Anyone guessing how they will rule? I am guessing they will strike down the law seeing as how they've ruled that corporations are people previously and seem to be owned by corporate america now...but you never know.

Re: Supreme Court + Obamacare

Would have to agree, secondly who and the hell is going to pay for the cost

Re: Supreme Court + Obamacare

Wow. Tell me about the way you misread Citizens United and the latest bitchslap against Montana's archaic law. I have a nice adjuct con law professor job opening up at Did Not Read University. Are you interested?

I did not seriously think anyone would believe that you lose your 1st Amendment rights if you group your resources with others. My mistake. I didn't realize people would be so blase about a massive stone in the foundation of individual liberty.

Re: Supreme Court + Obamacare

An enormous step in getting health insurance on the right track would be to let companies sell coverage over state lines. Sure there would have to be some regulations set across the board to keep companies from grouping in favorable states, as well as making pre existing conditions a non factor. The competition between companies would drive coverage prices down, enabling those with lower incomes to now afford health insurance. Health insurance companies would grow, creating jobs and stimulating the economy.

It seems so simple to me.... am I wrong to think it's this easy?

Re: Supreme Court + Obamacare

well, goodbye constitutional rights.... hello communist America....

Sad day for real hardworking Americans.

Re: Supreme Court + Obamacare

Yeah you so communist.

A Scandinavian.

Re: Supreme Court + Obamacare

Roberts just pissed in the mouths of the liberal justices and they think its champagne. Hysterical. This is great news. The commerce clause is now limited, obama now has to defend his new tax, and it is now a huge rallying point for taxpayers. PLUS the states can basically ignore this if they want to.

Holder about to be held in contempt.

This day could not turn out any bettet.

Re: Supreme Court + Obamacare

Remember in November:

“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see [B]any form[/B] of tax increases. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, [B]not any of your taxes[/B].” - Barack Hussein Obama, Sept. 12, 2008

“If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not a single dime.” - Barack Hussein Obama, Feb. 24, 2009

Re: Supreme Court + Obamacare

Agreed. I think Roberts has handed the Republicans a silver-platter issue for the election. The 2010 election which swung congress back into Republican power was based largely on the unpopularity of Obamacare. Now it's back in play, and with the added issue of Obama having signed into law the largest tax increase in history.

Re: Supreme Court + Obamacare

[QUOTE=Homegrove;1047573]Yeah you so communist.

A Scandinavian.[/QUOTE]

come on man, it's the USSA :)

[QUOTE=88Mariner;1047578]Roberts just pissed in the mouths of the liberal justices and they think its champagne. Hysterical. This is great news. The commerce clause is now limited, obama now has to defend his new tax, and it is now a huge rallying point for taxpayers. PLUS the states can basically ignore this if they want to.

Holder about to be held in contempt.

This day could not turn out any bettet.[/QUOTE]

I shot off at the mouth and spoke too soon before getting the whole story. This could very well backfire on his ass.

Re: Supreme Court + Obamacare

I read this in Reddit to try and understand this thing:

[quote] Okay, explained like you're a five year-old (well, okay, maybe a bit older), without too much oversimplification, and (hopefully) without sounding too biased: What people call "Obamacare" is actually the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. However, people were calling it "Obamacare" before everyone even hammered out what it would be. It's a term mostly used by people who don't like the PPACA, and it's become popularized in part because PPACA is a really long and awkward name, even when you turn it into an acronym like that. Anyway, the PPACA made a bunch of new rules regarding health care, with the purpose of making health care more affordable for everyone. Opponents of the PPACA, on the other hand, feel that the rules it makes take away too many freedoms and force people (both individuals and businesses) to do things they shouldn't have to. So what does it do? Well, here is everything, in the order of when it goes into effect (because some of it happens later than other parts of it): Already in effect: It allows the Food and Drug Administration to approve more generic drugs (making for more competition in the market to drive down prices) It increases the rebates on drugs people get through Medicare (so drugs cost less) It establishes a non-profit group, that the government doesn't directly control, [1] PCORI, to study different kinds of treatments to see what works better and is the best use of money. ( [2] Citation: Page 665, sec. 1181 ) It makes chain restaurants like McDonalds display how many calories are in all of their foods, so people can have an easier time making choices to eat healthy. ( [3] Citation: Page 499, sec. 4205 ) It makes a "high-risk pool" for people with pre-existing conditions. Basically, this is a way to slowly ease into getting rid of "pre-existing conditions" altogether. For now, people who already have health issues that would be considered "pre-existing conditions" can still get insurance, but at different rates than people without them. It renews some old policies, and calls for the appointment of various positions. It creates a new 10% tax on indoor tanning booths. ( [4] Citation: Page 923, sec. 5000B ) It says that health insurance companies can no longer tell customers that they won't get any more coverage because they have hit a "lifetime limit". Basically, if someone has paid for health insurance, that company can't tell that person that he's used that insurance too much throughout his life so they won't cover him any more. They can't do this for lifetime spending, and they're limited in how much they can do this for yearly spending. ( [5] Citation: Page 14, sec. 2711 ) Kids can continue to be covered by their parents' health insurance until they're 26. No more "pre-existing conditions" for kids under the age of 19. Insurers have less ability to change the amount customers have to pay for their plans. People in a "Medicare Gap" get a rebate to make up for the extra money they would otherwise have to spend. Insurers can't just drop customers once they get sick. ( [6] Citation: Page 14, sec. 2712 ) Insurers have to tell customers what they're spending money on. (Instead of just "administrative fee", they have to be more specific). Insurers need to have an appeals process for when they turn down a claim, so customers have some manner of recourse other than a lawsuit when they're turned down. New ways to stop fraud are created. Medicare extends to smaller hospitals. Medicare patients with chronic illnesses must be monitored more thoroughly. Reduces the costs for some companies that handle benefits for the elderly. A new website is made to give people insurance and health information. (I think this is it: [7] [URL]http://www.healthcare.gov/[/URL]

