Some things to consider in the wake of the SCROTUS health care ruling

[Anti Federalist]

So, now that government has set the precedent that they can tax you to live, here are some things to consider, that will be coming down the pike in the very near future.

Considering the following:

1 - As things stand right now, costs will be borne by people across the board. Thus, anything that you do that is considered unhealthy by the medical/government complex can be monitored and regulated.

2 - "Alternative" treatments and medications will be increasingly regulated and outlawed.

3 - You will be required to be "in the system" to be monitored for compliance.

So, what does that all mean, what are the real world ramifications?

No yearly "check up"? Fined.

Refusal to take a regimen of "big Pharma" drugs? Fined.

Failure to maintain an exercise regimen? Fined.

Improper eating habits? Fined.

Undertaking dangerous hobbies or sports? Fined.

Failure to do any of these things with your children will result in their removal from your home.

Failure to pay the fines will result in prison.

And the surveillance grid that is in place all around us will be used to monitor for compliance.

Welcome to freedom, slaves.

[teacherone]

Mandatory child check-ups with notices from your government insurance agent arriving 2 weeks before the appointment.


Every child in Germany has the right to nine free healthy child check-ups (Vorsorgeuntersuchungen), which extend from birth to age five and, additionally, to an adolescent exam (Jugendgesundheitsberatung) at age 13. The purpose of these exams is to monitor the development of your child so that diseases or developmental deficiencies can be detected and treated as early as possible. If your child is born in Germany, you will be given yellow examination booklet at the birth. If you arrive in Germany after the birth of your child, you will be issued the booklet upon making an appointment with a pediatrician for an exam. Even if you think your child is developing normally, it is wise to attend every exam during the time recommended.

http://www.awchamburg.org/health-and-home-articles/childrens-family-health/27-childrens-health-checkups.html

[cajuncocoa]

So, now that government has set the precedent that they can tax you to live, here are some things to consider, that will be coming down the pike in the very near future.

Considering the following:

1 - As things stand right now, costs will be borne by people across the board. Thus, anything that you do that is considered unhealthy by the medical/government complex can be monitored and regulated.

2 - "Alternative" treatments and medications will be increasingly regulated and outlawed.

3 - You will be required to be "in the system" to be monitored for compliance.

So, what does that all mean, what are the real world ramifications?

No yearly "check up"? Fined.

Refusal to take a regimen of "big Pharma" drugs? Fined.

Failure to maintain an exercise regimen? Fined.

Improper eating habits? Fined.

Undertaking dangerous hobbies or sports? Fined.

Failure to do any of these things with your children will result in their removal from your home.

Failure to pay the fines will result in prison.

And the surveillance grid that is in place all around us will be used to monitor for compliance.

Welcome to freedom, slaves.Welcome to 1984, 30 years late.

[donnay]

There is a way around this. Get healthy and do not use the system! When you are forced to get the insurance set the deductibles high.

[Anti Federalist]

There is a way around this. Get healthy and do not use the system! When you are forced to get the insurance set the deductibles high.
If you are not in the system, you will not be monitored for compliance.

Failure to be monitored for compliance will be a crime.

[AuH20]

If you are a small business owner wanting to expand your employee base, how can you can compete against favored industries receiving waivers???? This state of affairs is both fascist and tyrannical. All small business will be driven underground.

[ZENemy]

If you are not in the system, you will not be monitored for compliance.

Failure to be monitored for compliance will be a crime.

So what do we do??

Im so sick of watching these bills pass with no say in it whatsoever.

Tax revolt?

[donnay]

If you are not in the system, you will not be monitored for compliance.

Failure to be monitored for compliance will be a crime.



If you do not use the system, you are not monitored. Time to get your health together folks before you are in the system.

It's like guarding your privacy; as long as you do not enter your name into the system, the system doesn't continue to spit your name out and sell it.

[Anti Federalist]

If you are a small business owner wanting to expand your employee base, how can you can compete against favored industries receiving waivers???? This state of affairs is both fascist and tyrannical. All small business will be driven underground.

There will be no underground.

This isn't Moscow in 1950.

