cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Senior Contributor

Re: Not true

And you aren't payin' attention! It's not the ACA, that's hurting you, it's your miserable Nebraska lawmakers that want you dead.

Senior Contributor

Re: Not true

Because it is giving them more and better coverage, are you sober?? My god.

Senior Contributor

Re: Not true

Our Governor made a statement, that he would not follow a mandate, found to be UnConstitutional, because he did not know what the long-term ramifications would be, because there are still aspects of Obamacare in court, that haven't been decided upon yet.   He said it would be better to wait out the final court judgements, and go forward from there, instead of committing to something with an uncertain outcome, and expensive price tag.

Right or wrong, that was his opinion, he vetoed the expansion proposal, and it is dead for the year, until the next legislative session.

I don't see how you can blame ONLY the republicans.  If the dems had written the mandate in a way to be Constitutional, we wouldn't have this problem, either.

Senior Contributor

Re: Not true

Don't you think part of the reason that there is the income gap for assistance with health care, is because the way the Dems wrote the law, it was found to be UnConstitutional?

Senior Contributor

Re: Not true

I don't read it that way, husker. This is a snip, from Wikipedia, after all the wrangling in District & Circuit Courts, the Supreme Court, ruled this:

 

U.S. Supreme Court[edit]

On November 14, 2011, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a writ of certiorari to the United States Appeals Court for the Eleventh Circuit to consider appeals to its rulings in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius and Florida v. United States Department of Health and Human Services. The Court heard oral arguments March 26–28, 2012 and decided the consolidated case on June 28, 2012.

Although the Supreme Court declared that the law could not have been upheld under an argument based on the regulatory power of Congress under the Commerce Clause, the Court declared that the legislatively-declared "penalty" was constitutional as a valid exercise of the Congressional power to tax, thus upholding the individual mandate. The Court also limited the expansion of Medicaid initially proposed under the PPACA. All provisions of the PPACA continue to be in effect, with some limits on the Medicaid expansion

 

Senior Contributor

Re: Not true

You blame it on the people not willing to make it available to it's citizens, that is the Republicans.

Once, more:

 

U.S. Supreme Court[edit]

On November 14, 2011, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a writ of certiorari to the United States Appeals Court for the Eleventh Circuit to consider appeals to its rulings in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius and Florida v. United States Department of Health and Human Services. The Court heard oral arguments March 26–28, 2012 and decided the consolidated case on June 28, 2012.

Although the Supreme Court declared that the law could not have been upheld under an argument based on the regulatory power of Congress under the Commerce Clause, the Court declared that the legislatively-declared "penalty" was constitutional as a valid exercise of the Congressional power to tax, thus upholding the individual mandate. The Court also limited the expansion of Medicaid initially proposed under the PPACA. All provisions of the PPACA continue to be in effect, with some limits on the Medicaid expansion

 

Veteran Advisor

Re: Not true

I'm not 100% sure but MY understanding is that if you don't have enough income to qualify for a subsidy (between 100 and 400% of poverty level) then you would be put into Medicaid for your insurance but it might be dependent upon your state expanding it and NE didn't.

Senior Contributor

Re: Not true

Not the individual mandate, but rather the mandate that the States expand Medicaid, to cover anyone below the income threshold for the Obamacare subsidy, check what I boldened.

 

http://www.nationalledger.com/politics-crime/obamacare-and-medicaid-state-of-149659.shtml#.U0828Veeb...

 

 

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s ruling on ObamaCare, a significant amount of attention has been paid to the fate of the individual mandate. Lost in this intense focus on the mandate, however, is the coercive expansion of Medicaid that the court ruled unconstitutional by a vote of 7 to 2.


Read more: http://www.nationalledger.com/politics-crime/obamacare-and-medicaid-state-of-149659.shtml#ixzz2z6ax1...

 

Senior Contributor

Re: Not true

Not the individual mandate, but rather the mandate that the States expand Medicaid, to cover anyone below the income threshold for the Obamacare subsidy, check what I boldened.

 

http://www.nationalledger.com/politics-crime/obamacare-and-medicaid-state-of-149659.shtml#.U0828Veeb...

 

 

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s ruling on ObamaCare, a significant amount of attention has been paid to the fate of the individual mandate. Lost in this intense focus on the mandate, however, is the coercive expansion of Medicaid that the court ruled unconstitutional by a vote of 7 to 2.


Read more: http://www.nationalledger.com/politics-crime/obamacare-and-medicaid-state-of-149659.shtml#ixzz2z6ax1...

 

 

An expansion to Medicaid, was proposed, and actually passed the Nebraska legislature, but was vetoed by the Governor.   I do not know the details of it, but I suspect that it would have covered at least a large portion of the 'income gap'.  Anyway, looks like it is dead until next year.

Senior Contributor

Re: Not true

Well, the rep for my district, I belive voted for it, the governor vetoed it, and there weren't the votes to override it.

 

Heard one of the reps on the radio talking about it, and he said there were still to many unanswered questions, for them to know which way to vote, and when that happens they don't like to vote in new laws.


For example, many, if not most, self employed people have income variations from year to year. 
What happens if they have a 'bad' year, one year, and are on Medicaid, but then the next year, do better, and have a high enough income to kick them off of Medicaid?  Many, if not most people do not know their actual income (on the IRS 1040) until after tax time.   If someone is kind of borderline, and finds out in late February that they made enough money that Medicaid drops them, will they have insurance?   With the Obamacare exchanges having only certain periods of enrollment, will they be able to sigh up at all?

What if they can sign up, but can't get a policy for another 30 days, that would put them until almost April 1st, before they could get coverage.   What if something happens before then?
What about someone getting some sort of expensive medical treatment?   What will happen to them?

He said that when these sort of questions can be answered, he'd be willing to re-think his vote.   Until then, he hesitated to support a system that had the potential to bounce people back and forth between Medicaid, and insruance, without an iron-clad guarantee that they would not lose one day of coverage.

Personally, I have no idea as to the answers to any of those questions, but he does raise a few valid points.