A Different View on Obamatax

[somarco]

First of all, placing the ACA under the Taxation power instead of the Commerce power places greater limits on how that power can be used and dramatically softens the penalty for non-compliance (you simply pay a tax, you cannot be jailed or otherwise punished for failure to purchase health insurance). Congress cannot compel you to purchase insurance; it can only compel you to pay a non-extreme, non-coercive tax if you wish not to purchase insurance. Second, by laying waste to the Commerce Clause argument and making clear that this sort of thing can only be done through the taxation power, the decision may make it harder to pass these sorts of laws in the first place. You cannot hide in the subterfuge of the Commerce Clause — or, if you try, everyone will say, "No, we know better now, this is and must be a tax." Roberts' decision will press new social welfare initiatives out of the commerce clause and into the tax code — and passing a new tax is much more difficult as a political matter than passing a new regulation.

Five Possible Silver Linings in the Obamacare Decision

 

[jbage007]

I hope you sent a copy of this to the IRS so that they know not to come after people who refuse to pay this "tax."

 

[Josh]

I really do like that now it's an "Obama created a tax". I wish the american voter didn't have to be treated like a fifth grader, but that's the state of things. On a personal note, Welcome to ObamaHealthPlan.com! is going to have more value in light of this travesty of a decision. Thanks Newby!

 

[MedSuppPro]

The Supreme Court ruling that gave States the flexibility to legally opt out.

Will the Fed's still tax or penalize that individual whom has no qualifying coverage and lives in an opt out state?

 

[somarco]

The Supreme Court ruling that gave States the flexibility to legally opt out.

Will the Fed's still tax or penalize that individual whom has no qualifying coverage and lives in an opt out state?

I believe the opt out is on creating the exchange, and expanding Medicaid.

There are not any opt outs (that I am aware of) for "Obamacare"

Unless you have an entire state of Amish, Moravian's, Indians (native, not Asian), Muslim's . . .

 

[MedSuppPro]

If 20+ states refuse the Medicaid expansion, what happens to the people who would have been covered under it? The Feds will be on the hook and will pay 100% of the Medicaid costs for ever. Seems like a wise choice by all 57 states.

What implications will opting out have for the Federal budget? For example, it's estimated that this Medicaid expansion would extend coverage to 1.4 million people in Texas.

Does the CBO need to re-score this?

 

[somarco]

If 20+ states refuse the Medicaid expansion, what happens to the people who would have been covered under it? The Feds will be on the hook and will pay 100% of the Medicaid costs for ever. Seems like a wise choice by all 57 states.

What implications will opting out have for the Federal budget? For example, it's estimated that this Medicaid expansion would extend coverage to 1.4 million people in Texas.

Does the CBO need to re-score this?

There is discussion on this, as you can imagine, since the SCOTUS decision on Medicare is only a week old.

Some say states that opt out of the expansion will keep their current "crop" of Medicaid participants and those that would be covered by expansion are SOL.

Others say the law is the law and the feds will have to cover it.

That is my view, but doesn't mean I am right. Obama created this mess, let him pay for it.

I don't know where you got your figures on TX, but GA estimates the expansion will add 650,000 to the current rolls. That would mean 1 in 5 will be on Medicaid.

CBO only scores what they are told to. Frankly, I don't trust any DC estimates on future costs. They haven't gotten anything right so far, why should this be different?

 

[MedSuppPro]

... I don't know where you got your figures on TX, but GA estimates the expansion will add 650,000 to the current rolls. That would mean 1 in 5 will be on Medicaid.

In a letter sent to U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius from Texas Governor Perry.

"I will not be party to socializing health care and bankrupting my state in direct contradiction to our Constitution and our founding principles of limited government," Perry said in a statement.

About 6.2 million Texans — a quarter of the state's population — are uninsured.

Expanding Medicaid would add millions of people "into the already unsustainable Medicaid program, at a potential cost of billions to Texas taxpayers," said Perry. The Texas Health and Human Services Commission has estimated the Medicaid expansion would cost the state $27 billion in the first 10 years.

The state has estimated about 2 million people would be added to the Texas Medicaid rolls in the first two years if it went ahead with the expansion.

 

[HealthGuy]

Seriously how can Perry just say no we arent doing anything with Obamacare? Really? Wtf ?

 

[taterpeeler]

Seriously how can Perry just say no we arent doing anything with Obamacare? Really? Wtf ?

How...how you ask?... welcome to Texas... now get the fcku out and leave us alone. We are the great state... that's how