ObamaCare upheld.

[superblytrife]

Originally Posted by kdawg

The Declaration of Independence only proves my point. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are in the context of a persons rights to be free from government control. Freedom of self-reliance without having to give one's life for the benefit of anothers'. Freedom of thought without government control of thought. Freedom to achieve happiness without devote one's existence to another- hence, happiness.

We have a different idea of freedom/happiness then. Mine doesn't hinge on ignoring the plight of everyone around me and just "getting mine".


Well said.

 

[kdawg]

Originally Posted by True Blues

Originally Posted by Osh Kosh Bosh

Originally Posted by TXCaddyKing

We need single payer with an option to buy private insurance. Everyone will be guaranteed a basic level of healthcare and those that can afford and want extra can get it. Your employer will not have to cover your insurance and theoretically could pay you more. Of course, we would have to pay more taxes, but then there could be price controls.

Love the reply about being thankful for living in Canada. All I ever hear is how Canadians come to the US to go to the doctor.

Yeah sure, believe that propaganda if you want.

Look at any rankings of the quality of health care by country you will find Canada consistently ahead of the united states, especially for the average person, as somebody who has had family go through cancer as US citizens and Canadian citizens, I'm sticking with Canada b. The quality of care was the same, if not better, did not have worry about insurance coverage,  we didn't even have to pay for in home tutoring, while my bro missed school or the nurse that would come to our house daily and deliver shots, and take blood etc.  

Agreed.

The "Canadians traveling to the United States to receive treatment for ailment X" argument is largely fallacy. Rarely (i.e. ultra-wealthy or rare disease) do individuals seeking health care treatment actually do so.

Yep, that happens in the UK too. Occasionally someone will be sent to a different part of the country or even abroad for treatment for a rare disease or something - but their home area pays for it.

 

[kdawg]

Originally Posted by True Blues

Originally Posted by TXCaddyKing

Originally Posted by True Blues

Agreed.

The "Canadians traveling to the United States to receive treatment for ailment X" argument is largely fallacy. Rarely (i.e. ultra-wealthy or rare disease) do individuals seeking health care treatment actually do so.

I don't believe it. I just wish we had a real life Canadian in our office to laugh at all the people who tell this same story about someone they know waiting months to get an x-ray while they wasted away.

I've never heard of a Canadian citizen waiting months for an x-ray-- especially if it is a serious case. Never.

Oh, and I worked in diagnostic imaging.

Yep, I only do eyecare but because of that have some experience in neurology and other important things and if you have a serious problem I can have you seen in the right place within hours - and there is no question of having to pay.Speed of access in any medical system needs to be based on clinical need rather than who can pay.

 

[jthagreat]

Originally Posted by CreateDestroy

Okay, explained like you're a five year-old (well, okay, maybe a bit older), without too much oversimplification, and (hopefully) without sounding too biased:
What people call "Obamacare" is actually the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. However, people were calling it "Obamacare" before everyone even hammered out what it would be. It's a term mostly used by people who don't like the PPACA, and it's become popularized in part because PPACA is a really long and awkward name, even when you turn it into an acronym like that.
Anyway, the PPACA made a bunch of new rules regarding health care, with the purpose of making health care more affordable for everyone. Opponents of the PPACA, on the other hand, feel that the rules it makes take away too many freedoms and force people (both individuals and businesses) to do things they shouldn't have to.
So what does it do? Well, here is everything, in the order of when it goes into effect (because some of it happens later than other parts of it):
Already in effect:
It allows the Food and Drug Administration to approve more generic drugs (making for more competition in the market to drive down prices)
It increases the rebates on drugs people get through Medicare (so drugs cost less)
It establishes a non-profit group, that the government doesn't directly control, [1] PCORI, to study different kinds of treatments to see what works better and is the best use of money. ( [2] Citation: Page 665, sec. 1181 )
It makes chain restaurants like McDonalds display how many calories are in all of their foods, so people can have an easier time making choices to eat healthy. ( [3] Citation: Page 499, sec. 4205 )
It makes a "high-risk pool" for people with pre-existing conditions. Basically, this is a way to slowly ease into getting rid of "pre-existing conditions" altogether. For now, people who already have health issues that would be considered "pre-existing conditions" can still get insurance, but at different rates than people without them.
It renews some old policies, and calls for the appointment of various positions.
It creates a new 10% tax on indoor tanning booths. ( [4] Citation: Page 923, sec. 5000B )
It says that health insurance companies can no longer tell customers that they won't get any more coverage because they have hit a "lifetime limit". Basically, if someone has paid for health insurance, that company can't tell that person that he's used that insurance too much throughout his life so they won't cover him any more. They can't do this for lifetime spending, and they're limited in how much they can do this for yearly spending. ( [5] Citation: Page 14, sec. 2711 )
Kids can continue to be covered by their parents' health insurance until they're 26.
No more "pre-existing conditions" for kids under the age of 19.
Insurers have less ability to change the amount customers have to pay for their plans.
People in a "Medicare Gap" get a rebate to make up for the extra money they would otherwise have to spend.
Insurers can't just drop customers once they get sick. ( [6] Citation: Page 14, sec. 2712 )
Insurers have to tell customers what they're spending money on. (Instead of just "administrative fee", they have to be more specific).
Insurers need to have an appeals process for when they turn down a claim, so customers have some manner of recourse other than a lawsuit when they're turned down.
New ways to stop fraud are created.
Medicare extends to smaller hospitals.
Medicare patients with chronic illnesses must be monitored more thoroughly.
Reduces the costs for some companies that handle benefits for the elderly.
A new website is made to give people insurance and health information. (I think this is it: [7] http://www.healthcare.gov/ ).
A credit program is made that will make it easier for business to invest in new ways to treat illness.
A limit is placed on just how much of a percentage of the money an insurer makes can be profit, to make sure they're not price-gouging customers.
A limit is placed on what type of insurance accounts can be used to pay for over-the-counter drugs without a prescription. Basically, your insurer isn't paying for the Aspirin you bought for that hangover.
Employers need to list the benefits they provided to employees on their tax forms.
8/1/2012
Any health plans sold after this date must provide preventative care (mammograms, colonoscopies, etc.) without requiring any sort of co-pay or charge.
1/1/2013
If you make over $200,000 a year, your taxes go up a tiny bit (0.9%). Edit: To address those who take issue with the word "tiny", a change of 0.9% is relatively tiny. Any look at how taxes have fluctuated over the years will reveal that a change of less than one percent is miniscule, especially when we're talking about people in the top 5% of earners.
1/1/2014
This is when a lot of the really big changes happen.
No more "pre-existing conditions". At all. People will be charged the same regardless of their medical history.
If you can afford insurance but do not get it, you will be charged a fee. This is the "mandate" that people are talking about. Basically, it's a trade-off for the "pre-existing conditions" bit, saying that since insurers now have to cover you regardless of what you have, you can't just wait to buy insurance until you get sick. Otherwise no one would buy insurance until they needed it. You can opt not to get insurance, but you'll have to pay the fee instead, unless of course you're not buying insurance because you just can't afford it.
Insurers now can't do annual spending caps. Their customers can get as much health care in a given year as they need. ( [8] Citation: Page 14, sec. 2711 )
Make it so more poor people can get Medicaid by making the low-income cut-off higher.
Small businesses get some tax credits for two years.
Businesses with over 50 employees must offer health insurance to full-time employees, or pay a penalty.
Limits how high of an annual deductible insurers can charge customers.
Cut some Medicare spending
Place a $2500 limit on tax-free spending on FSAs (accounts for medical spending). Basically, people using these accounts now have to pay taxes on any money over $2500 they put into them.
Establish health insurance exchanges and rebates for the lower and middle-class, basically making it so they have an easier time getting affordable medical coverage.
Congress and Congressional staff will only be offered the same insurance offered to people in the insurance exchanges, rather than Federal Insurance. Basically, we won't be footing their health care bills any more than any other American citizen.
A new tax on pharmaceutical companies.
A new tax on the purchase of medical devices.
A new tax on insurance companies based on their market share. Basically, the more of the market they control, the more they'll get taxed.
The amount you can deduct from your taxes for medical expenses increases.
1/1/2015
Doctors' pay will be determined by the quality of their care, not how many people they treat. Edit: a_real_MD addresses questions regarding this one in far more detail and with far more expertise than I can offer in [9] this post. If you're looking for a more in-depth explanation of this one (as many of you are), I highly recommend you give his post a read.
1/1/2017
If any state can come up with their own plan, one which gives citizens the same level of care at the same price as the PPACA, they can ask the Secretary of Health and Human Resources for permission to do their plan instead of the PPACA. So if they can get the same results without, say, the mandate, they can be allowed to do so. Vermont, for example, has expressed a desire to just go straight to single-payer (in simple terms, everyone is covered, and medical expenses are paid by taxpayers).
2018
All health care plans must now cover preventative care (not just the new ones).
A new tax on "Cadillac" health care plans (more expensive plans for rich people who want fancier coverage).
2020
The elimination of the "Medicare gap"
.
Aaaaand that's it right there.
The biggest thing opponents of the bill have against it is the mandate. They claim that it forces people to buy insurance, and forcing people to buy something is unconstitutional. Personally, I take the opposite view, as it's not telling people to buy a specific thing, just to have a specific type of thing, just like a part of the money we pay in taxes pays for the police and firemen who protect us, this would have us paying to ensure doctors can treat us for illness and injury.
Plus, as previously mentioned, it's necessary if you're doing away with "pre-existing conditions" because otherwise no one would get insurance until they needed to use it, which defeats the purpose of insurance.
Whew! Hope that answers the question!

