Sign in to follow this  
wiegie

Obamacare is upheld

Recommended Posts

I guess I need to read up on this more. What funding mechanism was gutted?

 

Also, the feds have already used the power of the tax code to punish or reward actions or Non-actions for years. This is really nothing new. Think tax credits and deductions for incentivizing certain behaviors. All the would have had to do here was raise income tax rates to cover the costs and give tax credits for those that purchase insurance. It's all the same in the end, just semantics.

 

 

A big part of obamacare was expanding the medicaid roles (state-versions of medicare, in case anyone is unclear). This was how the program claimed a large part of its cost savings - by pushing funding off to the states. The decision upheld the "tax" (mandate) but said they can't just dictate to the states a huge additional burden in their medicaid roles. So the feds have to either fund it with more spending or kill that part of the program.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A big part of obamacare was expanding the medicaid roles (state-versions of medicare, in case anyone is unclear). This was how the program claimed a large part of its cost savings - by pushing funding off to the states. The decision upheld the "tax" (mandate) but said they can't just dictate to the states a huge additional burden in their medicaid roles. So the feds have to either fund it with more spending or kill that part of the program.

 

I'm not sure this is correct. As an incentive to cover all of these new people under the expansion, the law allowed the government to withhold ALL medicaid funds to states if states oped out of the expansion. The court ruled the government could not do this, which blunted the hammer the government intended to use to force states to enroll. Now that more states will be able to opt out, the program will lose volume, and thus be more expensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure this is correct.

 

 

Yea. Pretty sure WV is off base in claiming the law, as written, would have pushed off Medicaid funding to states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea. Pretty sure WV is off base in claiming the law, as written, would have pushed off Medicaid funding to states.

 

 

Also upheld was a provision that expands Medicaid coverage to include all adults with annual incomes at or below 133% of the federal poverty level, which is currently $14,404 for an individual. The federal government will pick up the total cost of the expensive expansion for the first three years, after which the funding will phase down to 90%.

 

And states are already having considerable issues shouldering their current Medicaid Burden:

 

http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/02/news/economy/state_revenues_nga/index.htm?iid=EL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

States like Arizona have cut their Medicaid reimbursements to hospitals like the system I work for causing bad debt and charity to skyrocket. In 2009 and 2010 we were running around 12% of net healthcare revenue for bad debt and charity writeoffs. In 2011 that jumped to 15% and the last few months has been running 18-19%. So we are forced to find cuts in spending to salaries, supplies, etc to absorb the blow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea. Pretty sure WV is off base in claiming the law, as written, would have pushed off Medicaid funding to states.

 

 

I think you need research a lot more. Why do think so many states sued and this went to the Supreme Court?

 

What will come out soon once the euphoria by the left subsides is the real fact that these states will not have to expand Medicaid programs to the under 65 sect which is where that big percentage of uninsured were going.

 

Here is a little food for thought. I am certain a lot more than 26 states will now refuse to expand these programs pushing the cost right back on the Fed to attempt to fund via taxes. This is Federal Tax Program and will only survive based on this fact. The States are off the cost hook and the hammer has been taken away to force compliance.

 

This is what the court ruled.

Edited by Ice1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

States like Arizona have cut their Medicaid reimbursements to hospitals like the system I work for causing bad debt and charity to skyrocket. In 2009 and 2010 we were running around 12% of net healthcare revenue for bad debt and charity writeoffs. In 2011 that jumped to 15% and the last few months has been running 18-19%. So we are forced to find cuts in spending to salaries, supplies, etc to absorb the blow.

 

 

so let's see...feds try to push the costs down to the states and insurers, the broke-ass states either resist or try to push the costs down to providers...hmm, I wonder who they will push the costs down to? :thinking:

 

tell me again about the obamacare rabbits, george. tell me again how it's going to bend down the cost curve. :crazy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so let's see...feds try to push the costs down to the states and insurers, the broke-ass states either resist or try to push the costs down to providers...hmm, I wonder who they will push the costs down to? :thinking:

 

tell me again about the obamacare rabbits, george. tell me again how it's going to bend down the cost curve. :crazy:

 

:pc: Name is not George

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh. I like the fact that someone had the balls to tackle one of the most pressing issues facing the nation today (i.e., health care). I'm uneasy that the economics of the solution won't be understood for years to come. Perhaps the nation as a whole will be better off, or perhaps we're just trading one problem for another. No one really knows and anyone who says otherwise is merely speculating.

