Supreme Court upholds Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare)

[Frank Cadena]

Talking about cost controls, I read recently that a small organisation is using statistics to drive down the cost of healthcare somewhere in America. The article suggests that if this were to be widely used, it can cut healthcare by at least 40% and as high as 50% by eliminating waste. Read the article here

 

[the_randomizer]

I don't see anyone up in arms about mandatory auto insurance.

Cars aren't mandatory, that's why people aren't upset about it.

 

[BlueStar]

Don't know why anyone would need a factcheck to work this one out, but here's one anyway.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/28/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-obamacare-adds-trillions-deficit/

 

[the_randomizer]

Don't know why anyone would need a factcheck to work this one out, but here's one anyway.

http://www.politifac...llions-deficit/

I don't care if you hate Romney (which many people seem to do lately; I guess it's the hip thing to do) or whatever, but it seems like you're saying that this "wonderful" insurance plan won't add more to the national debt. Because it will, regardless of what party you stand by.

 

[BlueStar]

Would you care to explain how a policy that involves cutting spending and raising taxes will ADD to the debt? Romey keeps saying it, but he's never been able to explain how, so maybe you could help him?

The funny thing is, Romney pretty much invented 'Obamacare' and is now having to fight against it by pulling lies like the one above out of his ass. Although totally changing your side of the argument in an attempt to get elected isn't much new for Mitt, is it?

 

[Clydefrosch]

Your god said to love thy neighbor, so go and throw some money in the medicare pot so when he gets sick, he doesnt have to die.
And then realize that, if you ever end up in a similar position, your neighbors will have done the same and you will not die either.

I really dont understand why there is so much opposition against this kind of thing. Or against raising taxes either. America, do you really not understand that tax-money, ultimately, is money the government can spend on the country, the infrastructure, education, culture, is money thats spend on each and everyone of you?
You want them to fix problems, but that requires money. You are in a pretty bad situation right now, as is most of the world, because governments did not take enough money from you. Instead, they took money from other countries. For interest. Millions and billions of interest, rising by the second.
I see why it is much nicer not to pay much for your government, while still getting all the benefits a government has to offer, but this can only lead to problems in the future. Granted, not the future of either the population, or the politicians who thought that all this would be a good idea when this started. But problems non the less.


To be honest, instead of insurance companies, there should be a simple health-tax. Companies taking care of such vital needs as health ruin everything cause sooner or later, they all realize how much money they can save if they just ignore the people that have less money (the number of which is ever rising) Or the ones with the more expensive kind of sickness (Basically, with rising numbers of "poor" people, this number too, rises). Allowing them to exclude risky patients is a, i think the american term would be, slippery slope. Eventually, they will consider excluding your future children cause your genes allow them to predict that your kids will probably get diabetis or cancer. Or they will try to make it so that some diseases or medical problems will allow for exclusion later on.
Un-insurancables, maybe kidney failure. It'd be much cheaper if those people just died after a week instead of wasting precious space and expensive dialysis equipment (a single session adds up to a few hundred dollars just for the one time only parts of the filtration system) while waiting for a transplant.
They were allowed to do so much crap already, do you really think that there will be an end? The end will be when everyone pays but no one gets any insurance anyway. The past has shown us that these kinda things only get worse. Even if, year after year, these companies would triple their profits, they would never consider helping to heal a few more patients next year. They couldn't, cause if they dont triple their profits again, it would look bad for stockholders.

Everyone throws in a little and everyone in need will get some out of it. Unless the whole country suddenly turns sick, or the medical companies think that now would be the perfect time to raise their prices to even more perverted levels, this system could work. Even if there were a small number of people abusing the system it would still work. The system stops working though, when companies start to abuse the system for their own gain. Or when large parts of the population weasle their way out of doing their part. (Like tax fraud. You dont even want to know what all the seemingly small tax fraud attempts eventually add up to for a government...)
Yes, it would suck for the few people who realize on their deathbed, in hindsight, that they were never sick and didnt need any insurance ever. But that will be a small minority. And if these cases ever became the majority, now then would be a perfect moment to pass new laws.

And it would lead to a healthier country, on several levels. Sick people would get help sooner, they wouldnt just go to the doctor when a normal cold eventually turned into a life endangering lung-infection. It would reduce stress on all of you, since you know, you will be taken care of. None of you will be healthy forever, quite the contrary, most of you will have more health problems than did your parents, or their parents. and it will just get worse for your kids.


Now on a different note, for those of you who can vote over there, dont vote for Mitt. If anything, what he will do is, he will speed up the car one last time before it smashes into the stone wall. The car here being the economy. And the wall being the inevitable crisis and crash thats going to hit you anyway. There is no way around it, all you can decide between right now is, if you want to hit at full speed and make sure you die, or if you risk coming out of it alive, but probably with two broken legs and a punctured lung.

Alright, got a bit longer than i though it would now, glad for the news anyway

 

[smile72]

Don't know why anyone would need a factcheck to work this one out, but here's one anyway.

http://www.politifac...llions-deficit/

I don't care if you hate Romney (which many people seem to do lately; I guess it's the hip thing to do) or whatever, but it seems like you're saying that this "wonderful" insurance plan won't add more to the national debt. Because it will, regardless of what party you stand by.

People tend to hate liars. They also tend to hate liars who lie about lying.

 

[the_randomizer]

I'm sure that's not the only reason, but I bet anything that our current POTUS never lied during his leadership, either, right??