any rebuttal to this?

 

[firmeporvida]

Originally Posted by jthagreat

Originally Posted by CreateDestroy

any rebuttal to this?

I just have to say great job breaking this down! Maybe people can make more accurate judgments.

 

[thehealthinspector]

Originally Posted by jthagreat

any rebuttal to this?

not a rebuttal, but police and fireman are paid with local and state taxes

theres a question of whether or not the federal government should be allowed to do this, i would have used "can" instead of "should be" but so far the SC says it can

the federal government is always fighting for as much power as it can get and surprise surprise, their fellow court supported them

 

[rashi]

The biggest thing opponents of the bill have against it is the mandate. They claim that it forces people to buy insurance, and forcing people to buy something is unconstitutional. Personally, I take the opposite view, as it's not telling people to buy a specific thing, just to have a specific type of thing, just like a part of the money we pay in taxes pays for the police and firemen who protect us, this would have us paying to ensure doctors can treat us for illness and injury.
Plus, as previously mentioned, it's necessary if you're doing away with "pre-existing conditions" because otherwise no one would get insurance until they needed to use it, which defeats the purpose of insurance.
Whew! Hope that answers the question!


1. Morally speaking, it is wrong for anyone to force anyone to purchase anything with the threat of financial penalty or jail time. The government is essentially using coercion in order for people to purchase insurance. A free society would give the people an option to purchase or not to purchase. Ironically the same people who claimed the insurance companies have too much power are now happy with the insurance company having more power. The autonomy in the patient-provider relationship will be essentially be destroyed, third party payers have already been determining care for decades.

2. Apparently you aren't a homeowner. Police and Firemen are paid through property taxes by the County, not levied by the federal government.

3. I treat plenty of patients who do not have health insurance, and I know plenty of physicians and therapists that also do the same. Having insurance doesn't guarantee treatment, people having HMOs sometimes have to travel across town in order to see their PCP, but they can't due to the fact they do not have the means to get there.

 

[jordanhendrix]

Originally Posted by rashi

The biggest thing opponents of the bill have against it is the mandate. They claim that it forces people to buy insurance, and forcing people to buy something is unconstitutional. Personally, I take the opposite view, as it's not telling people to buy a specific thing, just to have a specific type of thing, just like a part of the money we pay in taxes pays for the police and firemen who protect us, this would have us paying to ensure doctors can treat us for illness and injury.
Plus, as previously mentioned, it's necessary if you're doing away with "pre-existing conditions" because otherwise no one would get insurance until they needed to use it, which defeats the purpose of insurance.
Whew! Hope that answers the question!

1. Morally speaking, it is wrong for anyone to force anyone to purchase anything with the threat of financial penalty or jail time. The government is essentially using coercion in order for people to purchase insurance. A free society would give the people an option to purchase or not to purchase. Ironically the same people who claimed the insurance companies have too much power are now happy with the insurance company having more power. The autonomy in the patient-provider relationship will be essentially be destroyed, third party payers have already been determining care for decades.
you heard of taxes bruh?

