28
   

Obama wins!!! Obama Care is legal!!!

 
 
McGentrix
 
  3  
Reply Sat 7 Jul, 2012 05:48 pm
@revelette,
revelette wrote:

Quote:
Unlike the Democrats who love the poor so much that they want everyone to be poor so they can buy their votes with SSI and handouts.


So you don't believe people ever have a condition that makes it hard for them to work so we should just strip SSI from existence?


I don't believe that at all. That's why we have the safety net we do have. Do you believe that there are people who are perfectly capable of working but just don't because they know they can get some of that "Obama money"?

Quote:
Why is it so hard for you and others like you to believe that democrats really do believe in the things they are for and not in it just for the votes?


Democrat politicians? No. Democratic voters? Sure. I am quite willing to believe that there are lots of people who have strong convictions and firm beliefs in what they are doing and it's quite reasonable to believe that they think they are doing right.

Quote:
If we were in it just for the votes, then we should know going in that we will only get about half of them as the country is almost evenly split down the middle between republican and democrats with a few independents who for the most part are libertarians who believe in small government.


A reasonable thing to think. You mistake my exaggeration to Cycloptichorns own hyperbolic statement as to what Republicans think. I tend to answer broad sweeping statements with an equivalent response.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jul, 2012 05:51 pm
A quick, general question I am hoping someone knows an answer to...

Will companies that do not currently offer a family health insurance plan now be forced to under the new rules? I know many employers now offer employee plans, but do not offer family plans and I am wondering if there is anything in the regulations regarding that. I could not find a definite answer anywhere.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jul, 2012 06:10 pm
I do not know if a person with just medicare is included in the mandate to buy insurance.
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jul, 2012 06:47 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

I do not know if a person with just medicare is included in the mandate to buy insurance.


Medicare counts as a Govt acceptable insurance from what I have read/heard.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jul, 2012 06:52 pm
@McGentrix,
For what it's worth, VA coverage counts as credible coverage for prescriptions. If nothing else, you don't get an automatic 10% increase as penalty for not buying Part D insurance. Let's hope the same principle applies.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jul, 2012 11:33 pm
@edgarblythe,
Then ignore me totally...please.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jul, 2012 12:10 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
As you wish.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jul, 2012 12:20 am
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

I do not know if a person with just medicare is included in the mandate to buy insurance.
Without really knowing if medicare is excluded from the requirement, do you think it should be? For myself, I don't need the extra expense.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jul, 2012 12:27 am
@edgarblythe,
Not as I wish, or you would not have responded.

0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jul, 2012 12:32 am
@roger,
I prefer to keep it as it is, since I have not had occasion to use it since I got it.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jul, 2012 09:23 am
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
Could The Health Law End Up Back In Court? Opponents Think So
by Julie Rovner - NPR Morning Edition
July 18, 2012

If you thought last month's Supreme Court ruling upholding the Affordable Care Act was the final word on the legality of the health law, think again. Some conservative scholars believe they may have discovered a flaw that could send the law back to court, or at least cause some big problems for its implementation.

To understand the potential problem, first you have to understand a little about how the law is supposed to work. Starting in the year 2014, every state is scheduled to have a health exchange — a sort of online marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to go to shop for health insurance. For low- and middle-income individuals, there will be help — in the form of tax credits — to pay for the insurance.

My advice to Republicans is get over it. The law is the law and we're moving ahead with it. Quit trying to scare people.

- Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa

States aren't required, however, to set up these exchanges. Indeed, many governors have already said they won't. The law takes that into account, and says if the states don't create an exchange, the federal government will set one up and run it instead.

But there's a problem.

"The statute doesn't authorize tax credits in federal health insurance exchanges; it authorizes them solely through state health insurance exchanges," says Michael Cannon, head of health policy at the libertarian Cato Institute and an opponent of the health law.

Cannon says when he first discovered the anomaly last year, he assumed it was a glitch. He says further research showed it might have been intentional. In a paper out this week, Cannon and Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University, claim Democrats decided that it was important for states to run the exchanges.

The faction that prevailed in writing the law, Cannon says, decided to offer the tax credits in exchanges established by the states and not offer them in exchanges established by the federal government because that would be a tremendous incentive for states to create exchanges.

Cannon says as a result of that decision, recent rules issued by the IRS allowing tax credits to be offered in exchanges run by either the states or the federal government are, in his words, "illegal."

"The clear language of the statute and the legislative history show that the IRS does not have the authority to do that," Cannon says.

But that opinion is far from universal.

"That's, unfortunately for them, wrong," says Timothy Jost, a professor at the Washington and Lee University School of Law and a strong backer of the health law.

Jost admits the law isn't written as clearly as it could have been. But he says it is pretty clear that a federally run exchange will be able to do everything a state exchange can, including provide tax credits, despite Cannon's claim that federal exchanges can't.

"This is an interesting theory, but it's completely contrary to the structure of the legislation and even the language of the legislation," he says.

Democratuic Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa, who was involved in writing the health law, rejects claims that federal health exchanges won't be able to provide tax credits.

And what about Cannon's assertion that Senate Democrats gave only the state exchanges the right to provide tax credits as a way to encourage the states to create them? A quick survey of Senate Democrats involved in writing the health law didn't uncover any who recall it that way.

"No, I think they're available in both," says Tom Harkin, the Iowa Democrat who chairs the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat and senior member of the Finance Committee, remembers it the same way.

"That's correct, and I make that judgment based on everything that came up in the Senate Finance Committee and the fact that the exchanges were something that were popular on both sides of the aisle," Wyden says.

In fact, Democratic senators like Ohio's Sherrod Brown say that those who are still trying to challenge the law are just out to make trouble.

"They're just going to keep trying to find things in the law that they think, for whatever reason, won't work," Brown says. "I just think they should be ashamed of themselves."

Harkin was more blunt. "My advice to Republicans is get over it. The law is the law and we're moving ahead with it. Quit trying to scare people," he says.

But between now and Election Day, opponents of the health law are likely to continue to hammer at it any way they can.
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Jul, 2012 07:46 pm
@roger,
roger wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:

I do not know if a person with just medicare is included in the mandate to buy insurance.
Without really knowing if medicare is excluded from the requirement, do you think it should be? For myself, I don't need the extra expense.


Since medicare provides for health care, it is not included in the mandate. This is the policy in massachusetts, where health care for all is the law.
0 Replies
 
Lizzy04
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Nov, 2012 01:21 pm
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
Question ... I have a Republican boss who is FREAKING OUT over Obama's win. He thinks he's going to be paying a lot more for health insurance. But .... we only have 3 employees (btw, we don't even have a human resources person). The boss is ... well... a little crazy. I can't ask him a question without him going nuts.
Our company is so small, I didn't think Obamacare would really affect it (I thought you have to have 25 employees for that). He pays for our health insurance. Will Obamacare change anything for his company?
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Tue 13 Nov, 2012 01:31 pm
@Lizzy04,
Probably save him some money.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 12/21/2024 at 06:08:41