tagged w/ Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
-
It may be one of the most important rulings the U.S. Supreme Court has made in the last 100 years.
Is the Affordable Care Act constitutional? Is it constitutional to have an individual mandate that requires Americans purchase insurance?
In a 5 to 4 vote the court ruled, yes.
Why did Chief Justice John Roberts rule the way he did? What does the ruling mean? And could this ruling actually mean that the Healthcare law is now invalid?
Ben has the Reality Check you won't see anywhere else.
Full Story: http://www.fox19.com/story/18910419/reality-check-if-affordable-care-act-is-a-tax-is-law-invalidIt may be one of the most important rulings the U.S. Supreme Court has made in the... more
-
-
"The Supreme Court led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. upheld the heart of President Obama's healthcare law Thursday, ruling that the government may impose tax penalties on those who do not have health insurance.
The decision came on a 5-4 vote, with the court's four liberal justices joining with the chief justice. On one hand, Roberts agreed with the law's conservative critics who said Congress does not have the power to mandate the purchase of a private product such as health insurance. But the Affordable Care Act does not impose a true legal mandate on Americans, he said. It simply requires those who do not have health insurance by 2014 to pay a tax penalty...".* The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur breaks it down."The Supreme Court led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. upheld the heart of... more
-
-
The Supreme Court upheld the health care law today in a splintered, complex opinion that appears to give President Obama a major victory.
Basically. the justices said that the individual mandate -- the requirement that most Americans buy health insurance or pay a fine -- is constitutional as a tax.
Chief Justice John Roberts -- a conservative appointed by President George W. Bush -- provided the key vote to preserve the landmark health care law, which figures to be a major issue in Obama's re-election bid against Republican opponent Mitt Romney.
The announcement will have a major impact on the nation's health care system, the actions of both federal and state governments, and the course of the November presidential and congressional elections.
A key question for the high court: The law's individual mandate, the requirement that nearly all Americans buy health insurance, or pay a penalty.
Critics call the requirement an unconstitutional overreach by Congress and the Obama administration; supporters say it is necessary to finance the health care plan, and well within the government's powers under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
While the individual mandate remained 18 months away from implementation, many other provisions already have gone into effect, such as free wellness exams for seniors and allowing children up to age 26 to remain on their parents' health insurance policies. Some of those provisions are likely to be retained by some insurance companies.
Other impacts will sort themselves out, once the court rules:
-- Health care millions of Americans will be affected – coverage for some, premiums for others. Doctors, hospitals, drug makers, insurers, and employers large and small all will feel the impact.
-- States -- some of which have moved ahead with the health care overhaul while others have held back -- now have decisions to make. A deeply divided Congress could decide to re-enter the debate with legislation.
-- The presidential race between Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney is sure to feel the repercussions. Obama's health care law has proven to be slightly more unpopular than popular among Americans.
Not since the court confirmed George W. Bush's election in December 2000 -- before 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq, Wall Street's dive and Obama's rise -- has one case carried such sweeping implications for nearly every American.
Passed by Democrats along strictly partisan lines and still 18 months short of full implementation, the law is designed to extend health coverage to some 32 million uninsured people, ban insurers from discriminating against those with expensive ailments, and require nearly all Americans to buy insurance or pay penalties.
Its passage on March 23, 2010, marked the culmination of an effort by Democrats to overhaul the nation's health care system that dates back to Harry Truman's presidency. The most recent effort by President Bill Clinton in 1994 fell victim to Republican opposition. Since then, lesser changes have been enacted, including creation of a separate Children's Health Insurance Program in the states.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/06/Supreme-Court-rules-on-Obama-health-care-plan-718037/1The Supreme Court upheld the health care law today in a splintered, complex opinion... more
-
-
WASHINGTON, DC – Congressman Ron Paul issued the following statement on the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold most of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
“I strongly disagree with today’s decision by the Supreme Court, but I am not surprised. The Court has a dismal record when it comes to protecting liberty against unconstitutional excesses by Congress.
“Today we should remember that virtually everything government does is a ‘mandate.’ The issue is not whether Congress can compel commerce by forcing you to buy insurance, or simply compel you to pay a tax if you don’t. The issue is that this compulsion implies the use of government force against those who refuse. The fundamental hallmark of a free society should be the rejection of force. In a free society, therefore, individuals could opt out of “Obamacare” without paying a government tribute.
“Those of us in Congress who believe in individual liberty must work tirelessly to repeal this national health care law and reduce federal involvement in healthcare generally. Obamacare can only increase third party interference in the doctor-patient relationship, increase costs, and reduce the quality of care. Only free market medicine can restore the critical independence of doctors, reduce costs through real competition and price sensitivity, and eliminate enormous paperwork burdens. Americans will opt out of Obamacare with or without Congress, but we can seize the opportunity today by crafting the legal framework to allow them to do so.”WASHINGTON, DC – Congressman Ron Paul issued the following statement on the... more
-
-
Healthcare should also work to grant patients a pain-free escape from suffering after the request is properly evaluated by trained professionals.
By Roy Speckhardt, April 02, 2012
As the recent media reports on the Supreme Court's examination of the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (known by some as ObamaCare), many Americans are contemplating the future of national healthcare policy. Now that our attention has been focused on this issue, it's important to discuss a controversial topic that usually gets swept under the rug in the conversation about healthcare.
While almost all of us agree that life is a beautiful experience full of wonder, struggle, love, and many more worthy experiences, we must also acknowledge that for some it may have become irreversibly painful and unwanted. For these people, the trauma associated with disease and the restrictive nature of age transforms continued living into a daily exercise of pain and humiliation. Our empathetic sense of compassion in such cases dictates that we allow for a release from such suffering.
To read the rest of the article on Patheos, click here: http://www.patheos.com//Atheist/Adding-Death-with-Dignity-to-Healthcare-Roy-Speckhardt-04-03-2012.htmlHealthcare should also work to grant patients a pain-free escape from suffering after... more
-
-
Those already outraged by the president's health care legislation now have a new bone of contention -- a scarcely noticed tack-on provision to the law that puts gold coin buyers and sellers under closer government scrutiny.
The issue is rising to the fore just as gold coin dealers are attracting attention over sales tactics.
Section 9006 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will amend the Internal Revenue Code to expand the scope of Form 1099. Currently, 1099 forms are used to track and report the miscellaneous income associated with services rendered by independent contractors or self-employed individuals.
Coin Dealers Flipping
Starting Jan. 1, 2012, Form 1099s will become a means of reporting to the Internal Revenue Service the purchases of all goods and services by small businesses and self-employed people that exceed $600 during a calendar year. Precious metals such as coins and bullion fall into this category and coin dealers have been among those most rankled by the change.
This provision, intended to mine what the IRS deems a vast reservoir of uncollected income tax, was included in the health care legislation ostensibly as a way to pay for it. The tax code tweak is expected to raise $17 billion over the next 10 years, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.
Taking an early and vociferous role in opposing the measure is the precious metal and coin industry, according to Diane Piret, industry affairs director for the Industry Council for Tangible Assets. The ICTA, based in Severna Park, Md., is a trade association representing an estimated 5,000 coin and bullion dealers in the United States.
"Coin dealers not only buy for their inventory from other dealers, but also with great frequency from the public," Piret said. "Most other types of businesses will have a limited number of suppliers from which they buy their goods and products for resale."Those already outraged by the president's health care legislation now have a new... more
-
-
The American Civil Liberties Union last week faulted President Barack Obama for signing an executive order that bans federal funds from being used for abortion procedures and revives funding for expired abstinence-only sex-education programming.The American Civil Liberties Union last week faulted President Barack Obama for... more
-
