When a person retires and begins receiving Social Security benefits, Medicare Part A is automatic - and it is FREE. You can pay for Part B if you want it. So what? Everyone I know has to pay for Part B if they want the doctor coverage. Currently it is around $110 per month, I believe.

Medicare Part D is the prescription drug coverage. If you want coverage, you pay for it.

I do not see your complaint.

How has the Affordable Care Act affected that? Has that not always been the case?

As I said before - the vast majority of people don't understand the act or how it will affect them or others.

Nothing To Do With It
 

I suppose depending on the benefits you received and the premiums you had to pay for them, it might have been cheaper for you as an active employee than it will be now that you're retiring, turning 65 and going on Medicare. For most people that would be unusual. But as far as what happens when you have to go on Medicare, it's no different than it has been for years. All of us that are over 65 have experienced the same thing. In my case it was even worse than you're experiencing--I had to pay $1,200 a month for health insurance for several years between when I retired and when I turned 65 and qualified for Medicare. When I qualified for Medicare was a great day--my monthly premiums were cut in half, even after paying for the Medicare supplemental policy offered by my former employer.

The numbers are likely different for all of us, but the situation has been the same for years. It has nothing to do with ObamaCare. It would have happened to you the same way whether or not the bill was passed three years ago.

Your post above loses any credulity as you have no clue.

You're good at insults though. I'll give you that.

No, I believe the constitutional experts I've listened to and not some insulting poster who is obsessed with everything I write.

What the heck does it matter who appointed him. It has nothing to do with his wrong headed badly written decision. It's not the first time a Republican President has been betrayed by the person he thought was a constitutionalist and became a legislator from the bench instead. Justice Souter comes to mind very prominently.

Justice Roberts held the American individual in contempt today. He twisted the Constitution almost unrecognizable in terming Obama's mandate that an individual must buy a product as a "tax". It's absurd.

Even if the Congress eventually can repeal this monstrous legislation, he's done incredible damage to the liberties of Americans with this precedent of his decision as what can constitute a tax.

Republicans who are trying to twist this into some kind of blessing in disguise in maybe giving them the hammer to knock out Obama are short sighted.

Yes, that's important and maybe this law can be trashed, but that's not the tragedy of this decision.

How do we get our Constitution back?

Go ahead now all you who are obsessed with everything I write. You can now call be names instead of dealing with any issues here.

I'm through talking with you when all you do lately is bash me instead of comment on the thread at hand. You've got it into your head somewhere where thats OK.

For someone who holds himself out as intelligent, you don't show it here.

Why don't you read Justice Kennedy's dissent. Maybe you won't be so lame afterward.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ot_647952.html

Those "Experts" Again?
 

Ahh, it's those unnamed "experts" you've found again, Richie. Have you really found some experts who say that the decision by the five members of the SCOTUS and their opinions in voting as they did are unconstitutional or incorrect interpretations of both the Constitution and the precedents they used for their decision? Really?

From what you've said, we know that your experts disagree with the five justices who affirmed the decision in favor of the four who dissented. I'd love to read what they have to say, how they argue against the majority justices. Who are they, Richie?

I agree Bucco. People are jumping up and down and high-fiving each other yet when you ask them what it is going to cost or ask for details, they don't have any answers. When you explain that the current cost in Florida for the mandated state pool is more than some people can afford, supporters of the law say that the POTUS has set up a plan to expand Medicaid and give money for people to subsidize their payments. They say that with their chests puffed out proudly telling you that it will put more people on Medicaid. It really confuses me.

No, the only part of the Law that Roberts used to find the ACA constitutional revolved around the issue of whether Congress could impose a tax penalty on those who did not purchase insurance. The rest of the Law does not have anything to do with the taxation authority of Congress. Keep in mind that the only persons who will incur this penalty are those who are financially able to purchase health insurance either directly from a carrier or from the individual state exchanges which are supposed to lower the cost of coverage by providing an opportunity to have more persons in the pool making a larger group. Florida has done nothing to get started on setting up their exchange.
Those that cannot afford to purchase coverage will get Federal assistance to offset the cost.
In Massachusetts 1% (one percent) of the citizens are seeing a tax penalty for not purchasing the mandated health coverage.

blueash, what is this all about: https://www.pcip.gov/StatePlans.html

OK, I'll withdraw that. Try this on for size. Mcconnell's obsession with making BHO a one term President has over taken his ability to function as a Senator IMO. Now I have to go buy a new putter.

I'll keep that to myself for now only to prevent you from changing the discussion to the constitutional experts I'm consulting instead of to the issue at hand, which obviously you seem not to be able to discuss coherently if all you can do is to bash me like the rabble you're associating yourself with on this forum.

If you can't speak to the issues of this decision it's not worth the time to speak in your direction.

What's to be confused about. "Obama" is a cult of personality. It's Jonestown, to put it bluntly.

I cannot figure out how it gets paid for at all. When I look at some of the parts of the bill that cover how to pay, so much of it says....savings from this and that with no explanation or plan to get that savings. Then, I suppose it beomes tax #22 and up !!

Listen, I would love so many of the parts of the bill, but I do not see hw we afford it and it still has not addressed the COST of health care in any way...it has no tort reform.