 

 

This could be true. Something needs to be done. Group premiums have been skyrocketing each year for ad long as I can remember. We've sliced and diced our group plan so many times already that there isn't much left for it slice.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea. Pretty sure WV is off base in claiming the law, as written, would have pushed off Medicaid funding to states.

 

 

I think you need research a lot more.

 

 

Medicaid currently covers many families that are at or below about 63 percent of the poverty line, with some categories — such as children under age 6 — covered up to 133 percent. But most states don't cover lower-income adults.

 

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act sought to compel states to expand coverage to nearly everyone up to the 133 percent threshold — income of about $30,000 a year for a family of four — which would add about 17 million people to the Medicaid rolls.

 

The carrot was the federal government's promise to cover all of the states' Medicaid expenses for the new enrollees through 2016, gradually dropping to 90 percent by 2019. The stick was that states that refused to sign on would lose all of their federal Medicaid funding.

 

 

:shrug:

Edited by bushwacked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the sc said that the fed govt couldn't withhold all of the states funding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do think so many states sued and this went to the Supreme Court?

 

 

To make the tea party happy? And lets face it, does the tea-party need any other reason than doing all they can to make sure that Obama fails (country be damned)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, George Will.

 

 

Is this supposed to be funny or a compliment?

 

Do you not agree that the mechanism the FedGov was expecting to use to fund the legislation was materially altered? Do you not also see that as a result of the FedGov not being able to push the costs to the states, the budgetary benefit the CBO was claiming (which was coming in no small part on the backs of the state budgets) is going to erode and possibly turn the legislation from deficit-reducing to deficit-increasing?

 

Now Congress (and the President) have to decide whether or not they want to rejigger the funding mechanism, leave it as the USSC decided and have the FedGov eat the difference in cost and continue to leave this "new tax" in place heading into the elections, or do something else.

 

In any event, the Congresswoman from California and the Senator from Nevada are (at least a little bit) between a rock and a hard place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure I would have felt better about things if the individual mandate and/or the state medicare mandates would have been summarily rejected.

 

This would have been far cleaner, but, as you say below, I think it's worth having Congress re-do the legislation, and then represent the court case to the USSC for a more definitive ruling; the ruling as written is not (imo) the landmark case that it will be on (what I expect will be) a second bite at the apple if the legislation is redone in any material fashion.

 

... still though, I am kind of impressed by what the court, and more specifically chief justice Roberts, has done here. he managed to keep the court somewhat apolitical and "above the fray", which is actually kind of a big deal. policy is and largely should be left to the legislature. as it should be.

 

Yes.

 

...yet they still annonced fairly boldly that there ARE limits to the what the government is allowed to do under the commerce clause. One can question how meaningful that is if the government is still allowed to do whatever the hell it wants under the constitution if it just calls it a tax, but it's still a pretty big deal in con-law history. if you can step back and see the big picture, potentially this really is not such a bad day for advocates of limited government.

 

I'm not sure I see the huge reference to the commerce clause. As I understand it, the references to the commerce clause were not necessary for Roberts' logic (which is why RBG had something to say about it in her opinion), and as a result, they aren't really a part of the precedent, and as such, shouldn't play a role in future rulings.

 

I'm not a Constitutional Scholar, however, I believe this is right.

 

Obamacare was already a wounded political animal. the USSC ruling got a couple more nicks in without delivering the coup de grace. the ruling just made the 2012 election all about obamacare. we'll see if that's such a great triumph for its advocates.

 

 

I agree.

 

I'm also not sure if making the 2012 election all about Obamacare is the best idea for its detractors either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

To make the tea party happy? And lets face it, does the tea-party need any other reason than doing all they can to make sure that Obama fails (country be damned)

 

 

While you may be saying this jest, if not you should know that is as a ridiculous comment as it gets. Unless you believe around 55% of the population is now tea party then your comment is way off. I am pretty sure if you study polling thinking THIS healthcare law will actually help the country will be under 30%.

