Talk:Affordable Care Act

Non-Profit Option?

I thought the Senate bill included a nonprofit health insurance plan administered by the United States Office of Personnel Management (similar to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, in lieu of the public option? Why does this article make no mention of it?

Started Article, Notes

The fact that I am starting this article a week after the event, which was on the cover of every newspaper and major news site in the US, is a case in point of the lack of diligence on the current health care debate.

In the intro I mentioned what this bill means in the context of the health care reform effort, which serves as an example of providing context to the reader that is almost totally lacking in most other articles.

Please help expand this article, using the links I listed in the article among others.

There needs to be, among other things:

• an outline of the bill
• a section that compares this with the House bill, which the NY Times does nicely
• claims on all sides, including President Obama
• support and reservations that people had in the initial debate

NittyG (talk) 02:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Text of the Bill

I made an attempt to convert the bill to wiki text. It is here in wikisource:HR 3590 TOC. The final section of the bill (TITLE X) is a series of amendments to HR3590. This makes it impossible to read the bill before unwinding all of the changes in TITLE X. Jeff Carr (talk) 07:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Most bills are impossible to read without reference to the U.S. Code or some original act, so it's not that much different than any other bill. Since I have the opportunity, though, I'll just point out that having to add Title X rather than amending the various sections just proves how idiotic the Senate's rules are. -Rrius (talk) 06:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Downplaying of tax increases

In this article (which I realize is in its infancy of course) there is only a cursory bullet point about the tax hikes. Instead, there is a bold section about the "deficit reduction". Clearly, the only way this bill can cut the deficit is if it increases taxes by about 2 trillion dollars over the next two decades (only makes mathematical sense, given that in the article it also states that the projected costs for each decade are nearly $1 trillion each. More details should be given on what the taxes are, and why they count towards making the bill budget-friendly even though they may or may not have anything to do with the health care issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.78.41 (talk) 06:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Tried to sign it but not sure how, sorry.

As you seem to be aware, no one is downplaying the tax increases. You do make one point that is just false, though. A bill can cut the deficit by increasing taxes, directly or indirectly cutting spending. Therefore you would need to provide reliable sources for any discussion of increased tax revenues expected. Finally, leave a note at User talk:Rrius to explain the trouble you're having starting an account; I'll see if I can help. -Rrius (talk) 06:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

clarification

I don't understand this line:

HR 3590 is divided into ten titles. The text of the bill cannot be read directly as printed. The tenth title is a list of amendments to the previous nine titles. These amendments must be processed before the bill is read.

This needs clarification. Cannot be read as printed? --Gerrit ^CUTEDH 08:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it means that the amendments are not wrote into the bill where they belong, so if you read it straight through, some of the information is obsolete because the amended provisions are still there in their original form. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Semi-Protected

I note the page is currently semi-protected. This is due to all the drive-by vandalism? --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

A number of anons were positively contributing to this. The history looks like a mess of numbers, but notice what version are being reverted to - many of them anon edits. (not counting anons reverting to their own vandalism) Xavexgoem (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It's surprisingly quiet! --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I say we leave it unprotected unless there becomes a rash of vandalism. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if we don't need it. There's not a helluva lot of vigor on either side of the kill-the-bill argument atm ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so sure of that. As I understand it (and I don't have sources for this offhand, for which I apologize), Michelle Bachmann is introducing legislation to repeal it. You also have statements from Newt Gingrich, and Rush Limbaugh. And then of course, there's the ever lovable Bill Kristol stating that it will be repealed in 2013. For what its worth, you can probably find sources for what i'm talking about on the Fark.com politics tab. Just don't go there if you'd like to retain your faith in humanity ;).Umbralcorax (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Bill vastly expands IRS, both in numbers of employees and powers of enforcement

There is no mention of this - 16,500 new IRS enforcement agents. Nor is there mention of the IRS as the principle enforcement agency.

I can't think of a legitimate argument which would justify excluding this information.

See: http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100318-715006.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.207.93.82 (talk) 12:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Table expansion

The table under "Comparison with House version" should be expanded to include a third column for the reconciliation (HCEARA) bill even if some of the rows cannot be filled-in. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Legal challenges

There should probably be a section on the threatened legal challenges. [1][2][3][4]. Nine states have formally announced a legal challenge today [5]. Findlaw has a pretty good article discussing case law surrounding the bill [6]. I think at least four states are so far preparing to mount a legal challenge. One of those article says 31 are considering a legal challenge. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I just read the FindLaw article you referenced. It is terrible. Do you really want us to believe that the their are no limits to Federal power expressed in the Constitution? Because the cheap rationalizations and bad case law cited in that article lead to exactly that. 24.11.186.64 (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

One of the two "legal" references reads this: "Legal experts say it has little chance of succeeding because, under the Constitution, federal laws trump state laws." If we are to assume this is not simply propaganda, the sheer stupidity of such a statement is difficult to fathom. This would be the sort of answer one might expect from a mediocre high school student. Quite obviously this bill violates the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution and any bone fide "legal expert" knows that the US Constitution explicitly limits what the Federal government can do. 24.11.186.64 (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

? I am not sure what you are getting at. The point is to show both sides, hence the conflicting opinions. The findlaw articles is not currently being used in the article though. But if you read through the findlaw article thoroughly, it is just summarizing positions, not pushing one. I think it would make a pretty good source. If you have an issue with the legal challenge as it is in the article please feel free to change it, with references of course. :) Or point out the issues here. I would be glad to address them. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This is to discuss the article itself, not to editorialize about the legislation. --kurykh 18:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I've expanded the section to give an analysis of the case law involved, and venue by which the bill could be ruled unconstitutional or upheld. According to the article, it all hinges on whether the Court thinks the purpose of the fine is - revenue creation or a regulation to effect behavior. If its revenue creation, then the bill stands given current precedent. If it is to effect behavior, it is unconstitutional given current precedent. Dorf concludes that the fine is at its core a revenue creation measure, and upon that basis his opinion that it will be found constitutional by the court. His analysis is the value of the findlaw article, not his conclusion. I can't find anywhere else where that level of analysis has been given. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

No protection?

You're kidding, right? I don't want this article to go from none to full because of an edit dispute. It may still want to be advance semi-protected. I doubt vandalism will be the issue for a while. mechamind90 15:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I unprotected it. I'm sitting here doing other things with Huggle notifying me of any revisions. Once I leave, I'll reprotect. Xavexgoem (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC) And never do we ever advance protect, except for things like high-use templates

60-39 vote?

Was this vote pre Scott Brown or did a republican actually vote for it? IF so I think there name is worth mentioning here. I know I could do the edit but I don't the facts yet. 174.96.253.231 (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It was pre Scott Brown. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

"most controversial" in lead

This is currently in the lead: "The bill is one of the most controversial measures of the 111th United States Congress." I have fact tagged it. Obviously this is completely true, but none of the given sources state it in this manner. This is also no discussed in the body of the article, where a fuller description of this sentence needs added. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I think calling it "controversial" or a "highly controversial" measure would be accurate and appropriate for the lede. Concur about something in the body. Ravensfire (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Public option

Are states allowed to set up their own public option? 82.124.100.124 (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there's a waiver program if states want to go further than the federal program. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Would states have to waive their citizens receiving federal subsidies, or lose other benefits, by going further than the federal government? 82.124.100.124 (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss the article, not the subject of the article. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought this subject might be appropriate for inclusion in the article. 82.124.100.124 (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that Section 1332 of the Act provides for a "waiver for state innovation". It would compensate states for opting out if they wanted to go further than the federal government. This appears to me to be a significant aspect of the legislation. 82.124.100.124 (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see this detail get implemented in the article.   — C M B J   01:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Biased?

Frankly, I'm reading this and wondering if this article isn't overly biased. While it's certainly factual, virtually all of the facts point to the positive and sunny side of the issue and very little discussion is had as to the controversial side of the issue. A non-biased, encyclopedic article - IMO - should discuss all sides of the issue, not just tell me why it's a good thing.

As has been pointed out, this is a highly controversial piece of legislation. So far, all of the quotes and citations have been glowing, positive ones while any detractors are made to seem like mere dissenting grumblers. Sure, there is a section on "Legal Challenges" but I'm just not feeling that this covers the whole issue. The big story behind this is two-fold. On the one hand is the bill itself and on the other hand is the very contentious and controversial nature of the bill and it's history.

I do, however, understand that this is a new article and also understand that perhaps the debate and controversy itself might belong in a separate article, but at least some of that discussion should be found in more direct form here, no? Kholya (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. The international opinion on this bill is vastly favorable. The criticisms are mostly from Americans who oppose the bill based on their own personal biases. The best measure of any act is to look at it from the outside. The idea that affordable healthcare despite pre-existing conditions is nearly universally accepted outside of the United States. In most nations, the universal single payer system is in use, the general health of these nations is almost always better, and the ratings of their healthcare systems by citizens are almost always better. ReignMan (talk) 13:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Do some research, find some negative opinions, and add them to the article (with citations). This is a wiki, you're openly encouraged to fix stuff you think could be better. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

For what its worth, I also feel its mostly a positive article. But like Cybercobra said, simply requires someone to edit the article to make it more two-sided. However I myself don't think I have the capacity to do such a thing :D TheFedExPope (talk) 02:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Who specifically wrote the bill/act ?

