Undoing Health Law Could Have Messy Ripple Effects

[Shadow]

It sounds like a silver lining. Even if the Supreme Court overturns President Barack Obama's health care law, employers can keep offering popular coverage for the young adult children of their workers.But here's the catch: The parents' taxes would go up.
That's only one of the messy potential ripple effects when the Supreme Court delivers its verdict on the Affordable Care Act this month. The law affects most major components of the U.S. health care system in its effort to extend coverage to millions of uninsured people.
Because the legislation is so complicated, an orderly unwinding would prove difficult if it were overturned entirely or in part.
Better Medicare prescription benefits, currently saving hundreds of dollars for older people with high drug costs, would be suspended. Ditto for preventive care with no co-payments, now available to retirees and working families alike.

Partially overturning the law could leave hospitals, insurers and other service providers on the hook for tax increases and spending cuts without the law's promise of more paying customers to offset losses.If the law is upheld, other kinds of complications could result.


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireS...fects-16534580

[Kathianne]

This week has seen scare article after scare article written about 'what happens if...' Hell there was even a 'poll' that illuminated that the US population 'now holds the SCOTUS in lower esteem. Oh dear!

I'm confused by this ABC article in the sense 'why would the parents TAXES go up' rather than their own out-of-pocket expenses of their own health care costs?

In any case, stopping this disaster of a non-plan will cost less in the long run. It would have been much better if it hadn't been rammed through, but it was.

[Shadow]

This week has seen scare article after scare article written about 'what happens if...' Hell there was even a 'poll' that illuminated that the US population 'now holds the SCOTUS in lower esteem. Oh dear!

I'm confused by this ABC article in the sense 'why would the parents TAXES go up' rather than their own out-of-pocket expenses of their own health care costs?

In any case, stopping this disaster of a non-plan will cost less in the long run. It would have been much better if it hadn't been rammed through, but it was.

They were kind of unclear on why a parents taxes would go up in the article. Maybe that was a round about way of saying you can't get a tax refund/break for childrens heath expenses or something. All they really said about taxes was the following...kind of along the same lines only in regard to the health care industry.


"Partially overturning the law could leave hospitals, insurers and other service providers on the hook for tax increases and spending cuts without the law's promise of more paying customers to offset losses".

I just thought it was interesting that the comment was made...that the legislation was so complex...that unwinding it could prove extremely difficult if it was overturned.

Yeah...typical government stance. Lets leave it the way it is...it's 'too hard' now to fix it anyway.

[darin]

One thing I didn't find folk mentioning -

From justice Kagan - she said something like...'...well, there's one part that would save people money; certainly we wouldn't want to overturn that aspect"

does that strike anyone else as a travesty? Does it show she's clueless about her job? I'm looking for the link...

[ConHog]

One thing I didn't find folk mentioning -

From justice Kagan - she said something like...'...well, there's one part that would save people money; certainly we wouldn't want to overturn that aspect"

does that strike anyone else as a travesty? Does it show she's clueless about her job? I'm looking for the link...

I wouldnt say it shows shes clueless at all darin. She knows exactly what shes doing. All we can hope is that the other Justices limit their opinions to their actual duties. Constitutional? Yea or nay?

But she knows her duties.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I wouldnt say it shows shes clueless at all darin. She knows exactly what shes doing. All we can hope is that the other Justices limit their opinions to their actual duties. Constitutional? Yea or nay?

But she knows her duties.

Sure she does. She doing exactly what obama put her in there to do.
The only problem with that is it's not her duty.
Her duty and her allegiance is to the court and the Constitutional based Rule of Law not the bamboy.-Tyr