 

[crcballer55]

Originally Posted by jthagreat

Originally Posted by CreateDestroy

Okay, explained like you're a five year-old (well, okay, maybe a bit older), without too much oversimplification, and (hopefully) without sounding too biased:
What people call "Obamacare" is actually the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. However, people were calling it "Obamacare" before everyone even hammered out what it would be. It's a term mostly used by people who don't like the PPACA, and it's become popularized in part because PPACA is a really long and awkward name, even when you turn it into an acronym like that.
Anyway, the PPACA made a bunch of new rules regarding health care, with the purpose of making health care more affordable for everyone. Opponents of the PPACA, on the other hand, feel that the rules it makes take away too many freedoms and force people (both individuals and businesses) to do things they shouldn't have to.
So what does it do? Well, here is everything, in the order of when it goes into effect (because some of it happens later than other parts of it):
Already in effect:
It allows the Food and Drug Administration to approve more generic drugs (making for more competition in the market to drive down prices)
It increases the rebates on drugs people get through Medicare (so drugs cost less)
It establishes a non-profit group, that the government doesn't directly control, [1] PCORI, to study different kinds of treatments to see what works better and is the best use of money. ( [2] Citation: Page 665, sec. 1181 )
It makes chain restaurants like McDonalds display how many calories are in all of their foods, so people can have an easier time making choices to eat healthy. ( [3] Citation: Page 499, sec. 4205 )
It makes a "high-risk pool" for people with pre-existing conditions. Basically, this is a way to slowly ease into getting rid of "pre-existing conditions" altogether. For now, people who already have health issues that would be considered "pre-existing conditions" can still get insurance, but at different rates than people without them.
It renews some old policies, and calls for the appointment of various positions.
It creates a new 10% tax on indoor tanning booths. ( [4] Citation: Page 923, sec. 5000B )
It says that health insurance companies can no longer tell customers that they won't get any more coverage because they have hit a "lifetime limit". Basically, if someone has paid for health insurance, that company can't tell that person that he's used that insurance too much throughout his life so they won't cover him any more. They can't do this for lifetime spending, and they're limited in how much they can do this for yearly spending. ( [5] Citation: Page 14, sec. 2711 )
Kids can continue to be covered by their parents' health insurance until they're 26.
No more "pre-existing conditions" for kids under the age of 19.
Insurers have less ability to change the amount customers have to pay for their plans.
People in a "Medicare Gap" get a rebate to make up for the extra money they would otherwise have to spend.
Insurers can't just drop customers once they get sick. ( [6] Citation: Page 14, sec. 2712 )
Insurers have to tell customers what they're spending money on. (Instead of just "administrative fee", they have to be more specific).
Insurers need to have an appeals process for when they turn down a claim, so customers have some manner of recourse other than a lawsuit when they're turned down.
New ways to stop fraud are created.
Medicare extends to smaller hospitals.
Medicare patients with chronic illnesses must be monitored more thoroughly.
Reduces the costs for some companies that handle benefits for the elderly.
A new website is made to give people insurance and health information. (I think this is it: [7] http://www.healthcare.gov/ ).
A credit program is made that will make it easier for business to invest in new ways to treat illness.
A limit is placed on just how much of a percentage of the money an insurer makes can be profit, to make sure they're not price-gouging customers.
A limit is placed on what type of insurance accounts can be used to pay for over-the-counter drugs without a prescription. Basically, your insurer isn't paying for the Aspirin you bought for that hangover.
Employers need to list the benefits they provided to employees on their tax forms.
8/1/2012
Any health plans sold after this date must provide preventative care (mammograms, colonoscopies, etc.) without requiring any sort of co-pay or charge.
1/1/2013
If you make over $200,000 a year, your taxes go up a tiny bit (0.9%). Edit: To address those who take issue with the word "tiny", a change of 0.9% is relatively tiny. Any look at how taxes have fluctuated over the years will reveal that a change of less than one percent is miniscule, especially when we're talking about people in the top 5% of earners.
1/1/2014
This is when a lot of the really big changes happen.
No more "pre-existing conditions". At all. People will be charged the same regardless of their medical history.
If you can afford insurance but do not get it, you will be charged a fee. This is the "mandate" that people are talking about. Basically, it's a trade-off for the "pre-existing conditions" bit, saying that since insurers now have to cover you regardless of what you have, you can't just wait to buy insurance until you get sick. Otherwise no one would buy insurance until they needed it. You can opt not to get insurance, but you'll have to pay the fee instead, unless of course you're not buying insurance because you just can't afford it.
Insurers now can't do annual spending caps. Their customers can get as much health care in a given year as they need. ( [8] Citation: Page 14, sec. 2711 )
Make it so more poor people can get Medicaid by making the low-income cut-off higher.
Small businesses get some tax credits for two years.
Businesses with over 50 employees must offer health insurance to full-time employees, or pay a penalty.
Limits how high of an annual deductible insurers can charge customers.
Cut some Medicare spending
Place a $2500 limit on tax-free spending on FSAs (accounts for medical spending). Basically, people using these accounts now have to pay taxes on any money over $2500 they put into them.
Establish health insurance exchanges and rebates for the lower and middle-class, basically making it so they have an easier time getting affordable medical coverage.
Congress and Congressional staff will only be offered the same insurance offered to people in the insurance exchanges, rather than Federal Insurance. Basically, we won't be footing their health care bills any more than any other American citizen.
A new tax on pharmaceutical companies.
A new tax on the purchase of medical devices.
A new tax on insurance companies based on their market share. Basically, the more of the market they control, the more they'll get taxed.
The amount you can deduct from your taxes for medical expenses increases.
1/1/2015
Doctors' pay will be determined by the quality of their care, not how many people they treat. Edit: a_real_MD addresses questions regarding this one in far more detail and with far more expertise than I can offer in [9] this post. If you're looking for a more in-depth explanation of this one (as many of you are), I highly recommend you give his post a read.
1/1/2017
If any state can come up with their own plan, one which gives citizens the same level of care at the same price as the PPACA, they can ask the Secretary of Health and Human Resources for permission to do their plan instead of the PPACA. So if they can get the same results without, say, the mandate, they can be allowed to do so. Vermont, for example, has expressed a desire to just go straight to single-payer (in simple terms, everyone is covered, and medical expenses are paid by taxpayers).
2018
All health care plans must now cover preventative care (not just the new ones).
A new tax on "Cadillac" health care plans (more expensive plans for rich people who want fancier coverage).
2020
The elimination of the "Medicare gap"
.
Aaaaand that's it right there.
The biggest thing opponents of the bill have against it is the mandate. They claim that it forces people to buy insurance, and forcing people to buy something is unconstitutional. Personally, I take the opposite view, as it's not telling people to buy a specific thing, just to have a specific type of thing, just like a part of the money we pay in taxes pays for the police and firemen who protect us, this would have us paying to ensure doctors can treat us for illness and injury.
Plus, as previously mentioned, it's necessary if you're doing away with "pre-existing conditions" because otherwise no one would get insurance until they needed to use it, which defeats the purpose of insurance.
Whew! Hope that answers the question!

any rebuttal to this?

Yes, but it's too long, and very few here will care enough to read it so it's not worth it.

In short though... a tax has never decreased the cost of a service and requiring employers to provide something will NOT incentivize them to create more positions (especially for smaller companies)

 

[deleted]

Originally Posted by jordanhendrix

Originally Posted by rashi

The biggest thing opponents of the bill have against it is the mandate.
They claim that it forces people to buy insurance, and forcing people to
buy something is unconstitutional. Personally, I take the opposite
view, as it's not telling people to buy a specific thing, just to have a
specific type of thing, just like a part of the money we pay in taxes
pays for the police and firemen who protect us, this would have us
paying to ensure doctors can treat us for illness and injury.
Plus,
as previously mentioned, it's necessary if you're doing away with
"pre-existing conditions" because otherwise no one would get insurance
until they needed to use it, which defeats the purpose of insurance.
Whew! Hope that answers the question!

1. Morally speaking, it is wrong for anyone to force anyone to purchase anything with the threat of financial penalty or jail time. The government is essentially using coercion in order for people to purchase insurance. A free society would give the people an option to purchase or not to purchase. Ironically the same people who claimed the insurance companies have too much power are now happy with the insurance company having more power. The autonomy in the patient-provider relationship will be essentially be destroyed, third party payers have already been determining care for decades.

you heard of taxes bruh?

Entirely different thing.

 

[jordanhendrix]

Originally Posted by PLVN

Originally Posted by jordanhendrix

Originally Posted by rashi


1. Morally speaking, it is wrong for anyone to force anyone to purchase anything with the threat of financial penalty or jail time. The government is essentially using coercion in order for people to purchase insurance. A free society would give the people an option to purchase or not to purchase. Ironically the same people who claimed the insurance companies have too much power are now happy with the insurance company having more power. The autonomy in the patient-provider relationship will be essentially be destroyed, third party payers have already been determining care for decades.

you heard of taxes bruh?

Entirely different thing.

how so?

 

[utvol23]

Originally Posted by RustyShackleford

Originally Posted by UTVOL23

This is a horrible decision and funny how obama said this wasn't a tax but the supreme court ruled it was.

This is going to devastate the healthcare industry and possibly bankrupt the country.

But what do I know about healthcare I'm just a dr.