As far as Florida, the medicaid thing...I THINK...requires the state to kick in and Florida cant afford that.

I am not trying to find fault because it is Obama...I said all of this from the beginning.....

I'm amazed at the folks that scream about the cost of the bill. We have a do-nothing Congress (except when its time to get out of town for holidays) that keeps passing spending bills. We need a Congress that will have the fortitude to pass some cuts.

For those that like to over think issues.

Q&A: What does the health care law mean for you? | Fox News

Mmmmmmmm.....yummy Koolaid. :laugh:

Pretty Fair And Balanced
 

I wish Fox always reported like that. That piece really was pretty "fair and balanced".

I'm reading the opinions of those whose expertise I value; educating myself in the process and then posting. All you are doing is wasting everyone's time by bashing me instead of countering what I'm saying with any sort of intelligent or interesting comment. You are only showing yourself to be petty.

You're hardly worthy of me even writing this post.

Thank you Attorney General Pam Bondi and all the other Republican Attorneys General who filed this lawsuit that ended up in the Supreme Court. Without your action, there would always be doubts that the individual mandate was constitutional. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled, The Affordable Care Act is once again in the news and being openly debated, as well it should be. President Obama gets a second chance to explain the law to the American people, and Mitt Romney now has a chance to explain how he would replace it.

I am humbled and honored that you took valuable time away from your consulting, not to mention the time of your consultants, to attempt to educate me. You are the greatest of the great and will, no doubt, be the first inductee to the TOTV Hall of Fame. PLEASE reply to this post or my fragile ego will destroyed.

Since when does a Supreme Court Justice have the purview to rewrite a bill in order to deem it's provision "constitutional". The guiding principle of the Supreme Court majority in this instance was to "re-imagine" the bill in order to find it constitutional. This was not, and is not, their place in government.

When you pay a tax, where does this money go? The "taxes" for this bill go to insurance companies. Think about that for a second.

Imagine the next time you go into Publix the cashier assesses a charge of $3.00 for milk. You tell her "I didn't buy milk"; the cashier informs you that the "tax" for not buying milk is $3.00. The government now has the precedent in this new era of regulating the "absence of commerce" to actually do this.

(Oh don't be silly, they won't do this. Really?; what gives you that faith after what's happened......If you don't like the milk analogy, just make it any product you imagine a buttinsky politician thinking you should have to use for your health, or for any reason, and thus buy)
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania (1759)

Yes, good sumary Posh. Thanks!

My only response to this post would be to call you what you are. You have nothing worth saying except to bash me.

Do you really think you're looking good doing this?

I can't imagine why you think it's OK to do this instead of countering what I saying if you can.

You realize that FOX News like many news sources just posted a story by the Associated Press.

I don't know why you find this refreshing that they would do so; it's pretty normal business.

Just what's sad about millions of people who are currently freeloading on the rest of us having their own insurance. What's sad about the millions of people (kids included) who will now be able to get care despite pre-existing conditions? What's sad about kids 21-26 being able to recieve benefits under their parents plans?

What's sad is that most of the naysayers don't have a clue what the Health Care Plan is all about, don't have a concern for the millions that will benefit and think it's a political battle issue instead of a good option for all of us. And by the way, if you think it's socialized medicine, take a trip to The UK or Canada which might open your eyes to reality!

Oh yea....like Cavuto & Doocey & Carlson just report the news? How stupid do you think we are?......and I am sure you will tell us. :laugh:

What's sad is the damage done to The Constitution's protections.

The only Fox News "Journalist" is Shep Smith. He will tell it like it is.

And the Constitutions protections are damaged
 

if we don't have car insurance!!!??????



....What is the difference!

When it comes to policy making you can bet the farm that what was "intended" and what is "expected" will never transect. In otherwords policy gets lost in translation or perhaps a better word is application. So before anyone goes jumping up and down and patting themselves on the back you miht want to go beyond the thinking suggested in this article. This is bad law and it is a disaster in the making

A perfect example of why you should give up the ghost as a potential Supreme Court nominee!

"This is bad law and it is a disaster in the making" say you. Makes you wonder what the 30 million who have no insurance but will be covered under the Affordable Care Act have to say. This includes the firefighters fighting the CO fire, who don't get insurance because they are part-time employees of the forest service. Soon they will be able to buy insurance at an affordable price.

What is the suspected disaster? Key word being suspected. Fear mongering is all I hear.

Tell me specifically how this gets paid for...the disaster for me is we all talk about our government overspending, and yet we are happy that we have more that we cannot afford.

In addition, please be aware that this act does not even address HEALTH COSTS in anyway at all.....and there is no TORT REFORM, so what we will begin to pay next year in taxes and add more in 2014, you can rest assured it will go up and up some more.

This is a bad law because we cant afford it and it does not do what this man said he would do....that you cannot dispute. He said he was going to address health COSTS...this he did not do. He said we had to have tort reform to control costs...this he did not do. It IS a bad law, but it is now the law of the land !!

Denial is all I hear.

I have a feeling you don't realize what was done here if you're comparing it to having car insurance.