COVID-19 & Healthcare

FactCheck.org on the ‘ObamneyCare’ tax

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Arizona Republic should just drop all pretense about being an objective news organization and return to its roots and original masthead, The Arizona Republican. It is, and has always been, the media arm of the Republican Party in Arizona.

On Friday, the Republican published a series of opinions decrying the Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act. So much sturm und drang, so much conservative bedwetting. One unsigned opinion in particular caught my attention. So, we'll be penalized with higher taxes:

The decision affirms that on June 25, 2010, President Obama signed a health-care law that levies a substantial, new set of taxes that, according to congressional estimates, perhaps 75 percent of people earning less than $200,000 per year will pay.

Note the imprecise source citation "congressional estimates." I did a Google search for the source of this claim and, surprise, it comes from Stephen Moore of Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal, one of the most unreliable sources in the business. And why is this opinion not properly attributed to Stephen Moore? Here is the original. Political Diary: The ObamaCare Tax – WSJ.com:

According to Congressional figures 70% to 75% of the "tax" falls on those who earn less than $200,000 per year, and that is 8 million non-rich people. So Mr. Obama argued this was a mandate and a fine to enforce the requirement to buy health care.

Well, that changes everything. The Republican would have you believe that 75 percent of all Americans earning less than $200,000 will be paying more in taxes. That is not what Stephen Moore said. He is saying that of those people who opt to pay the penalty (tax) rather than purchase healthcare insurance, 70% to 75% of them will earn less than $200,000 per year. And that is a relatively small number. This is the game of "fun with facts and figures" to lie to you from The Arizona Republican.

Stephen Moore is an unreliable source, so I am sure as hell not going to take his word for it. It turns out that FactCheck.org has run its fact check of the "ObamneyCare" tax. FactCheck.org : How Much Is the Obamacare ‘Tax’?:

How Many Will Pay?

In his opinion, Chief Justice Roberts cited an estimate from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that 4 million would pay, and cited that as a further reason to consider the assessment a tax rather than a penalty. “Congress did not think it was creating four million outlaws,” he suggested.

However, since then, CBO has increased its estimate. In an estimate released in March of this year, CBO projected that the tax would yield $6 billion for the government, up from the $4 billion it estimated two years earlier. That’s a 50 percent higher total, and would seem to imply that CBO now expects about 6 million will be paying. But CBO didn’t give a specific figure for the number of persons it now expects to pay.

– Brooks Jackson

Chief Justice Roberts Has His Cake, Eats It, Feeds It To His Corporate Masters, Then Smears Delicious Frosting All Over Romney, by Upholding the ACA

by

By Michael Bryan John Roberts has performed a brilliant political maneuver in his opinion crafted to uphold the ACA, though he'll get little credit from the crazy wing of the GOP (which is most of it…). He allowed a deeply conservative policy, which the GOP has backed for a generation and the corporate health care … Read more

President Obama’s statement on ACA opinion

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Transcript of Remarks by the President on Supreme Court Ruling on the Affordable Care Act | The White House (video below the fold):

Remarks by the President on Supreme Court Ruling on the Affordable Care Act

East Room

12:15 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Good afternoon.  Earlier today, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act — the name of the health care reform we passed two years ago.  In doing so, they've reaffirmed a fundamental principle that here in America — in the wealthiest nation on Earth – no illness or accident should lead to any family’s financial ruin. 

I know there will be a lot of discussion today about the politics of all this, about who won and who lost.  That’s how these things tend to be viewed here in Washington.  But that discussion completely misses the point.  Whatever the politics, today’s decision was a victory for people all over this country whose lives will be more secure because of this law and the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold it.

And because this law has a direct impact on so many Americans, I want to take this opportunity to talk about exactly what it means for you. 

First, if you’re one of the more than 250 million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance — this law will only make it more secure and more affordable.  Insurance companies can no longer impose lifetime limits on the amount of care you receive.  They can no longer discriminate against children with preexisting conditions.  They can no longer drop your coverage if you get sick.  They can no longer jack up your premiums without reason.  They are required to provide free preventive care like check-ups and mammograms — a provision that's already helped 54 million Americans with private insurance.  And by this August, nearly 13 million of you will receive a rebate from your insurance company because it spent too much on things like administrative costs and CEO bonuses, and not enough on your health care. 

There’s more.  Because of the Affordable Care Act, young adults under the age of 26 are able to stay on their parent's health care plans — a provision that's already helped 6 million young Americans.  And because of the Affordable Care Act, seniors receive a discount on their prescription drugs — a discount that's already saved more than 5 million seniors on Medicare about $600 each.

SCOTUS Watch: Victory! The Affordable Care Act upheld by SCOTUS

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I first want to begin by noting that I had a bank of television sets on this morning tuned into the various networks. At 7:08 a.m. (AZ Time), the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision on the Affordable Care Act (aka "Obamacare"). FAUX News Fraudcasting and TeaNN (formerly CNN) immediately announced that the Court had ruled "Obamacare" unconstitutional, reading from their prepared GOPropaganda talking points.

GavelThe exact opposite was true. In a 5-4 decision, SCOTUS upheld the Affordable Care Act in its entirety under Congress' taxing authority. We need to begin a serious discussion in this country about illegitimate news organizations that engage in unlawful propaganda on behalf of the GOP and the conservative movement. Facts are facts, propaganda to create an "alternate reality" of lies is unconscionable and should be impermissible.

Today's decision in favor of the Affordable Care Act is a striking victory and a vindication of President Obama and congresional Democrats. the "unconstitutional" argument from the right has been rejected by SCOTUS.

Here is a quick recap of the opinions announced today. Amy Howe from SCOTUSblog summarizes the cases, followed by a link to today's opinions. The remaining merits cases as of June 23: In Plain English:

The health care cases:

Argued March 26-28, 2012

Plain English Issue: (1) Whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to require virtually all Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty; and (2) whether the Anti-Injunction Act, which prohibits taxpayers from filing a lawsuit to challenge a tax until the tax goes into effect and they are required to pay it, prohibits a challenge to the Act’s provision requiring virtually all Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty until after the provision goes into effect in 2014.

Plain English Issue: (1) Whether Congress can require states to choose between complying with provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or losing federal funding for the Medicaid program; and (2) whether, if the Court concludes that the provision of the Act requiring virtually all Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty is unconstitutional, the rest of the Act can remain in effect or must also be invalidated.

Plain English Issue: (1) Whether Congress can require states to choose between complying with provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or losing federal funding for the Medicaid program; and (2) whether, if the Court concludes that the provision of the Act requiring virtually all Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty is unconstitutional, the rest of the Act can remain in effect or must also be invalidated.

In a 5-4 Decision, conservative Chief Justice John Roberts joined the Court's liberals to uphold the Affordable Care Act in its entirety under Congress' power to tax, including the much maligned by the right "individual mandate." From the beginning of the Robert's majority opinion: "We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation's elected leaders. We ask only whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to enact the challenged provisions."

For all of those who second-guessed the Solicitor General's defense of ACA under Congress' taxing authority, the tax defense of the mandate was the decisive argument. "Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in Section 5000A under the taxing power, and that Section 5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. This is sufficient to sustain it." A majority of the Court accepted the Administration's backup argument that, as Justice Roberts put it, "the mandate can be regarded as establishing a condition — not owning health insurance — that triggers a tax — the required payment to IRS."