). A credit program is made that will make it easier for business to invest in new ways to treat illness. A limit is placed on just how much of a percentage of the money an insurer makes can be profit, to make sure they're not price-gouging customers. A limit is placed on what type of insurance accounts can be used to pay for over-the-counter drugs without a prescription. Basically, your insurer isn't paying for the Aspirin you bought for that hangover. Employers need to list the benefits they provided to employees on their tax forms. 8/1/2012 Any health plans sold after this date must provide preventative care (mammograms, colonoscopies, etc.) without requiring any sort of co-pay or charge. 1/1/2013 If you make over $200,000 a year, your taxes go up a tiny bit (0.9%). Edit: To address those who take issue with the word "tiny", a change of 0.9% is relatively tiny. Any look at how taxes have fluctuated over the years will reveal that a change of less than one percent is miniscule, especially when we're talking about people in the top 5% of earners. 1/1/2014 This is when a lot of the really big changes happen. No more "pre-existing conditions". At all. People will be charged the same regardless of their medical history. If you can afford insurance but do not get it, you will be charged a fee. This is the "mandate" that people are talking about. Basically, it's a trade-off for the "pre-existing conditions" bit, saying that since insurers now have to cover you regardless of what you have, you can't just wait to buy insurance until you get sick. Otherwise no one would buy insurance until they needed it. You can opt not to get insurance, but you'll have to pay the fee instead, unless of course you're not buying insurance because you just can't afford it. Insurers now can't do annual spending caps. Their customers can get as much health care in a given year as they need. ( [8] Citation: Page 14, sec. 2711 ) Make it so more poor people can get Medicaid by making the low-income cut-off higher. Small businesses get some tax credits for two years. Businesses with over 50 employees must offer health insurance to full-time employees, or pay a penalty. Limits how high of an annual deductible insurers can charge customers. Cut some Medicare spending Place a $2500 limit on tax-free spending on FSAs (accounts for medical spending). Basically, people using these accounts now have to pay taxes on any money over $2500 they put into them. Establish health insurance exchanges and rebates for the lower and middle-class, basically making it so they have an easier time getting affordable medical coverage. Congress and Congressional staff will only be offered the same insurance offered to people in the insurance exchanges, rather than Federal Insurance. Basically, we won't be footing their health care bills any more than any other American citizen. A new tax on pharmaceutical companies. A new tax on the purchase of medical devices. A new tax on insurance companies based on their market share. Basically, the more of the market they control, the more they'll get taxed. The amount you can deduct from your taxes for medical expenses increases. 1/1/2015 Doctors' pay will be determined by the quality of their care, not how many people they treat. Edit: a_real_MD addresses questions regarding this one in far more detail and with far more expertise than I can offer in [9] this post. If you're looking for a more in-depth explanation of this one (as many of you are), I highly recommend you give his post a read. 1/1/2017 If any state can come up with their own plan, one which gives citizens the same level of care at the same price as the PPACA, they can ask the Secretary of Health and Human Resources for permission to do their plan instead of the PPACA. So if they can get the same results without, say, the mandate, they can be allowed to do so. Vermont, for example, has expressed a desire to just go straight to single-payer (in simple terms, everyone is covered, and medical expenses are paid by taxpayers). 2018 All health care plans must now cover preventative care (not just the new ones). A new tax on "Cadillac" health care plans (more expensive plans for rich people who want fancier coverage). 2020 The elimination of the "Medicare gap" . Aaaaand that's it right there. The biggest thing opponents of the bill have against it is the mandate. They claim that it forces people to buy insurance, and forcing people to buy something is unconstitutional. Personally, I take the opposite view, as it's not telling people to buy a specific thing, just to have a specific type of thing, just like a part of the money we pay in taxes pays for the police and firemen who protect us, this would have us paying to ensure doctors can treat us for illness and injury. Plus, as previously mentioned, it's necessary if you're doing away with "pre-existing conditions" because otherwise no one would get insurance until they needed to use it, which defeats the purpose of insurance. Whew! Hope that answers the question![/quote]