 

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/01/17/list-of-states-suing-over-obamacare/

 

STATES SUING OVER OBAMACARE

 

State Lawsuit Joined Date Joined Virginia Virginia March 23, 2010 Florida Florida March 23, 2010 South Carolina Florida March 23, 2010 Nebraska Florida March 23, 2010 Texas Florida March 23, 2010 Utah Florida March 23, 2010 Louisiana Florida March 23, 2010 Alabama Florida March 23, 2010 Michigan Florida March 23, 2010 Colorado Florida March 23, 2010 Pennsylvania Florida March 23, 2010 Washington Florida March 23, 2010 Idaho Florida March 23, 2010 South Dakota Florida March 23, 2010 North Dakota Florida April 5, 2010 Arizona Florida April 6, 2010 Georgia Florida April 13, 2010 Alaska Florida April 20, 2010 Nevada Florida May 14, 2010 Indiana Florida May 14, 2010 Mississippi Florida May 14, 2010 Wisconsin Florida January 3, 2011 Oklahoma Oklahoma January 7, 2011 Wyoming Florida January 7, 2011 Ohio Florida January 11, 2011 Kansas Florida January 12, 2011 Maine Florida January 12, 2011

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm also not sure if making the 2012 election all about Obamacare is the best idea for its detractors either.

 

 

Yea, I'm no political expert either, but if rallying against passing individual mandates for healthcare is what the 2012 POTUS election is all about, then Az and co. will be doing more spinning than usual.

Edited by bushwacked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:pc: Name is not George

 

 

I think he was referring to George and Lenny - "Tell me about the rabbits..." :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Is this supposed to be funny or a compliment?

 

Do you not agree that the mechanism the FedGov was expecting to use to fund the legislation was materially altered? Do you not also see that as a result of the FedGov not being able to push the costs to the states, the budgetary benefit the CBO was claiming (which was coming in no small part on the backs of the state budgets) is going to erode and possibly turn the legislation from deficit-reducing to deficit-increasing?

 

Now Congress (and the President) have to decide whether or not they want to rejigger the funding mechanism, leave it as the USSC decided and have the FedGov eat the difference in cost and continue to leave this "new tax" in place heading into the elections, or do something else.

 

In any event, the Congresswoman from California and the Senator from Nevada are (at least a little bit) between a rock and a hard place.

 

There is a lot left to play out.. The flip side of the coin is that there will likely be some Governor who would be inclined to opt out on principle, but when many of their constituents learn that they are being denied coverage that would come at no cost to themselves, or to the state, they may let said governor hear about it. Then we willg et to see who has the courage of their convictions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless you believe around 55% of the population is now tea party then your comment is way off.

 

You don't need to be 55% of the population to highjack a party. You just need to be the most fanatical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't need to be 55% of the population to highjack a party. You just need to be the most fanatical.

 

 

I was referring to the percentage of people that think this healthcare bill is bad law. Regardless, states were very concerned about paying for a Federal Program. It wasn't tea party at all that filed these law suits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I was referring to the percentage of people that think this healthcare bill is bad law. Regardless, states were very concerned about paying for a Federal Program.

 

 

I can see why. States should never have to pay for federal programs. That would just be crazy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was referring to the percentage of people that think this healthcare bill is bad law. Regardless, states were very concerned about paying for a Federal Program. It wasn't tea party at all that filed these law suits.

 

 

Fine - it doesn't take too many people to mislead 55% of the country on something. It does not take too mant fanatics to sew hate and fear. The tea party has said their number 1 goal is, not to make the country stronger or better, but to get Obama out of office. I have to figured figure if they really wanted to make the country better and if Obama is as bad as they say, than saying they want to country to be the best it could be would include that. Instead, all they want to do is destroy Obama.

 

With that said, my understanding is that most people like the bill's individual parts. I figure that way they can actually see the humanity of the bill, as opposed to hiding it behind a (not so clever) title Obamacare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fine - it doesn't take too many people to mislead 55% of the country on something. It does not take too mant fanatics to sew hate and fear. The tea party has said their number 1 goal is, not to make the country stronger or better, but to get Obama out of office. I have to figured figure if they really wanted to make the country better and if Obama is as bad as they say, than saying they want to country to be the best it could be would include that. Instead, all they want to do is destroy Obama.

 

With that said, my understanding is that most people like the bill's individual parts. I figure that way they can actually see the humanity of the bill, as opposed to hiding it behind a (not so clever) title Obamacare.

 

 

The Dreaded THEY.......have been reacting like a whole bunch of The Dreaded Them to Obama tax or insurance care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was referring to the percentage of people that think this healthcare bill is bad law.

I would be shocked if 55% of the populace really had any kind of a grasp on what the bill actually did. I feel like part of the reason we get such crappy politicians is because we have so many low information voters (and many people in power gain popularity from whipping the low info voter into a frenzy). I'm not usually want to take away rights, but I'd vote for a bill that required a voter to take a basic test on the actual views of politicians before being able to cast a vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.