That doesn't make you an authority,

An economist yeah, doctor nope

And based on your hyperbolic statements, just sounds like you dislike Obama.

I don't dislike obama at all I just abhore this policy. in the US everyone gets rolls royce and bentley healthcare even if you can't pay we have people coming in to the Er getting 15k workups and have nothing wrong with them but they don't pay this spending on healthcare is not sustainable. I will expand later I'm on vacation after working 100hrs last week.

 

[jaysneaks]

Beggining signs of communism.

 

[supremewellbeing]

I put it this way, everyone who is against this health care will/would be the first ones crying out loud if their daughter son were son their deathbed and they didn't have any insurance to pay for a kidney transplant, i bet they would change their minds then.

and to the person who said its wrong to forced people to have insurance with threat of fine or jail, have u ever heard of auto insurance/


We are one of richest nation in the world, we need some type of health insurance in place for all and everyone regardless. everyone should pinch in. Everybody is out for themselves these days until they are in need

 

[thehealthinspector]

Originally Posted by JaySNEAKS

Beggining signs of communism.

might as well argue that communism started when the federal goverment started telling private businesses who they could sell to

or when the federal government decided to tell private businesses what was and wasnt "property"

 

[dajoka004]

Health care is unbelievably complex and incredibly broken. I'll receive my MD next May and have been on the receiving end of some absurd medical bills. I understand this stuff better than most in here. I see three major problems: Americans feel incredibly entitled to any and all available services, health care costs are unreasonable, and too many health care providers exude incompetence. To generalize, health care is not a right. If you have type 1 diabetes and you get admitted for DKA four times in one month because you're not complaint with your insulin regimen, you don't deserve to receive treatment anymore. Hospitals charging $15 per ibuprofen tablet and $212 for 15 seconds of liquid nitrogen cryotherapy is abuse. What's worse is that too many physicians don't grasp the cost of what they are providing. And my favorite complaint, terrible physicians, physician assistants and nurse practitioners who don't know what they are doing. Not all doctors are created the same.

 

[dajoka004]

Originally Posted by supremewellbeing

I put it this way, everyone who is against this health care will/would be the first ones crying out loud if their daughter son were son their deathbed and they didn't have any insurance to pay for a kidney transplant, i bet they would change their minds then.

and to the person who said its wrong to forced people to have insurance with threat of fine or jail, have u ever heard of auto insurance/


We are one of richest nation in the world, we need some type of health insurance in place for all and everyone regardless. everyone should pinch in. Everybody is out for themselves these days until they are in need

Terribly flawed arguments. If that "daughter" is a child, she's going to be covered, even if her parents are not. Auto insurance is not required to protect yourself, but to protect other drivers you may inflict property damage or physical harm to.

 

[rashi]

Originally Posted by supremewellbeing

I put it this way, everyone who is against this health care will/would be the first ones crying out loud if their daughter son were son their deathbed and they didn't have any insurance to pay for a kidney transplant, i bet they would change their minds then.

and to the person who said its wrong to forced people to have insurance with threat of fine or jail, have u ever heard of auto insurance/


We are one of richest nation in the world, we need some type of health insurance in place for all and everyone regardless. everyone should pinch in. Everybody is out for themselves these days until they are in need

There are millions of homeless people on the street, why don't we have a mandate that everyone buy a house?

 

[matt53]

