This is pretty cool - if accurate. An Obamacare calculator. Answer 4 simple questions and it tells you what to expect. btw - it isn't satire.

http://www.washingto...means-for-you/#

For those who don't want to bother, here's what it said for me:

Your coverage:

Right now:If you have been unable to obtain health insurance as a result of a pre-existing medical condition, you may be able to buy it through one of the “high risk pools” the law has set up in each state through the end of 2013. But the premiums in the pools vary and can be high.

Starting in 2014:You will have the option of buying a health plan through your state's exchange with federal assistance. Based on your income, your annual premiums for that plan would beno more than $450 to $600. Your maximum out-of-pocket costs for deductibles and co-payments would be capped at 6 percent of the total cost.

Insurers can’t discriminate against you for having a pre-existing condition, and can only vary rates within a narrow range.

If you do not obtain insurance coverage by 2014 you will be assessed a tax penalty. The penalty becomes progressively greater from 2014 through 2016, when it reaches full strength. At that point, assuming your current income remains the same and your household consists of1 uninsured adult, you would be subject to a penalty of about $695. You are exempt from the penalty if the least expensive plan option in your area exceeds eight percent of your income.

Well, that looks dam_n fantastic for you. I didn't fare so well. I never seem to be eligible for whatever everyone else seems to be eligible for. You may want to look at the cap on that "state exchange" program. I imagine it's low enough to be of not much value, but still $650/yr including copays is like what a sprained wrist would cost you out of pocket, so congratulations.

Now this is ironic:

Warning! Protect your eyes. Do not look directly at the photo.

http://www.businessinsider.com/romneycare-obamacare-ginsburg-supreme-court-ruling-2012-6

I can get really crappy medical insurance for my family of four for about $900/mo. It's capped at about $100,00 per calender year/ per person, really awful. I can buy better at $1,600/mo and best at over $2,000/mo. Why wouldn't I buy the cheapest and at the first sign of trouble immediately switch to the best? Something ain't right here. You know how easily YOU'RE offended? This is what offends me.

I think there are already controls built in for situations like that. You'd be stuck with the coverage you bought at least until after a waiting period and/or open enrollment period if employed.

But please don't get me wrong. I don't like Obamacare. It's just I like the status quo worse. I want single payer universal. With Obamacare many people will opt to buy no insurance and just pay the non-compliance tax. Then when they need it, they can enroll. This, BTW, is a great argument for single payer universal! Believe me the left is seeing that too. The issue of working towards single payer is not going away. The decision today makes the movement stronger.

Now this is ironic:

Warning! Protect your eyes. Do not look directly at the photo.

http://www.businessi...t-ruling-2012-6

Business insider, eh?

Not so insider, I'd say!

http://www.businessi...care-act-2012-6

Now this is ironic:

Warning! Protect your eyes. Do not look directly at the photo.

http://www.businessi...t-ruling-2012-6

Business insider, eh?

No so insider, I'd say!

http://www.businessi...care-act-2012-6

They publish whatever someone will click on. A bit like Huff Post.

Your coverage:

Right now:If you have been unable to obtain health insurance as a result of a pre-existing medical condition, you may be able to buy it through one of the “high risk pools” the law has set up in each state through the end of 2013. But the premiums in the pools vary and can be high.

Starting in 2014:You will have the option of buying a health plan through your state's exchange with federal assistance. Based on your income, your annual premiums for that plan would beno more than $3,800. Your maximum out-of-pocket costs for deductibles and co-payments would be capped at 30 percent of the total cost.

Insurers can’t discriminate against you for having a pre-existing condition, and can only vary rates within a narrow range.

If you do not obtain insurance coverage by 2014 you will be assessed a tax penalty. The penalty becomes progressively greater from 2014 through 2016, when it reaches full strength. At that point, assuming your current income remains the same and your household consists of1 uninsured adult, you would be subject to a penalty of about $744. You are exempt from the penalty if the least expensive plan option in your area exceeds eight percent of your income.