I don't see anywhere where it says who the author(s) are. Redtrade (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if that is even clearly determinable. The act has been in debate and amendment for 6 months between both houses. Grandmartin11 (talk) 04:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Several Democrats asserted Republicans contributed 200+ text amendments to the bill, if that helps track it down at all.   — C M B J   06:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

A preliminary print that I have seen for this Act is well over 2,000 pages. I am sure that that the Act has many, many authors. Famspear (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy

The article should note the significance of Ted Kennedy's indirect contributions to this bill, assuming reliable sources can be located. The bill achieved one of Kennedy's lifelong ambitions--as illustrated by "Kennedy! Kennedy! Kennedy!" cheers during the final House vote.   — C M B J   02:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that belongs more in the general health care reform article. Ted Kennedy died before this bill was even created. To add him in this bill would seem like unnecessarily glorification. --kurykh 03:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Kennedy was directly referenced by several speakers in the House, which resulted in at least one congressman being penalized for exceeding the allocated time limit. It seems only appropriate to concisely describe extraordinary house proceedings and circumstances.   — C M B J   06:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

LBJ was referenced quite a few times in the context of Medicare, but he's not necessary here. I don't think it's relevant to this article. Parliamentary penalties should not make Kennedy any more needed in this article, or else we might have to talk about Randy Neugebauer's "baby killer" comment in the HR 4872 article. --kurykh 07:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Considering that Neugebauer's remark reached front page status on some news outlets immediately following the event, I'm frankly fascinated that it has not yet resulted in an edit war. But on the subject at hand, we must weigh whether the information is merely rhetoric or if it is indeed something truly noteworthy. In analyzing the Speaker's closing statement, “And now, I want to just close by saying this. It would not be possible to talk about health care without acknowledging the great leadership of Senator Edward Kennedy, who made health care his life’s work. In a letter to President Obama before he passed away — he left the letter to be read after he died. Senator Kennedy wrote that: ‘Access to health care is the great unfinished business of our society.’ That is until today.", as well as her following statement today "I don’t want to sign this bill without mentioning Senator Edward Kennedy, who up until his last days had an influence on this legislation in the most positive way. He said this is ‘the unfinished business of our society.’ He said having health care reform was about ‘the character of our country, not the provisions of any particular bill.’ And in his honor, we all have to be prayerful and feel very blessed that we could all be here for the passage of this legislation.", it can be observed that there is what seems to be more than a casual connection at hand.   — C M B J   07:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, it would be a mistake to say he influenced this piece of legislation itself. It would be more proper to put him in the general article, as he made an impact more on the entire reform movement and process rather than this particular bill. At this point in time, the article is still about a single part of the reform process, not about the movement itself. However, if in the future this article starts to take on more of a general health care reform aspect, discussing the entire process instead of just a part of it, then we can probably add Ted Kennedy in. At this time, I would find it improper. --kurykh 18:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not proposing that we engage in original research or synthesis about Kennedy, nor do I believe that this article will (or even should) ever begin to incorporate substantive quantities of abstract material. All I originally intended to suggest was that we include a concise and validly sourced citation--perhaps even a one or two liner--which explains that a fair number of politicians explicitly deliberated on Kennedy's connection to this specific bill; some fervently enough to deliberately violate House decorum. Though I may have failed to adequately articulate the original proposal here, there is nothing remotely improper about what I envisioned--rather, its ommission would be unencyclopedic. I do fully agree with you in that we currently lack the proper section to incorporate it into, however.   — C M B J   03:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I know what you're saying (perhaps I didn't give that impression). It's just that as of now, I find it more of an unneeded passing reference which seems forcibly incorporated more than something the article needs (right now, at least). --kurykh 03:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, now that I think about it, we're kind of arguing even though we agree pretty much on everything here: that it can be incorporated, but it would seem awkward and gratuitously glorifying to do so right now. If this is true, I would say hold off until such an opportunity arises where it would be useful. --kurykh 03:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, that would be just fine.   — C M B J   04:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Historic narrowness

As the article develops, we may need a bit more mention of the historic narrowness or one-sidedness of the vote. As The New York Times put it, "Never in modern memory has a major piece of legislation passed without a single Republican vote. Even President Lyndon B. Johnson got just shy of half of Republicans in the House to vote for Medicare in 1965...." I haven't surveyed other news accounts to see if this point has been made elsewhere. —Kevin Myers 08:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Private Mandates?

In the section on state lawsuits, you mention that they oppose the government's requirement that individuals purchase healthcare, but I do not see that listed in the provisions. I know that this was a contentious issue leading up to the bill, does the final legislation require individuals in America to purchase healthcare and if so what are the provisions to that extent? Thanks!

It says: "Impose an annual fine on individuals who do not obtain health insurance; exemptions to fine in cases of financial hardship or religious beliefs." —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Republican measures used in bill

I would like to see information on what Republican/opposition ideas made it into the final bill. Not to turn it into a partisan issue, but IIRC there are more than 100 Republican amendments in the final legislation, which resulted in 0 Republican votes. This information would help us understand how they shaped this bill and what aspects they have ownership of. - Liontamer (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

200 Republican amendments, according to Speaker Pelosi.   — C M B J   16:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Final count in the House

What was the final vote tally on Sunday? Our article says 219-212, while this says 220-211. -R. fiend (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You're looking at the vote for the Reconciliation Act. This is the vote on this Act. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. -R. fiend (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Deficit impact

A subsection from the article:

Deficit impact

According to the CBO, the legislation will reduce the deficit by $138 billion over the first decade and by $1.2 trillion in the second decade. The CBO has been continually revising their estimates, changing from a savings of $132 billion to $118 billion and then to $143 billion. The CBO estimates the cost of the first decade at $940 billion, $923 billion of which takes place during the final six years (2014–2019) when the benefits kick in.

It doesn't specify which deficit will be reduced. Is it the national debt, the trade deficit, or something completely different? --Lucas Brown 19:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

These are not ambiguous within the context of this text. "deficit" here, and in general, means the budget deficit. Each year, the budget results in a surplus or a deficit and this is added to the debt. Bernardd (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Does the CBO actually give an estimate for the second decade? The CBO letter cited does not make a definitive statement on this. On page 15 of the letter, the CBO makes plain that it cannot give a detailed estimate. The closest I could find to a number for the second decade was on page 16, which references a "broad range" around 1/2 percent of GDP. Is this where the $1.2 trillion comes from? If so, it is misleading at best. I see 2010 GDP estimates at 14,532B. Are there growth assumptions in GDP assumed and then 1/2% applied to this set of data? What exactly is a "broad range?" 76.97.217.112 (talk) 05:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Added section on background

I added a section on the background here, which I realize is rather redundant with other sections, and for that matter may be more about legislative history which comes in the next section (I did go back to the primaries, in very summary fashion). If others want to organize it better that's certainly fine with me, or I may try to do so. The section was blank, so I figured something was better than nothing.

As an aside, this article is somewhat difficult to find, though I don't know if there's any way for us to improve that.Mackan79 (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

confused about something

I understand that the act requires employers to provide medical insurance, but this statement isn't as straight-forward as it appears; many employers provide insurance, but only to full-time employees. Does the new act require employers to provide insurance only to full-time employees, or to all employees? Minaker (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no such requirement; employers can choose to not offer an insurance plan. If they choose not to offer such a plan, they pay an annual fine per employee if they have more than fifty employees. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your non-answer, I guess. I'll rephrase to make you happy:

I understand that the act requires employers to either provide medical insurance or pay an annual fine, but this statement isn't as straight-forward as it appears; many employers provide insurance, but only to full-time employees. To avoid paying a fine, are employers required to provide insurance only to full-time employees, or to all employees?

Off-subject trivia: Federal tax law doesn't actually require you to pay your taxes; you can choose to go to prison instead. Minaker (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding who must be offered insurance to avoid the fee, section 4980H states that the employer should "offer to its full-time employees (and their dependents) the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage under an eligible employer-sponsored plan" (emphasis mine). The fee amount is also defined in the same section by the number of full-time employees. For some other parts of the bill, the size of the business is counted in terms of "full-time equivalent employees", defined in section 45R (basically, the average number of people employed over a calendar year). It's pretty easy to find this stuff in the bill by doing "find text" in your browser. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 01:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you misunderstood me, please assume good faith. :) The bill does not mandate employers provide health insurance, the fine or tax is there as an alternative for employers to choose what is best for them - paying the fine\tax or offering the insurance. Companies would probably continue to operate similarly to how they do now, some just have to pay an additional tax. Its pretty similar to unemployment taxes and workers compensation taxes in that regard; employers participate or pay a fee. I have not heard at what point this fine\tax applies, whether it is part time or full time employees. That is an interesting point. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I understood you just fine. And I would never accuse you of bad faith, that would be against Wikipedia policy. I cannot emphasize how much I am assuming good faith on your part, even despite all evidence to the contrary.  :)