Originally Posted by crcballer55

Originally Posted by jthagreat

Originally Posted by CreateDestroy

Okay, explained like you're a five year-old (well, okay, maybe a bit older), without too much oversimplification, and (hopefully) without sounding too biased:
What people call "Obamacare" is actually the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. However, people were calling it "Obamacare" before everyone even hammered out what it would be. It's a term mostly used by people who don't like the PPACA, and it's become popularized in part because PPACA is a really long and awkward name, even when you turn it into an acronym like that.
Anyway, the PPACA made a bunch of new rules regarding health care, with the purpose of making health care more affordable for everyone. Opponents of the PPACA, on the other hand, feel that the rules it makes take away too many freedoms and force people (both individuals and businesses) to do things they shouldn't have to.
So what does it do? Well, here is everything, in the order of when it goes into effect (because some of it happens later than other parts of it):
Already in effect:
It allows the Food and Drug Administration to approve more generic drugs (making for more competition in the market to drive down prices)
It increases the rebates on drugs people get through Medicare (so drugs cost less)
It establishes a non-profit group, that the government doesn't directly control, [1] PCORI, to study different kinds of treatments to see what works better and is the best use of money. ( [2] Citation: Page 665, sec. 1181 )
It makes chain restaurants like McDonalds display how many calories are in all of their foods, so people can have an easier time making choices to eat healthy. ( [3] Citation: Page 499, sec. 4205 )
It makes a "high-risk pool" for people with pre-existing conditions. Basically, this is a way to slowly ease into getting rid of "pre-existing conditions" altogether. For now, people who already have health issues that would be considered "pre-existing conditions" can still get insurance, but at different rates than people without them.
It renews some old policies, and calls for the appointment of various positions.
It creates a new 10% tax on indoor tanning booths. ( [4] Citation: Page 923, sec. 5000B )
It says that health insurance companies can no longer tell customers that they won't get any more coverage because they have hit a "lifetime limit". Basically, if someone has paid for health insurance, that company can't tell that person that he's used that insurance too much throughout his life so they won't cover him any more. They can't do this for lifetime spending, and they're limited in how much they can do this for yearly spending. ( [5] Citation: Page 14, sec. 2711 )
Kids can continue to be covered by their parents' health insurance until they're 26.
No more "pre-existing conditions" for kids under the age of 19.
Insurers have less ability to change the amount customers have to pay for their plans.
People in a "Medicare Gap" get a rebate to make up for the extra money they would otherwise have to spend.
Insurers can't just drop customers once they get sick. ( [6] Citation: Page 14, sec. 2712 )
Insurers have to tell customers what they're spending money on. (Instead of just "administrative fee", they have to be more specific).
Insurers need to have an appeals process for when they turn down a claim, so customers have some manner of recourse other than a lawsuit when they're turned down.
New ways to stop fraud are created.
Medicare extends to smaller hospitals.
Medicare patients with chronic illnesses must be monitored more thoroughly.
Reduces the costs for some companies that handle benefits for the elderly.
A new website is made to give people insurance and health information. (I think this is it: [7] http://www.healthcare.gov/ ).
A credit program is made that will make it easier for business to invest in new ways to treat illness.
A limit is placed on just how much of a percentage of the money an insurer makes can be profit, to make sure they're not price-gouging customers.
A limit is placed on what type of insurance accounts can be used to pay for over-the-counter drugs without a prescription. Basically, your insurer isn't paying for the Aspirin you bought for that hangover.
Employers need to list the benefits they provided to employees on their tax forms.
8/1/2012
Any health plans sold after this date must provide preventative care (mammograms, colonoscopies, etc.) without requiring any sort of co-pay or charge.
1/1/2013
If you make over $200,000 a year, your taxes go up a tiny bit (0.9%). Edit: To address those who take issue with the word "tiny", a change of 0.9% is relatively tiny. Any look at how taxes have fluctuated over the years will reveal that a change of less than one percent is miniscule, especially when we're talking about people in the top 5% of earners.
1/1/2014
This is when a lot of the really big changes happen.
No more "pre-existing conditions". At all. People will be charged the same regardless of their medical history.
If you can afford insurance but do not get it, you will be charged a fee. This is the "mandate" that people are talking about. Basically, it's a trade-off for the "pre-existing conditions" bit, saying that since insurers now have to cover you regardless of what you have, you can't just wait to buy insurance until you get sick. Otherwise no one would buy insurance until they needed it. You can opt not to get insurance, but you'll have to pay the fee instead, unless of course you're not buying insurance because you just can't afford it.
Insurers now can't do annual spending caps. Their customers can get as much health care in a given year as they need. ( [8] Citation: Page 14, sec. 2711 )
Make it so more poor people can get Medicaid by making the low-income cut-off higher.
Small businesses get some tax credits for two years.
Businesses with over 50 employees must offer health insurance to full-time employees, or pay a penalty.
Limits how high of an annual deductible insurers can charge customers.
Cut some Medicare spending
Place a $2500 limit on tax-free spending on FSAs (accounts for medical spending). Basically, people using these accounts now have to pay taxes on any money over $2500 they put into them.
Establish health insurance exchanges and rebates for the lower and middle-class, basically making it so they have an easier time getting affordable medical coverage.
Congress and Congressional staff will only be offered the same insurance offered to people in the insurance exchanges, rather than Federal Insurance. Basically, we won't be footing their health care bills any more than any other American citizen.
A new tax on pharmaceutical companies.
A new tax on the purchase of medical devices.
A new tax on insurance companies based on their market share. Basically, the more of the market they control, the more they'll get taxed.
The amount you can deduct from your taxes for medical expenses increases.
1/1/2015
Doctors' pay will be determined by the quality of their care, not how many people they treat. Edit: a_real_MD addresses questions regarding this one in far more detail and with far more expertise than I can offer in [9] this post. If you're looking for a more in-depth explanation of this one (as many of you are), I highly recommend you give his post a read.
1/1/2017
If any state can come up with their own plan, one which gives citizens the same level of care at the same price as the PPACA, they can ask the Secretary of Health and Human Resources for permission to do their plan instead of the PPACA. So if they can get the same results without, say, the mandate, they can be allowed to do so. Vermont, for example, has expressed a desire to just go straight to single-payer (in simple terms, everyone is covered, and medical expenses are paid by taxpayers).
2018
All health care plans must now cover preventative care (not just the new ones).
A new tax on "Cadillac" health care plans (more expensive plans for rich people who want fancier coverage).
2020
The elimination of the "Medicare gap"
.
Aaaaand that's it right there.
The biggest thing opponents of the bill have against it is the mandate. They claim that it forces people to buy insurance, and forcing people to buy something is unconstitutional. Personally, I take the opposite view, as it's not telling people to buy a specific thing, just to have a specific type of thing, just like a part of the money we pay in taxes pays for the police and firemen who protect us, this would have us paying to ensure doctors can treat us for illness and injury.
Plus, as previously mentioned, it's necessary if you're doing away with "pre-existing conditions" because otherwise no one would get insurance until they needed to use it, which defeats the purpose of insurance.
Whew! Hope that answers the question!

