Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 07/27/2012 4:53:17 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Kaslin

There was no way Obamacare could succeed at anything other than crippling the entire healthcare system. This is what you get when you leave Democrats in charge.


2 posted on 07/27/2012 5:14:20 AM PDT by FastCoyote (I am intolerant of the intolerable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; stephenjohnbanker; DoughtyOne; Gilbo_3; NFHale; Impy; LMAO; ...
RE :”Second, states must refuse to create state-based exchanges, which provide heavily-subsidized insurance policies to middle-income Americans not provided healthcare by employers. Because it would violate the Tenth Amendment’s anti-commandeering principle to require states to create or run the exchanges, if a state doesn’t do it, HHS will directly create and run it.
But there are no tax subsidies if HHS runs an exchange, so no incentive for people to flock to the exchanges; they’d pay full price. While many high-risk individuals would do so, it would still be vastly more expensive. Many will instead choose to pay the penalty (tax?) for violating the individual mandate.
Third, if employers with 50+ employees do not provide federally-approved healthcare, Obamacare imposes a $2,000 penalty per employee, per year. (Minimum penalty $100,000.) However, that penalty is triggered when those employees receive tax subsidies from a state-based exchange.
Since HHS-run exchanges have no subsidies, for states refuseing to create exchanges, no employer in that state will be subject to that penalty. This means business owners will band together to lobby their state not to set up exchanges

And those states that do setup the exchanges at largely their own cost will be imposing the $2,000 Obama-care fine/penalty/tax on their businesses for those employees that use them.
Although this is a pretty small $$$ to pay and most employers won't care about it if their employees get some sort of health care for it..

3 posted on 07/27/2012 5:14:54 AM PDT by sickoflibs (Romney is still a liberal. Just watch him. (Obama-ney Care ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin
This will create an unworkable patchwork nationwide, between states with semi-socialized medicine and healthcare costs spiraling out of control, versus those with private-sector medicine. Expect doctors, insurers, and providers to flock to these friendlier states, creating an increasingly unbalanced system. Then Obamacare will start coming apart at the seams, and momentum will build to repeal and replace.

good theory, but then Kalifornia should be empty.

4 posted on 07/27/2012 6:02:05 AM PDT by TurboZamboni (Looting the future to bribe the present)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

The easiest way to replace Obamacare and other federal largess.

A new law that all federal funds for Medicaid and Medicare and other such programs will be given to the states as per capita “block grants” for eligible recipients, with only recommendations, not requirements, on how that money should be spent by the states.

Limit all future federal involvement to receiving and analyzing standardized statistical information from the states that can be used to provide recommendations for efficiency.


5 posted on 07/27/2012 6:10:39 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

To all those that thought roberts ruling was a disaster...

The amount of power returned to the states in this ruling was so vast that most people cannot (or will not) comprehend it....

The libs have been using for over 80 years 3 main hammers to pass their agenda:

1) The commerce clause

2) The necessary and general clause

3) Unfunded mandates to the states with penalties for not complying.

Roberts ruled that the libs can no longer use the commerce clause to create commerce in order to regulate it.

Now, here is the beauty of this ruling.... the minority opinion..... concurs... the back door of using the minority opinion for the purpose of judicial activism is closed.

This hammer has been taken away. Federalism wins.

Roberts ruled the libs can no longer use the necessary and general clause to create any damn welfare program they see fit.

and the minority opinion.... concurs... this back door is closed same as above.

the same for the unfunded mandates to the states.

My opinion is that the libs were so hell bent on getting this thing passed they were willing to do ANYTHING... roberts saw the opening and took it. By siding with the libs, he was able to write an opinion that restores more to the constitution than any other opinion in the last 80 years..

and the minority opinion concurs.....

How do I know this is what happened? If you listened to that old bag ginsburg after the ruling was read, her voice was just dripping with both sarcasm and disgust...

she may be an old communist, but she ain’t stupid. She knows the jig is up and was powerless to do anything about it. The brand new lib justices were so blinded by their desire to get this thing through at all costs, they were backdoored by roberts and the conservatives.

This ruling was pure, sheer brilliance and a complete victory in the battle against socialism.


6 posted on 07/27/2012 6:44:02 AM PDT by joe fonebone (I am the 15%)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

Brilliant!

I particulary like this bit which we need to lobby our state goverments on agressively:

“Third, if employers with 50+ employees do not provide federally-approved healthcare, Obamacare imposes a $2,000 penalty per employee, per year. (Minimum penalty $100,000.) However, that penalty is triggered when those employees receive tax subsidies from a state-based exchange.

Since HHS-run exchanges have no subsidies, for states refuseing to create exchanges, no employer in that state will be subject to that penalty. This means business owners will band together to lobby their state not to set up exchanges.”

If employers can’t afford to pay the fine they will simply fire their employees until they get under 50.


8 posted on 07/27/2012 8:58:27 AM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson