The Affordable Care Act

Now this is a story..

All about how my life,

Got twist-turned upside down

keep crying about its going to happen.


I know, we’re all supposed to think the End Is Nigh because the government has decided to give the 10 percent of large employers who don’t insure their workers another 365 days to do so before levying a small penalty. This could not possibly be a reasonable accommodation to protect jobs and businesses, because as everybody knows, this president hates jobs and businesses.

No, this brief delay must be a sign that the implementation of the Affordable Care Act is destined to result in abject failure. After all, that’s what every Congressional Republican with the ability to hit send on a press release has told us, over and over again, hoping that repeating their prediction enough times will somehow make it true.

But here’s my question: if Republicans are so confident Obamacare will end badly, why not just shut up about it? It’s not like they have the votes to repeal the law—a math problem they still haven’t solved after 37 different tries. Their appeal to the Supreme Court ended in defeat at the hands of a conservative chief justice. And now the bulk of the plan will begin to take effect in just a few months.

At this point, why not sit back and wait for this crazy experiment to self-destruct? Why not let President Obama and the Democrats reckon with the millions of angry Americans who will undoubtedly hate their new insurance or their new insurance protections?

Because Republicans are terrified that Obamacare could actually work. Already, the law has provided 54 million Americans free access to preventive services like check-ups and mammograms. More than six million seniors have saved more than six billion dollars on their prescriptions. Nearly 13 million consumers have received more than one billion dollars in rebates from insurance companies that had overcharged them. There are more than three million happy young adults who have been allowed to stay on their parents’ health insurance until they turn 26. And in California, a state that represents one-fifth of the U.S. economy, we’ve learned that premiums for the law’s new insurance options have come in lower­ than expected.

As these successes build, Republicans are naturally coping with their fear the only way they know how: by scaring the hell out of everyone else. The Koch brothers, not content with the millions they flushed down the toilet on Karl Rove’s 2012 electoral strategy, are spending millions more on ads that tell the same previously debunked lies about the health-care law. Mitch McConnell, still pursuing his top legislative priority of defeating a president who can no longer be defeated, actually threatened the NFL for even considering the administration’s request to help educate uninsured Americans about the fact that they can now receive affordable coverage under the law.

Think about that. This is the same kind of public education and outreach effort that the Bush administration once launched about a prescription drug program that many Democrats voted against. But Democrats didn’t object because it didn’t exactly seem fair to punish senior citizens with higher drug costs just to prove a political point. This is also the same kind of effort Mitt Romney launched in Massachusetts when he asked the Red Sox to help educate the public about the benefits of Romneycare. Again, no one had a problem—just like no one has problems with government efforts to educate the public about Social Security benefits, or flu vaccinations, or school lunches, or any other benefits and protections we’ve written into law as a humane and decent society.

But today, the antigovernment zealots who have taken over the once-proud Republican Party feel they must burn our village to save it. They are actively trying to prevent Americans who have been too poor or sick to get health insurance from knowing that all three branches of their democratically elected government have passed and upheld a law that will finally allow them to see a doctor without going broke.

This is not to say that implementation will be easy or without problems. Some will be self-inflicted by poorly written provisions or bureaucrats who make mistakes because they’re human. Others will be inflicted by Republican governors and legislatures who refuse to accept the money the federal government is providing to expand health insurance programs for the poor and disabled.

But there is now plenty of evidence that if we as a nation want Obamacare to work, it will work; that if we can extract ourselves from the trench warfare that preceded the passage of the law, we can all start focusing on fixing and improving it over the next year. Out in America, I know there are not only plenty of Democrats and Independents who feel this way, but Republicans as well. What these Americans need to do now is speak up and be heard, because the antics of their frightened representatives in Washington are endangering the health care of millions and embarrassing their party in the process. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/07/11/the-gop-is-terrified-obamacare-could-be-a-success.html

And I'd like to take a minute

just sit right there

i'll tell you how i became the prince of a town called bel-air

Philibuster?

tl;dr

Republicans are terrified that Obamacare could actually work.

In West Philadelphia born and raised

On the playground was where I spent most of my days

29....working for ski resorts for the past 10 years.......

