Affordable Care Act

The Affordable Care Act, before the United States Supreme Court addressed whether Congress has the power or authority under the Constitution to enact the challenged provisions,(1)the individual mandate, which requires individuals to purchase a health insurance policy providing a minimum level of coverage; and (2)the Medicaid expansion, which gives funds to the States on the condition that they provide specified health care to all citizens whose income falls below a certain threshold based on the authority to regulate Commerce or to tax and spend. If it does not have constitutional authority, the United States Supreme Court has the authority to strike the two provisions with the Act. The individual mandate requires most Americans tomaintain “minimum essential” health insurance coverage. 26 U. S. C. §5000A. The mandate does not apply to some individuals, such as prisoners and undocumented aliens.§5000A(d). Many individuals will receive the required coverage through their employer, or from a government program such as Medicaid or Medicare. See §5000A(f). But for individuals who are not exempt and do not receive health insurance through a third party, the means of satisfying the requirement is to purchase insurance from a private company. Beginning in 2014, those who do not comply with the mandate must make a “[s]hared responsibility payment” to the Federal Government. §5000A(b)(1). That payment, which the Act describes as a “penalty,” is calculated as a percentage of household income, subject to a floor based on a specified dollar amount and a ceiling based on the average annual premium the individual would have to pay for qualifying private health insurance. §5000A(c). In 2016, for example, the penalty will be 2.5 percent of an individual’s household income, but no less than $695 and no more than the average yearly premium for insurance that covers 60 percent of the cost of 10 specified services (e.g., prescription drugs and hospitalization). Ibid.; 42 U. S. C. §18022. The Act provides that the penalty will be paid to the Internal Revenue Service with an individual’s taxes, and “shall be assessed and collected in the same manner” as tax penalties, such as the penalty for claiming too large an income tax refund. 26 U. S. C. §5000A(g)(1). The Act, however, bars the IRS from using several of its normal enforcement tools, such as criminal prosecutions and levies. §5000A(g)(2). And some individuals who are subject to the mandate are nonetheless exempt from the penalty—for example, those with income below a certain threshold and members of Indian tribes. §5000A(e). The second provision of the Affordable Care Act directly challenged here is the Medicaid expansion. Enacted in 1965, Medicaid offers federal funding to States to assist pregnant women, children, needy families, the blind, the elderly, and the disabled in obtaining medical care. See 42 U. S. C. §1396a(a)(10). In order to receive that funding, States must comply with federal criteria governing matters such as who receives care and what services are provided at what cost. By 1982 every State had chosen to participate in Medicaid. Federal funds received through the Medicaid program have become a substantial part of state budgets, now constituting over 10 percent of most States’ total revenue. The Affordable Care Act expands the scope of the Medicaid program and increases the number of individuals the States must cover. For example, the Act requires state programs to provide Medicaid coverage to adults with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level, whereas many States now cover adults with children only if their income is considerably lower, and do not cover childless adults at all. See §1396a(a)(10)(A)(i)(VIII). The Act increases federal funding to cover the States’ costs in expanding Medicaid coverage, although States will bear a portion of the costs on their own. §1396d(y)(1). If a State does not comply with the Act’s new coverage requirements, it may lose not only the federal funding for those requirements, but all of its federal Medicaid funds. See §1396c. The Court argues that it true that Congress has the authority to regulate Congress, but what it regulate must be in existence. To compel the purchase of insurance implies that it is not in existence to be regulated. To regulate those who do nothing is not the purpose of Commerce. "The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce." The Court pointed out as an example, "[t]he failure of [a] group to have a healthy diet increases health care costs, to a greater extent than the failure of the uninsured to purchase insurance including its individual mandate that virtually all Americans buy health insurance, is constitutional. Continuing, the Court, points to an earlier ruling, "[t]he Framers gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it, and for over 200 years both our decisions and Congress’s actions have reflected this understanding. There is no reason to depart from that understanding now." There were a few more argument that were persuasive to the Court including the ones under the Necessary and Proper Clause. So that leaves the taxing provision, and the Court, renders, "[t]he Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness." Thus saving the Act from failure under the Commerce Clause by commanding individuals to get insurance. The Medicaid provisions of the Affordable Care Act requires States to expand their Medicaid programs by 2014 to cover all individuals under the age of 65 with incomes below 133 percent of the federal poverty line. §1396a(a)(10)(A)(i)(VIII). The Act also establishes a new “[e]ssential health benefits” package, which States must provide to all new Medicaid recipients—a level sufficient to satisfy a recipient’s obligations under the individual mandate. §§1396a(k)(1), 1396u–7(b)(5), 18022(b). The Affordable Care Act provides that the Federal Government will pay 100 percent of the costs of covering these newly eligible individuals through 2016. §1396d(y)(1). In the following years, the federal payment level gradually decreases, to a minimum of 90 percent. Ibid. In light of the expansion in coverage mandated by the Act, the Federal Government estimates that its Medicaid spending will increase by approximately $100 billion per year, nearly 40 percent above current levels. Statement of Douglas W.Elmendorf, CBO’s Analysis of the Major Health Care Legislation Enacted in March 2010, p. 14, Table 2 (Mar. 30, 2011) What Congress is not free to do is to penalize States that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding. Section 1396c gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to do just that. It allows her to withhold all “further [Medicaid] payments . . . to the State” if she determines that the State is out of compliance with any Medicaid requirement, including those contained in the expansion. 42 U. S. C. §1396c. In light of the Court’s holding, the Secretary cannot apply §1396c to withdraw existing Medicaid funds for failure to comply with the requirements set out in the expansion. So the expansion stands but can not punish the states that do not partipate by withholding their existing Medicaid funding.

