In a 5-4 decision, the US Supreme Court decided that President Obama's National Healthcare Law was constitutional.

First off, surprised nobody has reported here yet. Second, this thread is for thoughts on the law. This law, originally signed in 2010, doesn't really go into affect until 2014, but some measures are already in process of being converted to 2014 status.

The government requires that you either have health insurance or are supplied insurance by your employer. If you work for the US government (be it local, state or federal level), nothing changes. If you work for a small business or corporation, they will go over changes with you. If you own your own business or freelance, then you will need to purchase a plan. If you are a student, then your college or university will go over the information with you.

If you opt out of having health insurance, you will be forced to pay a fee by the IRS. This fee increases every year you choose not to have health insurance until it matches the cost of a plan (at that point they move you into a healthcare plan). If you choose not to pay this fee, your wages will be garnished. Contrary to popular belief, they will NOT throw you in jail for not having insurance. If you cannot afford the options that are available, then you will be waived from the fee. Your coverage is just a lot more limited.

Naturally, your insurance premiums are likely to go up slightly. This is to accommodate for increased coverage.

Insurance companies will no longer be able to deny you coverage for pre-existing conditions, nor can they limit coverage for any reason. If you have a legitimate problem, your provider has to cover it.

I think that's all the important stuff. Feel free to continue this conversation.

Welcome to the mid 20th century, America.

I really think its not right forcing people to have insurance on something they can not pay for at all, yeah I get that they're trying to help people by what they want to show but its just another way to make people poorer than they already are, if not they are already to the breaking point as it is. If they really want to help just pass universal healthcare like quite a few other countries have done.

You will call it obamacare if its the last thing you do mk!

I was really hoping we would get free health care...but I guess here in America that would not be a good idea.

>>3 There is very little difference between the US NHS and the NHS that the rest of the world uses (what you would call Universal Healthcare). In a Universal Healthcare system, you are required to pay for it just like you would for this setup; it's just to a public pool of funds instead of a massive insurance conglomerate.

The "paying to an insurance pool" is actually not Obama's fault, but the fault of the Republicans themselves. They pushed and pushed to keep insurance companies around, and look what happened.

Finally our health care is caught up with the rest of the world...

"If everyone has to pay for health care it is no different from a tax"
This is what a CONSERVATIVE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE said.

wow....is america becoming communist now or something? first they police the internet, now they are forcing healthcare on to people, reasons why im going to move out of the u.s once i have enough money

>>8 Many countries' have health care similar to this... You won't have many places to go to!

And when has the US policed the internet?

Sopa,Pipa, the 2 bills that they keep trying to re writhe and send in to the supreme court

For those confused on the subject, here's a helpful picture to clarify. Pic related.

ok........,now im confused.... so are they going to help pay for insurance, or what?????

>>12
I'm going to try to explain this as coherently as possible.

Yesterday (Thursday) The Supreme Court ruled in favor to uphold the public healthcare system in place, which is what is called "Obamacare." This means that insurance companies still cannot deny insurance to anyone, and public healthcare is upheld. Got it?

OHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! I get it now! :) :) :) now i feel like an idiot! lol

Actually, the difference is while it'd be similar to a tax, it's stillnot a tax. The government is forcing you to buy a product, which I believe in unconstitutional.

In essence, what will happen now, most likely is that the premiums for health insurance will plummet, from such clauses as Insurance Companies now have to pay 75 cents of every dollar (heh) in actual benefits to their customers, rather then pocketing and giving them selves huge end year bonuses. Indeed, now they owe their customers.

>>15

In essence it IS a tax, since health care is now a public service (like roads or law enforcement) that everyone has to collectively pay for.

Even a conservative Supreme Court Justice viewed it this way.

>>15

If you drive, you are required to buy Auto insurance. If you don't have it, and you are pulled over, you will either be fined, lose your license, or be thrown in jail. If you don't drive, you are still required to purchase the roads that others drive on. You are still required to buy the public transport systems.