 

[smile72]

I'm sure that's not the only reason, but I bet anything that our current POTUS never lied during his leadership, either, right??

Not nearly as much as Romney. Romney is an exception to any politician.

 

[The Catboy]

I'm sure that's not the only reason, but I bet anything that our current POTUS never lied during his leadership, either, right??

I could name a few reasons to hate Mitt. I actually lived in Massachusetts when he was governor.
Also Obama has some lies, every politician lies here and there. But Mitt always lies, he has been caught lying about his own lie.

 

[pubert09]

There was this comment on Reddit that explained everything "Obamacare" <-- (Not even what its officially titled btw) did. I'm reserving this post until I find it and paste that giant wall of text into a quoted spoiler. Brb.

Well that was quick.

Spoiler

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]http://www.healthcare.gov/ ).
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![/indent]
edit See below for awesome followup post.

edit2 After posting here for over a year this repost got me more karma than all my cumulative karma heretofore. I shall use this to encourage all readers to use the word "heretofore" more often. As in, "That douche was completely unknown heretofore, but he's milking the attention he stole like the sad little bitch he probably is." It's really a swell word.

In case your curiosity wonders what the follow up is and you don't feel like digging through Reddit, the permalink is here.

After reading that explanation, I don't understand why anyone makes a big deal about this. Why are people so selfish and greedy to not want to have that mandatory health care rule if it makes it easier for others to afford if they make less money and/or have pre-existing conditions? There are all these good changes that can drop the cost of health care, but as soon as there is one thing that will be at the expense of certain people, they are like "NONONONONONONONONONONO!" How about a little compassion to your fellow man, huh? All I ever hear people want to do is take and never give anything.
I honestly think the end justifies the means.

 

[the_randomizer]

I'm sure that's not the only reason, but I bet anything that our current POTUS never lied during his leadership, either, right??

Not nearly as much as Romney. Romney is an exception to any politician.

Now if I could only pinpoint the very reason why I hate discussing politics in the first place.....Oh, I know! It's because both sides are always bitching about something trivial and never coming to a compromise! That's why!

 

[MelodieOctavia]

I don't see anyone up in arms about mandatory auto insurance.

Cars aren't mandatory, that's why people aren't upset about it.

Legally, no they are not, but try getting a job without one and see how far you get. They'll laugh you out the door if you tell them your main mode of transportation is city transit/carpool/skateboard/walking.

 

[Fear Zoa]

I don't see anyone up in arms about mandatory auto insurance.

Cars aren't mandatory, that's why people aren't upset about it.

Legally, no they are not, but try getting a job without one and see how far you get. They'll laugh you out the door if you tell them your main mode of transportation is city transit/carpool/skateboard/walking.

Not always, in some cities (new york comes to mind) having a car is pointless and using public transport is perfectly acceptable.

 

[triassic911]

I don't see anyone up in arms about mandatory auto insurance.

Cars aren't mandatory, that's why people aren't upset about it.

Legally, no they are not, but try getting a job without one and see how far you get. They'll laugh you out the door if you tell them your main mode of transportation is city transit/carpool/skateboard/walking.

Not always, in some cities (new york comes to mind) having a car is pointless and using public transport is perfectly acceptable.

Agreed, I found it odd that having a car is necessary in some jobs, but since I live in NYC, I guess I was naturally going to be unaware.

 

[MelodieOctavia]

I don't see anyone up in arms about mandatory auto insurance.

Cars aren't mandatory, that's why people aren't upset about it.

Legally, no they are not, but try getting a job without one and see how far you get. They'll laugh you out the door if you tell them your main mode of transportation is city transit/carpool/skateboard/walking.

Not always, in some cities (new york comes to mind) having a car is pointless and using public transport is perfectly acceptable.

New York may be an exception to the rule. I can't say for sure. What I can say is I have had jobs in 24 of the 50 US states, and in all of them my boss required me to have a "reliable method of transportation" and in all instances that meant my own vehicle.

 

[stanleyopar2000]

time to kill off the "useless eaters"

 

[smile72]

I'm sure that's not the only reason, but I bet anything that our current POTUS never lied during his leadership, either, right??

Not nearly as much as Romney. Romney is an exception to any politician.

Now if I could only pinpoint the very reason why I hate discussing politics in the first place.....Oh, I know! It's because both sides are always bitching about something trivial and never coming to a compromise! That's why!

One side refuses to compromise you mean and their voters love it.

 

[The Catboy]

I don't see anyone up in arms about mandatory auto insurance.

Cars aren't mandatory, that's why people aren't upset about it.

Legally, no they are not, but try getting a job without one and see how far you get. They'll laugh you out the door if you tell them your main mode of transportation is city transit/carpool/skateboard/walking.

This a fact!
I have been searching for a job for months and even though I live in the area of the job and I am in walking distance, they still want me to have a car.

Also the public transportation system in America is pure crap. If you don't live in a major city, then you are SOL when it comes down to public transportation system. My area was going to set up a new system that was going to be cheaper and even go outside the city to pick up people in the other small towns around it, but it was voted down because people complain that it would be too expensive. No one wanted to pay the extra dollar for it.

 

[deishido]

I find it funny that so many people who were upset by Obamacare being passed that they made statements about moving to Canada. [Twitter, Facebook, other outlets]

Obamacare is almost identical to Canada's Healthcare system. Funny enough, you never hear about how sick anyone in Canada gets, something must be working there.