I'm glad I live in England...

You should be. The health care access and financing system in the USA is a horror show. Obamacare helps with the access. But it's not enough.

You should be. The health care access and financing system in the USA is a horror show. Obamacare helps with the access. But it's not enough.

You know. I don't know the first thing about Mitt Romney as I haven't really followed the election much. BUT he made a HUGE blunder IMO. If this is basically a carbon copy of what he came up with in Massachusetts he should have OWNED it. He should be spiking the football now, instead of saying the first thing he'd do if he were president is repeal the program he created. I mean that's just insane. I'd be kicking the asses of my advisors if I were him.

And don't tell me he had to run to the right. He still would have breezed through that ragtag groups of misfits the Republicans put up.

Your coverage:

Right now:If you have been unable to obtain health insurance as a result of a pre-existing medical condition, you may be able to buy it through one of the “high risk pools” the law has set up in each state through the end of 2013. But the premiums in the pools vary and can be high.

Starting in 2014:You will have the option of buying a health plan through your state's exchange with federal assistance. Based on your income, your annual premiums for that plan would beno more than $3,800. Your maximum out-of-pocket costs for deductibles and co-payments would be capped at 30 percent of the total cost.

Insurers can’t discriminate against you for having a pre-existing condition, and can only vary rates within a narrow range.

If you do not obtain insurance coverage by 2014 you will be assessed a tax penalty. The penalty becomes progressively greater from 2014 through 2016, when it reaches full strength. At that point, assuming your current income remains the same and your household consists of1 uninsured adult, you would be subject to a penalty of about $744. You are exempt from the penalty if the least expensive plan option in your area exceeds eight percent of your income.

I'm glad I live in England...

Actually the one you're looking at is fantastic news for koheesti. You don't want to see mine.

You should be. The health care access and financing system in the USA is a horror show. Obamacare helps with the access. But it's not enough.

You know. I don't know the first thing about Mitt Romney as I haven't really followed the election much. BUT he made a HUGE blunder IMO. If this is basically a carbon copy of what he came up with in Massachusetts he should have OWNED it. He should be spiking the football now, instead of saying the first thing he'd do if he were president is repeal the program he created. I mean that's just insane. I'd be kicking the asses of my advisors if I were him.

And don't tell me he had to run to the right. He still would have breezed through that ragtag groups of misfits the Republicans put up.

I'm sorry, but it's hard to take your political opinions at all seriously after that. The republican party base, right wing, tea party, etc. is rabidly anti- Obamacare which included the mandate. You are completely, totally, absolutely WRONG that Romney could have been nominated saying he loved the Massachusetts mandates at the national level. In other words, Obamacare. He had to run away from that, politically. You have an interesting view, but it makes no political sense whatsoever. I do agree his republican opposition was weak, but not that weak. If he had done that crazy thing you suggest, we'd have Santorum.

You should be. The health care access and financing system in the USA is a horror show. Obamacare helps with the access. But it's not enough.

You know. I don't know the first thing about Mitt Romney as I haven't really followed the election much. BUT he made a HUGE blunder IMO. If this is basically a carbon copy of what he came up with in Massachusetts he should have OWNED it. He should be spiking the football now, instead of saying the first thing he'd do if he were president is repeal the program he created. I mean that's just insane. I'd be kicking the asses of my advisors if I were him.

And don't tell me he had to run to the right. He still would have breezed through that ragtag groups of misfits the Republicans put up.

I'm sorry, but it's hard to take your political opinions at all seriously after that. The republican party base, right wing, tea party, etc. is rabidly anti- Obamacare which included the mandate. You are completely, totally, absolutely WRONG that Romney could have been nominated saying he loved the Massachusetts mandates at the national level. In other words, Obamacare. He had to run away from that, politically. You have an interesting view, but it makes no political sense whatsoever. I do agree his republican opposition was weak, but not that weak. If he had done that crazy thing you suggest, we'd have Santorum.

Santorum? Are you joking? He got his 15 minutes like the rest of those losers because it was clear the frontrunner doesn't really stand for anything. He could have taken this thing and put some spin on it like his was a uniter or some other bullshit like that. The Tea Party IMO is just a caucus like the Black caucus. He could have taken his executive background and showed how he was gonna make it all work without setting off a class war like Obama did. I mean he's another empty suit to be sure, but I think he's been extremely poorly advised. Shouldn't he be running back to the center by now?

You really don't get it. Not only can't he run to the center during the election, if he wins the election he won't be able to govern from the center either. Things have changed.

Your coverage:

Right now:If you have been unable to obtain health insurance as a result of a pre-existing medical condition, you may be able to buy it through one of the “high risk pools” the law has set up in each state through the end of 2013. But the premiums in the pools vary and can be high.

Starting in 2014:You will have the option of buying a health plan through your state's exchange with federal assistance. Based on your income, your annual premiums for that plan would beno more than $3,800. Your maximum out-of-pocket costs for deductibles and co-payments would be capped at 30 percent of the total cost.

Insurers can’t discriminate against you for having a pre-existing condition, and can only vary rates within a narrow range.

If you do not obtain insurance coverage by 2014 you will be assessed a tax penalty. The penalty becomes progressively greater from 2014 through 2016, when it reaches full strength. At that point, assuming your current income remains the same and your household consists of1 uninsured adult, you would be subject to a penalty of about $744. You are exempt from the penalty if the least expensive plan option in your area exceeds eight percent of your income.

I'm glad I live in England...

Actually the one you're looking at is fantastic news for koheesti. You don't want to see mine.

I put my own data in and that's what I would have to pay if I lived in the US. As it is because I'm 60+ and diabetic (either of which would qualify me) I pay nothing for medication. If you don't qualify for free meds it costs £7.50 (~$10) per item. If you have regular meds you can buy a pre-pay card which costs £100 a year. I know the US has the best healthcare technology in the world but it doesn't look much fun if you're a poor old fart. I obviously pay for it out of my taxes but I'd rather rely on the state than the insurance industry.

You really don't get it. Not only can't he run to the center during the election, if he wins the election he won't be able to govern from the center either. Things have changed.

Why can't Romney, if elected, shit on his core constituency like Obama did? You think Romneys NOT going to get the votes of the righties if he moves more to the center? Isn't it the independents this election is about? How does remaining an extreme right winger get you those independent votes? It's true I don't live and breath this political crap but I really don't think the formula's changed that much.

Your coverage:

Right now:If you have been unable to obtain health insurance as a result of a pre-existing medical condition, you may be able to buy it through one of the “high risk pools” the law has set up in each state through the end of 2013. But the premiums in the pools vary and can be high.

Starting in 2014:You will have the option of buying a health plan through your state's exchange with federal assistance. Based on your income, your annual premiums for that plan would beno more than $3,800. Your maximum out-of-pocket costs for deductibles and co-payments would be capped at 30 percent of the total cost.

Insurers can’t discriminate against you for having a pre-existing condition, and can only vary rates within a narrow range.

If you do not obtain insurance coverage by 2014 you will be assessed a tax penalty. The penalty becomes progressively greater from 2014 through 2016, when it reaches full strength. At that point, assuming your current income remains the same and your household consists of1 uninsured adult, you would be subject to a penalty of about $744. You are exempt from the penalty if the least expensive plan option in your area exceeds eight percent of your income.

I'm glad I live in England...

Actually the one you're looking at is fantastic news for koheesti. You don't want to see mine.

