Health-Care Myths

[admin]

Senator Nelson Responds To Supreme Court Ruling

AUSTIN -- Texas State Senator Jane Nelson, R-Flower Mound, today offered her perspective on the U.S. Supreme Court's historic ruling on the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). The court upheld the federal government’s right to tax individuals and employers who refuse to purchase health care insurance as required under the act.

"This ruling underscores what is at stake in November," said Senator Nelson. "Taxpayers cannot afford the astronomic price tag of this ill-conceived plan, which will hurt employers and weaken our economy. The health care system is nowhere near ready for the massive influx of patients who will be forced to buy coverage, especially given our existing health care workforce shortages. The future of this law is now in the hands of voters.”

In the same ruling, the court upheld the ACA’s Medicaid expansion provision but removed the federal government’s ability to withhold existing Medicaid funds from states that do not comply. The Medicaid expansion is projected to cost Texas billions in state dollars.

"This provision represents the number one budget driver in the Act, and we will schedule hearings soon to digest how this and other aspects of the ruling will impact our state," said Senator Nelson. "We will continue to advance Texas solutions to our health care challenges."

As chair of the Senate Health & Human Services Committee, Senator Nelson is currently presiding over her second interim study in the last four years on the potential impact of the ACA in Texas. Her committee – jointly with the Senate Committee on State Affairs – must make recommendations to the next Legislature relating to how to proceed in light of this new ruling.

[Common Sense Al]

Burgess needs to be on this sign:



That's great. I hadn't seen anything like this before (why didn't I think of it?).

[YellowRose]

The Supreme Court ruled today that Congress has unlimited taxation powers. This will dump millions of people onto Medicaid, since employers will suffer the $2,000 fine and go for the Government exchange. And what kind of doctor is going to want to practice medicine when they may not get paid for a year?

Goodbye freedom. Hello Socialism.

[Common Sense Al]

The Supreme Court ruled today that Congress has unlimited taxation powers. This will dump millions of people onto Medicaid, since employers will suffer the $2,000 fine and go for the Government exchange. And what kind of doctor is going to want to practice medicine when they may not get paid for a year?

Goodbye freedom. Hello Socialism.

You really don't know what you're talking about. The "government exchange" is not a place to get Medicaid, it's a place to buy private health insurance, and getting people off employer based healthcare is a good thing. Healthcare should not be employer based. I do hope that employers dump people into the exchanges because ultimately it's a good thing: less crap for employers to deal with, and employees wake up to how much healthcare costs... plus people will have more CHOICES on the exchanges than what employers provide... isn't that suppose to be GOOD? Oh yeah, and employees won't be tied to their jobs for healthcare anymore.

Goodbye insurance company discrimination. Hello freedom.

[YellowRose]

You really don't know what you're talking about.

Oh Al, I hope that you are correct. I have this sick feeling (wonder if you'll pay for it?) that this is the beginning of the end. The reason that Texas sued was because of the overreach of the Government. This ruling is a violation of the taxation authority of Congress and we'll see how the diminishing Middle Class feels about paying for ObamaCare.

[josh]

Obamacare will be dealt with by the new congress and administration this fall, of that I am certain. What troubles me most about today is the logical slippery slope created by the tax ruling. I see nothing to stop Congress (constitutionally speaking) from taxing people for NOT owning a gun...as an example. Wouldnt bother me, but I know some folks that would get in quite a tizzy over this. Congress could say that you dont have to buy a gun (i.e. no gun "mandate") but since they believe that gun ownership would reduce crime, they are going to tax all those that do not own a gun in order to pay the shared burden caused by fighting the crime that would have otherwise been avoided had the people been armed. It is a somewhat silly argument, but it logically follows from today's ruling. And you can no longer offer up a defense of "well, that would NEVER happen in America"...because just a year ago most people would have thought that American govt would NEVER be able to force someone in to commerce or said more appropriately after today, "tax someone" for not entering in to commerce.

[Common Sense Al]

Obamacare will be dealt with by the new congress and administration this fall, of that I am certain. What troubles me most about today is the logical slippery slope created by the tax ruling. I see nothing to stop Congress (constitutionally speaking) from taxing people for NOT owning a gun...as an example. Wouldnt bother me, but I know some folks that would get in quite a tizzy over this. Congress could say that you dont have to buy a gun (i.e. no gun "mandate") but since they believe that gun ownership would reduce crime, they are going to tax all those that do not own a gun in order to pay the shared burden caused by fighting the crime that would have otherwise been avoided had the people been armed. It is a somewhat silly argument, but it logically follows from today's ruling. And you can no longer offer up a defense of "well, that would NEVER happen in America"...because just a year ago most people would have thought that American govt would NEVER be able to force someone in to commerce or said more appropriately after today, "tax someone" for not entering in to commerce.

