If Obamacare falls, expect civil disorder
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... subsidies/
_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin
Easy solution: once a president loses his majority in the house, new elections are called.
Let's talk once we get rid of gerrymandering.
_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin
http://www.nationaljournal.com/health-c ... e-20150218
http://www.nationaljournal.com/health-c ... n-20150218
_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin
From several states' attorneys-general, including those of red states, an amicus brief (p. 28):
But those isolated phrases fail Pennhurst’s clear-notice test. For starters, Congress does not “hide elephants in mouseholes.”91 It is unreasonable to expect State officials to have found clear notice of Congress’s supposed threat in obscure subsubsections of the tax code pertaining to the calculation of an individual’s tax credit.
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/ ... eckdam.pdf
Basically, they argue that under the Pennhurst precedent, if Congress intends to require the states to do something or face consequences, it must state so in the law clearly and unambiguously. It basically needs to put a big fat warning in the law saying, "If a state does not do x, then the state (or citizens of the state) will NOT receive y." The warning needs to be completely explicit and prominently stated.
The "exchange established by a state" does not meet the Pennhurst requirement of setting up a carrot and a stick for the states, because it's buried in a couple subsections; in fact, there is evidence from many legislators and even Republican Congressmen that they did not think that Congress was making such a warning to the state, showing that the warning wasn't big and fat enough to count under Pennhurst.
_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin
What is odd to me is the number of people I meet who are against Obamacare because of the subsidies. The odd thing about it is that most of them have had subsidized health care at least for their entire career. Anyone who has had health insurance through work has enjoyed subsidized health care because it was paid for by pre-tax dollars. For everyone else it was post-tax dollars.
If you have health care from work and your marginal tax rate is 25%, then 33% of your insurance premiums are being subsidized.
It is, I think, highly hypocritical for those same bozos to then turn around and complain about others receiving subsidized health care.
There are many reasons to be against Obamacare. That it involves subsidies is not one of them.
Subsidies are the reason for the student loan mess. The schools can endlessly raise prices because they know the government will provide ever-increasing subsidies to cover the cost.
People are probably fearful that the same will true for healthcare.