Seriously fuck you if you have health insurance, are under 18 and you 'oppose' Obamacare. It doesn't effect you at all. Your parents may need to pay a few more taxes but they'll still be able to buy you your new computer and all your jiberish gear.

Lets not make this about me and how my parents buy all my new Jiberish gear and shit, which they dont. Studies from the HHS have reports that Obamacare could raise premium in 36 states up to 294% for people in there 20's. 305% for people in there 40%. I'm looking for some half way intelligent debate.

Thats a minor issue at stake here.

So when my Dad's company has to A) lay off a large majority of his employees, leaving them with out a job or healthcare. Or B) Don't fire anyone, accept Obamacare and go out of business shortly after. This seems really positive

I honestly don't know anything about it, I just know if the government would work together they would have no problem making a bill for universal healthcare. There are too many smart people in politics for the world to be as fucked up as it is. Something went wrong somewhere...

Newsflash: your dad's company isn't viable if it can't sustain it's employees. We are all burdened by the high cost of low wages.

There are a lot of issues with letting the Government implement a program this big. It mostly boils down to how does one finance it and to what extent does it affect the preexisting market.

can someone try to give me a basic understanding (close to non-bias) of Obamacare? When I tried to look into it, its almost all super-inflamed support or denial and I'm having a hard time understanding what it fundamentally does. I understand its goals of providing cheaper care, but how?

That's definitely the way it is. That is how it was meant to be. The founding fathers and the members of the Constitutional Convention wanted lawmaking to be a slow deliberate process.

I just think the US needs to decide that there has to be free healthcare for everyone. Where should the money come from, fuck it print it off at the mint and use it solely to pay doctors. Don't even raise taxes just print extra money. I know technically that doesn't work because are money is representative of the US economies worth etc but there are a thousand different solutions and if we could get people together they could make a good bill that did please most people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Care_Act

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590enr.pdf

Straight copypasta:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/sep/24/top-16-myths-about-health-care-law/

PolitiFact has been fact-checking claims about the federal health care law since lawmakers started drafting the legislation in 2009. Long controversial, the law has been no stranger to attacks by detractors. Here are 16 of the biggest falsehoods PolitiFact has rated.

( Fact-checks are listed in no particular order. The links will take you to a full report and a source list for each fact-check.)

1. The health care law rations care, like systems in Canada and Great Britain. False.

Florida Gov. Rick Scott, July 2, 2012, in an interview on Fox News

The health care law is not socialized medicine. Instead, it leaves in place the private health care system that follows free market principles. The law does put more regulations on health insurance companies. It also fines most large employers who fail to provide insurance for their employees, and it requires all individuals to have health insurance. This is unlike the systems in either Britain or Canada. In Britain, doctors are employees of the government, while in Canada, the government pays most medical bills as part of a single-payer system. The U.S. health care law has neither of those features. PolitiFact has rated this claim and others like it False.



2. The health care law has "death panels." Pants on Fire.

Sarah Palin, former Alaska governor, Aug. 7, 2009, in a message posted on Facebook

Back in 2009, it was a popular talking point to claim that the health care law had "death panels" to determine if individuals are worthy of receiving health care coverage. The claim was widely debunked and named PolitiFact’s Lie of the Year. The talking point started in reaction to an idea for Medicare, that the Medicare program for seniors should specifically cover doctor appointments for seniors who wanted to discuss do-not-resuscitate orders, end-of-life directives and living wills. The visits would have been completely optional and only for people who wanted the appointments. After controversy, the provision was dropped from the final legislation. We rated the "death panels" claim Pants on Fire.



3. Muslims are exempt from the health care law. Pants on Fire.

Chain email, May 29, 2013

A widely circulated chain email claims that the word "dhimmitude" is on page 107 of the health care law, and it means Muslims will be exempt. Actually, the health care law does not include the word "dhimmitude" (a recently coined word that seems to refer to non-Muslims under Muslim rule). Also, the health care law doesn’t exempt Muslims. There is a "religious conscience exemption,'' but it applies to groups that disavow all forms of insurance, including Social Security. Muslim groups have supported the Affordable Care Act. We rated the chain email’s claim Pants on Fire.



4. The IRS is going to be "in charge" of "a huge national database" on health care that will include Americans’ "personal, intimate, most close-to-the-vest-secrets." Pants on Fire.