Then I read this because I still needed it dumbed down:

[quote]

I'm going to take your post and explain it to a five year-old: Bob: Hi, insurance company. I'd like to buy some health insurance. Insurance company: No. You had cancer when you were 3 years old, and the cancer could come back. We're not selling you health insurance. Bob: It's not my fault I got cancer when I was three! Besides, that was years ago! Insurance company: If we sell insurance to you, we'll probably lose money, and we're not doing it. Bob: But I need insurance more than anyone! My cancer might come back! Insurance company: We don't care. We're not selling you insurance. Obama: Hey, that's totally not fair. Bob is right, he does need insurance! Sell Bob some insurance. Insurance company: If we have to, I guess. Mary: This is cool. Obama said the insurance company has to sell insurance to anyone who needs it. Sam: Hey, I have an idea. I'm going to stop paying for health insurance. If I get sick, I can always go buy some insurance then. The insurance company won't be able to say no, because Obama's told them they have to sell it to anyone who needs it! Dave: that's a great idea! I'm not paying for health insurance either, at least not until I get sick. Insurance company: Hey! If everyone stops paying for insurance, we'll go bankrupt! Obama: Oh come on Sam and Dave, that's not fair either. Dave: I don't care. It saves me money. Obama: Oh for god's sake. Sam, Dave, you have to keep paying for health insurance, and not wait until you're sick. You too, Mary and Bob. Mary: But I'm broke! I can't buy insurance! I just don't have any money. Obama: Mary, show me your piggy bank. Oh, wow, you really are broke. Ok, tell you what. You still have to buy insurance, but I'll help you pay 95% of the cost. Mary: thank you. Obama: I need an aspirin. Insurance company: We're not paying for that aspirin. Also added should be: All the people: Wait, won't this just mean we all give money to the companies and they keep it all? Obama: No, they will be required to spend 85% of what they get paid in premiums on actual healthcare.[/quote]

No PLEASE explain to me, like you would to a child, why this is all such a bad thing? Keep in mind that I've lived in a country where I pay 20 % tax out of my very meager income, but I get absolutely free health care, and the government pays a big percent if I need some sort of expensive drug for a condition I might have. And I consider it a fair trade.

Re: Supreme Court + Obamacare

The political points against the current regime aren't so great when you consider the precedent the court just set, that there is no limit to what the govt. can mandate you purchase, just so long as they identify/label it as a tax. That's one hardcore power grab.

Re: Supreme Court + Obamacare

If [url="http://www.mercuryserver.com/forums/djdb.php?id=132"]homegrove[/url] was from:

Nazi germany: someone PLEASE tell me why we cant murder jews, blacks, homosexuals...

China: someone PLEASE tell my why youre allowed to have more than one child

Nigeria: someone PLEASE tell me why we cant burn witches and have child slavery

Soviet Union: someone PLEASE tell my why the government cant control every facet of my life

North korea: someone PLEASE tell me why i shouldnt be forced to eat mud pies.

And so forth.

Basically " i personally dont see whats wrong with being forced to buy private goods as long as i'm forced to pay for it."

Re: Supreme Court + Obamacare

Your first mistake was reading reddit. Never go full tard like that.

Re: Supreme Court + Obamacare

If I drink a fifth of Makers Mark and fall down the stairs and break my face open and goto the emergency room, they have to fix me up even if I'm a broke ass and don't have insurance, so why shouldn't you pay for something which must be provided to you? The money isn't going to come out of thin air otherwise....just like other social programs already on the books....

Re: Supreme Court + Obamacare

Did we not have a multi-page thread on that very issue?

It doesn't matter. the wings of the commerce clause was clipped today. Our march towards totalitarianism may continue, but it will do so with a severe limp.

LMAO.

Re: Supreme Court + Obamacare

[QUOTE=res0nat0r;1047467]Anyone guessing how they will rule? I am guessing they will strike down the law seeing as how they've ruled that corporations are people previously and seem to be owned by corporate america now...but you never know.[/QUOTE]

So the Supreme Court is owned by corporations? Tell me more.

Re: Supreme Court + Obamacare

^I'm surprised they didn't reverse it today actually...we will see how well Rommney chanting taxes taxes taxes taxes until November works out, who knows which way it will go. I'd like to see people ask him about the health bill he passed when he was govnuh though...hes trying to forget that part of his history right now.....

Re: Supreme Court + Obamacare

I recommend the 10th Amendment as a starting point for your inquiry.

It is about taxes. This is a HUGE tax. What more is there to it? Is Romney not allowed to say 'taxes' even though that's what this is? Do tell me why that is.