I put my own data in and that's what I would have to pay if I lived in the US. As it is because I'm 60+ and diabetic (either of which would qualify me) I pay nothing for medication. If you don't qualify for free meds it costs £7.50 (~$10) per item. If you have regular meds you can buy a pre-pay card which costs £100 a year. I know the US has the best healthcare technology in the world but it doesn't look much fun if you're a poor old fart. I obviously pay for it out of my taxes but I'd rather rely on the state than the insurance industry.

It's not very good if you're not that poor and not that old either.

Fox News. Wishful thinking. Classic!

Why Roberts did it, from a smart right winger:

http://www.washingto...0g9V_story.html

Result? The law stands, thus obviating any charge that a partisan court overturned duly passed legislation. And yet at the same time the commerce clause is reined in. By denying that it could justify the imposition of an individual mandate, Roberts draws the line against the inexorable decades-old expansion of congressional power under the commerce clause fig leaf.

Law upheld, Supreme Court’s reputation for neutrality maintained. Commerce clause contained, constitutional principle of enumerated powers reaffirmed.

I agree the court's legitimacy was on trial too.

I don't think they can repeal it without getting a super-majority in the Senate. If the Democrats become the minority Senate party in the next election, they will use the filibuster, or threat of same, to block action with Cloture not possible since the Republicans will not hold a 60 vote majority.

The government hasn't run an effective program in the past 100 years. Let's don't expect very much good coming out of all this.

Unlike some of our members, when I am wrong I will admit my mistake. I made an erroneous post by claiming it would take 60 votes by the Senate to enact Cloture on repealing Obamacare.

Since this has been declared a tax, repealing it makes it a budget item which only takes 51 votes to close debate, NOT the 60 vote requirement.

A Republican president can sign a bill repealing the ACA and please some 65% of the American voters.

We can only hope the repeal takes place before the IRS hires the 16,000 new agents needed to administer the law.

I wonder if Obama will challenge the Supreme Court's decision that the mandate fine is a tax? See what he claimed in 2009 in an interview with George Stephanopolous.

When is a "tax" not a "tax"?

_______________________________________________________

'Incredible Irony': Court Has 'Declared Obama to Be a Monumental Liar'

By Susan Jones

June 28, 2012

(CNSNews.com) - "The incredible irony here is that in upholding Obamacare, Roberts et. al. have formally also declared Obama to be a monumental liar," said L. Brent Bozell III, president of the conservative Media Research Center, the parent organization of CNSNews.com. "And in the most bizarre twist of them all, they upheld the lie by declaring this to be a tax.

"Conservatives -- Republicans -- can now campaign on the line of attack that a) this is the greatest expansion of power in history; this is the greatest tax increase in history; and c) this is the greatest presidential deception in history.

"From now til Election Day the GOP should simply run clips of Obama insisting this wasn't a tax," Bozell said.

NOT a tax, Obama insisted in 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg-ofjXrXio

The Supreme Court, in upholding the constitutionality of the Democrats' "Affordable Care Act" on Thursday, decided that the law's individual mandate, which requires all Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a fine -- "may reasonably be characterized as a tax."

I don't think they can repeal it without getting a super-majority in the Senate. If the Democrats become the minority Senate party in the next election, they will use the filibuster, or threat of same, to block action with Cloture not possible since the Republicans will not hold a 60 vote majority.

The government hasn't run an effective program in the past 100 years. Let's don't expect very much good coming out of all this.

Unlike some of our members, when I am wrong I will admit my mistake. I made an erroneous post by claiming it would take 60 votes by the Senate to enact Cloture on repealing Obamacare.

Since this has been declared a tax, repealing it makes it a budget item which only takes 51 votes to close debate, NOT the 60 vote requirement.

A Republican president can sign a bill repealing the ACA and please some 65% of the American voters.

We can only hope the repeal takes place before the IRS hires the 16,000 new agents needed to administer the law.

I've read that many governors aren't going to do anything until after the November election anyway.