The surveillance grid is now tight enough to monitor all human activity on every square inch of planet earth 24/7

You will comply or die.

[Anti Federalist]

If you do not use the system, you are not monitored. Time to get your health together folks before you are in the system.

It's like guarding your privacy; as long as you do not enter your name into the system, the system doesn't continue to spit your name out and sell it.

The system will now require your name.

Privacy is thing of the past.

It will get your name and number, from a million different sources that were "off limits" in the past.

[donnay]

The system will now require your name.

Privacy is thing of the past.

It will get your name and number, from a million different sources that were "off limits" in the past.


Sure your name will be in the system but through this particular tracking system, it will only be at the top of the list if you are dependent upon it. DO NOT GO TO THE DOCTOR!

Just like DON'T TALK TO COPS!

[Anti Federalist]

Sure your name will be in the system but through this particular tracking system, it will only be at the top of the list if you are dependent upon it. DO NOT GO TO THE DOCTOR!

Just like DON'T TALK TO COPS!

Those that do not use the system will be at the top of the list for surveillance and audits to verify compliance.

There will be no incentive to harass, at first, those that are deep in the system already; running to doctors for every sniffle and taking 30 prescription drugs every day.

They have those people already.

The Eye of Sauron will specifically be looking for those on the "fringes", the alternative "refuseniks".

[donnay]

Those that do not use the system will be at the top of the list for surveillance and audits to verify compliance.

There will be no incentive to harass, at first, those that are deep in the system already; running to doctors for every sniffle and taking 30 prescription drugs every day.

They have those people already.

The Eye of Sauron will specifically be looking for those on the "fringes", the alternative "refuseniks".



Well if you are healthy what are they going to do?

[angelatc]

Well if you are healthy what are they going to do?

Fine you.

[Xhin]

And then jail you if you don't pay the fines.

[ShowMeLiberty]

If you do not use the system, you are not monitored. Time to get your health together folks before you are in the system.

It's like guarding your privacy; as long as you do not enter your name into the system, the system doesn't continue to spit your name out and sell it.

Do you have a social security number? Do you have a job? Do you file income tax returns?

You're already in the system.

Determination of compliance and the "tax" will be enforced by the IRS. Whether you ever see another doctor in your life or not.

[Anti Federalist]

Well if you are healthy what are they going to do?

In the short term, monitor you closely for compliance by putting you under even closer surveillance.

In the long term, force you into the system.

Non compliance with health care mandates will result in fines or prison.

[aGameOfThrones]

This whole thing is...

http://www.lolz.se/fun/clay_sheeeit.gif

[donnay]

Fine you.

Sure they can. They can do anything they want, if we let them. My point is, everyone needs to be aware of the eugenicists that run this health care system. This agenda was not thought up recently, it has been in the playbooks since the eugenicist hijacked our system--which is about the time the Bankers took over our money system.

When some of us talked about how they want to eliminate 90% of the people on earth (Georgia Guidestone - John Holdren's Eco-Science). They really do want us dead. What better way to do it?


The agenda is, to make us sick, put us in the poor house in the process, so we are completely dependent upon the system.

It's time people educate themselves, and understand this tyranny. The only way we can beat it is to be healthy, stay healthy and individually resist them.

[dillo]

Im thinking about becoming a drug dealer.....of anti-biotics

[nobody's_hero]

I hope they're planning on expanding Gitmo for all the people who won't comply. Imagine:

How many people who don't have insurance AND don't follow politics are about to get a RUDE FUCKING AWAKENING?

Come on America, I want to know what your breaking point is.

[Travlyr]

The system will now require your name.

Privacy is thing of the past.

It will get your name and number, from a million different sources that were "off limits" in the past.

They do not get my number because it says right on my Social Security Card, "Not For Identification" That is an exact quote.

[Anti Federalist]

They do not get my number because it says right on my Social Security Card, "Not For Identification" That is an exact quote.

You will be assigned a HCA compliance number citizen.

[Travlyr]

You will assigned a HCA compliance number citizen.

I hope it is "7". That's my lucky number.

[Anti Federalist]

Come on America, I want to know what your breaking point is.

Anybody remember "Stretch Armstrong" toys?

[Anti Federalist]

I hope it is "7". That's my lucky number.

I hope mine is 308

[donnay]

You will assigned a HCA compliance number citizen.

The key word is "compliance."

com·pli·ance
   [kuhm-plahy-uhns] Show IPA
noun
1. the act of conforming, acquiescing, or yielding.
2. a tendency to yield readily to others, especially in a weak and subservient way.
3. conformity; accordance: in compliance with orders.
4. cooperation or obedience: Compliance with the law is expected of all.
5. Physics .
a. the strain of an elastic body expressed as a function of the force producing the strain.
b. a coefficient expressing the responsiveness of a mechanical system to a periodic force.

[aGameOfThrones]

The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their Houses, and Farms, are to be pillaged and destroyed, and they consigned to a State of Wretchedness from which no human efforts will probably deliver them. The fate of unborn Millions will now depend, under God, on the Courage and Conduct of this army” -- Gen. George

[jkr]

"n Germany, you will be given yellow examination booklet at the birth"

http://shewalkssoftly.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/img_4298-500x501.jpg?w=450&h=450

[Travlyr]

The key word is "compliance."

com·pli·ance
   [kuhm-plahy-uhns] Show IPA
noun
1. the act of conforming, acquiescing, or yielding.
2. a tendency to yield readily to others, especially in a weak and subservient way.
3. conformity; accordance: in compliance with orders.
4. cooperation or obedience: Compliance with the law is expected of all.
5. Physics .
a. the strain of an elastic body expressed as a function of the force producing the strain.
b. a coefficient expressing the responsiveness of a mechanical system to a periodic force.

My problem is that I'm not very good at conforming. Maybe I'll bring my own number 9 mm or 30 06.

[dannno]

http://www.imglols.com/wp-content/main/2012_04/fuck-this-shit-oclock.jpg

[nobody's_hero]

Anybody remember "Stretch Armstrong" toys?

My dog loved those.

[lx43]

Govt: Why do you resist us? We are only trying to improve your species. You will comply....Resistance is futile.

[donnay]

My problem is that I'm not very good at conforming. Maybe I'll bring my own number 9 mm or 30 06.


Nor am I. I was never one to comply to man-made rules.

"People perish for lack of knowledge"

[puppetmaster]

Nor am I. I was never one to comply to man-made rules.

"People perish for lack of knowledge"

This is a trait that is strong in the Remnant.

[Anti Federalist]

This is a trait that is strong in the Remnant.

Which is why the system has been working so damn hard for the past thirty years or so to crush us.

Consider: where have some of the most heavy handed government enforcement and mandatory compliance actions been directed toward?

At the last remaining segments of an independent people: small farmers and ranchers, independent truckers, small businessmen, commercial fishermen, small religious sects, just to name a few.

Comply or die.

[jkr]

http://www.imglols.com/wp-content/main/2012_04/fuck-this-shit-oclock.jpg

mR. Gault?
your cab has arrived...

[donnay]

Which is why the system has been working so damn hard for the past thirty years or so to crush us.

Consider: where have some of the most heavy handed government enforcement and mandatory compliance actions been directed toward?

At the last remaining segments of an independent people: small farmers and ranchers, independent truckers, small businessmen, commercial fishermen, small religious sects, just to name a few.

Comply or die.

This is the reason for all the militarized law enforcement. They will enforce the law! The standing armies!

[Travlyr]

Comply or die.

Give Me Liberty or Give me Death.

[donnay]

Give Me Liberty or Give me Death.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Travlyr again."

[LibForestPaul]

Those that do not use the system will be at the top of the list for surveillance and audits to verify compliance.

There will be no incentive to harass, at first, those that are deep in the system already; running to doctors for every sniffle and taking 30 prescription drugs every day.

They have those people already.

The Eye of Sauron will specifically be looking for those on the "fringes", the alternative "refuseniks".
It is just cognitive dissonance. Hard to watch rome burn. Hard to know your childrens children will be slaves. That there is no opt-out. You will receive the mark or men with guns will destroy you AND BELIEVE THEY HAVE THE DUTY AND THE RIGHT TO DESTROY YOU AND YOUR FAMILY.

[phill4paul]

If you are not in the system, you will not be monitored for compliance.

Failure to be monitored for compliance will be a crime.

Molon labe. My line was drawn and crossed long ago...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad1Umj6hxMw

[Czolgosz]

Imagine if our parents (or parents, parents) would have rejected the "Birth Certificate" and SSN shit?

What will YOU do w/ ACA?

It's time for rebellion...and not the kind where you vote a really cool principled liberty guy into office rebellion.

[liberdom]

The system will now require your name.

Privacy is thing of the past.

It will get your name and number, from a million different sources that were "off limits" in the past.

Even if you're living in a cave or Amish? Or Indian on reservation?

[CaptainAmerica]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/--CwP_RWder4/TwSSoDO24SI/AAAAAAAAB8c/z7IJ-M6OARA/s1600/obama_empire.jpg

[Czolgosz]

lol just noticed SCROTUS in the thread title.


uhhhh huh huh

[heavenlyboy34]

So what do we do??

Im so sick of watching these bills pass with no say in it whatsoever.

Tax revolt?
Try calling your congress-critter. That's teh Constitutional way, so it must work. ;)

[LibForestPaul]

Whose cave are you trespassing upon? The Amish already had to bow down. And the Indians have been beat and are now drinking their way of life to oblivion.

[Anti Federalist]

lol just noticed SCROTUS in the thread title.


uhhhh huh huh

Heh heh heh heh...he said SCROTUS.

;)

[Czolgosz]

Heh heh heh heh...he said SCROTUS.

;)

:D

[donnay]

Just remember they do not have any moral authority. The time to resist is NOW.

[Professor8000]

THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION


ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS


Sec. 2. INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.

REVOLUTION
It's Constitutional, Bitches!

[mport1]

OP hits the nail on the head. Only a matter of time.

[specsaregood]

So what do we do??
Tax revolt?

I think they have made it obvious that they don't actually need your tax revenue. The taxes are just there to control you, revolting by not paying them will not hurt them one little bit.

[mport1]

Try calling your congress-critter. That's teh Constitutional way, so it must work. ;)

Lol, because the Constitution has worked so well in the past...

Oh wait, actually since the beginning it has never worked. Words on paper will never constrain an organization that has given itself the monopoly privilege to initiate violence. The sooner the liberty community understands this, the sooner we can achieve liberty.

[mport1]

So what do we do??

Im so sick of watching these bills pass with no say in it whatsoever.

Tax revolt?

http://freestateproject.org/
http://www.seasteading.org

[CCTelander]

Try calling your congress-critter. That's teh Constitutional way, so it must work. ;)


And don't forget to VOTE. That'll fix everything right up. /sarcasm

[specsaregood]

And don't forget to VOTE. That'll fix everything right up. /sarcasm

Just about as well as sticking your head in the sand it seems.

[Anti Federalist]

The always outstanding Will Grigg weighs in:

'Constitutional' Government: Leninism on the Installment Plan

Posted by William Grigg on June 28, 2012 11:05 AM

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/114630.html

Any constitution merely prolongs the pretense that political government can be limited by laws that it will interpret. Eventually, every constitutional government will embrace Lenin's ruling formula: "Power without limit, resting directly on force." How exquisitely appropriate that in the case of the socialist monstrosity called Obamacare this was done by a Bush-appointed Republican conservative.

As the ever-perspicuous Butler Shaffer points out, the federal government has "never deviated" from the Constitution: The document was written in a way that encouraged government expansion and provided the means to accomplish it while sustaining the necessary illusion that its powers were effectively limited by law and its administrators were in some sense accountable to the people they rule.

Any governmental charter permitting government seizure of property through "eminent domain" and the suspension of habeas corpus (the irreducible due process guarantee) for any reason is latently totalitarian at best. So we really have no rational reason to be surprised that a conservative statist would ratify the proposition that the Regime can steal our lives incrementally through taxation — backed by the threat of summary life-stealing through imprisonment or execution — in order to force us to submit to a corporatist health care scheme in which the same Regime will regulate every aspect of that portion of our lives it permits us to retain.




Try calling your congress-critter. That's teh Constitutional way, so it must work. ;)


Lol, because the Constitution has worked so well in the past...

Oh wait, actually since the beginning it has never worked. Words on paper will never constrain an organization that has given itself the monopoly privilege to initiate violence. The sooner the liberty community understands this, the sooner we can achieve liberty.


And don't forget to VOTE. That'll fix everything right up. /sarcasm

[CCTelander]

Lol, because the Constitution has worked so well in the past...

Oh wait, actually since the beginning it has never worked. Words on paper will never constrain an organization that has given itself the monopoly privilege to initiate violence. The sooner the liberty community understands this, the sooner we can achieve liberty.


And yet, in spite of an almost perfect record of abject failure, the CONstitution delusion still persists. Another victory of naive hope over reality.

[CCTelander]

Just about as well as sticking your head in the sand it seems.


Had someone actually suggested sticking our heads in the sand, this might be a valid point.

[Travlyr]

It is not that hard to understand.

If government is not limited then it will be unlimited. Limiting government is our job unless one wants unlimited government.

[mport1]

And yet, in spite of an almost perfect record of abject failure, the CONstitution delusion still persists. Another victory of naive hope over reality.

Yes, it is quite a brilliant document in that regard. Really helps give the state legitimacy in the eyes of many. In time I think more and more people in the liberty movement and beyond will realize what a sham it is.

[CCTelander]

Yes, it is quite a brilliant document in that regard. Really helps give the state legitimacy in the eyes of many. In time I think more and more people in the liberty movement and beyond will realize what a sham it is.


I sincerely hope you're right. CONstitution worship is, IMO, one of the biggest obstacles standing in the path between us and true freedom.

[Anti Federalist]

Ron Paul on the 'Supreme' Court Edict

Posted by Lew Rockwell on June 28, 2012 10:14 AM

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/114595.html

“I strongly disagree with today’s decision by the Supreme Court, but I am not surprised. The Court has a dismal record when it comes to protecting liberty against unconstitutional excesses by Congress.

“Today we should remember that virtually everything government does is a ‘mandate.’ The issue is not whether Congress can compel commerce by forcing you to buy insurance, or simply compel you to pay a tax if you don’t. The issue is that this compulsion implies the use of government force against those who refuse. The fundamental hallmark of a free society should be the rejection of force. In a free society, therefore, individuals could opt out of “Obamacare” without paying a government tribute.

“Those of us in Congress who believe in individual liberty must work tirelessly to repeal this national health care law and reduce federal involvement in healthcare generally. Obamacare can only increase third party interference in the doctor-patient relationship, increase costs, and reduce the quality of care. Only free market medicine can restore the critical independence of doctors, reduce costs through real competition and price sensitivity, and eliminate enormous paperwork burdens. Americans will opt out of Obamacare with or without Congress, but we can seize the opportunity today by crafting the legal framework to allow them to do so.” (Thanks to Jeff Deist)

[specsaregood]

Had someone actually suggested sticking our heads in the sand, this might be a valid point.

Nobody has to suggest it just look around.

[squarepusher]

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):
(Note: Page numbers listed in citations are the page numbers within the actual document, not the page numbers of the PDF file)
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) ( Citation: An entire section of the bill, called Title VII, is devoted to this, starting on page 747 (http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf) )
It increases the rebates on drugs people get through Medicare (so drugs cost less) ( Citation: Page 216, sec. 2501 (http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf) )
It establishes a non-profit group, that the government doesn't directly control, PCORI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient-Centered_Outcomes_Research_Institute), to study different kinds of treatments to see what works better and is the best use of money. ( Citation: Page 665, sec. 1181 (http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf) )
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. ( Citation: Page 499, sec. 4205 (http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf) )
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. ( Citation: Page 30, sec. 1101, Page 45, sec. 2704, and Page 46, sec. 2702 (http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf) )
It forbids insurance companies from discriminating based on a disability, or because they were the victim of domestic abuse in the past (yes, insurers really did deny coverage for that) ( Citation: Page 47, sec. 2705 (http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf) )
It renews some old policies, and calls for the appointment of various positions.
It creates a new 10% tax on indoor tanning booths. ( Citation: Page 923, sec. 5000B (http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf) )
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. ( Citation: Page 14, sec. 2711 (http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf) )
Kids can continue to be covered by their parents' health insurance until they're 26. ( Citation: Page 15, sec. 2714 (http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf) )
No more "pre-existing conditions" for kids under the age of 19. ( Citation: Page 45, sec. 2704 and Page 57, sec. 1255 (http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf) )
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. ( Citation: Page 379, sec. 3301 (http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf) )
Insurers can't just drop customers once they get sick. ( Citation: Page 14, sec. 2712 (http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf) )
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. ( Citation: Page 42, sec. 2719 (http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf) )
Anti-fraud funding is increased and new ways to stop fraud are created. ( Citation: Page 699, sec. 6402 (http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf) )
Medicare extends to smaller hospitals. ( Citation: Starting on page 344, the entire section "Part II" seems to deal with this (http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf) )
Medicare patients with chronic illnesses must be monitored more thoroughly.
Reduces the costs for some companies that handle benefits for the elderly. ( Citation: Page 492, sec. 4202 (http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf) )
A new website is made to give people insurance and health information. (I think this is it: http://www.healthcare.gov/ ).
A credit program is made that will make it easier for business to invest in new ways to treat illness by paying half the cost of the investment. (Note - this program was temporary. It already ended) ( Citation: Page 830, sec. 9023 (http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf) )
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. ( Citation: Page 22, sec. 1101 (http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf) )
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. ( Citation: Page 800, sec. 9003 (http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf) )
Employers need to list the benefits they provided to employees on their tax forms. ( Citation: Page 800, sec. 9002 (http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf) )
Any new health plans must provide preventative care (mammograms, colonoscopies, etc.) without requiring any sort of co-pay or charge. ( Citation: Page 14, sec. 2713 (http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf) )

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. ( Citation: Page 818, sec. 9015 (http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf) )

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. ( Citation: Page 45, sec. 2704, Page 46, sec. 2701, and Page 57, sec. 1255 (http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf) )
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. (Note: On 6/28/12, the Supreme Court ruled that this is Constitutional, as long as it's considered a tax on the uninsured and not a penalty for not buying insurance... nitpicking about wording, mostly, but the long and short of it is, it looks like this is accepted by the courts) ( Citation: Page 145, sec. 5000A (http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf), and here (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf) is the actual court ruling for those who wish to read it. )

Question: What determines whether or not I can afford the mandate? Will I be forced to pay for insurance I can't afford?
Answer: There are all kinds of checks in place to keep you from getting screwed. Kaiser actually has a webpage with a pretty good rundown on it, if you're worried about it. You can see it here (http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/March/22/consumers-guide-health-reform.aspx).
Okay, have we got that settled? Okay, moving on...


Small businesses get some tax credits for two years. (It looks like this is specifically for businesses with 25 or fewer employees) ( Citation: Page 138, sec. 1421 (http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf) )
Businesses with over 50 employees must offer health insurance to full-time employees, or pay a penalty.
Insurers now can't do annual spending caps. Their customers can get as much health care in a given year as they need. ( Citation: Page 14, sec. 2711 (http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf) )
Limits how high of an annual deductible insurers can charge customers. ( Citation: Page 62, sec. 1302 (http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf) )
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. ( Citation: Page 801, sec. 9005 (http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf) )
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. ( Citation: Page 81, sec. 1312 (http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf) )
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 this post (http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/vb8vs/eli5_what_exactly_is_obamacare_and_what_did_it/c537rqi). 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). ( Citation: Page 98, sec. 1332 (http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf) )

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!
Edits: Fixing typos.
Edit 2: Wow... people have a lot of questions. I'm afraid I can't get to them now (got to go to work), but I'll try to later.
Edit 3: Okay, I'm at work, so I can't go really in-depth for some of the more complex questions just now, but I'll try and address the simpler ones. Also, a few I'm seeing repeatedly:


