Freeloaders, huh? You obviously have healthcare and do not know what it's like not to. My husband and I both have steady jobs, and make just enough money to pay all our various bills, with little room for frivolous spending. Paying for healthcare is a luxury we literally cannot afford. I'm sure there are millions of other Americans out there in the same position that we are in. Lucky for you, you can judge the 'freeloaders' from your viewpoint in the clouds.

And the ACA when in full effect will scale your premiums with your ability to pay.

The purpose of the mandate in the ACA is to make sure people who can afford health insurance buy it. There are all kinds of subsities and exchanges in the law to help people find affordable care. If after all the help the society can give you still choose not to have health insurance, the rest of us will still pick up your visits to the emergency room. If you don't want to buy health insurance, we are expecting you to pay the mandate to make sure you contribute to your the cost of your emergency room care. That way you aren't freeloading off the rest of us.

Sorry you don't have health insurance. My own preference would be expanded medicare, but we took the Republican path. I used the term "freeloading" on the conservative website, because they don't understand much beyond their own prejudices.

@Gina Stump, I've believe you're misreading Ron's comments. He is not talking about those in the situation your husband and yourself are experiencing, he's referencing the types who are shouting "We will not comply! We will not comply!," and who are under the completely mistaken impression that they either won't be able to keep their current insurance or that they'll be forced to buy it from a government-based option (there is no government-based option). Democrats fought to get this bill passed exactly to help out those who find that the cost of purchasing health insurance has gotten to the point where it's a luxury - as Nancy Pelosi has said many times, access to healthcare in this country should be a right, not a privilege.

Quick-read info on the ACA bill:
http://npalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/NPAF.Overview.of_.ACA_.031211.pdf

Ron, sorry dude, I have health-insurance. And trust me, it barely covers the basics, and just barely covers dental - not to mention that it is high! I can't imagine making less than what I make and still having to pay for health insurance - right now this nation spends literally almost double of every other country and everyone still doesn't have health-care! The scam is this whole "free market" concept as though someones "health" should be equated to someones "car" - apples and oranges that many cannot afford.

Thanks for posting that link, June. It's the best I've seen so far on explaining how increases in premiums will work under ACA. That's a part that hasn't received nearly as much media attention as it should.

Zora and others posting here are correct. The cost of health insurance is extreme, especially for those working low income jobs. (And let's face it, wages are going down, not up, for the average American.) Premium increases are an annual thing, and they're always double digit increases. On top of that, the deductibles and co-pays keep increasing annually as well.

This is not sustainable.

he was clearly talking about people who can afford it and don't have it as the "freeloaders," not those like you who want it but can't afford it. I'm sorry for the situation you're in, but that's precisely the one that starting in 2014, the law the Supreme Court affirmed yesterday will fix.

Here's a calculator that will let you estimate the actual out of pocket cost of coverage once the law is fully in effect.

http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx

I would point out that a better and more accurate term is "free rider," which is the economics term-of-art describing those who benefit from some economic activity without bearing costs. It's also a bit more polite than freeloader. A

As someone who already gets comprehensive care partially funded by the ACA, I'm ecstatic about this ruling! If I may, I'm so proud of my home town, San Francisco. We have a form of universal health insurance for everyone who lives here, and I'm here to say it's really, really good.

That's ok. I am pretty sure Kasich is on borrowed time as it is.

During the republican primaries every candidate and the presumptive nominee (even today on his website) professed the need to establish exchanges at the state level. Is this another republican idea they NOW oppose because democrats listened, agreed and implemented? Won't these "exchanges" empower states to provide more competition across state lines? From what I have been able to discern, these exchanges are consistent with republican talking points as a solution to rising health care costs. What am I missing?

Let's just hope HHS is doing a good job of planning for this so they are not caught off guard by how MUCH there will be to do --- thus giving further opening to the Reich/Right to complain further about how inefficient socialism is. (of course they will complain no matter what, but we hope that "independents" et al will benefit and see the light)

more like threatening to hold everyone else's breath until they get their way.

personal responsibility?

@Bartender2 - I believe the answer would be - first, the penalty is not assessed on a monthly basis, it's assessed on an annual basis, and if you don't qualify for one of the exemptions from the law, (which includes hardship) if you go without insurance for more than three months, you'll be assessed the penalty come time to file your tax return.

I could be wrong, but that's what I gathered from reading the "individual mandate" section:
http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8061.pdf

Ok, playing devil's advocate here, I get "personal responsibility" and all, but still, why would anyone pay out expensive monthly premium payments to an insurer versus simply paying a yearly penalty until such time you need medical care and then you hop on board. Without any pre-existing issues, for most healthy and young people, it would seem to be a MUCH cheaper option, unless there's something in the ACA fine print that would make this possibility less likely. Not sure, I haven't read all the ACA legislation fine print.

Besides the hospital bills you'll get hit with between the time you get sick and the time the benefits for the insurance you just decided you wanted after all to kick in?