I don't like all this going back in forth in the courts. Obamacare was passed. With a lot of deception and shady bribery deals and exclusions for "friends of Obama" that should cost dozens of politicians their jobs - but it passed all the same. It was challenged in court and the SCOTUS upheld it. If they want to repeal it, I hope they have something in mind to replace it first. At least we won't be going back to square one again.

I wonder if Obama will challenge the Supreme Court's decision that the mandate fine is a tax? See what he claimed in 2009 in an interview with George Stephanopolous.

When is a "tax" not a "tax"?

_______________________________________________________

'Incredible Irony': Court Has 'Declared Obama to Be a Monumental Liar'

By Susan Jones

June 28, 2012

(CNSNews.com) - "The incredible irony here is that in upholding Obamacare, Roberts et. al. have formally also declared Obama to be a monumental liar," said L. Brent Bozell III, president of the conservative Media Research Center, the parent organization of CNSNews.com. "And in the most bizarre twist of them all, they upheld the lie by declaring this to be a tax.

"Conservatives -- Republicans -- can now campaign on the line of attack that a) this is the greatest expansion of power in history; this is the greatest tax increase in history; and c) this is the greatest presidential deception in history.

"From now til Election Day the GOP should simply run clips of Obama insisting this wasn't a tax," Bozell said.

NOT a tax, Obama insisted in 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg-ofjXrXio

The Supreme Court, in upholding the constitutionality of the Democrats' "Affordable Care Act" on Thursday, decided that the law's individual mandate, which requires all Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a fine -- "may reasonably be characterized as a tax."

It will be interesting if the MSM shows any of this or will they just leave it to Fox News - again.

I hope what Chief Justice Roberts wrote gets read by more voters...

“Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our nation´s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/28/hurt-silver-lining-now-obama-owns-his-tax-hikes/?page=2

Since Obamacare is now the law, it is interesting to see some facts start coming out.

_______________________________________________________

Full List of Obamacare Tax Hikes

Taxpayers are reminded that the President’s healthcare law is one of the largest tax increases in American history.

Obamacare contains 20 new or higher taxes on American families and small businesses.

Arranged by their respective effective dates, below is the total list of all $500 billion-plus in tax hikes (over the next ten years) in Obamacare, where to find them in the bill, and how much your taxes are scheduled to go up as of today:

Read more: http://www.atr.org/t...6#ixzz1z8qs8gJK

Repeal and replace. Replace with what?

This piece is VERY interesting.

Of course, Obamacare is great for the insurance companies.

This guy's feeling is the Robert's opinion works towards SAVING the role of insurance companies in health care and makes going to single payer LESS possible. Suggest y'all read the entire short article beyond the snippet.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/john-roberts-insurance-industry-shill/2012/06/28/gJQAMdOV9V_blog.html

As I and others have long argued, a successful drive to overturn the Affordable Care Act, combined with a continued surge in the ranks of the uninsured, would almost certainly have put America on a path to a single-payer system, about whose constitutionality there has never been any doubt.

Mitt Romney.

The perfect opponent of RomneyObamacare!

NOT a tax, Obama insisted in 2009

of course it's not a tax! since when is an insurance premium called a tax? Europeans who pay health insurance premiums since the LORD expelled Adam and Eve from the paradise can only shake their heads when they hear "tax" in this respect.

NOT a tax, Obama insisted in 2009

of course it's not a tax! since when is an insurance premium called a tax? Europeans who pay health insurance premiums since the LORD expelled Adam and Eve from the paradise can only shake their heads when they hear "tax" in this respect.

Roberts didn't call insurance premiums a tax. What he did was call the penalty fee from the IRS (America's TAXING body) for NOT having insurance a tax instead of what it was previously called, a penalty. By doing so, he limited the powers of the government's use of the commerce clause which is currently on the conservative agenda. The government has no limitation to what it can tax.

While Roberts did give the right wing party a new campaign issue, Obama raised taxes on the middle class when he said he wouldn't, the truth is whatever you call it, it is still a PENALTY which can be avoided just by obtaining insurance. Just as you can avoid paying speeding ticket "taxes" by driving under the speed limit.

