmun, Souter, and Stevens - were all appointed by Republican Presidents. And now another GOP appointee provided the "swing vote" to uphold Obamacare.

Now that should tell everyone how corrupt the entire system is, shouldn't it?


Because if they had followed the GOP in lockstep as they should without using their own minds that wouldn't be corrupt.

ricardisimo
08-05-2012, 08:11 PM
The 5 Supreme Court Justices that voted to uphold Roe V Wade in 1992 - O'Conner, Kennedy, Blackmun, Souter, and Stevens - were all appointed by Republican Presidents. And now another GOP appointee provided the "swing vote" to uphold Obamacare.

Now that should tell everyone how corrupt the entire system is, shouldn't it?
If anyone really believed that there were fundamental differences between the two parties, there might be some merit to your argument. Maybe. But I think most everyone knows better by now.