It may not give you financial subsidies, but yes, you both get all the consumer protection benefits: no lifetime cap, no kicking you off when you get sick, etc.

And, in 2014 when the state exchanges are up, you'll have other options for purchasing competitively-priced health care from competitive providers

Just "wow" on the nonsense you have to put up with, tax-wise, with your household. That needs to be fixed, too.

You got a discount for having your ACL done with insurance. That's great. My insurance company approved payment for my operation to the hospital, then 6 months later decided not to pay. I had to pay "full price", no discounts, out of pocket. That practice is now illegal with the ACA. For you and I, and your partner. Thank god.

I know it has only been two years since this law was passed and has been in effect, but there always has been an excellent website for all your repeated - and repeated, and repeated, and repeated - questions and concerns, Danzig.

www.healthcare.gov

There are good parts and bad parts to the heath reform, the good is obvious, the bad to me is the federal government forcing people to buy a product or pay a fine. Its not right. I see alot of people refusing to buy or pay the fine on principle alone which I support. They, the feds, in my opinon have overstepped what Ill feel comfortable with as far as the government is concerned. We the people should be able to decide if we want to participate in the program or not. It is opening up a whole new can worms when it comes to laws taxes and fines and what the feds can do with their power.

The Supreme Court reiterated today, in the decision, that people do not have to purchase the product, and can choose not to pay the fine.

it's funny to me that the first thing that happened after the ruling is that shares in health care providers all went up in price.

and when kids turn 26, then what? a guy who works at the wellness center just turned 26, so he currently doesn't have insurance.

it's not a tax, obama said so. but it is a tax, roberts said so. on something you don't get. i guess it's an un-tax.
i wonder what marshall would say.

From the Twitterverse
 

"It's okay for the GOP to start pretending that they like Romneycare now"
- JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS

"ITS INTERNATIONAL ALL-CAPS DAY ON RIGHT-WING BLOGS!!!!!!"

"The votes are in - I still have insurance!" - unemployed college-educated 22-year-old still on parents insurance

"BREAKING: Conservatives planning to leave U.S., but can't find wealthy Western democracy without universal health care"

"The Onion ‏@TheOnion
Commentary: I Don't Want Health Care If Just Anyone Can Have It"

"The Onion@TheOnion
Republicans, leukemia team up to repeal health care law"

"LOLGOP ‏@LOLGOP
Scalia points out that slaves didn't get health care and rarely complained, as far as he can tell"

And, for extra fun, video of CNN and Fox News, who both initially wrongly reported the Supreme Court decision http://core.talkingpointsmemo.com/tv...-on-aca-ruling

So that wording will be removed?

No. Just like taxes, you can choose not to follow the law. The Supreme Court said today that people are free to choose not to purchase, and not to pay the fine, either. But of course, like income taxes, they would still be subject to a penalty.

Although penalties are assessed, there is nothing currently in place to allow collection any of the penalties at this time. The IRS is forbidden from trying to collect them. That has to be initiated by removing some wording in the law by Congress.

It is anticipated that more people will want health insurance at a rate they can afford, even if they don't make much money, than choose to be without it. That's why the exchanges exist, so prices to purchase drop.

So the law is designed to "wait and see" how many non-compliant people turn up, before any punishment is initiated.

Practically speaking, from that "what would it mean for you" web page page:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...u/struck-down/

That last sentence is for people that earn too much to qualify for any federal assistance, but any insurance would be greater than 8% of income. For example, you make $75,000 a year, and can't find insurance for less than $500 a month. You don't have to pay any penalty.

Did you try entering yourself and your partner separately (unmarried) to see what each of you are eligible for?

Sounds like a mandate to me:zz:...if you don't have to purcahse the product or pay the fine then how is it mandatory?

if they can't fine...er, tax, then there's no mandate. it would still blow up the whole package. that was why the health providers went for this plan, it makes people buy it.
the only way, from what i've read, to keep from paying the fine is if the coverage price exceeds a set percentage of your income. but with subsidies being what they are, i don't see how that could occur.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=rL7ak__MGyw

This was great stuff.

how in the hell can it be deficit neutral?? how can doubling medicaid rolls not cause an increase in spending? how can subsidizing premiums not cost money?
in what fuci<ing thomas more utopian fantasy land does this **** work? is believable? it's not logical!! if you have x amount on medicaid now...you double that-what does that do to the cost of providing that care alone? well, i would think one could safely extrapolate that if you double the membership of a group, that would also double the cost of covering that group. that's just medicaid. what about the subsidies? who will pay that? and if your stop loss is a certain amount, who is funding that? with what? monopoly money??
adding people with pre-existing conditions-who will pay for those? high risk coverages, who will pay? all the' free' add ons, where will that money come from?

oh, wait...let me guess, because hospitals are going to magically cut their costs, right? LMAO. yeah, sure they will. sure they will. and that'll make up aaaallll the difference.

dear god. and people think that'll happen. HA!

They will, because they will only be paid what the gov't thinks is fair.

lol
yeah, sure. that's why people are throwing money at health providers stock right now, because we all know how profitable things are when there are price controls.

well, at least it'll be interesting to watch how it all turns out.

