[wayoverontheright]

The Healthcare decision says that states cannot be coerced into providing coverage for their poor uninsured in a punitive way, but INDIVDUALS within that state CAN be coerced into purchasing insurance coverage, in a punitive way.

Isn’t there a dichotomy here, in this reasoning?

[TurboZamboni]

The feds never would admit that withholding highway funding or FEMA aid could ever be construed as punitive.

[listenhillary]

From what I understand.

The poor (130% of poverty level) are supposed to go on Medicaid and they are not subject to penalties at all. If states do not accept the additional Medicaid funding to allow the poor access to “free Healthcare”, the poor cannot be penalized for not having insurance.

The working poor that do not meet the Medicaid guidelines cannot be penalized if the cheapest policy is greater than 8% of their adjusted gross income. If there is a plan that they can get and it is less than the 8% and they fail to do so, they can be penalized. It would likely just reduce the redistribution “bonus” earned income tax credit and they will get a smaller “refund” check when they file their taxes.

[hinckley buzzard]

Of course there is. This decision is devoid of logic. And maybe Einstein Roberts will explain some day how a president can "waive" taxes for politically favored groups of individuals purely on his own personal whim.