Posted on 01/28/2015 2:04:31 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Mitch said they’d have one together in three weeks.
LOL
I’m going to call my bookie!
I’m just quotin.
I don’t believe that Americans will understand the disaster of Buckwheat’s health care until the criminal IRS demands checks for thousands of dollars or they have to pay a $4,000 deductible.
If a federal law is written such that every person in the US is to receive a payment of $100 and the administrators withhold subsidies from some persons there would be a due process issue.
If a state law is written such that every person in that state is to receive a payment of $100 and the administrators withhold payment from some persons there would be a equal protection issue.
In either of these scenarios the process of law was not followed, was not applied equally.
Neither of these scenarios occur with PPACA subsidies. That federal law unambiguously specifies subsidies are available to those who purchase insurance through “an Exchange established by the State”
Laws make distinctions between persons all the time, but they must be reasonable distinctions.
A law that distinguishes persons based on skin color is unreasonable. A law that distinguishes persons based on some ability is reasonable, for example not everyone may lawfully perform eye surgery.
But the law must be equally applied. An eye surgeon can not be prohibited from performing surgery simply because of his politics. Similarly, the IRS can not interfere with a tax-exempt organization simply because of their politics.
The Kaiser Family Foundation IS ObamaCare. I guess you have to expect these goofy, twisted results. This is BS.
BS
Poll methodology:
http://kff.org/report-section/kaiser-health-tracking-poll-january-2015-methodology/
“For the landline sample, respondents were selected by asking for the youngest adult male or female currently at home based on a random rotation. If no one of that gender was available, interviewers asked to speak with the youngest adult of the opposite gender. For the cell phone sample, interviews were conducted with the adult who answered the phone. “
The youngest? LOL!
Didn’t find any breakdown of respondents by age, race, etc.
The penalties would still exist in those states, but quite a few people on the exchanges would be able to claim a hardship exemption for lack of affordability. They would then be able to buy catastrophic insurance. Many of the people that are paying a penalty for not having insurance, will not have too. Take the case of Illinois. They have ~300K on exchanges and another ~600K or so that are eligible for subsidies but are going without. Somebody that makes too much for a subsidy would still have to pay the penalty if they went without coverage. I am no expert on it, but that is the way I read it..
If SC rules against federally run state exchanges I think it likely Boehner and the boys will rush in to save the day..
Yes, that is correct. I should have been more specific since it is the EMPLORER mandate that would be eliminated (in the 36 “federal exchange” states) along with the subsidies if the SC rules for the plaintiffs.
And most (but likely not all) individual penalties would be eliminated in those states.
Thanks for the link. There are 2 employer mandates. The first is the over 50 FTE rule. That one is the $2K penalty per employee for not offering insurance. The second is the $3K penalty if an employee gets a better deal on the exchange. No exchange, no penalty. I think the first example would remain in effect.
Step one: Use the Commerce Clause to create an America-wide free market.
Step two: get government completely out of health care.
Step three: enjoy the proper allocation of a scarce resource.
Why is cosmetic surgery, corrective eye surgery and braces so cheap despite constant improvements in the technology?
Competition, baby, competition!
We need to start trusting markets again. They work.
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.