For those looking for a source... well, here (http://docs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf) is the text of the bill, all 974 pages of it (as it sits currently after being amended multiple times). I can't point out page numbers just now, but they're there if you want them.
The website that was to be established, I think, is http://www.healthcare.gov/.
A lot of people are concerned about the 1/1/2015 bit that says that doctors' pay will be tied to quality, not quantity. Because so many people want to know more about this, I've sought out what I believe to be the pertinent sections (From Page 307, section 3007). It looks like this part alters a part of another bill, the Social Security Act (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1395w-4), passed a long while ago. That bill already regulates how doctors' pay is determined. The PPACA just changes the criteria. Judging by how professionals are writing about it, it looks like this is just referring to Medicaid and Medicare. Basically, this is changing how much the government pays to doctors and medical groups, in situations where they are already responsible for pay.

Edit 4: Numerous people are pointing out I said "Medicare" when I meant "Medicaid". Whoops. Fixed (I think).
Edit 5: Apparently I messed up the acronym (initialism?). Fixed.
Edit 6: Fixed a few more places where I mixed up terms (it was late, I was tired). Also, for everyone asking if they can post this elsewhere, feel free to.
Edit 7: Okay, I need to get to work. Thanks to everyone for the kind comments, and I hope I've addressed the questions most of you have (that I can actually answer). I just want to be sure to say, I'm just a guy. I'm no expert, and everything I posted here I attribute mostly to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PPACA) or the actual bill itself (http://docs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf), with an occasional Google search to clarify stuff. I am absolutely not a difinitive source or expert. I was just trying to simplify things as best I can without dumbing them down. I'm glad that many of you found this helpful.
Edit 8: Wow, this has spread all over the internet... and I'm kinda' embarrassed because what spread included all of my 2AM typos and mistakes. Well, it's too late to undo my mistakes now that the floodgates have opened. I only hope that people aren't too harsh on me for the stuff I've tried to go back and correct.
Edit 9: Added a few citations (easy-to-find stuff). But I gotta' run, so the rest will have to wait.
Edit 10: Adding a few more citations (it'll probably take me a while to get to all of them) and a few more additional entries as well.
Edit 11: Tons more citations!
Edit 12: I updated this with a reference to the recent court ruling on the mandate, and address the question everyone seems to be asking about it ("What if I can't afford to buy insurance?")

[Anti Federalist]

Early Morning Phone Calls

Posted by Butler Shaffer on June 28, 2012 10:40 AM

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/114620.html

I was at work on my next book — The Unfolding Civilization — when I received a phone call from a dear libertarian friend. He was in tears and most upset. At first I thought something terrible had happened to his daughter. He then told me that he was troubled over the Supreme Court's upholding of "Obamacare," including its mandatory provisions. "I didn't think they would do that; I thought there were some limits to government power the court would recognize," he cried. "What led you to that conclusion?," I asked. "But this means the government can do whatever it wants to do," my friend responded. "But that's what the Constitution has always been about," I told him.

The conservatives who talk about "getting back to the Constitution" overlook the fact that the courts/congress/the presidency have never deviated from it. The same general words about "general welfare," "necessary and proper," "reasonable," "due process," etc., have been in the document since the very beginning. But words have to be interpreted, and the Supreme Court usurped this power of interpretation quite early, in the case of Marbury v. Madison.

"I thought Justice Roberts — who wrote the majority opinion — would have voted to strike down this law," my friend continued. "How do you think he got this job?," I replied. "How many times have we been blessed with a Stephen Field on the court?," I asked.

It was now a little after 7 a.m. when I received my second phone call, this from a colleague at the law school who was also upset with the court's decision. On this, as well as another matter, he said that he "really felt betrayed" by noble statements made, weeks ago, by others. I told him that such sentiments as "altruism," "public interest," the "public good," and the like, were nothing more than shields behind which people hide their self-interests from public view; that all human action is motivated by self-interest. He told me he could not accept such a view, to which I replied that he ought to take up the question with the gang over at Big-Pharma which, I am certain, has a different perspective on Obamacare than does my friend!

