FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 03/26/2012 11:44:58 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
That is only partly correct. Genes play a very significant role. Which is why, after OC is upheld, eugenics will be the next great frontier for liberals to conquer.
“”your healthcare costs are a direct result of your life choices & behavior.”
That is only partly correct. Genes play a very significant role. Which is why, after OC is upheld, eugenics will be the next great frontier for liberals to conquer.”
Reengineering the human race to fit their ideas. What a bunch of tyrants! When can we declare & establish independents from theses nutcase tyrants? When will we be free again?
You can add me to the list. My job went to India (medical transcriptionist for over 25 years) and now I have to undergo retraining so I can get a job that pays more than minimum wage. Most of what we owe is penalties and interest but, unlike Geithner and Daschle, the IRS won’t cut us any slack.
Mrs. Prince of Space
This is about as funny as a heart attack.
We'll have witch doctors that cant speak English getting into the profession if the communists win.
Ever since Honest Ape Lincoln declared war on the Constitution in his Inaugural address, the WASHINGTONIANS have continued to spread tyranny across the land.
This will not end prettily, but it will end soon.
Wishing he was still here to give his opinion.
I appreciate your learned input into the discussion. I sure wish the COA had not struck down severability :(
Will you blog about tomorrow’s hearing?
Cheers,
Kate
OK, I have another query. Please explain, besides title ix, what could the law look like without the mandate? I don’t understand that. The mandate is supposed to fund the whole thing. Didn’t the COA also strike the requirement that ins. companies cover pre-existings? Without these 2, how else can they control health matters?
More of that stuff that Pelosi told us to not read before passing it
Her politics are and always have been pure Red. The other race, religion, ethnic stuff are just convenient distractions from her real ideology. Those intentions are not fidelity to the Constitution or the intent of the Framers.
The left, just like any good magician, raises these bright shiny and noisy race, ethnic and religious arguments up in our faces with one hand, while they use the other hand to deprive EVERYONE --- of every race, religion and ethnic background --- of their fundamental freedom and liberty.
It is way past time quit being sucked into this race, religion and ethnicity game and look at people's actions instead of their ancestry.
Kagen is a Marxist --- pure and simple.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
You’re welcome. To be precise the COA did not strike down severability, they actually deemed that it was implicitly understood to exist even though it was not written down.
This understanding of an implicit condition is not unusual.
Did COA strike requiring pre-existing coverage?
There have been 3 or 4 COAs involved in PPACA. One or two COAs have upheld it and another struck the individual mandate but deemed severability as implicit leaving the rest of the law in place.
So I don’t recall seeing a COA strike down a requirement for pre-existing coverage.
What will the law look like without the mandate?
Well Title IX covers tax provisions. One provision taxes employer sponsored health plans. I think the result is that many employers will drop their sponsoring of health insurance for employees. Employees will need to find coverage elsewhere and I think they will enroll in state medicaid and have to pay premiums on a sliding scale with their income.
I think there will be less private insurers and there will have to be an expansion of state medicaid. This I believe will put pressure on state legislators and Congress to raise taxes to cover the people coming onto Medicaid from previous employed sponsored health insurance.
The same can be said for people that are not on employer sponsored health plans but are high income as small business owners and the like.
So I see Title IX taxes going up over time as the private sector exists the health insurance market.
A great deal has been said about the so-called 40 million uninsured. These are mostly young people that are healthy and do not want to purchase health insurance as their incomes are low and they have other priorities for their income. I think this demographic was never expected to pay much for the law, maybe on average $10 per week from a paycheck or roughly $20 billion a year out of a budget that some say can be high as $160 billion per year. But without the mandate this demographic will not be required to pay for health insurance.
One idea with respect to these uninsured persons who are young and working, when they show up at a health clinic that is no longer funded much by patients with private insurance, they will be enrolled on the spot in state medicaid. Again the taxes will go up as state medicare rolls swell up.
We don't need severability - just the invalidation of the Healthcare mandate.
The reason the insurance companies went along with the PPACA was that the mandatory contributions would fund the people with pre-existing conditions, children until they are 26, etc.
Without the mandate, the insurance compnies are going to balk. They will use their lobbying muscle to get those provisions overturned.
Basically, without the mandate, the PPACA will wither on the vine ...
It has already happened in Texas - where insurance companies found a loophole. They can deny children [under the age of 18] with pre-existing conditions NOW - by denying new policies to ALL children under the age of 18 ...
Your view of what happens seems plausible but is a narrow view. You are missing the Title IX taxes (Title IX of the PPACA) that would be left standing if SCOTUS deems severability is implied.
Here’s a link to the Act:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/pdf/PLAW-111publ148.pdf
and here’s the Table of Contents on Title IX:
TITLE IX—REVENUE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A—Revenue Offset Provisions
Sec. 9001. Excise tax on high cost employer-sponsored health coverage.
Sec. 9002. Inclusion of cost of employer-sponsored health coverage on W–2.
Sec. 9003. Distributions for medicine qualified only if for prescribed drug or insulin.
Sec. 9004. Increase in additional tax on distributions from HSAs and Archer MSAs
not used for qualified medical expenses.
Sec. 9005. Limitation on health flexible spending arrangements under cafeteria
plans.
Sec. 9006. Expansion of information reporting requirements.
Sec. 9007. Additional requirements for charitable hospitals.
Sec. 9008. Imposition of annual fee on branded prescription pharmaceutical manufacturers and importers.
Sec. 9009. Imposition of annual fee on medical device manufacturers and importers.
Sec. 9010. Imposition of annual fee on health insurance providers.
Sec. 9011. Study and report of effect on veterans health care.
Sec. 9012. Elimination of deduction for expenses allocable to Medicare Part D subsidy.
Sec. 9013. Modification of itemized deduction for medical expenses.
Sec. 9014. Limitation on excessive remuneration paid by certain health insurance
providers.
Sec. 9015. Additional hospital insurance tax on high-income taxpayers.
Sec. 9016. Modification of section 833 treatment of certain health organizations.
Sec. 9017. Excise tax on elective cosmetic medical procedures.
Subtitle B—Other Provisions
Sec. 9021. Exclusion of health benefits provided by Indian tribal governments.
Sec. 9022. Establishment of simple cafeteria plans for small businesses.
Sec. 9023. Qualifying therapeutic discovery project credit
I particularly zero in on Sec. 9017 as a classic example of class warfare. What stinking rot they passed on us!
I hope I'm wrong about this. We need Divine intervention.
Pray for America.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.