Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Two Versions of Two Americas
Earlier this year, the New York Times released this tendentious video about the stakes in King v. Burwell, the Supreme Court case on Obamacare subsidies:
In response, Independent Women’s Voice released this video yesterday:
Choose for yourself which version you prefer.
Published in Law
maybe its me, but the videos don’t load. :(
sometimes if you go back and open the OP to edit, and save, the links straighten up.
edit: links working now. :)
I was not aware of the case affecting the penalty and mandate portions of the law. The reporting has been on the subsidies part only.
It seemed to me the clause about subsidy receipts was supposed to
forceencourage states to create exchanges. Create the exchange so your citizens could get the dough from the Feds.It seemed states called the ACA bluff, and opted out of the implied force embedded in the exchange concept. They created what they chose as a better option–even with the known loss of the subsidy.
The IRS changed the application of the law as it was written.
If the 7 words were an error, change the law through normal parameters.
Personally, I don’t want to live in the United States that permits the IRS to gain anymore power. And we certainly don’t need to hire the workforce needed to maintain the insanity and regulation of the ACA.
Heather,
So what the geniuses at the NY Times are saying is that it all comes down to those tax credits. Well then why in the world do you need 2600 pages of law and 90,000 pages of regulation to give people a tax credit related to health care.
Really simple solution. Get rid of Obamacare entirely and give people a tax credit related to their health care expenditures. Wow that was a tough one.
Oh. I almost forgot. Get rid of the NY Times too.
Regards,
Jim
Here’s the Heritage Foundation’s take on why the penalty and mandate portions are linked to the subsidy portion.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/03/king-v-burwell-and-the-mandates-what-happens-if-the-supreme-court-rules-against-the-administration
We’re all getting excited over nothing. There’s no way the John Roberts court is going to rule in our favor. When the court likes something, they find a way to make it legal, even if it means inventing new rights from scratch.
Why is it never mentioned that subsidies given to someone is a tax on someone else. This money does not fall out of the sky. It is either taxed or borrowed.
I always take the YouTube link to see the videos–would that help bypass the loading problem?
Eric Hines
Can’t do that. I need something to swat misbehaving kids with.
Eric Hines
It’s a choice between freedom to make that choice, and do it government’s way or be punished.
One thing, though, that both videos ignore, in the NYT‘s case cynically and in the other’s (I hope) to maintain the parallelism, is the choice of feet. It comes down to which America an American lives in? No, it doesn’t. Folks still can choose with their feet “which America” they want to inhabit.
Eric Hines
I’m with King Prawn. I think the IWV video may have got the facts wrong when describing the potential effects of a ruling. Can anybody confirm that King v. Burwell affects mandates and penalties?
See #5.
The way the ACA is written, the employer and individual mandates are largely conditional on the subsidies.
See: http://www.nationalreview.com/node/419528/print
Also: http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/18/the-media-doesnt-want-americans-to-know-anything-about-king-v-burwell/
And economic modeling on the impact of a decision for the plaintiffs (remember, to be a plaintiff, you have to have been harmed, so this isn’t just about subsidies): http://americanactionforum.org/topics/affordable+care+act
Or another source, itself a good example of media reporting – if you don’t read all the way to the end, you have no clue that the mandates are at stake:
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2015/jun/17/politifact-sheet-king-vs-burwell/