Re: Supreme Court + Obamacare

For all the mewling from the progressive nursery about partisanship and politicization on the Court, it was only conservative votes that were ever in play. The four leftist hacks on the bench were take-it-to-the-bank votes to uphold from day one despite the constitutional novelty of the mandate. They are and forever will be a rubber stamp on any sort of economic power grab by Congress, and yet, oddly, that never seems to affect leftist calculations about the integrity or the independence of the Court. If Roberts’s opinion had been, in its entirety, “Upheld because I say so,” Matthews still would have been on the air tonight slobbering all over him.

Re: Supreme Court + Obamacare

[QUOTE=88Mariner;1047605]If [URL="http://www.mercuryserver.com/forums/djdb.php?id=132"]homegrove[/URL] was from:

Nazi germany: someone PLEASE tell me why we cant murder jews, blacks, homosexuals...

China: someone PLEASE tell my why youre allowed to have more than one child

Nigeria: someone PLEASE tell me why we cant burn witches and have child slavery

Soviet Union: someone PLEASE tell my why the government cant control every facet of my life

North korea: someone PLEASE tell me why i shouldnt be forced to eat mud pies.

And so forth.

Basically " i personally dont see whats wrong with being forced to buy private goods as long as i'm forced to pay for it."[/QUOTE]

I know there's a theory how every internet-argument escalates to people calling someone a nazi but that was fucking fast.

But yeah, done aggravating you.

Re: Supreme Court + Obamacare

I know there's a theory that you clearly failed to comprehend what I wrote.

Here it goes.

I said, "[I][B][U]IF[/U][/B][/I] [url="http://www.mercuryserver.com/forums/djdb.php?id=132"]Homegrove[/url] yadda yadda yadda...."

You're not a Nazi [url="http://www.mercuryserver.com/forums/djdb.php?id=132"]Homegrove[/url]. You're just plain fucking 'special'.

Re: Supreme Court + Obamacare

[URL="http://www.dpmafoundation.org/physician-attitudes-on-medicine.html"]DPMA Foundation : Physician Attitudes on Medicine - National Survey[/URL]

Some key findings:

[quote]

[LIST] [] 90% say the medical system is on the WRONG TRACK []83% say they are thinking about QUITTING []61% say the system challenges their ETHICS []85% say the patient-physician relationship is in a TAILSPIN []65% say GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT is most to [URL="http://www.mercuryserver.com/forums/djdb.php?id=969"]blame[/URL] for current problems []72% say individual insurance mandate will NOT result in improved access care []49% say they will STOP accepting Medicaid patients []74% say they will STOP ACCEPTING Medicare patients, or leave Medicare completely [/LIST]

[/quote]

To borrow a previous argument, just don't get sick, everything will be alright.

Re: Supreme Court + Obamacare

[QUOTE=res0nat0r;1047652]^I'm surprised they didn't reverse it today actually...we will see how well Rommney chanting taxes taxes taxes taxes until November works out, who knows which way it will go. I'd like to see people ask him about the health bill he passed when he was govnuh though...hes trying to forget that part of his history right now.....[/QUOTE]

Romney will win in a landslide. It was going to be a landslide before this ruling, and I think now it will be a bigger landslide. The only polls that matter so far are the ones taken from likely voters (not registered voters), which have consistently shown Romney either in a point lead or losing within the margin of error. But there is usually a 7 point or so undecided segment. Undecideds always vote against the incumbent in every election, by a rate of about 90%. That means Romney has been in a significant lead all this time. And now the signature issue that caused Obama to lose control of the house and almost lose the senate is front row again. Combine the unpopularity of Obamacare with the fact it now includes the largest tax increase on the middle-class in history, and then consider the expiring Bush tax cuts in January, and the fact this economy is still stalling.... and it spells landslide for Romney.

Re: Supreme Court + Obamacare

[img]http://i.imgur.com/LZQTn.jpg[/img]

:lol:

Re: Supreme Court + Obamacare

I guess that's about as funny as the [I]Plessy[/I] ruling. Hey, the court said it was [I]Constitutional[/I].

/Resonator's Argument.

Re: Supreme Court + Obamacare

Their dicks are bigger than everyones and thats that. It. Is. Done.

Re: Supreme Court + Obamacare

You know what I find funny? It was only the [I]conservative [/I]group of justices whose votes were in play.

None of the liberals were ever expected to deviate from their line.

Funny how healthacare insurance companies stock jumped after the ruling was announced.

Re: Supreme Court + Obamacare

^Nothing to see here, just clear evidence that the Dems are reigning in those evil corporations they regularly defame.

Re: Supreme Court + Obamacare

as spineless as romney is -- i, including most of california are raging up and will therefore be voting for him -- cos this assclown we have in the white house has doomed our country to a deluge

Re: Supreme Court + Obamacare

[QUOTE=i!!ustrious;1048704]as spineless as romney is -- i, including most of california are raging up and will therefore be voting for him -- cos this assclown we have in the white house has doomed our country to a deluge[/QUOTE]

don't be surprised when you get the same result with Romney, and you'll be calling for the removal of that assclown in 4 years.

