Justices sharply divided over health care law subsidies

Justices sharply divided over health care law subsidies
March 4th, 2015  
News Manager

Topic: Justices sharply divided over health care law subsidies

Justices sharply divided over health care law subsidies
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court was sharply divided Wednesday in the latest challenge to President Barack Obama's health overhaul, this time over the tax subsidies that make insurance affordable for millions of Americans.

March 4th, 2015  
I remember the cheering from certain sectors when Obama was elected, people were saying that he was going to make an American equivalent of our national health service.
Is this what is happening? Or is it about insurance companies losing revenue?
I ask because of what I was initially told, but I have heard so many different things. In the UK it's commonly thought that if your taken ill in the USA and don't have insurance, then you don't get treatment.
People think the nhs is free, but it isn't, unless your a dodgy tax evading johnny foreigner abusing our system, it's paid for by contributions all of your working life by national insurance contribution usually deducted at source from your gross wage, variable to link with what you earn, this contribution also goes towards your state retirement pension. Surprisingly a lot people haven't got a pension in the UK.
How will Obama make health care more affordable in the USA? Will it be similar to the UK contribution system? Or will it be through cheaper health insurance?
Will the more affordable health care take longer to get? For example longer waiting list for treatment?
The problem with state funded treatment is that they will wait for the problem to get critical before intervening. For example I have had 9 nstemi's, non st elevated myocardial infarction, and 5 mi's. The bus will not stent an artery until it is about 80-85% blocked. Angina pain can occur when the artery is 50% blocked and obviously if the artery is blocked partially then the risk is high if even a small were to pass through and get stuck.
I spoke to.a.couple of American cardiologist at my heart hospital, it is one of the best in the world, and they said that if I was a private patient or was a patient in the USA they would of intervened a lot sooner and not let it get blocked any further. By treating it aggressively and clearing it, they said it would save the patient coming back in a year or two after having an mi.
My theory is that by making people wait for the artery to block further, the nhs is probably hoping that the patient would of died to save the cost of treatment.
So will Obama's health reform mean lower quality treatment?

Sorry if this post is extra long or boring, the title got me thinking and I actually had quite a bit of chest pain earlier today, so for me it would be interesting to know
March 4th, 2015  
Health anywhere has to have a cut off point ie. and African showed up in the U.S. with Ebola he was treated at cost of a million .2 he died and his family wanted to sue , who the hell is paying for all this ? .
Justices sharply divided over health care law subsidies

Similar Topics
So why do people hate Israel?
Obama extols health care law amid public doubts
Obama: My health care law is 'here to stay’
What was said on the 3rd presidential debate.
State of the Union