[Peace&Freedom]

Moving forward, implications for action:

1) Do just as Paul suggests. Craft a legal framework to allow people to opt out of Obamacare without consequences (fines, monitoring). There must be a way to add common sense exemptions "a mile wide" that can gut the law. If the Republicans are serious about fighting it (and they aren't, but one can hope) they will propose just that.

2) Remove SCOTUS jurisdiction. Congress can cxercise their constitutional authority to vacate the authority of the federal courts to rule on or enforce the law. Again, if the GOP is serious about it beyond using this a an election issue, they'll do so.

3) From this point on, the court liberty strategy must seek no less than 6 constitutionalist conservative Justices for the court. This generation long routine of seeking "just enough" Justices to roll back unconstitutional laws that the Congress will not politically touch, has reached its end. At least three times now (Webster and Casey decisions on Roe v Wade, and now on healthcare), there have been 5 votes at oral argument time, followed by a betrayal of one conservative at crunch time.

4) Secession. The most severe step, but needed if the above is not done.

[Anti Federalist]

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

<<<<snip>>>>

No more "pre-existing conditions". At all. People will be charged the same regardless of their medical history.

And if that will not be used as an excuse to micro manage everybody's life at the behest of the medical/government establishment, I don't know what will.

But hey, I have the mental capabilities of a five year old, so what the fuck do I know, eh?

[Anti Federalist]

Who Can Be Surprised?

Posted by Lew Rockwell on June 28, 2012 08:47 AM

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/114580.html

The Supremes, who love putting their boots on our necks as much as the Congress and the Executive, have endorsed another totalitarian expansion of State power through Obamacare. Republicans, who loved Nixon's and Bush's socialized schemes, and Romneycare, too, really do not differ except on pure partisan grounds. After all, Obamacare was written by Big Pharma, which owns both parties in its area of interest.

Note: The Nine Creeps' power here is entirely usurped, thanks to John Marshall, though this was no surprise to the Anti-Federalists, who correctly saw the Constitution as a centralizing, big-government coup against the Articles.

[Anti Federalist]

I can't watch videos where I am, let me know if this is any good.

I Hereby Secede.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Fc7C-x6yXV0

[Anti Federalist]

Government Employees in Black Robes Side With Government

Posted by Ryan W. McMaken on June 28, 2012 09:01 AM

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/114582.html

SCOTUS voted 5–4 to uphold Obamacare and have concluded that the Constitution actually empowers the government to force people to buy things. In this case, it's health insurance, but now that the precedent is set, the feds can now require you to buy anything it wants, apparently justified by the Constitution's granted power to tax.

This nicely illustrates the theory that SCOTUS judges will almost always come down on the side of more government power unless doing so will dangerously undermine their own power. They're politicians in robes. The number one concern of the court is its own independence, as illustrated by the craven switch in time that saved nine. It will only vote for more freedom when backed into a corner by the text of the Constitution itself, as in the case of Chicago v. McDonald. But now, calculating that there's enough political support behind Obamacare to get away with it, SCOTUS has handed the executive branch a new massive amount of power.

It's hilariously ironic that a Catholic Bush appointee (Roberts) switched sides to hand a great victory to Obama. How often are we told that we should vote Republican because the GOP president will appoint "good" judges? Often. The upside is that Catholics, who are only now finally starting to figure out that the government is not our friend, may finally have to grow a spine and quit relying on meek petitions to government lawyers (judges) for a defense of religious freedom.

Now that one of Bush's appointees saved Obamacare for Obama, every conservative who voted for Bush to get "strict constructionists" on the bench should have the word "sucker" tattooed on his or her face.

So, when it comes time to get out the vote, will we hear from the GOP about how we need a Republican in office to give us good, Christian, freedom-loving judges in office? Oh yeah, I'm sure Romney appointees will be so much more reliable than Bush's.

[PierzStyx]

Get a gun. Learn how to use it. Be willing to use it. This is the only way you can protect your freedom now.

[MelissaCato]

I see alot of comments on other forums saying the tax isn't expected to be enforced. LOL

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

lol, the American system is a fuckin' joke. That's why i still giggle at constitutionalists.