First, repealing Obamacare is going to be virtually impossible, thankfully... because while the GOP says "repeal and replace", they have nothing to replace it with other than silly talk & magic pixie dust. The GOP would need 60 votes in the Senate, plus control of the House & presidency, and that's very unlikely to happen... and they're going to have to figure out how to tell all those people who are benefitting from the law that they're better off with pre-existing conditions back and the insurance companies making the rules.

2nd, I thought it was well known that tax policy is also a "social policy". There's all sorts of things in there to change people's behavior... they've been doing this forever... I don't know why it's all of a sudden a "slippery slope" or any sort of surprise. In any case, healthcare is unique. You can't opt out of it. If you get into a bad car accident, they don't leave you there to die if you can't pay (thankfully).

[YellowRose]

I don't know why it's all of a sudden a "slippery slope" or any sort of surprise. In any case, healthcare is unique. You can't opt out of it. If you get into a bad car accident, they don't leave you there to die if you can't pay (thankfully).

Agree with Josh. This ruling today IS a slippery slope and Josh gave a perfect example. What's next? It's all about the big picture CS Al.

[Pipeline]

The court Supreme, are obviously biased idiots. Side with Josh. This will be fixed shortly after the current residing criminal is removed from the Oval office. Getting close to pitchfork and torches time. Arm yourselves. Stormtroopers are coming, get ready.

[Common Sense Al]

The court Supreme, are obviously biased idiots. Side with Josh. This will be fixed shortly after the current residing criminal is removed from the Oval office. Getting close to pitchfork and torches time. Arm yourselves. Stormtroopers are coming, get ready.

Pipeline, get ready to pay your tax penalty.

[skiing1974]

So Supreme court will next time side with the other side on the same issue, exactly how?
YellowRose, please, please, stop insulting socialism by calling this today socialism.
If people not having insurance costs me more to have mine, what the heck does that have to do with people not having guns costing ones with guns more money, so that Congress imposes "tax" on the gun side? Just asking a question based on some funny logic above.

[josh]

Obamacare will be dealt with by the new congress and administration this fall, of that I am certain. What troubles me most about today is the logical slippery slope created by the tax ruling. I see nothing to stop Congress (constitutionally speaking) from taxing people for NOT owning a gun...as an example. Wouldnt bother me, but I know some folks that would get in quite a tizzy over this. Congress could say that you dont have to buy a gun (i.e. no gun "mandate") but since they believe that gun ownership would reduce crime, they are going to tax all those that do not own a gun in order to pay the shared burden caused by fighting the crime that would have otherwise been avoided had the people been armed. It is a somewhat silly argument, but it logically follows from today's ruling. And you can no longer offer up a defense of "well, that would NEVER happen in America"...because just a year ago most people would have thought that American govt would NEVER be able to force someone in to commerce or said more appropriately after today, "tax someone" for not entering in to commerce.

First, repealing Obamacare is going to be virtually impossible, thankfully... because while the GOP says "repeal and replace", they have nothing to replace it with other than silly talk & magic pixie dust. The GOP would need 60 votes in the Senate, plus control of the House & presidency, and that's very unlikely to happen... and they're going to have to figure out how to tell all those people who are benefitting from the law that they're better off with pre-existing conditions back and the insurance companies making the rules.

2nd, I thought it was well known that tax policy is also a "social policy". There's all sorts of things in there to change people's behavior... they've been doing this forever... I don't know why it's all of a sudden a "slippery slope" or any sort of surprise. In any case, healthcare is unique. You can't opt out of it. If you get into a bad car accident, they don't leave you there to die if you can't pay (thankfully).

It doesnt have to be repealed, only defunded. Much less of a hurdle.

[Common Sense Al]

It doesnt have to be repealed, only defunded. Much less of a hurdle.

Hmmm... don't think it is that easy. Congress can't pass a law that gives $30 million in funding and then refuse to fund it later... well, maybe they can, but that would be big trouble in passing laws and then not abiding by them. I'd be interested in reading more about that possibility, though I'm doubtful that "strategy" will work.

What is with Texas? They like being #1 in % of uninsured people????? Rick Perry and all those GOP already have their health care... why don't they repeal their own health care?

And skiing1974, I agree... people who call this "socialism" are drinking the kool-aid. There's not even a public option (which there should have been)!

[skiing1974]

Al, even if there was a public OPTION, socialism gives you NO OPTIONS. Oh...and Supreme Court deciding on this in socialism? hahahahahahaha!!!Leave socialism label alone people, for where it trully belongs.

[Pipeline]

Pipeline, get ready to pay your tax penalty.

Just try to pry it from my bony fingers, buy your own darned insurance. With the beer and smokes bill I pay, I can't afford insurance. I would prefer to be a socialistic tax burden on you. And let the chips fall where they may. I like you buying my meds,CSAl.