any rebuttal to this?

Yes, but it's too long, and very few here will care enough to read it so it's not worth it.

In short though... a tax has never decreased the cost of a service and requiring employers to provide something will NOT incentivize them to create more positions (especially for smaller companies)

I would read it.


But anyways, for the conspiracy theorists, don't you guys see that Justice Roberts voted in favor of this so the country will turn towards Romney and allow the the GOP to tighten their grip on Congress

Anyone consider this?

 

[dajoka004]

^ That's total *%@@@$%*. He just wrote the majority decision on a case that forever changes this country. He doesn't do that to get Romney elected. Even if the act is repealed with a Romney victory, the precedent stands.

 

[8tothe24]

Originally Posted by DaJoka004

^ That's total *%@@@$%*. He just wrote the majority decision on a case that forever changes this country. He doesn't do that to get Romney elected. Even if the act is repealed with a Romney victory, the precedent stands.

This.  The powers government can now impose on the people has forever been redefined.  Some of you don't mind giving up you freedoms to the feds, so be it.

 

[thehealthinspector]

Originally Posted by 8tothe24

Originally Posted by DaJoka004

^ That's total *%@@@$%*. He just wrote the majority decision on a case that forever changes this country. He doesn't do that to get Romney elected. Even if the act is repealed with a Romney victory, the precedent stands.

This.  The powers government can now impose on the people has forever been redefined.  Some of you don't mind giving up you freedoms to the feds, so be it.

and if that 1% goes towards funding the military?

 

[8tothe24]

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

Originally Posted by 8tothe24

Originally Posted by DaJoka004

^ That's total *%@@@$%*. He just wrote the majority decision on a case that forever changes this country. He doesn't do that to get Romney elected. Even if the act is repealed with a Romney victory, the precedent stands.

This.  The powers government can now impose on the people has forever been redefined.  Some of you don't mind giving up you freedoms to the feds, so be it.

and if that 1% goes towards funding the military?

1% of what? power?  You are lost.

 

[thehealthinspector]

Originally Posted by 8tothe24

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

Originally Posted by 8tothe24


This.  The powers government can now impose on the people has forever been redefined.  Some of you don't mind giving up you freedoms to the feds, so be it.

and if that 1% goes towards funding the military?

1% of what? power?  You are lost.

yeah i am, just like my freedoms on a possible tax increase

 

[8tothe24]

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

Originally Posted by 8tothe24

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector


and if that 1% goes towards funding the military?

1% of what? power?  You are lost.

yeah i am, just like my freedoms on a possible tax increase

I know you NT types like defending your boy no matter what he does/says; but seriously, you are clueless son.  Forbid the concepts of precedent or expansions of power enter your extremely limited knowledge.  But hey, I give you credit for sticking with "your side" like a good little loyal sheep (the 2 party system is a brilliant way to divide and conquer).