If you have a home, you are required to purchase fire protection (a.k.a. property taxes going to the fire department). You are required to purchase security for your home (a.k.a. police department protection). In many cities, you are required to purchase a sanitation plan with the city.

I fail to see the difference between all these things and being required to purchase healthcare.

>>18 You're missing the point. It is literally not a tax. To call it a tax is misinformation. It's a fine for not paying for a government product.

>>19 If you don't drive, you pay for the roads through taxes, but you don't have to have insurance. The sanitation plan is for services the city provides (plumbing). The only place where fire protection is mandatory that I can think of is California (unless you just mean a smoke detector, which I'm pretty sure isn't madatory).

>>19 You're missing the point. You have no choice where your money is going. And yeah, many cities across California make you pay for fire protection (because fires are really common and firefighters are paid by the state).

But as I said before, if you drive, you have to have insurance or (at the worst) be thrown in jail. It's no different than having to have insurance in order to make use of the medical system, or paying for fires to be put out even if it's not your own building that's on fire.

>>21
Basically you pay for every-single-thing or don't live in their country. Way to be free.

Basically 'no' government wants you to live on this planet if you're not paying.

Like I said before, health care has now become a public service.

Like it or not many of our public services today such as libraries, paved roads, and the local fire department we have to "purchase" or pay through taxes. Just because Bob never goes to the library, doesn't mean he can be exempt from the tax.

Just like health care plan. The "fine" is really a tax. Don't want healthcare? Fine, but you still have to pay a fine in order to give health care TO THOSE WHO CANNOT AFFORD IT!

You might say that "Hey, this is communism." Then that would be the equivalent of saying that Social Security is communism, that being forced to pay tax to fund the police force is communism. Everyone collectively pays for something that WE KNOW IS A NECCESITY. And health care is a necessity.

This plan will give even the poor a basic level of health care coverage.

>>23
Wasn't all Health Care a public service? Ever since there was a time it's been around, others had to pay for it. Taxes pay for the shit others don't even think they are paying for.

I personally don't think they should fine the people who don't have it. Instead just add it in with the taxes they have to pay for as it is. Make it a little bit less, but a tax nonetheless. This way they don't feel as pissed, because they aren't committing some act that seems illegal...or "criminal" if you will.

Better than fining those not with it.

>>24 I don't think so... all health care (right now in the US at least) is provided by private companies seeking to gain profit.

You have a point though. It might be better to hide it as a tax instead of saying outright "Even if you don't get healthcare, you still have to pay a fine anyway." Never thought about it that way before.

Found the answer... essentially health care right now is still a private good, not a public one.

http://vox-nova.com/2011/05/11/what-kind-of-good-is-health-care/

>>22 IMO it makes you a waste of a human being if you wish to contribute nothing to the planet. Feel free to call me a bad person, I don't give a fuck.

If it was universal healthcare, controlled by the state rather than private companies, there wouldn't really be anything wrong with being forced to pay for it. Because that way you'd be paying the government for something the government is providing. However, the way it is now, we are being forced to pay for a service provided by the private sector or being forced to pay the government because we aren't paying for a service provided by the private sector. That, in my opinion, is unconstitutional.

>>27
Contribute kind of implies some sort of say on the matter, though, now doesn't it?

Now I didn't say they shouldn't contribute. Just stating that they don't want you to live on it, if you can't cash out the money THEY want. It isn't any "Governments" planet, mind you.

>>29 ok, now you're just playing on ideas, words and phrases without even trying to make sense.

Bottom line, every single social program that's been implemented thus far has been a gleaming success, and is loved by the public; every single country that has universal healthcare is far better then where it was before. And why do they make everyone pay for it? So that you won't have to wake up from surgery after being taken to an emergency room with an immense bill due to 10$ pieces of tissue and over 100$ per every single aspirine. Not to mention charging you for the stay and food as if you were in a 5 star hotel.