WOMEN HAVE GIVEN UP ON SEX?

"Fifty Shades of Grey," British author Jilly Cooper stated in an article that women don't want to have sex!! Hmmm, what women? Have women placed material things above sex, maybe, but I don't believe women don't want to have sex. Women are more knowledgeable about "intercourse" and may not place men as the soul provider of pleasure. The fact that engaging in serial relationships which includes intercourse can be deadly, or have a profound impact on your health..HIV. Perhaps, women are smarter and are choosing abstinence instead of being a notch on someone bedpost. But I don't believe women don't want to have sex. I believe women realize the package is far more valuable than how it perceived. The libidos of women have their moments, but I don't believe women do not want to exhibit their expertise in the bedroom. Perhaps, Cooper is pointing at the working mothers who are charged with multiple tasks. These superwomen may not have the time or energy to place lingering "intercourse" at the top of the list. Or finding a place to do it without the nosy little one opening or listening at the door.. Yeah, Cooper got it wrong, because ever woman is not reading her sex filled books for sexual enjoment.

Marines who were denied the title of Marines always

A group of African-Americans Former Marines will be honor for their Steve in the United States Marine Corps. It seems the military was not keen on these fella mixing with the other Marines. In 1974, Montford Point's name was changed to Camp Johnson in honor of Gilbert "Hashmark" Johnson. He was one of the first black sergeants major on the base, and as far as Greggs knows, it's the only Marine Corps installation bearing the name of an African-American. From 1942 through 1949, the Marines at Montford Point endured and prevailed over harsh racist treatment, both in the military and the outside civilian worlds. "They paved the way for all the other African-Americans coming into the Marine Corps. They made the sacrifice," said Louise Greggs, who with her husband operates the Montford Point Marine Museum at Camp Johnson in Jacksonville. "They thought nothing of it. They had no way of knowing they were making history. They just wanted to be Marines." The Montford Point Marines reflect a painful chapter in the 236-year history of a military institution that remains predominantly white. In April 1941, Maj. Gen. Thomas Holcomb, the commandant of the Marine Corps, declared: "If it were a question of having a Marine Corps of 5,000 whites or 250,000 Negroes, I would rather have the whites." Excerpts taken from an article written by By MICHAEL FUTCH onThe Fayetteville Observer, N.C.and Published: June 24, 2012.

Jerry Sandusky--Guilty as Charged

It's official, former Penn State football cooach, Jerry Sandusky has been found guilty on 45 out of 48 counts of sex abuse. Denial was Sandusky's defense all the wa to the end, he could have taken a plead bargain to give peace to the families and admit his guilt, but he didn't. An insult to all those he harmed. What a great sigh of relief for those children who have come into contact with Sandusky. And for his wife, Dottie, she will have to survive without her husband and predator ways. Dottie, was an enabler who choose to remain in the dark about her husband lifestyle of seducing young boys. Sandusky will face a possible sentence of 442 years, a sentence he will not fullfill. Now, the survivors will have an opportunity to heal and move forward from the crime committed against their as a defenseless child.

Vagina by any other name

Rumor has it, Michigan State Representative Lisa Brown has been banned from the House Floor for using the word. VAGINA. Choke Choke Choke, hmmm how should she refer to that part of the female anatomy.