Thank you Chief Justice Roberts, you are a wise man.

[Digital Doctor]

I'm employed, paying tax.
I have to have private insurance or have to pay extra tax for health services.

I'm unemployed, not paying any tax.
I cannot afford private insurance so I'm enforced to pay extra tax for health services???

Everyone needs to have health insurance.
Period.

A better plan would be to ban private insurance for healthcare and make a single tier system.
But we know that wasn't going to fly.

Other than that, mandating affordable private insurance is another way to get everyone covered.

 

[Eric Russell]

Everyone needs to have health insurance.
Period.

I appreciate your point of view but why exactly should decide what I need or don't need?

 

[jadmperry]

Congress- they passed the law.

 

[John]

My biggest concern about this is the precedent it sets. Sorry, but I have no trust that our illustrious federal government, in all it's glorious wisdom, can restrain itself from exercising more and more control over everything we do or don't do...Democrat or Republican. I really have to question the sanity of anyone who would willingly turn over their freedom in this way then say "it's a good thing".

 

[Onimua]

I appreciate your point of view but why exactly should decide what I need or don't need?

Because when it comes to healthcare, it's a when, not an if. You may not need it now, but it is definitely likely in your later years you'll need it. This explains it clearly.

Everyone's contributing to it so that it is there when any one person actually needs care. If everyone decides to not buy into it or only get it when they need it, there's no funds to actually have it available when that time comes, or it would be absurdly expensive which it is now.

Otherwise, we could all just pay more taxes and get universal healthcare.

 

[John]

Republicans are SOOOOOOoooooooo dooomed in November, it isn't going to be close.

Care to place a friendly wager on that?

 

[Eric Russell]

Because when it comes to healthcare, it's a when, not an if. You may not need it now, but it is definitely likely in your later years you'll need it. This explains it clearly.

I agree, sooner or later I will need a service. If the government would get out of the way and let businesses compete I could get better service at a cheaper rate.

Every business the government runs goes into debt and needs a bailout.

Everyone's contributing to it so that it is there when any one person actually needs care.

You're joking right? Everyone?

 

[HWS]

See it like car insurance. You are also forced to have this.

It helps the community if everyone is paying into the large pot so anyone can use it if he needs it. It will be the same low rate no matter if you have preexisting conditions or not and you cannot be denied. It will be the same low rate no matter how much you may need it in the future. And if you are lucky and won't ever need it, see it as a small payment in favor for the poor people.

 

[DBA]

Care to place a friendly wager on that?

I will, however I think that we're going for the same thing.

The thing is that what Roberts did was IMO actually better for the Republicans. Obama now can't pit the American people against the Supreme Court (because they struck it down) and this will now become one of the top debated topics for the election. Like the "affordable" health care law? Vote Obama. Don't like it, vote Romney.

Plus they said that the "fine" (mandate) is actually a tax (which is why it's technically legal as Congress can create taxes), even though the President adamantly opposed that it's a tax. It never would've made it through Congress if they'd said that it was a tax from the beginning.

Plus when Roberts said "It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices", he's pretty much telling us that we put ourselves in this position, now go and vote this November. It's in our hands now.

 

[DBA]

See it like car insurance. You are also forced to have this.

But you don't have to drive or own a car.


You have to have health insurance just to live.(or be taxed)

It helps the community if everyone is paying into the large pot so anyone can use it if he needs it. It will be the same low rate no matter if you have preexisting conditions or not and you cannot be denied. It will be the same low rate no matter how much you may need it in the future. And if you are lucky and won't ever need it, see it as a small payment in favor for the poor people.

Sorry but the Government can't force me to help people. However I actually do help people on my own accord and through my church.



I forget who recently said this but it's so true.

Democrats typically think and deal with emotions while Republicans typically deal with facts and logic. Yes I want everyone to live a full and prosperous life, however that's just not possible.

 

[John]

See it like car insurance. You are also forced to have this.

Sorry, but I see this often and I think it's a poor comparison. Are you forced by the government to pay a tax penalty if you don't drive? Does the government tell you that you have to drive a car? How would you react if they did to both? What do you think the odds are that someday they will (especially if they can line their pockets or have more power)?

 

[HWS]

Yes I want everyone to live a full and prosperous life, however that's just not possible.

But it will be with the new health care system for thousands of people more compared to now.

Just take a look at Europe or Canada. Civilized countries should not let ill and poor people stand in the rain. There is a small disadvantage for some people (who are in good health AND wealthy and therefore can afford to wait until they may get ill and pay their medical bills then) and a HUGE help for many, many not so wealthy people who currently have a high chance even to die because of the lack of health care.

