Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (23833)	6/28/2012 1:23:38 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 42652

Medicare holding may have broad implications While the Court’s upholding the mandate is deservedly taking front stage in the media coverage, the Court’s decision to strike down a part of the Medicaid expansion may ultimately have broader jurisdprudential consequence. That, at least, will be a subject of debate among lawyers and academics in the days and weeks to come. This is the first time (as far as I know) that the Court has actually found a Spending Clause condition unconstitutionally coercive. Whether it establishes principles that make many other programs vulnerable is a question that will require further analysis and debate. Lyle Dennisten will start that analysis in an post later today or tomorrow morning. scotusblog.com

To: TimF who wrote (23833)	6/28/2012 1:29:20 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

>> The result is that states can choose to participate in the expansion, must comply with the conditions attached to the new expansion funds if they take that new money, but states can also choose to continue to participate only in the unexpanded version of the program if they want. This seems to me to be a substantial problem in that most states are not going to voluntarily adhere to an unfunded mandate over time when the mandate has no teeth for enforcement. Yet, the estimated 16 million new Medicaid patients are going to be required by the law to have insurance or to incur penalties for not having it. This is tantamount to a new tax on the poorest of Americans, and I haven't heard one comment on this. This just seems like a pretty big problem to me. And the 16 million figure has undoubtedly grown under the weight of the recession and likely will continue to do so for some time. We could be looking at 25 million poor people facing a huge federal "tax" increase.