Off-subject trivia: Federal tax law does not mandate you to pay your taxes, the fine or imprisonment is there as an alternative for people to choose what is best for them - paying the fine/ going to prison or offering the taxes they owe. Minaker (talk) 03:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok maybe I am misunderstanding you. :) Federal law does mandate people pay taxes. The law says if you max X you must pay Y, and if you do not pay you face legal action - non-payment is a non-legal option. This law does not say you must offer healthcare insurance to your employees or face legal action, it says you can offer it or not offer it, and if you choose to offer there is X financial incentive to do so, but if you choose not to do it there is Y financial penalty for it. Thats all. The bill, and the exact quote you stated says "should", which has an entirely different legal meaning from "must" or "shall". And that "should" is in relation to avoiding the financial penalty. There is no mandate requiring a business to offer health insurance; just the opposite, the fine will allow the government to fund its own insurance option which the employee then can access in lieu of an employer provided option. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of appearing to beat a dead horse on a slightly off-topic subject, editor Charles Edward is certainly correct that U.S. Federal law does indeed mandate that people pay taxes. And no, fine or imprisonment is not there merely as an "alternative" for people to choose what is best for them. You don't have the "choice" of "prison or payment." You can be tried, convicted, sentenced and imprisoned for Federal tax offenses, and still be required to pay the tax determined to be due -- if necessary by seeing the Internal Revenue Service seize your assets (even without a court order). Similarly, even if you are found not guilty of a Federal tax crime, you may still be legally obligated to pay the related tax, as some people have found out the hard way. Federal criminal tax proceedings (sending you to jail) and Federal civil tax proceedings (determination of tax liability, collection of tax, seizing of your assets, etc.) are separate proceedings. Famspear (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Public Reaction

Please contribute to Public Reaction on the legislation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.16.24.148 (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Who are the 14 million who will remain uninsured?

The article estimates that 45 million who are now uninsured, and quotes Senator Reid to the effect that this bill will extend benefits to 31 million of them. So who are the 14 million who will remain uninsured? I think this question should be answered in the article, as I have not seen the answer anywhere. Dirac66 (talk) 01:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is a list and a source

• Undocumented immigrants. About 6 million people.

• People who are eligible for, but don't sign up for Medicaid.

• People who opt out. Some healthy individuals may decide to pay the penalties, which aren't that high, rather than purchase health insurance.

• People who feel insurance is unaffordable. This is similar to the "opt out," except that they may not owe a penalty. If insurance coverage would cost more than 8 percent of household income, people won't face a penalty for going without it. The law would provide subsidies that would assist people up to about four times the poverty level. For a family of four, that means federal assistance will phase out above about $88,000 in income.

Source: Christian Science Monitor 3/23/2010 [7] --Sjsilverman (talk) 02:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This is another source with some relevant discussion, though I don't know if it is extremely authoritative. It says Obama has referred to a lower number of uninsured, and discusses the discrepancy between that number and the figure from the Census Bureau. Mackan79 (talk) 04:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Working on adding a section to the article with this... And, added! --Cybercobra (talk) 05:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

How can this take effect in 2010 AND in 2018?

"All existing health insurance plans must cover preventative care and checkups without co-payment." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.175.130 (talk) 03:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

New plans are affected as of 2010. Existing plans are affected by 2018.   — C M B J   05:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Fines for not buying insurance

What if you refuse to pay the fine? Like flat out refuse to buy insurance, pay the fine or anything else. Will they throw you in jail for not being financially responsible —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.95.189 (talk) 13:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Think about it. What do they do if you refuse to pay taxes? We already have the same exact situation on nearly every other social service in the country. You can't just refuse to pay for roads, schools, police, fire department, sewers, military, interest on debt, welfare, social security, food and drug inspections, farm subsidies, airport security, border patrol, foreign aid, and every other thing you pay tax for. You can't just send the government a check with some money missing and say, "I don't like the war, I won't fund it." They'll throw your ass in jail. This is the exact same thing. ReignMan (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)