IF you have doubts, take care that the new system won't be abused but be not against it. There is no alternative for a civilized and respectful country like the US.

 

[HWS]

Sorry, but I see this often and I think it's a poor comparison. Are you forced by the government to pay a tax penalty if you don't drive? Does the government tell you that you have to drive a car? How would you react if they did to both? What do you think the odds are that someday they will (especially if they can line their pockets or have more power)?

If you don't drive you are no driver. So you are not in that risk group and don't have to pay insurance.

Likewise:
If you do not live in the US, you are not in that risk group ("Living in the USA") and don't have to pay this health tax. But if you do live here you have a risk to get ill and need medical care.

It is simple like that.

 

[Eric Russell]

If you don't drive you are no driver. So you are not in that risk group and don't have to pay insurance.

Likewise:
If you do not live in the US, you are not in that risk group ("Living in the USA") and don't have to pay this health tax. But if you do live here you have a risk to get ill and need medical care.

It is simple like that.

Nonsense, if I drive I am possibly putting other people at risk. If I get sick I'm not putting anyone else at risk.

 

[craigiri]

You're serious?

Health insurance companies have a pretty low net profit margin. According to Yahoo Finance an average of 4.5% (source). The drug and equipment manufactures are the ones raking in the dough.

Ain't much left after the skyscrapers HQ, the 20 million dollar CEO salaries, the hundreds of millions in pension and golden parachutes to the executives, the Gulfstream jets, etc.

 

[craigiri]

Nonsense, if I drive I am possibly putting other people at risk. If I get sick I'm not putting anyone else at risk.

Ah, but you are in an economic sense! If you don't have insurance and get hurt or very sick and end up in the Emergency room, others (mostly the Fed. Gov) pays for you!

This just makes it more official.

 

[craigiri]

I haven't followed this much, can someone explain Obamacare to me simply?

As it reads:

If your under a certain income level you get free healthcare
If your over a certain level you have to take your own insurance
For both groups, the insurance companies have to accept existing healthcare items instead of denying patients?

Basically, it is the beginning of a framework to improve the system from the current Predatory one. The current system virtually WANTS people to be sicker and to use more services. More services=more income for almost everyone in the chain and all the big corporations. There is very little impetus for the players (for fee services, drugs, etc.) to steer patients to NOT use their expensive stuff.

A sane system, like this ACA act, provides many ways to improve upon this. As an example, there is a lot of money for community health centers to that people can get lower cost preventative care - instead of ending up with a worse disease in the Emergency Room. There is a provision that health insurance companies must actually spend your premiums on....wait - get this! - health care! Yes, they are no longer allowed to, for instance, prey upon people and only pay 50% of their premiums out in health care - now it's 85%.

They cannot deny people for pre-existing conditions. They cannot throw you off the rolls once you use some services. They have to also allow your kids under your policy (not free - but allowed) until they are 26.

Basically, most everything in the bill makes perfect sense to those who actually study and care about public health. But there is a subset of people in the USA who don't listen to reason and rather turn on talk radio or Murdochs media....and then repeat over and over again "this is bad, the sky is falling".

The only reason there is pushback on this is because the Republicans hate the President. In fact, Mitt Romney - the GOP candidate, instituted this same program in MA., the state where I live, with great success.

 

[BGL]

While I tend to believe that he made the right call (politics should have no part in the Supreme Court), the "affordable" health care law is a gigantic pile of crap.

Actually Roberts decision was probably all political. The court was becoming viewed as part of the GOP political machinery and Robert's needed to demonstrate a "bipartisan" US Supreme Court. Kind of the same thing Obama tries with GOP only it was Roberts doing it from GOP side.

His decision was interesting since he voted with majority that court could not compel purchase of Wall St products in lieu of health care but could tax those who did not have health care and use that tax revenue to bolster the health care system that has to care for the uninsured. Reason its interesting is that Robert's view would prevent privatization of Social Security, requiring people to buy Wall St products in lieu of retirement savings while endorsing the government taxing people, as it does, for retirement and health care.

For that reason, Roberts ruling dealt the extremist GOP a double shot, invalidating privatization of Social Security, Medicare and health care while upholding government's right to tax citizens for retirement and health care.

 

[Jake Bunce]

The law seems OK to me. We will be a healthier society when everyone has access to affordable care. For that I am willing to pay for health insurance. Well... I already pay for health insurance. But my costs will go down once the law goes into effect. I can't think of anything to complain about.

 

[Ranger375]

Good thing we have all this money to spend on things like this. Government is just too big and I don't know where this sense of entitlement comes from.