U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., May 15, 2013, in an interview on Fox News

The Internal Revenue Service does have a role to play as part of the health care law, but it’s not the role suggested here. If you buy insurance on the marketplace and you get a subsidy, officials will check tax records to make sure you qualify. That communication with the IRS happens via a data hub that’s also connected to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. It’s important to note, though, that the hub isn’t a database. The IRS isn’t running it. And it doesn’t include "intimate" health data. The hub is for signing up for health insurance, not for storing medical records. We rated the claim Pants on Fire.



5. Congress is exempt from Obamacare. False.

Chain email, Jan. 6, 2013

Even a few sitting lawmakers have repeated this claim, but it’s not true. Congress is not exempt from Obamacare. Like everyone else, lawmakers are required to have health insurance. They’re also required to buy insurance through the marketplaces. The idea is to have lawmakers and their staff buy insurance the same way their uninsured constituents would so they understand what their constituents have to deal with. Most Americans who already get insurance through work are left alone under the law; members of Congress have insurance through work but are treated differently in this regard. Recently, a rule was added so that lawmakers’ could keep the traditional employer contribution to their coverage. But they weren’t exempt from requirements that other Americans face. We rated this claim False.



6. Under Obamacare, people who "have a doctor they’ve been seeing for the last 15 or 20 years, they won’t be able to keep going to that doctor." Mostly False.

U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., July 31, 2013 in a Fox News interview

Some have suggested that Obamacare would interfere with doctor-patient relationships. Actually, there’s no more interference than what existed before Obamacare. Right now, patients can lose access to their doctors when their insurance policies change. This typically happens when employers switch plans or when workers switch (or lose) jobs. Under Obamacare, some patients who buy health insurance through the marketplace could lose access to their current doctor, but it’s difficult to predict how many. And it would be because they have a new insurance plan. We rated this claim Mostly False.



7. The health care law is a "government takeover" of health care. Pants on Fire.

U.S. Rep. C.W. Bill Young, R-Indian Shores, Feb. 20, 2010, in a speech to Pinellas County Republicans.

"Government takeover" conjures a European approach where the government owns the hospitals and the doctors are public employees. But the law Congress passed relies largely on the free market. It's true that the law significantly increases government regulation of health insurers. But it is, at its heart, a system that relies on private companies and the free market. The majority of Americans will continue to get coverage from private insurers. We rated the claim Pants on Fire.



8. "All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free health care services." Pants on Fire.

Chain email, July 28, 2009

The health care law does not provide free health care services to anyone, and especially not to people in the United States illegally. Illegal immigrants may not enroll in Medicaid, nor are they eligible to shop on the marketplace for health insurance. Permanent legal residents are eligible for health insurance subsidies on the marketplace, as are U.S. citizens. Current law says that hospital emergency rooms must stabilize illegal immigrants with medical emergencies, but that law predates Obamacare. We rated this claim Pants on Fire.



9. Because of Obamacare, health care premiums have "gone up slower than any time in the last 50 years." False.

President Barack Obama, Oct. 3, 2012, in a presidential debate

The historical data for health care premiums only goes back 14 years; there’s no evidence to support the idea that premiums are at a 50-year low. Overall health care costs have slowed down, but even there, Obama exaggerated the impact of his health care law. Experts say slowing costs are due to a variety of reasons, including the recent recession. Giving all the credit to the new law overstates the case. We rated the statement False.



10. Under Obamacare, "75 percent of small businesses now say they are going to be forced to either fire workers or cut their hours." Pants on Fire.

U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., July 25, 2013 in a FoxNews.com op-ed

Suggestions that business are laying off workers because of the health care law have so far proven to be largely unfounded. Most small businesses -- those with fewer than 50 employees -- do not have to provide health insurance to their employees. (In fact, some very small businesses with fewer than 25 employees may qualify for tax credits under the law.) The claim here that 75 percent of small business were reducing their workforce was based on a misreading of a study from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The study actually found that less than 10 percent of small businesses said they will be forced to reduce their workforce or cut hours. We rated the claim Pants on Fire.



11. "At age 76 when you most need it, you are not eligible for cancer treatment" under the health law. Pants on Fire.