Re: Supreme Court + Obamacare

[QUOTE=i!!ustrious;1048704]as spineless as romney is -- i, including most of california are raging up and will therefore be voting for him -- cos this assclown we have in the white house has doomed our country to a deluge[/QUOTE]

Good for you. Unfortunately, you live in a state where it won't really matter if you or your friends vote. California is a blue state, and that will never change. Too many people are on the public doll.

Re: Supreme Court + Obamacare

Just imagine how bad the Dems (and those states) will look when the public dole dries up. And the occutards will of course be calling for the heads of the CEOs and all the filthy rich.

Re: Supreme Court + Obamacare

[QUOTE=subterFUSE;1048736]Good for you. Unfortunately, you live in a state where it won't really matter if you or your friends vote. California is a blue state, and that will never change. Too many people are on the public doll.[/QUOTE]

True, although where I!!ustrious is from, it's VERY republican (orange county).

Re: Supreme Court + Obamacare

Don't give a fuck if someone doesn't like FoxNews. If they can refute it, they're free to try:

[URL="http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/05/five-major-obamacare-taxes-that-will-hit-your-wallet-in-2013/#ixzz1zy7yKZ9y"]Five major ObamaCare taxes that will hit your wallet in 2013 | Fox News[/URL]

5 new taxes that affect everyone in this garbage bill with which we're forced to comply.

Re: Supreme Court + Obamacare

Meh. I know it is the American way to not give a shit about your fellow Americans, and then when you have a heart attack demand you get free coverage at the hospital so this is fine by me. Plus anything that helps get rid of bullshit like pre-existing conditions is fine in my book.

Much better breakdown of the bill:

Already in effect:

[LIST] []It allows the Food and Drug Administration to approve more generic drugs (making for more competition in the market to drive down prices) ( [URL="http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf#page=766"]Citation: An entire section of the bill, called Title VII, is devoted to this, starting on page 766[/URL] ) []It increases the rebates on drugs people get through Medicare (so drugs cost less) ( [URL="http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf#page=235"]Citation: Page 235, sec. 2501[/URL] ) []It establishes a non-profit group, that the government doesn't directly control, [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient-Centered_Outcomes_Research_Institute"]PCORI[/URL], to study different kinds of treatments to see what works better and is the best use of money. ( [URL="http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf#page=684"]Citation: Page 684, sec. 1181[/URL]) []It makes chain restaurants like McDonalds display how many calories are in all of their foods, so people can have an easier time making choices to eat healthy. ( [URL="http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf#page=518"]Citation: Page 518, sec. 4205[/URL] ) []It makes a "high-risk pool" for people with pre-existing conditions. Basically, this is a way to slowly ease into getting rid of "pre-existing conditions" altogether. For now, people who already have health issues that would be considered "pre-existing conditions" can still get insurance, but at different rates than people without them. ( [URL="http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf#page=49"]Citation: Page 49, sec. 1101[/URL], [URL="http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf#page=64"]Page 64, sec. 2704[/URL], and [URL="http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf#page=65"]Page 65, sec. 2702[/URL] ) []It forbids insurance companies from discriminating based on a disability, or because they were the victim of domestic abuse in the past (yes, insurers really did deny coverage for that) ( [URL="http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf#page=66"]Citation: Page 66, sec. 2705[/URL] ) []It renews some old policies, and calls for the appointment of various positions. []It creates a new 10% tax on indoor tanning booths. ( [URL="http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf#page=942"]Citation: Page 942, sec. 5000B[/URL] ) []It says that health insurance companies can no longer tell customers that they won't get any more coverage because they have hit a "lifetime limit". Basically, if someone has paid for health insurance, that company can't tell that person that he's used that insurance too much throughout his life so they won't cover him any more. They can't do this for lifetime spending, and they're limited in how much they can do this for yearly spending. ( [URL="http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf#page=33"]Citation: Page 33, sec. 2711[/URL] ) []Kids can continue to be covered by their parents' health insurance until they're 26. ( [URL="http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf#page=34"]Citation: Page 34, sec. 2714[/URL] ) []No more "pre-existing conditions" for kids under the age of 19. ( [URL="http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf#page=64"]Citation: Page 64, sec. 2704[/URL] and [URL="http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf#page=76"]Page 76, sec. 1255[/URL] ) []Insurers have less ability to change the amount customers have to pay for their plans. ( [URL="http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf#page=66"]Citation: Page 66, sec. 2794[/URL] ) []People in a "Medicare Gap" get a rebate to make up for the extra money they would otherwise have to spend. ( [URL="http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf#page=398"]Citation: Page 398, sec. 3301[/URL] ) []Insurers can't just drop customers once they get sick. ( [URL="http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf#page=33"]Citation: Page 33, sec. 2712[/URL] ) []Insurers have to tell customers what they're spending money on. (Instead of just "administrative fee", they have to be more specific). []Insurers need to have an appeals process for when they turn down a claim, so customers have some manner of recourse other than a lawsuit when they're turned down. ( [URL="http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf#page=42"]Citation: Page 42, sec. 2719[/URL] ) []Anti-fraud funding is increased and new ways to stop fraud are created. ( [URL="http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf#page=718"]Citation: Page 718, sec. 6402[/URL] ) []Medicare extends to smaller hospitals. ( [URL="http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf#page=363"]Citation: Starting on page 363, the entire section "Part II" seems to deal with this[/URL] ) []Medicare patients with chronic illnesses must be monitored more thoroughly. []Reduces the costs for some companies that handle benefits for the elderly. ( [URL="http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf#page=511"]Citation: Page 511, sec. 4202[/URL]) []A new website is made to give people insurance and health information. (I think this is it:[URL]http://www.healthcare.gov/[/URL] ). ( [URL="http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf#page=55"]Citation: Page 55, sec. 1103[/URL] ) []A credit program is made that will make it easier for business to invest in new ways to treat illness by paying half the cost of the investment. (Note - this program was temporary. It already ended) ( [URL="http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf#page=849"]Citation: Page 849, sec. 9023[/URL] ) []A limit is placed on just how much of a percentage of the money an insurer makes can be profit, to make sure they're not price-gouging customers. ( [URL="http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf#page=41"]Citation: Page 41, sec. 1101[/URL] ) []A limit is placed on what type of insurance accounts can be used to pay for over-the-counter drugs without a prescription. Basically, your insurer isn't paying for the Aspirin you bought for that hangover. ( [URL="http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf#page=819"]Citation: Page 819, sec. 9003[/URL] ) []Employers need to list the benefits they provided to employees on their tax forms. ( [URL="http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf#page=819"]Citation: Page 819, sec. 9002[/URL] ) []Any new health plans must provide preventive care (mammograms, colonoscopies, etc.) without requiring any sort of co-pay or charge. ( [URL="http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf#page=33"]Citation: Page 33, sec. 2713[/URL] ) [/LIST] 1/1/2013

