Supreme Court upholds the Affordable Health Care Act in its entirety

[KDSwain]

I like these Christians to explain to me the concept of helping the sick or poor, but not form my pocket.

I'm not Christian but every statistic you will find is that Christians and conservatives are much more charitable than those on the other side of the political spectrum.

[Xeones]

My point is that they are labelling it as a tax, even though you are doing business with a private enterprise, for services you may not want. There are a lot of reasons someone might not want healthcare, some reasonable and some stupid.

When you buy something for your buisness you get a tax break.
When you buy insurance so you aren't relying on the tax payers to cover your emergency bills you now get a new tax break for a new tax.

I fail to see a difference.

[Deleted]

Can somebody explain this act to me in simple terms please? American politics are not my strong suit.

[ptwonline]

If it is struck down, conservatives will have to do it very, very soon. Once it's in place for a few years and people get used to the idea of actually having coverage, trying to get rid of it will be nearly impossible. Of course, for conservatives to get over it they'll have to think up another name than "Obamacare" lol.

You'll see signs "Keep your governments hands off my health care"

[KDSwain]

And now it has been set: Any Congress, including REPUBLICAN ones, can require you to buy something or face a "tax."

Think on that, if you please.

Next stop.....food

[KrazyK923]

I'm not Christian but every statistic you will find is that Christians and conservatives are much more charitable than those on the other side of the political spectrum.

Its totally not a coincidence that you can write off charitable contributions on your taxes. The difference is that Republicans/Conservatives/Christians/ect are more for giving to private charities to help people, whole Democrats/Liberals/ect are more for using the government to help those people.

[ptwonline]

I like these Christians to explain to me the concept of helping the sick or poor, but not form my pocket.

They think it should all be voluntary. IOW, it's great as long as someone else pays.

[Aeka]

Phew. This is really good, I was worried they were going to play politics instead of doing what was right.

So you think all those Justices who voted in favor of this would've voted the same way if you were required to buy handguns, or pay a mandate as a tax? That, sir/madam, is called playing politics.

[ptwonline]

I'm not Christian but every statistic you will find is that Christians and conservatives are much more charitable than those on the other side of the political spectrum.

Its totally not a coincidence that you can write off charitable contributions on your taxes.

It depends on how you measure "charity". Progressives tend to donate their time and political efforts, and not as much of their money.

[Cranica]

Its totally not a coincidence that you can write off charitable contributions on your taxes.

Well, that's certainly a rather uncharitable view.

(ba dum tish)

[Tinykong]

And now it has been set: Any Congress, including REPUBLICAN ones, can require you to buy something or face a "tax."

Think on that, if you please.

That is what my fear is, that this will be used to levy further taxes for other types of services. They just got a taste of a nice way to collect extra revenue, if anyone believes that the government (regardless of party) will be responsible with that...

[Deleted]

Okay... now I am getting mixed signals and doubts.
Can someone explain to me as objectively as possible what's exactly wrong here?

As far as I understood from over here in Europe, this Act does the following.
- Makes it mandatory to have health insurance
- Makes it mandatory for a health insurer to accept you.
- Prevents being charged ridiculous rates, as per the title "Affordable"...

Loads of people get health care, loads of people get medication they need without being charged into poverty... and yes... most of those costs will probably be paid for by people who MUST take out an insurance now and won't use it for a while. But really... that's what would -technically- keep the costs down for the people who DO need regular healthcare.

Anyway, I will probably be VERY wrong, and that's why I want to know what this thing is doing what I am not seeing, or what I perceive that is so wrong. But try to keep it objective and not political party bashing or the likes...

[Xeones]

It depends on how you measure "charity". Progressives tend to donate their time and political efforts, and not as much of their money.

Well they tend to just have less money period.

[Cranica]

Anyway, I will probably be VERY wrong, and that's why I want to know what this thing is doing what I am not seeing, or what I perceive that is so wrong. But try to keep it objective and not political party bashing or the likes...

Partisan issues aside, Americans in general take our personal liberties, economic liberties among them, to be quite sacred. Opponents of the law see it as the government intervening in a private market.

Well they tend to just have less money period.

