States may "opt out" of Obamacare?

Florida Sportsman

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18
  1. #1
    Senior Member Gary M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Key Largo, Lauderdale
    Posts
    7,836

    States may "opt out" of Obamacare?

    Just hearing the legal eagles saying that it looks like individual states may have the opportunity to "opt out".

    Like Pelosi said....... "you will have to read it to see what's in it".....

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,949
    It looks that way. There is no enforcement mechanism. The feds can not withdraw funds if the states don't comply.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Squid Row's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    4,133
    Hopefully all 57 states will
    Squid Row
    Why don't we use geothermal energy?

    In most places, just a mile beneath the crust, the earth is several million degrees.
    Team Sabatage
    Most places?

    Try 18 to 22 miles down before we get to the heat you mentioned, in most places.
    In those places it is only a mile down it is a good alternative.

    I already know more than you ever will on all subjects.


    Lucky7Team2
    300 billion people on a planet eating, farting, pooing, making stuff, etc

  4. #4
    Senior Member Cyclist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Gville
    Posts
    12,541
    They would lose the medicare medicaid money I think.

  5. #5
    Senior Member 2centsworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    613 miles north of FM
    Posts
    1,218
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclist View Post
    They would lose the medicare medicaid money I think.
    Nope, no penalties, basically it looks like a law without funding

  6. #6
    Senior Member Cyclist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Gville
    Posts
    12,541
    Quote Originally Posted by 2centsworth View Post
    Nope, no penalties, basically it looks like a law without funding
    I don't think that is correct.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Gainesville, Fl
    Posts
    10,693
    If I heard it correctly, The states could not be penalized the current medicaid funding, but if they opt out, they would not receive any of the additional funding which would force most states to comply.
    People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclist View Post
    I don't think that is correct.

    I think it was stated that the Gov CANNOT pull or remove funding if the state does not want the "tax"... I think that was in the SCOTUS writeup .

  9. #9
    Senior Member Ol Mucky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Tampa
    Posts
    4,728
    oh brother.
    Now we'll have teams of lawyers trying to decipher what the mandate really means
    "The Chief Executive is acting as an Imperial President, without regard to his citizens, only caring about his agenda."

  10. #10
    Senior Member 2centsworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    613 miles north of FM
    Posts
    1,218
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclist View Post
    I don't think that is correct.
    Pete, I will repeat.......

    You are incorrect.......

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...care-survives/


    The Supreme Court has upheld the centerpiece of President Obama's health care overhaul, in effect allowing the law to survive.

    In a 5-4 decision unveiled Thursday, the court ruled as constitutional the so-called individual mandate requiring most Americans to obtain health insurance starting in 2014.

    The ruling is a victory for the president, ensuring for now that his signature domestic policy achievement remains mostly intact. It also ensures that the law will play a prominent role in the general election campaign, as Republican candidate Mitt Romney vows to repeal the law if elected.

    Obama is expected to speak publicly about the ruling later in the day.

    Chief Justice John Roberts, who was appointed during a Republican administration, joined the four left-leaning justices on the bench in crafting the majority decision.

    The ruling relied on a technical explanation of how the individual mandate could be categorized. Roberts, in the opinion, said the mandate could not be upheld under the Constitution's Commerce Clause. However, it could be upheld under the government's power to tax.

    "The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause," Roberts wrote. "That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress's power to tax."

    The ruling did rein in one element of the law -- the expansion of Medicaid across the country to take in millions of low-income Americans. The opinion allows Washington to offer more funding to states to expand the program, but says the federal government cannot penalize states for not participating in the new program by withholding existing Medicaid funds.

    Democrats, many of whom were bracing for the court striking down the mandate, celebrated the decision Thursday.

    Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., told Fox News that the ruling "gives us the opportunity to re-sell the the bill, which we did not do before."

    But Republicans vowed to re-double their campaign to repeal the still-controversial law.

    "Today's ruling underscores the urgency of repealing this harmful law in its entirety," House Speaker John Boehner said in a statement. "Republicans stand ready to work with a president who will listen to the people and will not repeat the mistakes that gave our country ObamaCare."

    Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was thought to be the swing vote on the decision, joined the minority in describing the entire law as invalid.

    "The act is invalid in its entirety," Kennedy said from the bench. He went on to say the administration went to "great lengths to structure the mandate as a penalty, not a tax" -- challenging the majority's rationale for upholding the mandate.

    Despite the persistent resistance to the law and the possibility that it could still be repealed, the historic decision Thursday will offer some measure of vindication for Obama, who devoted the first half of his term to pushing it through Congress.

    The overhaul was one of the central planks of Obama's 2008 run for president. The faltering economy only later took a leading role in the race as the financial markets spiraled around the time of the party conventions. Obama, after taking the oath of office, dispatched with his administration's recession response by swiftly passing through the roughly $800 billion stimulus package.

    The president immediately pivoted back to health care. He tasked allies in Congress with working out the specifics of a proposal, a process that would play out on the national stage over the course of a year.

    As the economy continued to struggle, the debate over the health care bill became increasingly contentious. The financial industry bailout helped spawn the Tea Party, but that movement also rallied around opposition to the health care bill -- it was assailed by critics as a "takeover" of American health care, even as Democrats backed off items on their original wish list such as a government-run insurance plan.

    The January 2010 election of Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown, to fill the seat left by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, threw a wrench into Democrats' plans as it gave Republicans enough seats to mount a filibuster. The Senate had already passed one version of the bill, but this put pressure on the House to effectively approve it or watch their goal of health care reform wither.

    Ultimately, Democrats worked out a series of deals and approved the bill, which Obama signed, delivering on a central campaign promise. But only after a protracted and politically damaging debate, which contributed heavily to Democratic losses in the 2010 midterm elections.

    The decision Thursday virtually guarantees the health care law will remain at the forefront of the 2012 campaign.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz1z6MXILyn

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •