There are 14 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Julia PA Member
    Julia PA
    @JulesPA

    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. :)

    • #1
  2. The King Prawn Inactive
    The King Prawn
    @TheKingPrawn

    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.

    • #2
  3. Julia PA Member
    Julia PA
    @JulesPA

    It seemed to me the clause about subsidy receipts was supposed to force encourage 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.

    • #3
  4. user_82762 Thatcher
    user_82762
    @JamesGawron

    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

    • #4
  5. Basil Fawlty Member
    Basil Fawlty
    @BasilFawlty

    The King Prawn: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.

    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

    • #5
  6. Douglas Inactive
    Douglas
    @Douglas

    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.

    • #6
  7. PHCheese Inactive
    PHCheese
    @PHCheese

    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.

    • #7
  8. Eric Hines Inactive
    Eric Hines
    @EricHines

    Jules PA: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 always take the YouTube link to see the videos–would that help bypass the loading problem?

    Eric Hines

    • #8
  9. Eric Hines Inactive
    Eric Hines
    @EricHines

    James Gawron: Oh. I almost forgot. Get rid of the NY Times too.

    Can’t do that.  I need something to swat misbehaving kids with.

    Eric Hines

    • #9
  10. Eric Hines Inactive
    Eric Hines
    @EricHines

    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

    • #10
  11. user_252791 Inactive
    user_252791
    @ChuckEnfield

    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?

    • #11
  12. Basil Fawlty Member
    Basil Fawlty
    @BasilFawlty

    Chuck Enfield: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.

    • #12
  13. Heather Higgins Contributor
    Heather Higgins
    @HeatherHiggins

    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

    • #13
  14. Heather Higgins Contributor
    Heather Higgins
    @HeatherHiggins

    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/

    • #14

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.