"Obamacare a big tax hike on middle class America? No."
by Joan McCarter

Chief Justice John Roberts (who might want to think about increasing his security detail) is today's number one traitor for the Right. Roberts did conservatives a solid in one thing, however—he gave them their talking point by declaring that the individual mandate isn't really a mandate, but a tax. With some help from Rush Limbaugh, that's the new narrative from Republicans.

Speaker John Boehner calls it a tax hike. Ditto Rep. Joe Walsh (R-FormerlyADeadbeatDad), calling it a "new tax on middle class America." Sarah Palin, of course, piled on.

So did Mitt Romney, putting himself in some dubious company by declaring the same thing: "Obamacare raises taxes."

Well, not really, as Chris Hayes explains:

The Supreme Court ruling gives the federal government taxing authority, which is by no means the same as the imposition of a broad new tax.

No, this is not a massive tax increase on the American people. It's a penalty paid by people who choose not to purchase insurance. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that it will hit about 4 million Americans, about 1 percent of the population.

Now, it's refreshing that Republicans care about a different 1 percent for a change, but that still doesn't make this a tax hike.

And what's (way, way) more, most of the federal spending for the ACA is in tax credits for middle class people to help them afford insurance. Which is actually more like a tax cut.

Facts aside, since you know Republicans won't be swayed by them, here's the other part that Republicans, particularly Romney, have to tread carefully around. It's exactly how Mitt Romney expanded health insurance coverage in Massachusetts. If you don't buy health insurance in Massachusetts, guess what?

You pay a tax, as Mr. Romney explains at that link.

You pay a tax and take personal responsibility. (Remember that phrase, Mr. Romney? It's a real favorite in your set. Or was.)

The individual mandate isn't the route most of us on the left would have taken toward universal health coverage. But it's the route settled on by pragmatic, moderate political leaders like Barack Obama. And Mitt Romney.

got home from work and spanish class. figured i'd start looking in my usual spots for more being said on obamacare, and here's something interesting already. and it goes more into what i said earlier-that if states can't be forced (and today's ruling takes away the one big stick to force them) into participating by expanding medicaid, what would that do to ppuca:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health...the_poor_.html

Don’t Celebrate Yet
The Supreme Court’s decision will make it much harder to extend health insurance to America’s poor.
By Darshak Sanghavi|Posted Thursday, June 28, 2012, at 7:45 PM ET

and here's the teeth of it:

"When one understands that the ACA’s real impact will derive from its expansion of Medicaid, the Supreme Court’s decision seems more worrisome. By limiting the federal government’s power to expand Medicaid in many states, the Supreme Court has seriously damaged the liberal dream of universal health coverage. As I wrote last fall, almost half of all people who qualify for free health insurance never sign up, especially in the Southern states where the highest number of uninsured people live. That’s not because inhabitants are lazy; it’s because those states create all kinds of barriers to Medicaid enrollment, since they have to assume some of the costs. The Supreme Court’s decision leaves the federal government without a big stick to beat ornery states like Texas, Florida, and Mississippi into expanding Medicaid, which means it has been left powerless to make sure that poor people get their coverage.

State reluctance to expand Medicaid gets at the core problem in health care today—it’s just too damn expensive and the ACA does very little about that. Currently, the average person consumes $5,000 per year in health care. By simple math, newly insuring 60 million people will cost taxpayers $300 billion annually, a far higher number than many policymakers admit. (For example, health care costs now consume 54 percent of Massachusetts’s budget, with the lion’s share going to the expanded Medicaid, despite massive federal subsidies.) And the dream that newly insured people will take advantage of more preventive services, often touted as a means to cut costs, hasn’t panned out, according to a meticulous new study from Oregon."

...i know the focus was on the IM, because that was felt to be the constitutional bugaboo. but there's far more to the whole thing. by ruling that they can't cut current state medicaid funding, there is NO earthly reason for a state to decide to expand their program, especially with many already suffering budget-wise with their current medicaid outlays vs funding.
then there's the fact, since i've read more on the ruling, that they've slashed the fine amounts-you've just removed a real reason for people to go after coverage. it should cost MORE, not less, to not buy it, if the intent is to get young, healthy, non-insurance buying people to decide to buy it.

so, they didn't remove the heart, but it's still possible it's a mortal blow.

If too many people (so it affects the pricing) choose to defy the law, then the Congress can insert collection language regarding the penalty so it will stick.

Kinda silly decision for folks to make, when the choice is

a) affordable comprehensive health care, you pay according to your income level

b) no health care

You mean that insuring another 60 million people won't pay for itself? I thought that Obamacare won't add to the deficit and Riot assured us it wouldn't, how could this be? She even gave us a pie chart.

^^^ often confuses on-line persona with bitchy 14-year-old mean girl :)

The Supremes did remove the ability to withhold all Medicaid funds from states that just want to take the money, not actually spend it on their poor people via Medicaid, and run. Feds can still withhold some Medicaid money.

So if states want to step up, take Medicare money, then announce they are not going to spend it on the poor who are on Medicaid ... well, good luck the next election, Gov.

yeah, a pie in the sky chart, viewed thru rose colored glasses.