Roberts did a trick. A smart trick and very defensible.

Why did Roberts do it? To save the supreme court. I totally buy that. One of the most important supreme court decisions in American history and Roberts will always be remembered for this.

http://www.slate.com...legitimacy.html

Why did he do it? Quite simply, to save the court. As Jeffrey Rosen has noted, the ACA case was John Roberts’ moment of truth—and today’s opinion proves that Roberts knew it. In the aftermath of Bush v. Gore and Citizens United, the percentage of Americans who say they have “quite a lot” or a “great deal” of confidence in the Supreme Court has dipped to the mid-30s. A 5-4 decision to strike down Obamacare along party lines, whatever its reasoning, would have been received by the general public as yet more proof that the court is merely an extension of the nation’s polarized politics. Add the fact that the legal challenges to the individual mandate were at best novel and at worst frivolous, and suddenly a one-vote takedown of the ACA looks like it might undermine the court’s very legitimacy.

Since Obamacare is now the law, it is interesting to see some facts start coming out.

_______________________________________________________

Full List of Obamacare Tax Hikes

Taxpayers are reminded that the President’s healthcare law is one of the largest tax increases in American history.

Obamacare contains 20 new or higher taxes on American families and small businesses.

Arranged by their respective effective dates, below is the total list of all $500 billion-plus in tax hikes (over the next ten years) in Obamacare, where to find them in the bill, and how much your taxes are scheduled to go up as of today:

Read more: http://www.atr.org/t...6#ixzz1z8qs8gJK

Well, I think you'd agree that new taxes ar at least better than continued high deficit spending. Targetted cuts and use taxes woulkd be better still but this congress just doesn't seem capable of that. Maybe the next one.

Well, I think you'd agree that new taxes ar at least better than continued high deficit spending. Targetted cuts and use taxes woulkd be better still but this congress just doesn't seem capable of that. Maybe the next one.

Probably not.

NOT a tax, Obama insisted in 2009

of course it's not a tax! since when is an insurance premium called a tax? Europeans who pay health insurance premiums since the LORD expelled Adam and Eve from the paradise can only shake their heads when they hear "tax" in this respect.

Roberts didn't call insurance premiums a tax. What he did was call the penalty fee from the IRS (America's TAXING body) for NOT having insurance a tax instead of what it was previously called, a penalty. By doing so, he limited the powers of the government's use of the commerce clause which is currently on the conservative agenda. The government has no limitation to what it can tax.

While Roberts did give the right wing party a new campaign issue, Obama raised taxes on the middle class when he said he wouldn't, the truth is whatever you call it, it is still a PENALTY which can be avoided just by obtaining insurance. Just as you can avoid paying speeding ticket "taxes" by driving under the speed limit.

Roberts did a trick. A smart trick and very defensible.

Why did Roberts do it? To save the supreme court. I totally buy that. One of the most important supreme court decisions in American history and Roberts will always be remembered for this.

http://www.slate.com...legitimacy.html

Why did he do it? Quite simply, to save the court. As Jeffrey Rosen has noted, the ACA case was John Roberts’ moment of truth—and today’s opinion proves that Roberts knew it. In the aftermath of Bush v. Gore and Citizens United, the percentage of Americans who say they have “quite a lot” or a “great deal” of confidence in the Supreme Court has dipped to the mid-30s. A 5-4 decision to strike down Obamacare along party lines, whatever its reasoning, would have been received by the general public as yet more proof that the court is merely an extension of the nation’s polarized politics. Add the fact that the legal challenges to the individual mandate were at best novel and at worst frivolous, and suddenly a one-vote takedown of the ACA looks like it might undermine the court’s very legitimacy.

Any justice/judge who votes based on what people will think of his decision and not whether it is constitutional/legal or not deserves to get kicked off the court in disgrace.