Nobody said the coverage was going to be retroactive. And if you have a heart attack or a stroke or get into a car accident, or just get appendicitis or blow a tendon at the gym, you can five and six digits worth of bills before you know it.

One of the reasons I take this law very seriously is that, for the last several years, it seems like every time I go to calendar call in court, there's some obviously poor, utterly bewildered person there--all too often carting an oxygen tank--trying to represent him or herself in an action for unpaid medical bills, on their way to the judgment that will lead them into bankruptcy. There's nothing they can do to stop it because they owe the money and about half of the law boils down to "creditors get their money back."

It breaks my heart. There they are, adding the stress of a lawsuit and impending bankruptcy to a serious eillness. Every time I go to court, I see it and it infuriates me, as a citizen, that we as a society let this happen and, indeed, that about 40% of us seem to think that it is some kind of moral imperative that it should happen. That it's a just and moral thing for people to be punished with bankruptcy and even death because they aren't smart or talented enough, or lucky enough, to be able to afford health insurance. And add to that knowing that the hospital is never going to get paid. In the end, it will collect ten or twenty cents on the dollar and pass the rest on to those of who are insured.

After 2014, those lawsuits will work their way out of the system and the new ones will be against people who decided to try to game the system exactly the way you're suggesting they could. And I'm not going to have anything like the same sympathy for them. I'm going to be the one who thinks its a just outcome and add that to the annoyance that they decided it was better to take this risk, and pass a chunk of their bills on to everyone else, than to pay for coverage they could get at a reasonable price.

Life is a roll of the dice, but I get your point Steve. But for most young people who opt for the penalty should they blow out a knee on the basketball court, hop to the sideline, call a health insurer moments later on their cell phone, sign up effective immediately (IF that's allowed and if not, wouldn't that violate the now voided pre-existing condition part of the act), THEN go to the hospital for covered treatment? Far fetched yes, but still plauseable?

Thank you for this perspective. We need to hear more of this type of detail in the coming months to help people understand that there are real, serious moral imperatives at stake with the ACA, far removed from their meaningless blather about "Tyranny!" and "Government Takeover!".

@Bartender2 - according to the ACA, to avoid the penalty, those who are under 30 can purchase "catastrophic-only" coverage, which will be the lowest cost, bare-bones insurance for such scenarios as blowing out a knee (but which would also include three primary physician visits with no deductible). Also, if they're under 26, they could still very well be carried on their parents' plan.

Kaiser Foundation Link:
http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8061.pdf

bartender2 -- i get your point, that for some paying the penlty is still cheaper than buying the insurance, so the goal of getting people insured still may not be met. even if that were a rational choice for a young single person, for example, on the macro level we are all still better off: that person today is paying nothing until they are suddenly ill and show up uninsured at an emergency room; at least under the ACA they would have paid something into the system to offset the costs they now create. so while admittedly imperfect, it is still an improvement, even in your "rationally opting-out" example.

Yes, paying something is better than nothing, still, it might have been better that the ACA stipulate a 30 day waiting period (yes, a pre-exiting temporary hold) before your coverage kicks in unless you're transferring from one plan directly to another. It certainly beats the old way of insurers simply refusing to insure folks with pre-existing conditions, or charging them unaffordable high premiums. I've been there, done that as one who has a pre-existing condition.

In going over a summary of the bill, it looks like insurers will still be able to impose a waiting period of up to 90 days - which actually is the exact amount of time the law allows for before the penalty kicks in.

And that coverage still won't pay the bills you incurred during those three months.

I would venture to guess that the overwhelming majority of the healthcare bills are racked up in this country are for services rendered over fewer than 90 days.

Steve, my point was in regard to Bartender 2's question essentially asking what controls are in place to keep people from gaming the system. In this particular scenario, though, if someone wasn't gaming the system, but still didn't want to carry full coverage -- they would still be young enough to either be carried on their parents' insurance, or they could purchase catastrophic-only coverage to qualify as being covered.

Ah, ok, a 90 waiting period. I had not seen that in my research. Thanks!

Fear of risking your own assets.

Thanks for reading, Bartender 2!

Yep. Hopefully, sooner rather than later, voters will get tired of being played for fools by the same old Republican claptrap.

You should really check out Marco Rubio's appearance on The Daily Show from Monday. It's on the web.

The expansion of Medicaid and the subsidies for low income earners who are not eligible for expanded Medicaid takes care of those people.

If you truly can't afford insurance, you will get it at no or reduced cost. ACA does not tax poor people.

Unless, of course, you have the misfortune to live in a state run by Teahadist Republicans who refuse to accept the Medicaid expansion part of the bill that the Supremes made voluntary rather than mandatory yesterday. If that's the case, you're screwed. Probably be a good idea to consider that come election day.

Why don't you ask the GOP that question? It is Republican governors and politicians across the line who ALWAYS block and slash funding to public-sector employees first and foremost.