- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Can someone please explain the recent Obamacare ruling?
Posted on 12/16/18 at 10:54 am to MileHighDraw
Posted on 12/16/18 at 10:54 am to MileHighDraw
This ruling will almost certainly be overturned on appeal, and I assume the USSC will refuse to hear it.
The lack of the individual mandate has no bearing on Medicaid expansion funding, allowing adults to stay on their parents plans, or regulations about which preventative measures must be covered as part of a plan.
The individual mandate was just about subsidizing cost for pre-existing conditions and retaining profit for insurance companies. There was a whole lot more shite in the law that a $0 penalty has no effect on.
The lack of the individual mandate has no bearing on Medicaid expansion funding, allowing adults to stay on their parents plans, or regulations about which preventative measures must be covered as part of a plan.
The individual mandate was just about subsidizing cost for pre-existing conditions and retaining profit for insurance companies. There was a whole lot more shite in the law that a $0 penalty has no effect on.
4
Posted on 12/16/18 at 10:59 am to Muthsera
quote:
The lack of the individual mandate has no bearing on Medicaid expansion funding, allowing adults to stay on their parents plans, or regulations about which preventative measures must be covered as part of a plan.
The individual mandate was just about subsidizing cost for pre-existing conditions and retaining profit for insurance companies. There was a whole lot more shite in the law that a $0 penalty has no effect on.
Other argument - and one that is likely to carry the day - is that by reducing the penalty to $0 (not actually repealing the mandate), but leaving other parts of the law intact, they created a different statute.
Posted on 12/16/18 at 10:59 am to Muthsera
quote:
This ruling will almost certainly be overturned on appeal,
unlikely, especially in the 5th Circuit
the judge based his ruling on the majority opinion in the Sebelius case.
quote:
I assume the USSC will refuse to hear it
they will have to hear it, especially since you can expect a "quickie" ruling out of the 9th or 3rd saying the opposite.
Posted on 12/16/18 at 11:00 am to Muthsera
quote:
There was a whole lot more shite in the law that a $0 penalty has no effect on.
True, except, if IIRC, the ACA has no severability clause regarding the mandate. Something Congress probably should have thought of before passing it. Guess they should have read it.
This post was edited on 12/16/18 at 11:01 am
Posted on 12/16/18 at 11:01 am to Muthsera
quote:
The lack of the individual mandate has no bearing on Medicaid expansion funding, allowing adults to stay on their parents plans, or regulations about which preventative measures must be covered as part of a plan. The individual mandate was just about subsidizing cost for pre-existing conditions and retaining profit for insurance companies. There was a whole lot more shite in the law that a $0 penalty has no effect on.
read up on severability clauses...and the absence of one in the ACA
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News