[LIST] [*]If you make over $200,000 a year, your taxes go up a tiny bit (0.9%). Edit: To address those who take issue with the word "tiny", a change of 0.9% is relatively tiny. Any look at how taxes have fluctuated over the years will reveal that a change of less than one percent is miniscule, especially when we're talking about people in the top 5% of earners. ( [URL="http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf#page=837"]Citation: Page 837, sec. 9015[/URL] ) [/LIST] 1/1/2014 This is when a lot of the really big changes happen.

[LIST] []No more "pre-existing conditions". At all. People will be charged the same regardless of their medical history. ( [URL="http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf#page=64"]Citation: Page 64, sec. 2704[/URL], [URL="http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf#page=65"]Page 65, sec. 2701[/URL], and [URL="http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf#page=76"]Page 76, sec. 1255[/URL] ) []If you can afford insurance but do not get it, you will be charged a fee. This is the "mandate" that people are talking about. Basically, it's a trade-off for the "pre-existing conditions" bit, saying that since insurers now have to cover you regardless of what you have, you can't just wait to buy insurance until you get sick. Otherwise no one would buy insurance until they needed it. You can opt not to get insurance, but you'll have to pay the fee instead, unless of course you're not buying insurance because you just can't afford it. (Note: On 6/28/12, the Supreme Court ruled that this is Constitutional, as long as it's considered a tax on the uninsured and not a penalty for not buying insurance... nitpicking about wording, mostly, but the long and short of it is, it looks like this is accepted by the courts) ( [URL="http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf#page=164"]Citation: Page 164, sec. 5000A[/URL], and [URL="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf"]here[/URL] is the actual court ruling for those who wish to read it. ) [/LIST] Question: What determines whether or not I can afford the mandate? Will I be forced to pay for insurance I can't afford? Answer: There are all kinds of checks in place to keep you from getting screwed. Kaiser actually has a webpage with a pretty good rundown on it, if you're worried about it. You can see it [URL="http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/March/22/consumers-guide-health-reform.aspx"]here[/URL]. Okay, have we got that settled? Okay, moving on...

[LIST] []Medicaid can now be used by everyone up to 133% of the poverty line (basically, a lot more poor people can get insurance) ( [URL="http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf#page=198"]Citation: Page 198, sec. 2001[/URL] ) []Small businesses get some tax credits for two years. (It looks like this is specifically for businesses with 25 or fewer employees) ( [URL="http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf#page=157"]Citation: Page 157, sec. 1421[/URL] ) []Businesses with over 50 employees must offer health insurance to full-time employees, or pay a penalty. []Insurers now can't do annual spending caps. Their customers can get as much health care in a given year as they need. ( [URL="http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf#page=33"]Citation: Page 33, sec. 2711[/URL] ) []Limits how high of an annual deductible insurers can charge customers. ( [URL="http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf#page=81"]Citation: Page 81, sec. 1302[/URL] ) []Cut some Medicare spending []Place a $2500 limit on tax-free spending on FSAs (accounts for medical spending). Basically, people using these accounts now have to pay taxes on any money over $2500 they put into them. ( [URL="http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf#page=820"]Citation: Page 820, sec. 9005[/URL] ) []Establish health insurance exchanges and rebates for the lower and middle-class, basically making it so they have an easier time getting affordable medical coverage. ( [URL="http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf#page=107"]Citation: Page 107, sec. 1311[/URL] ) []Congress and Congressional staff will only be offered the same insurance offered to people in the insurance exchanges, rather than Federal Insurance. Basically, we won't be footing their health care bills any more than any other American citizen. ( [URL="http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf#page=100"]Citation: Page 100, sec. 1312[/URL] ) []A new tax on pharmaceutical companies. []A new tax on the purchase of medical devices. []A new tax on insurance companies based on their market share. Basically, the more of the market they control, the more they'll get taxed. [*]The amount you can deduct from your taxes for medical expenses increases. [/LIST] 1/1/2015