Speaking purely in verifiable numbers, the Obama campaign out-funded McCain by two to one ($778M to $383M). Last numbers I can find on his funding versus the Romney campaign's offhand has him ahead almost two to one again.

[Reeve]

Can somebody explain this act to me in simple terms please? American politics are not my strong suit.

Basically they made a new tax, and said that anyone who has health insurance gets a tax break on that tax. That's called the Individual Mandate. Then they put in place a series of subsidies to help people who had a hard time paying for health insurance, and set up some regulation of the industry to try to help drive the costs down.

Then they provided a series of reforms to fix a lot of the gaping problems, like when health insurers would drop people's coverage because they had a "preexisting condition," or would drop them right when they got a serious illness because they filled out a form improperly 2 years ago. It also makes insurers continue to cover children of people who have insurance until the age of I think 26 to ensure they can get out into the job market post college and get their own insurance.

That's some of it anyway.

[Lockula]

It was a 5-4 decision with Chief Justice Roberts aligning with the liberal side of the court. As of this time the additional writing on the decision is not up, and expect the Supreme Court's website to be very slow due to increased traffic.

The actual ruling here. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...11-393c3a2.pdf

Personally, I really do like this. Since, I can continue to be on my dad's insurance age 24. As well, there is hope that my sister can still get some kind of health insurance even though she is a breast cancer survivor age 37.

[Xeones]

Okay... now I am getting mixed signals and doubts.
Can someone explain to me as objectively as possible what's exactly wrong here?

As far as I understood from over here in Europe, this Act does the following.
- Makes it mandatory to have health insurance
- Makes it mandatory for a health insurer to accept you.
- Prevents being charged ridiculous rates, as per the title "Affordable"...

Loads of people get health care, loads of people get medication they need without being charged into poverty... and yes... most of those costs will probably be paid for by people who MUST take out an insurance now and won't use it for a while. But really... that's what would -technically- keep the costs down for the people who DO need regular healthcare.

Anyway, I will probably be VERY wrong, and that's why I want to know what this thing is doing what I am not seeing, or what I perceive that is so wrong. But try to keep it objective and not political party bashing or the likes...

It actually does very little to control costs. It simply requires everyone to pay for insurance to try controling costs for eliminating pre-existing condition discrimination and life time limits.

The bill is pretty poor, it needs some adjustments to control insurance costs as insurers are pretty much given free reign.

[ptwonline]

Can somebody explain this act to me in simple terms please? American politics are not my strong suit.

ALL Americans are required to get health insurance either through their employer or through purchasing a plan. Failure to do so results in penalties of some sort. The theory is that wideing the pool tends to lower the per-person cost, which basically means healthier, younger people will be subsidizing less healthy, older ones, but it makes it more affordable for everyone overall.

On the flip side, insurance companies cannot deny/drop coverage for the reasons they were before (pre-existing conditions). They are also required to extend coverage in some situations, like keeping young people on their parents plans longer since it's hard for young people to get work and get their own plans.

Poor Americans will get assistance paying for it.

Their are other details, but that's the main gist of it.

[Deleted]

Basically they made a new tax, and said that anyone who has health insurance gets a tax break on that tax. That's called the Individual Mandate. Then they put in place a series of subsidies to help people who had a hard time paying for health insurance, and set up some regulation of the industry to try to help drive the costs down.

Then they provided a series of reforms to fix a lot of the gaping problems, like when health insurers would drop people's coverage because they had a "preexisting condition," or would drop them right when they got a serious illness because they filled out a form improperly 2 years ago. It also makes insurers continue to cover children of people who have insurance until the age of I think 26 to ensure they can get out into the job market post college and get their own insurance.

That's some of it anyway.

So people will all be covered by health insurance? Why can people argue that is a bad thing? It is a step in the right direction for a proper NHS.

[ptwonline]

It actually does very little to control costs. It simply requires everyone to pay for insurance to try controling costs for eliminating pre-existing condition discrimination and life time limits.

The bill is pretty poor, it needs some adjustments to control insurance costs as insurers are pretty much given free reign.

There is a future provision limiting the rates of increase, I believe.