Chain email, June 3, 2013

Some misinformation about the health care law has been specifically aimed at seniors, even though the law largely leaves the Medicare program alone. This particular claim, that older cancer patients will go without treatment, is wrong on several levels. For one thing, the health care law didn’t make changes to patient benefits in the Medicare program. Cancer treatment will still be covered by Medicare. Also, there are no changes in the law aimed at people 76 or older. This claim seems to have been invented out of whole cloth as a scare tactic. We rated it Pants on Fire.



12. The health care law includes "a 3.8% sales tax" on "all real estate transactions." Pants on Fire.

Chain email, July 24, 2012

An anonymous chain email claims that the health care law puts a 3.8 percent tax on home sales. This is not correct. The law does include new taxes, but the taxes are primarily on the health care industry and on investment income for the wealthy. For middle-class homeowners, there are long-standing tax exemptions on the profits from home sales, and the health care law didn’t change them. We rated this statement Pants on Fire.



13. "Obamacare is . . . the largest tax increase in the history of the world." Pants on Fire.

Rush Limbaugh, June 28, 2012, on his radio show

Radio host Rush Limbaugh and others have claimed the health care law includes historically high tax increases. While there are new taxes in the health care law -- representing the first significant federal tax increases since 1993 -- they are not the largest increases in the history of the United States, much less the world. When accounting for the size of the overall economy, tax increases signed into law by Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were larger than the tax increases in the health law. We rated this statement Pants on Fire.



14. A "hidden" provision in the health care law taxes sporting goods as medical devices. Pants on Fire.

Chain email, June 12, 2013

A chain email claims that common sporting goods equipment -- fishing rods, outboard motors, tackle boxes -- will be taxed at 2.3 percent under Obamacare. There is a 2.3 percent tax in the law, but it applies to medical devices, not sports equipment. Also, the medical devices tax applies to manufacturers and makers, not consumers. This chain email seems to stem from a mistake made at Cabela’s, a Nebraska-based retail store that sells sporting goods. At the beginning of 2013, Cabela’s accidentally started taxing its sales and labeling it a medical excise tax. But that move was in error, and the company quickly reversed itself the same day. As for the chain email, we rate its claim Pants on Fire!



15. Obamacare will question your sex life. Pants on Fire.

Betsy McCaughey, former lieutenant governor of New York, Sept. 15, 2013, in an op-ed in the New York Post

In the op-ed, McCaughey claimed the law pressures doctors into asking about people’s sex lives and recording those answer in electronic health records. Actually, it was the economic stimulus that created incentives for doctors to move to electronic health records. And, none of the criteria require questions about people’s sex lives. Instead, doctors are asked to record standard diagnostic criteria like vital signs, diagnoses, medications and the like. Privacy advocates do have concerns about electronic health records, but it’s not about people getting asked embarrassing questions about their sex lives. We rated this claim Pants on Fire!



16. An Obamacare provision will allow "forced home inspections" by government agents. Pants on Fire.

Bloggers, Aug. 15, 2013

State lawmakers in South Carolina got this one going by claiming they were concerned that the health care law allowed forced home inspections. People can relax, though: There are no forced home inspections. What got people concerned is an optional home health care program that sends nurses on house calls to the homes of pregnant, poor women. The idea is that the nurses will check on the moms and offer prenatal advice in a comfortable environment. And the program is not mandatory. We rated this claim Pants on Fire!

here another video of how it will actually work for small businesses and people. small businesses under 50 people don't have to pay for it.

Could the US just get with the rest of modern western society and get universal healthcare already. Damn it's like watching a kid from the short bus try to open a door with his face.

26, they have to start paying when they turn 26.

If there parents allow them to stay on until 26, no ones stopping parents from kicking there kids of at anytime and make them get there own, granted most parents would keep them on for several years if it is economically feasable to do so

Or just make the kids pay their the money to their parents, because its still cheaper than making a 23 year old buy his own insurance plan.

I also want to point out that liberals keep saying that Obamacare is the law and we shouldnt try and repeal it but they fail to see the correlation between that and how they want to change the law of the debt ceiling

Not that simple. When the population is as big as ours is it will be NEAR impossible to implement such a system. Too many variables to take into account when trying to figure something like this out (equipment #, supply of doctors, nurses, etc, funding, speciality hospitals and care, lawsuits, the list goes on)

threads