That sound you hear, like muffed popcorn cooking in the distance, is nothing more than conservative heads bursting as they learn that it was Roberts and not Kennedy that gave the court its 5-4 decision upholding the ACA.
Do not be alarmed
Robert Mitchell Evans
Literary Saboteur
The extra Medicaid money from the Feds under ACA was designed to cut back over time, with the State expected to make up all the difference, and if the State didn’t cough up the extra money the Feds would punish the State by withdrawing all Medicaid support!
Close, but still off. The ACA offered 100% cost of the Medicaid expansion 2014-2016, then tapered off until by 2020 the Fed were covering 90% of the expansion costs, so the States would be picking up the extra 10%. Under the original provisions, yes if a state did not expand their Medicaid the Fed were going to cut off all Medicaid funds and yesterday decision ruled that the Fed cannot do that. It ruled that the Fed cannot force the states by denying funds completely, it has in the past rules that partial denial is okay, so now th fight will be over what level of denial is acceptable.
Yeah, I mixed up Medicare and Medicaid.
“The ACA calls for expansion of Medicaid eligibility so more of the poor will qualify for insurance by way of the state Medicaid programs, the Fed are giving extra money to the states if they expand the programs in this manner – they are NOT taking money form the states.”
If? If they expand? It is my understanding that the States had no choice under ACA.
The extra Medicaid money from the Feds under ACA was designed to cut back over time, with the State expected to make up all the difference, and if the State didn’t cough up the extra money the Feds would punish the State by withdrawing all Medicaid support!
Sounds to me like ACA did take extra money from the States by force of financial threat.
People seem to forget that the tax code covers more than simple tax brackets, tax breaks and such. There is such a category as penalties. That’s why this falls within the interpretative umbrella of the Spending Clause and can be delegated to be administered by the IRS in the first place. Also people should realize, it’s only called into question for those who chose NOT to carry insurance but fall outside the scope of some exception that allows them to do so and avoid paying the penalty…much like oh, say a “TAX BREAK”… — good summary response above BOB I enjoyed the read 🙂
Once the immediate shouting over the SCOTUS ruling has subsided though, I wonder if it will become obvious that Obamacare has still been fatally wounded by the death of the State level Medicare mandates. It might not be as obvious as the individual mandate was, but won’t Obamacare also collapse without the money it tried to compel from State governments?
You’re a little confused on what is going on here. First off, the state level thing is Medicaid, not medicare, very different programs. The ACA calls for expansion of Medicaid eligibility so more of the poor will qualify for insurance by way of the state Medicaid programs, the Fed are giving extra money to the states if they expand the programs in this manner – they are NOT taking money form the states. What the SCOTUS ruled today was that if a state, say Alabama chose not to expand the Medicaid program then the Fed can deny it the extra funds for the expansion but that the fed CAN NOT strip Alabama off all Medicaid funding as punishment. This is a very good ruling, it open the door to stopping that heinous practice of the Feds of reducing state funds — say highway moneys — if the state behaves in a manner the fed do not like — say like drinking age. More case will be required to determine to scope of this new precedent, but it actually moves the balance power back towards the states.
So Roberts squared Obama’s circle, by saying the mandate penalty is a tax; despite the numerous descriptions of the fee as a penalty in the legislative text and despite the numerous public denials by the Democrats, including Obama himself, that the penalty fee was a tax. In fact the first time the ACA advocates admitted the fee was a tax was in Federal Court!
It’s like I said weeks ago, this whole legal fight over the mandate was only because of the political games the Democrats played with the legislation. They didn’t want to admit to the voters that the ACA increased taxes, so they pretended they had the power to mandate participation in ACA regardless of the limits the constitution places on the Federal government. I’m just shocked to see the Supreme Court ruling confirm that fact so baldly.
So is the legal fight over Obamacare over? Probably. Though the first person who is actually hit with the penalty fee will then have standing to challenge that “tax” in court, but even so the chances of overturning Obamacare that way are very slim.
Once the immediate shouting over the SCOTUS ruling has subsided though, I wonder if it will become obvious that Obamacare has still been fatally wounded by the death of the State level Medicare mandates. It might not be as obvious as the individual mandate was, but won’t Obamacare also collapse without the money it tried to compel from State governments?