[LIST] [*]Doctors' pay will be determined by the quality of their care, not how many people they treat. Edit: a_real_MD addresses questions regarding this one in far more detail and with far more expertise than I can offer in [URL="http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/vb8vs/eli5_what_exactly_is_obamacare_and_what_did_it/c537rqi"]this post[/URL]. If you're looking for a more in-depth explanation of this one (as many of you are), I highly recommend you give his post a read. [/LIST] 1/1/2017

[LIST] [*]If any state can come up with their own plan, one which gives citizens the same level of care at the same price as the PPACA, they can ask the Secretary of Health and Human Resources for permission to do their plan instead of the PPACA. So if they can get the same results without, say, the mandate, they can be allowed to do so. Vermont, for example, has expressed a desire to just go straight to single-payer (in simple terms, everyone is covered, and medical expenses are paid by taxpayers). ( [URL="http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf#page=117"]Citation: Page 117, sec. 1332[/URL] ) [/LIST] 2018

[LIST] []All health care plans must now cover preventive care (not just the new ones). []A new tax on "Cadillac" health care plans (more expensive plans for rich people who want fancier coverage). [/LIST] 2020

[LIST] [*]The elimination of the "Medicare gap" [/LIST] . Aaaaand that's it right there. The biggest thing opponents of the bill have against it is the mandate. They claim that it forces people to buy insurance, and forcing people to buy something is unconstitutional. Personally, I take the opposite view, as it's not telling people to buy a specific thing, just to have a specific type of thing, just like a part of the money we pay in taxes pays for the police and firemen who protect us, this would have us paying to ensure doctors can treat us for illness and injury. Plus, as previously mentioned, it's necessary if you're doing away with "pre-existing conditions" because otherwise no one would get insurance until they needed to use it, which defeats the purpose of insurance. Of course, because so many people are arguing about it, and some of the people arguing about it don't really care whether or not what they're saying is true, there are a lot of things people think the bill does that just aren't true. Here's a few of them: Obamacare has death panels!: That sounds so cartoonishly evil it must be true, right? Well, no. No part of the bill says anything about appointing people to decide whether or not someone dies. The decision over whether or not your claim is approved is still in the hands of your insurer. However, now there's an appeals process so if your claim gets turned down, you can challenge that. And the government watches that appeals process to make sure it's not being unfair to customers. So if anything the PPACA is trying to stop the death panels. ( [URL="http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf#page=42"]Citation: Page 42, sec. 2719[/URL] ) What about the Independent Medical Advisory Board? Death Panels!: The Independent Medical Advisory Board is intended to give recommendations on how to save Medicare costs per person, deliver more efficient and effective care, improve access to services, and eliminate waste. However, they have no real power. They put together a recommendation to put before Congress, and Congress votes on it, and the President has power to veto it. What's more, they are specifically told that their recommendation will not ration health care, raise premiums or co-pays, restrict benefits, or restrict eligibility. In other words, they need to find ways to save money withoutreducing care for patients. So no death panels. In any sense of the (stupid) term. ( [URL="http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf#page=426"]Citation: Page 426, sec. 3403[/URL] ) Obamacare gives free insurance to illegal immigrants!: Actually, there are multiple parts of the bill that specifically state that the recipient of tax credits and other good stuff must be a legal resident of the United States. And while the bill doesn't specifically forbid illegals from buying insurance or getting treated at hospitals, neither did the laws in the US before the PPACA. So even at worst, illegals still have just as much trouble getting medical care as they used to. ( [URL="http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf#page=141"]Citations: Page 141, sec. 1402[/URL], [URL="http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf#page=142"]Page 142, sec. 1411[/URL], [URL="http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf#page=144"]Page 144, sec. 1411[/URL], [URL="http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf#page=151"]Page 151, sec. 1412[/URL] ) Obamacare uses taxpayer money for abortions!: One part of the bill says, essentially, that the folks who wrote this bill aren't touching that issue with a ten foot pole. It basically passes the buck on to the states, who can choose to allow insurance plans that cover abortions, or they can choose to not allow them. Obama may be pro-choice, but that is not reflected in the PPACA. ( [URL="http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf#page=64"]Citation: Page 64, sec. 1303[/URL] ) Obamacare won't let me keep the insurance I have!: The PPACA actually very specifically says you can keep the insurance you have if you want. ( [URL="http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf#page=74"]Citation: Page 74, sec. 1251[/URL] ) Obamacare will make the government get between me and my doctor!: The PPACA very specifically says that the Secretary of Health and Human Services (who is in charge of much of the bill), is absolutely not to promote any regulation that hinders a patient's ability to get health care, to speak with their doctor, or have access to a full range of treatment options. ( [URL="http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf#page=184"]Citation: Page 184, sec. 1554[/URL] ) Obamacare has a public option! That makes it bad!: The public option (which would give people the option of getting insurance from a government-run insurer, thus the name), whether you like it or not, was taken out of the bill before it was passed. You can still see where it used to be, though. ( [URL="http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf#page=111"]Citation: Page 111, sec. 1323 (the first one) [/URL]) Obamacare will cost trillions and put us in massive debt!: The PPACA will cost a lot of money... at first. $1.7 Trillion. Yikes, right? But that's just to get the ball rolling. You see, amongst the things built into the bill are new taxes - on insurers, pharmaceutical companies, tanning salons, and a slight increase in taxes on people who make over $200K (an increase of less than 1%). Additionally, the bill cuts some stuff from Medicare that's not really working, and generally tries to make everything work more efficiently. Also, the increased focus on preventative care (making sure people don't get sick in the first place), should help to save money the government already spends on emergency care for these same people. Basically, by catching illnesses early, we're not spending as much on emergency room visits. According to the Congressional Budget Office, who studies these things, the ultimate result is that this bill will reduce the yearly deficit by $210 billion. By the year 2021, the bill will actually have paid itself and started bringing in more money than it cost. Obamacare is twice as long as War and Peace!: War and Peace is 587,287 words long. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, depending on which version you're referring to, is between 300,000-400,000 words long. Don't get me wrong, it's still very long, but it's not as long as War and Peace. Also, it bears mention that bills are often long. In 2005, Republicans passed the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, 2005, which was almost as long as the PPACA, and no one raised a stink about it. The people who passed Obamacare didn't even read it!: Are you kidding? They had been reading it over and over for a half a year. This thing was being tossed around in debates for ages. And it went through numerous revisions, but every time it was revised, it was just adding, removing, or changing small parts of it, not rewriting the whole thing. And every time it was revised, the new version of the bill was published online for everyone to see. The final time it was edited, there may not have been time to re-read the entire thing before voting on it, but there wasn't a need to, because everyone had already read it all. The only thing people needed to read was the revision, which there was plenty of time to do. Pelosi said something like, "we'll have to pass the bill before reading it"!: The actual quote is "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy", and she's talking about all the lies and false rumors that were spreading about it. Things had gotten so absurd that by this point many had given up on trying to have an honest dialogue about it, since people kept worrying about things that had no basis in reality. Pelosi was simply trying to say that once the bill is finalized and passed, then everyone can look at it and see, without question, what is actually in the thing (as opposed to some new amendment you heard on the radio that they were going to put in).

Re: Supreme Court + Obamacare

Sounds like a statist wrote that, so of course you love it to bits. What makes it okay to be subject to what the "Secretary shall" decree? Screw that oligarchial language. Every "fact" it presents can be refuted, including its projected costs, which have been repeatedly estimated upwards.

People who have out-of-pocket expenses are just one of the parties facing a tax hike in the article I mentioned starting in 2013.

Forcing a tax package of the above sort in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, not to mention the burden to smaller business and even the lower middle class, is not the way to prosperity (much less recovery). Those without the means to pay for insurance who have a medical emergency already have state systems in place for assistance, and there was a time when charity was not by decree (commiecare) but by choice (donations). Say goodbye to that.

Re: Supreme Court + Obamacare

That erroneous article glosses RIGHT over the new taxes coming down in 2013, not to mention it parses out the favorable sections of the 2000-page behemoth.

So LET ME itemize those 2013 taxes I was trying to present before Mr. Copyright violation polluted the thread:

[quote][COLOR=#ffffff][FONT=arial][B]1. The ObamaCare Medical Device Manufacturing Tax 2. The ObamaCare High Medical Bills Tax[/B][/FONT][B] 3. The ObamaCare Flexible Spending Account Cap 4. The ObamaCare Surtax on Investment Income 5. The ObamaCare Medicare Payroll Tax increase [/B][/COLOR][/quote] Acceptable collateral damage if you want free helf care, I guess, with many more to come.

Re: Supreme Court + Obamacare

I know, I know, more "right-wing" talking points (and some half-truths, I'll admit), but I got a kick out of it:

[URL="http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/690/30994446691333000448387.jpg/"][IMG]http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/9475/30994446691333000448387.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

Re: Supreme Court + Obamacare

^:lol: Not sure I've said this before, but: good one vincent :lol:.