Obamacare upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
I guess he's not qualified to be a sitting Senator, he doesn't seem to understand his own government.
"""Eagle Smack""
""But they are going to have to pay for it... or else the government will make what you are calling poor people pay make them pay with fines. Just another bill that the so called poor will have to burden... while the REAL POOR gets a free ride as they always have.""
But what happens if they really can't pay for it even if the govt. says they can afford it?? Obviously it they can't pay the freight, they can't pay a fine.
Jail??
Holy crap!! Don't tell Herr Harper about this.8O
""But they are going to have to pay for it... or else the government will make what you are calling poor people pay make them pay with fines. Just another bill that the so called poor will have to burden... while the REAL POOR gets a free ride as they always have.""
But what happens if they really can't pay for it even if the govt. says they can afford it?? Obviously it they can't pay the freight, they can't pay a fine.
Jail??
Holy crap!! Don't tell Herr Harper about this.8O
All poor people ARE covered. I know the US Libs think that if you can't afford a vacation home then you are poor.
The Poor people who are on welfare get FREE health care.
Well since this is a tax now and not a mandate then you can certainly go to jail for tax evasion. It is possible.
But if you have a job and owe the IRS money... they'll get it. They will withhold your tax returns, put leins on property. The IRS will get their pound of flesh.
You're being disingenuous, Eaglesmack. Its not about "free health care" its about affordable insurance coverage.
No, many of the poor didn't have any health care coverage. Most working poor did not and they are the 30 million that Icarus' post talks about: their options were go to an emergency room and seek more expensive care that they could not afford/pay for, and deal with the subsequently inflated bill or leave their conditions untreated. I'm not going to deny the system will have its fair share of abusers, just like Canada's does, but I fail how anyone can say this is a bad thing: it doesn't change the healthcare that those who are covered have, it just provides tools that force insurance companies (who are notoriously cut-throat dickheads) to be more socially responsible.
I'm not being disingenous.
Let us look at some facts here.
IF you are a family making less than $18,700 or an individual making less than $9,350 a year you are exempt from a penalty. Now THAT just makes you exempt for a penalty. You still are required to buy.
The lowest coverage estimate for a family is $12k to $12.5K
Now check out the penalties per adult
2014- $95.00 (not so bad)
2015- $315.00 (whoa what a jump!)
2016 and beyond- $695.00 (WHAAAAAAT!)
The Requirement to Buy Coverage Under the Affordable Care Act - Kaiser Health Reform
They're also under the Federal Poverty Level. In some states that means they're covered by Medicaid. The only part of Obamacare that didn't survive was the expansion of Medicaid which would have forced all states to expand Medicaid or lose the Federal transfers to states, to cover these poor people you're referring to. Anyone earning up to 133% of the poverty level would have been eligible. For 2012, the threshold for a single person household is $11,170, for parents with one child it's $19,090. So a single person earning up to $14,856 would have been covered in any State across the US, and a single child family would have been eligible with a household income up to $25,390.
As it is now, it varies wildly by state. For that single child family, the eligibility is as low as $3245 in Arkansas, and up to $41,044 in Minnesota:
Income Eligibility- Low Income Adults - Kaiser State Health Facts
I probably need to correct something, Tonington. The Medicaid expansion did survive. It wasn't, like, declared unconstitutional or anything. The only change the Supreme Court made to the law was take out the punishment for states who do not expand their individual Medicaid programs. This is actually a new development in the history of Medicaid. Every time the program has been changed in the past, the federal government has been able to punish states if they don't change their state-run Medicaid programs by withholding all federal funds for the state-run program. That would usually be enough to get states to agree to any changes.
What the Court did is say with the specific expansion of Medicaid under this specific law states cannot be punished with withholding of federal funds. This means some states will agree to the change simply because they like the change, while other states may refuse the change.
What the Court did is say with the specific expansion of Medicaid under this specific law states cannot be punished with withholding of federal funds. This means some states will agree to the change simply because they like the change, while other states may refuse the change.
Last edited:
Right, but I think given the choice to accept the changes or not, the majority if not all States would have accepted the 133% figure as opposed to receiving no funds from Washington. Now, States can opt out without losing any funding. For a State like Alabama, with the lowest eligibility cut-off, that State would have to spend significantly more. Even with Washington covering the full cost of the first three years, and starting to reduce in 2017 with 90%, those states with traditionally low cost Medicaid programs would be spending significantly more.
It means that some of those poorer Americans may still end up in no-mans land.
My gosh, I agree with you.
That is too early to tell. I expect most states will implement the Medicaid changes under Obama's health care law. Other states might be forced into doing because of social stigma. Imagine being one of the few states that openly chooses not to insure your poorest citizens.
Let's examine one state's possible reaction to the Medicaid expansion. Let's take red state Georgia, almost unanimously conservative Republicans, from the Governor to the state legislature. The governor says Georgia will take a "wait-and-see mode" until after the 2012 Presidential election.
Deal: Georgia in wait-and-see mode *| ajc.com
He's holding out hope that Mitt Romney will win the election and Republicans will control both chambers of the U.S. Congress after the election. That's a lot of big hopes. If Obama wins re-election, which I expect he will, Georgia may give in and just expand their state Medicaid program.
The poorest citizens are already covered.
Man oh man.
This may be one of those phyrric victories. We shall see.
Last edited: