E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
J. Scott Applewhite / AP
President Barack Obama signs the health care bill in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, March 23, 2010.
The fate of President Obama’s biggest legislative achievement will be debated in the nation’s highest court next week but that doesn’t mean the fight won’t continue back in the legislative branch of government regardless of how the court eventually rules.
On Monday, the justices of the Supreme Court will begin three days of oral argument on the 2010 health care overhaul, the Affordable Care Act, considering the constitutionality of two of its core provisions: an expansion of the Medicaid program for lower-income Americans and, more important, the individual mandate -- the requirement that almost every adult American purchase health insurance.
“I think it would be very, very devastating if that individual requirement to purchase health care was struck,” said Chris Jennings, a health care policy advisor to President Bill Clinton and a former Senate Democratic aide.
It might have an effect on Democrats in this fall’s election -- perhaps motivating them even more to vote.
Recommended: House votes to repeal key 'Obamacare' provision
But for independent voters, Jennings said, if the justices strike down the law, it will validate the view of “those who accused this law of being a government over-reach” and will change the debate for the 2012 campaign from being a clash over Medicare and entitlements -- issues on which the Democrats think they have an advantage in public opinion -- to a debate over the Affordable Care Act. The key piece of the law, the individual mandate, remains highly unpopular, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation Health Tracking Poll and other polls.
Democratic lawyer Joe Onek, the former senior counsel to ex-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, contended that the challenges to the law are “frivolous.” But if that’s the case, he asked, “Why all the concern? Why all the fuss? I can give you the answer to that in three ominous words: Bush vs. Gore”-- the high court’s ruling in the 2000 Florida election dispute -- which most Democrats saw as an unprincipled and partisan meddling in the election.
Related: Individual mandate will be in Supreme Court spotlight
Apart from its effect on Congress, the justices’ ruling, which will likely come in June, will have an effect on the high court’s reputation.
Georgetown University law professor Randy Barnett, who worked on the National Federation of Independent Business suit challenging the individual mandate, said “the unpopularity of the law gives the Supreme Court the opportunity to evaluate fairly the valid constitutional objections … without fear of a popular backlash.”
He added the justices “can decide the case on the merits -- they don’t have to worry that the legitimacy of the court will be somehow undermined should they decide to strike the mandate down.”
Must-Read Op-Eds: Mika Brzezinski reads from a Charles Krauthammer column on the Supreme Court's hearing on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. Krauthammer says if the act is upheld "it fundamentally changes the nature of the American social contract."
But Neal Katyal, who served as acting solicitor general in the Obama administration and defended the law in the federal appeals courts, argued for judicial restraint -- “the unelected Supreme Court shouldn’t be taking democratic decisions away from the people.”
Here are the most likely rulings the court may hand down and what might be the aftermath of each:
Scenario 1: If the court strikes down the individual mandate and also decides that it is not legally severable from the rest of the statute, then the entire Affordable Care Act will be invalidated. Congress would then face the task of writing a new law, if enough members in each house wanted to address some of the problems that led to the health care overhaul in the first place, such as people with pre-existing medical conditions being denied coverage. “What is remaining in the law after the court rules -- if they in any way alter it -- is going to be very difficult to fix or to change,” Jennings said. That will be partly due to the partisan divide in Congress and partly due to the pressing need for Congress to take action on the national debt, continued federal deficits, and an overhaul of the tax system.
Scenario 2: If the court were to strike down the individual mandate, but decide that that provision is legally severable from the rest of the law, then the remaining provisions would stay in effect: for example, the law’s tax credits for low- and middle-income people to buy insurance, and the state-based insurance marketplaces or “exchanges,” at least in the states that are cooperating with the law.
But the expectation among groups that have filed friend-of-the-court briefs is that if the justices rule the individual mandate invalid, they will also strike down the law’s insurance market reforms, such as the requirement that insurance companies not refuse coverage to seriously ill people with high medical costs.
"Frankly, no one knows what would happen” in a scenario in which the justices strike down the mandate but leave the rest of the law intact, said medical economist Larry Levitt, a former health policy official in the Clinton administration who is now at the Kaiser Family Foundation. “This is not an experiment that we’ve done before.”
Jennings said politically “it may be virtually impossible” to fix the remainder of the law if the individual mandate is struck down because congressional consensus wouldn’t exist.
“The environment in which those conversations are likely to take place … will be so poisoned” that it will be difficult for members of each party to draw back from the hardline positions they’ve taken, said Sheila Burke, former chief of staff to Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, who now teaches at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.
A possible congressional response to the court striking down the mandate, Levitt said, is that Congress could replace the mandate with a tax. The revenues would be used to subsidize health insurance for people with medical conditions who had difficulty buying insurance. “This would be, I think, the simplest approach and the cleanest and most effective,” said Levitt. But in 2010 congressional Democrats were averse to calling the health insurance mandate a tax and it’s doubtful there would be enough votes in the House to pass such a tax, even if the Democrats are back in majority in 2013.
Scenario 3: The justices uphold the entire law. This is the outcome many Democratic lawyers expect. If this happens, then for opponents of the law “it will be an incentive to essentially re-fight all of the individual elements point by point,” said Burke. “You might imagine most at risk might be the individual mandate, the employer mandates, the Medicaid expansion … There is a list of individual items that you might imagine people (in Congress) will try to go after. They will go piecemeal -- from the left and from the right -- trying to alter what’s in place. So I don’t think we can assume that people will simply say ‘All right, the court has decided let’s move on.’ I think those fights will continue.”
One challenge in carrying out the law, if it is upheld, is the huge expansion of the Medicaid-eligible population, with 17 million more Americans able to get benefits. Gail Wilensky, former health care advisor to President George H.W. Bush, points out the newly-eligible people are highly concentrated in the southern states. For example, Louisiana will have 37 percent of its population on Medicaid, she said, adding, “How in the world are we going to get services to all these people?” Some states “likely to be overwhelmed with new people” on Medicaid.
But if Republicans win the 2012 election and control the Senate, then some of the provisions of the law -- such as the Medicaid expansion -- could be overturned using the same reconciliation procedure Senate Democrats used to enact them.
Mark McClellan, who served as Medicare and Medicaid director under President George W. Bush, said that if the law is upheld, the unpopularity of the individual mandate might lead Congress to consider delaying the penalties for not buying insurance, or perhaps come up with a different approach to spurring younger healthier people into buying insurance, such as lower premiums for the uninsured who enroll at a younger age and a penalty for those who wait to buy insurance.
Leave a Comment:
It is good to see our congress working on the economy and jobs.
At least we can see how the left is going to frame this issue if they don't get their way: The Supreme Court is too partisan!! How can some dumb azz dem, Neal Katyal, actually say that the Supreme Court would be going against the "will of the people" if they decide to strike this POS down? But of course he works for our President, who says many dumb azz things. If I recall the people were against it by a large majority. The democrats in the Senate had to bribe one another just to pass it. A few Senators even stated that they voted for it only because it would lower the deficit. How would they vote today after the CBO has said it is going to cost a lot more than it originally was?
Strike it down. We need health care reform that will actually reduce the cost for all of us. This POS does not do that in any way shape or form.
I think it is and there should be a better way of picking them other than a partisan President of either side. Their record should show they follow the law not a party or ideology. There should also be terms on any office. Nobody should have a job for life no matter if they do not serve the public's interest but mainly their parties interest or their own!
In other words, abolish it and forever ensure it never resurfaces. Republicans will never support any form of health care reform because to do so costs would have to be considered. That would encroach on the sacred arena of free enterprise in which the market establishes price. There will never be any GOP support for legislation that impacts insurance carriers or health care providers for demographically most of them are in league with Republican ideology ~ ' get all you can; can all you get; and sit on the can.' Then there is Big Pharma which would have to be put on a leash. Nope. Won't happen.
Jim
How many people do you know that actually have been financially ruined because of health care costs? If they have, did they actually have insurance for themselves? If they did not, why should we care if they screwed up? They have choices in life that they have to make. I think the whole argument about health care has been blown out of proportion to the extent that it has too many people are worried that they will lose everything. It has been a scare tactic from the left. But that is the left agenda. They have been effective but they have also been deceptive. The left started this whole bunch of BS years ago. The unions insisted that employees have health insurance, the insurance companies made them purchase policies that were far too generous. I have never worked for a union and have never insisted that any of my employers get me dental care, vision care, mental health care, chiropractor care, and many other useless care packages. Just cover me if I happen to end up in the hospital with a major issue please. Until then I will pay what I have to keep myself healthy. It only costs a couple hundred bucks to go have a physical check up or have my teeth cleaned. If I do have a problem that costs a couple thousand dollars I will take care of it. I can pay for that. In fact I do pay for that long before I pay my cable TV bill, cell phone bill, health club dues, car payment, dinner out, or the many other choices for things I do. It is called personal responsibility for my health. And my health is more important to me that most other things in life. I won't expect you to pay for my health care and please don't expect me to pay for yours. If you lose your job and get rid of your cell phone, your car, your cable TV, and quit your health club and quit going out to dinner, then you might qualify for some assistance and I will be happy to see my tax dollars spent on you. You blame the right and I blame the left. You want more money collected from hard working Americans to take care of others and I want hard working Americans to keep more of their money to take care of themselves.
So many people complain about President Obama's healthcare program, saying things like the government can't make me buy healthcare I do not want. I wonder how many states are doing that exact same thing to the people of that state? Here in Michigan there has been a law on the books for decades that forces us the taxpayers of Michigan to pay the healthcare cost for every ex- politician that has ever served in Lansing, and we will continue to pay the healthcare cost for them and their dependents for life. Also, here in Michigan, republicans passed a law that says, taxpayer money cannot be used to pay for abortions, and then because their healthcare is paid for by taxpayers added a rider that says, abortions must remain a part of our healthcare package. Republicans don't give a danm if we have medical insurance or not, the insurance companies don't want to insure people with serious and costly medical problems, President Obama's healthcare program makes it illegal to just drop these people. The republican party's only reason for trying to abolish this program is to save insurance companies from paying expensive medical bills. Look at this presidential primary and all the things republicans are doing to the poor, the middle class, and how they are really trying to screw-up women, and some people really believe republicans care about us and are only trying to help. These are the people the republican party is counting on, the truly nutty people that will believe anything they tell them because they cannot hold any elected office if they had to tell the truth.
JH-479998
What you seem to be missing is the fact that some people are having to choose between food and medications. Its not a matter of turning off the cable or dropping the health club. The cut off for Fl for example is aprox 24k. Please tell me how a family with an income of 24k can afford regular dental and health visits. They cannot. At the income level of 24k a person would have a deductible of 900 per calendar month. Yes per month. If a person falls ill on the 27th that's 900 and another 900 on the first. That would be devastating to a family at that income level.
Another point you seem to miss is that when medical bills go unpaid, we all pay. None of us want to pay for someone who just does not want to pay their bills, but we do. And everyone's cost goes up. The only way to make sure insurance companies can pay for those who wish to be responsible and those who need health insurance, is to have everyone participate. Most of the polls show that people do believe everyone should be able to get insurance and not be cancelled for pre-existing conditions. But how do you accomplish that without sending the insurance companies into bankruptcy? You require healthy people to be insured as well. Even the so called healthy get heart attacks and get wiped out.
@JH
First let me congratulate you on your god health. However that is no the case for all people. Before the Affordable Care Act most health insurance policies had a life time max. I do not know if you know how expensive ICU treatment is, let's just say you hit the lifetime max quickly. You can end up with medical bills in the 100's of thousands to millions leading to bankruptcy. While you have some doubts about this many sources will cite somewhere between 50-60% of bankruptcies are caused by medical expenses. This results in 100,000's of bankruptcies per year. While you do not believe it to be true because it has not happened to you or anyone you know that is not a good basis for forming your opinion on where something is happening or not (many thing you know are real and do happen fall into this category, yet you still believe in their existence.) Do the research and you will see. Now this does not have to change your original premise on personal responsibility for healthcare. I too believe that people need to be as responsible as they can. Get a good education. Get a good job with good benefits and healthcare. Pay your bills on time. Never put more on your credit card than you can payoff at the end of the month. Save money for emergencies ( at least 3 months pay). Save money for retirement (10-20% monthly income). If you have any money left over, invest in a college savings account for your kids college(so they are not straddled student loans.) However, I and very few other Americans (I would even guess you) can be responsible enough to have a spare $100,000 to 1,000,000+ just lying around for a very unlikely healthcare event. Today your major health policy has no lifetime limit thanks to the Affordable Care Act, which makes it less likely that you or anyone you know will ever go bankrupt over medical bills. Which is a good thing.
You don't seem to understand. People without health insurance usually can't afford it, period. It isn't that they screwed up by not having it. The screw up is in the cost. I don't care what income level you are at. Picture this:
Cut your pay in half. Insurance companies take 50% or more from your pay. If your company, like mine, doesn't offer to help pay for medical insurance, you are stuck with the bill. Get it?
It needs to sink in a bit. 1/2 of your pay, and rising, is going towards healthcare. Eventually, all of your pay will go to insurance, with no reform. Understand?
Again, it isn't that people screw up by not having it, they simply can not live off the leftovers. Your kids need you to support them. Are you going to take away your support and use it on your medical insurance or are your kids going to eat and have clothes on their backs?
People that scream personal resonsibility fail to understand that personal responsibility is over-ridden by family responsibility. I suppose those personally responsible people would eat the scrap of food off the table and let their kids starve.
THIS IS THE BOTTOM LINE. While America has the highest cost for healthcare, the rest of the world has better healthcare. Even Saudi Arabia ranks higher than the U.S.A.
And yet, those preaching personal responsibility also support the billions in profit those health insurance providers have every year. In their minds, capitalism must win over the life of a human being.
The idea that the republicans would enact ANY form of meaningful health care reform is utterly absurd. For SIX YEARS the republicans controlled both houses of congress AND the white house. They had every opportunity to do something and yet they didn't lift a finger to enact any kind of health care reform.
It also amazes me to see republicans arguing that President Obama's health care reform should be repealed because the majority of Americans are against the mandate. Well...since you republicans are all in favor of letting popular opinion determine the shape of health care reform I assume you'll join me in supporting a public plan option because a strong majority of Americans support that (according to numerous polls conducted before HCR was passed). Right?
Yeah, that's what I thought.
Republicans think congress should follow popular opinion only when polls go their way. If most Americans agree with the left about something suddenly they no longer think congress should follow popular opinion.
You cannot have any type of workable national healthcare plan without having a requirement for everyone to participate.
You cannot just have the sick and ill signing up. That does not work. That's the same as having NO healthcare plan.
Hard to believe in the 21st Century that the USA is the last of the civilized western nations to address the healthcare needs of its citizens.
Every other western nation pays about half per-capita of what the USA pays for healthcare coverage.
It's not rocket science to know what needs to be done here. Get GREED out of the healthcare equation completely.
.
The President of the United States of America promised the people of America that he would go over the health care law "line by line" with my congressman and any other law maker in Washington who requested it and that all proceedings would be broadcast on CSPAN. This will help us citizens to better understand the health care law so that we can better advise our representatives in congress as to how to proceed. Hopefully each line of the law will be analyzed in terms of the promise that the President made regarding the law, effects on state and local government, constitutionality, the effects on those providing medical services, the law in general, cost to the tax payers, and the over all effect on the cost of medical care. Remember the whole purpose of this new law is to reduce the cost of medical care. The implementation of this law should be suspended until these broadcasts that the President has promised, have taken place. The more that people understand the law the better they can council their representatives in government so that any action that they might want to take will be most appropriate. I think that it is worth time to get it right and to fully take advantage of an action that the President promised that he would take. Does anyone know when the broadcasts are scheduled to begin and how long it is projected that it will take to go completely through the law "line by line" as promised by our President.
I'd go a step further and say you cannot have a workable health care reform without a public option. Government run options have the effect of setting a baseline for the market, forcing the free market to compete, and one day it will, to the benefit of us all. One could make the argument that the US postal service gave rise to the wonderful low cost competition we all enjoy today.
Exactly why the GOP wants to do away with the US postal service. The stipulation put upon them to hold 75 years worth health care coverage is ridiculous.
JH-479998
I totally agree that statement that the Supreme Court would be going against the will of the people is a joke and a complete lie since 61% percent of the people want Obamacare gone. We need to be thanking GOD our forefathers were wise enough to establish the Supreme Court as the third branch of our government to protect us from the other two and especially the one sitting in the White House at the moment and his henchmen in the Senate.
Will Haas
I think he was figuring it would take about 8 years for all the crap in his Obamacare to be gone over and discovered and after that he would either be out of office for sure or have made himself dictator of our new Socialist Nation.
The individual mandate should be found unconstitutional. The government has no right to force someone to do business with a private company. With the individual mandate struck down, the entire law will go down. This is because the law was deliberately passed without a severability clause to prevent this. The reason for the lack of the severability clause is because of the provision that prevents insurance companies from denying coverage for preexisting conditions. Without the mandate, having the provision against not covering preexisting conditions would mean that people could just wait until they got sick to by insurance. This would result in an end to our current insurance system since it would either bankrupt the insurance companies or drive premiums to where no one could afford them. The only way the current insurance system works is that those that are ill are subsidized by those who have insurance but are healthy. The theory is that insurance protects against the risk of a huge expense that most will never see. If only sick people bought insurance, the system would never work.
For those who try and equate this to car insurance, your analogy is flawed. There is no requirement nor right that you own and drive a car. The decision to own and operate a car is yours, and so therefor is the need to buy insurance. Also, you do not have to buy car insurance. You have the option of posting a financial responsibility bond with the state if you do not wish to carry car insurance.
Tammy1 what kind of crappy insurance has a deducible of $900 a month? LMAO.
Nothing is free. Covering everyone isn't free either. Who do you think will pay for covering everyone?
I have family in the income range you're talking about. They have health insurance because it is a priority. They pay it all on their own - no employer provided coverage.
Just because someone else in the same situation would rather pay for their smoking habit, drinking, or just plain blow their money on whatever other personal expense there may be does not mean the rest of us should have to pay for their medical care.
Should we pay for everything else for them too? Isn't there a line somewhere where individuals need to be responsible for themselves?
Does it strike anyone else as odd that requiring hospitals to provide free Emergency Room care to anyone who can make there passes constitutional muster, but requiring that those same persons buy insurance before hand to cover the cost is unconstitutional?
The Emergency Room mandate forces the individual mandate.
Here's an off hand question. How many persons would buy life insurance out of their own pocket if it were not a condition of their employment?
Since I am single and not working for corp america, my tax bill is 42% of my income. I think I paid for health ins.!!
people who make this argument must have rocks in their head--The State Legislatures of every State have enacted Insurance Industry-written laws requiring that people Must Buy Their product. And dictate exactly how much you must buy. And use completely arbitrary and differing standards to decide how much they are going to charge you. Then, when you've paid your premiums, when You Have Bought The Product--they do Everything they legally are Allowed to deny you the coverage you paid for.
And it Is my right to own an automobile, to argue otherwise is to negate the principle that Republicans love to spout about being able to keep everything they earn. And to say there is no requirement? Well unless you live somewhere in The U.S. where public transportation is abundant, to make it through everyday life--Yes there is.
So, it is you whose analogy is flawed--well, actually it is more specious than anything. You're trying to argue the difference between apples and coal.
Selah
crazy eyes that is the deductible for my daughter who has had a stroke. You still do not get it do you? Its not a matter of paying for a smoking habit, cable tv or whatever else you find frivolous. Every month I pay for her insurance and then I also pay a deductible. When all is said and done it consumes over half of my income. My choices are to let her go without meds and care or ? I hope you and your personal responsibility are never ever left in that situation. It's a place no one plans for and no one should be.
Wow this should get interesting.
Does anyone know if there are insurance quotes on the difference to the price of insurance? I think my company already switched over our plans and I got hit with higher bill this year as a result. However, I noticed a lot more covered by the plan as preventative than expected.
In principle I still do not agree with the individual mandate to purchase insurance. To me it is taking money from the poor who can not afford to purchase insurance. If this goes through as is their choice will be go to jail and feed your children or pay for insurance and let your children starve. Somehow that choice does not seem fair.
Here is my daily plug for American's Elect. Today's topic is bringing Democracy into the Digital World. I am still cheering on Buddy Roemer (President) and Michelene Risely (Vice President). I really like Buddy as a presidential candidate. He has the experience needed to lead this country and he is running to force a change to how campaigns are financed. Go Buddy. (So says the woman who supposedly hates men ;) ) Michelene, thank you for running as well. I am interested in seeing your Flash Cards films.
Well there is one person in the United States who has read all 2700 pages of the law.She was just on c-span at a healthcare debate now if I knew how to reach her maybe she could explain the seven sections of the bill that bother me. The medicaid provision and the enforcement of that portion of the law bother me. There is no way under the current constitution of my state that my governor could comply with the ACA and the state constitution at the same time. Just three weeks ago the federal government showed us just how they would enforce the bill. In a womens program the conflict came up and the feds pulled all their funds from the program for anything. Of course what the democrats said was that we cut the budget not them. If the whole bill is enacted they will pull all funds from medicaid to force compliance which we can't do without amending the constitution of the state.
Tammy1
Your situation is exactly what the "PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY" screamers fail to understand.
When medical bills hit the average American, it takes away any chance of an American dream. No hard work, pulling up your boot straps, fending for yourself motto will help you. You simply owe your life to the insurance company.
So, it comes down to common sense reasoning. If you pay for insurance, you are losing half your pay. If you need insurance and don't have it, you are better off. The most they can garnish your wages for is 1/4 pay.
It is more cost effective to have your wages garnished for half the price of insurance. Will you be paying for it the rest of your life? You bet. But what about healthcare insurance, will you be paying for it the rest of your life? You bet.
You see, healthcare insurance has risen so much, garnishment is cheaper. "But it affects your credit!" Yeppers, it sure does. But only for a few years. If the medical bills where high enough, one could file bankruptsy for $500.00. Who does that help? Well, it only helps the patient, doesn't it? So, while those professing the sanctity of health insurance and the responsibility of the individual to purchase it, advocating it helps the economy and causes insurance companies to hire, they still get the raw end of the deal. Someone must make them a profit, that is, whomever is left with insurance.
Want to fix the healthcare problem? Everyone in America needs to drop their health insurance. Picture that for a moment. Hospitals and doctor offices will have to collect from you, not an insurance company. Will they be able to get their astronomical fees?
So, if everyone dumped their health insurance, how long will it be before universal healthcare would be inacted?
I have noticed that every die-hard republican voter that post here have the exact same mindset, it's either President Obama's fault or the poor and middle class fault. It has not even crossed their minds that most of the problems we're having are the republicans fault. Republicans are attacking women ( I have no idea why) and they are attacking programs that help the poor and middle class because they need the money to pay for the next tax break they want to give to the rich. I will guess that most of the die-hard republican voters that post here, have not thought about that they are in the middle class and the republicans have placed a target on their backs as well as everybody else. It also makes me wonder if they think voting republican will prevent the health insurance companies from dropping them should they get sick, or when they get enough republicans elected and they privatize social security and it goes bankrupt they will save enough money for them when they retire. Die-hard republican voters will never believe this, if you are poor, middle class or a woman and you vote republican, you are cutting your own throat. Still don't believe me, look at the 8 years before President Obama took office, how much help did republican give to anybody that wasn't rich. To them none of this is true because it is President Obama, the poor and middle class fault. Things only die-hard republican voters believe.
When I read these posts, I'm amazed at how many lazy people that read MSNBC.
The Idiot In Chief went against the will of the people or at least the people that pay taxes and contribute to society. The worthless parasites that are ObamaIdiot's base, AKA: Welfare freeloading pieces of trash, will still get free health care, food stamps, low income housing, WIC, Cell Phones, etc. Why should they be any different than their freeloading leader...Obama. He has never provided for his family, the tax payers have. His dad / sperm donor never provided for him either. End this vicious circle of leeches, Vote for anyone else in 2012!
The Bush tax cuts were and are the largest dollar amount to the middle class than ever. Even Obama does not want to touch those. And will predict the Supreme Court will overrule the mandate. Congress went way over their constitutional authority, i.e. they had none. Don't forget, "You have to pass the bill to see what's in it". When people have seen what's in it, most are opposed. There are some good parts to the bill, letting unmarried under 26 stay on parents policies, pre-existing conditions, no dropping of coverage. The last two will have the consequence of raising premiums, however. Let's get Tort Reform done, and that according to the CBOE, which isn't the best source since they are never right, would save 51 billion dollars. This will have the effect of unnecessay tests done to protect from lawsuits from being ordered.
"Congress would then face the task of writing a new law, if enough members in each house wanted to address some of the problems that led to the health care overhaul in the first place, such as people with pre-existing medical conditions being denied coverage."
How about this;
Congress passes a law that says "All health insurance companies must ignore 'pre-existing conditions' when providing coverage."
Gee, then we get the popular part of Obamacare without all of the 'mandate' nonsense, and there is no doubt that they could pass the above provision under the 'Commerce Clause' interpretation of the Constitution. We get what most Americans consider 'fair', and we aren't 'required' to buy health insurance, regardless of the cost.
I have just researched the problem with health care entitlements, and it is far worse than most people imagine. I used the President's own Budget (OMB) for 2013 as the basis for the basic information, and here are the results;
The projected Revenues for Medicare/Medicaid over the next 10 years are $2.823 Trillion.
The projected Costs for Medicare/Medicaid over the next 10 years are $11.134 Trillion.
That leaves a net Deficit in the Medicare/Medicaid programs of $8.311 Trillion, which is even greater than the total projected Federal Deficits of $6.684 Trillion over the next 10 years. In other words, if we did not have a Deficit from health care, we would have budget SURPLUSES over the next 10 years.
Obviously, something needs to be done with this HUGE 'entitlement problem', but Obama has conveniently ignored the problem in his Budget projections, and will demonize any Republicans that try to address the problem (Rep. Ryan).
It's a shame that the media does not give us the information that we need to make intelligent choices.
Here's my 'solution' to the health care problem;
Don't try to 'reinvent the wheel', but just find the best health care systems in the World, and copy them. France and Taiwan have about the best rated UNIVERSAL health care systems in the World, and they provide coverage for EVERYONE, and they are run by private insurance companies (the government NEVER runs anything efficiently).
They are paid for through a combination of payroll taxes and sales taxes, and based on their cost experience, we could save about $1 Trillion per year ($10 Trillion over 10 years) on health costs and COVER EVERYONE.
Everyone would have coverage, our costs would go down dramatically, and our companies would be more competitive with foreigners.
Kuatomonk "I'd go a step further and say you cannot have a workable health care reform without a public option. "
I have to disagree with you. The most successful health care systems in the World (for example, France and Taiwan) are NOT run by the government.
The government never runs anything efficiently because what almost always happens is the government workers get paid more than the private sector, they join public employee unions that demand raises and fat pensions, the bad workers cannot be fired, they get expensive early retirement pensions, and they develop the government worker attitude of "I can't be fired, so I just have to go through the motions of working".
I've seen estimates that the typical actual cost of a government worker, based on productivity, is approximately DOUBLE that in the private sector.
JH and others: I have been financially ruined by health care costs, and that was while I had "insurance", which hardly covered anything! Also dental "insurance" which covered no specialist work! I've worked hard since age 16, how DARE you insinuate that anyone who is actually working can take care of themselves! My co. had to end our health coverage 2 years ago because they could no longer afford the premiums of 1500 per month per employee! (very small co) Now I haven't been able to get any insurance that I can afford since, due to pre-existing conditions. I'd have to spend half of my income on the premiums they want to charge me! Our wonderful state of AZ is one of 8 that has done nothing whatsoever to implement any health reform, other than throwing about 300K more poor people off the state Medicaid rolls. I work, I have an income, I'd be happy to pay an affordable premium if someone would sell me one! The federal plan is not the answer, because the Repubs vow to repeal it! So I'm not throwing my money away into that. So meanwhile, my insurance is hope and prayer.
Roy Wilson -
Cost to government congressional pay to pass bill. Cost to everyone's insurance bill ???
Bosslimo bravo you for getting it. Part of the issue is the cost of the health care providers (doctors, nurses, hospitals, drug companies....). The insurance removes some of the incentive for the health care providers to keep the costs down. Insurance also buffers in some profit. If we mandate that everyone purchases insurance then the insurance alternative (pay providers directly) is now off the table. If insurance is mandated there is no incentive for either the insurance companies or the health care providers to keep the cost down.
I keep reading that 61% of the American people want the ACA repealed. I wonder why that number is so large? Is it because the bill is really so bad, or is it because they have heard it's so bad and they haven't bothered to research it for themselves? Most of what I have seen implemented so far has been helpful to most everyday people. I understand the objection to the mandate, but without the mandate how will the insurance companies afford to cover pre-existing conditions, which I think is very important. That is how insurance works. Everyone pays in to the pot, so there is money to pay for those who need it. If only sick people pay into the pot, soon the companies will go bankrupt. I don't get why people think repealing the law is moving anything towards a solution to a problem that is contributing towards the economic downfall of the country. One would almost think a solution to the problem is not the object of the game. What is actually the goal, here?
It's unconstitutional that millions of Americans have had no coverage at all. It' ok... Let's treat them like garbage. Better yet, if someone has the flu.. s/he can go to the ER where no one is turned away. Then the hospital gets stuck with a bill for thousands because mosts of the examinations (EKGs, scans, etc.) are done so ER doctors won't get sued. Those who advocate "freedom of choice" are pennywise and pound foolish.
I do not see how it is constitutional to mandate on a federal level that anyone person purchase any product from a private company in order to live. I do not like setting that precedent period.
I can however see the government regulating what is required to be included in a tax exempt health plan. I do not see regulations as unconstitutional.
Regardless of what the Supreme Court rules I would like to see a focus on the efficiency in our health system. In an emergency room not full to capacity is it really necessary to use electricity on lights and medical equipment which are not in use? Does it really take that long to boot everything up? If so there is an opportunity for improvement. Clap on clap off the clapper.
The last time we focused on healthcare, the insurance providers waged an all out propaganda war. I can still remember seeing all the Blue Cross tee shirts protesting.
Taking greed out of the equation will get someone killed.
Seems to me that the biggest with this whole mess right now, is that Clarence Thomas will be making a ruling on this case. He clearly has a conflict of interest and it will show that our entire judicial system is bought by republicans.........
Health care could be affordable for everyone but alot needs to be done to make it possible. The FDA needs to be closely looked at and MAJOR changes made to them. Harmful regulations made by them are very costly and prevents many affordable treatments to be taken for people. There are treatments annd drugs that have been used outside of America for decades with great results, yet the FDA refuses to allow many of these drugs into the US without years and years of extra redundant tests that are very costly and time consuming preventing people from recieving affordable care. They regulate food labels preventing the inclusion of statements of facts about foods that do offer REAL help i treating things naturally as this could then cause the food to be considered a drug, IE walnuts pakages by Diamond foods. A full overhaul of the FDA needs to be taken as the first step. You also need to get our countries finacial state in order, we are in a state of deficit that can lead to the colapse of our country just like greece. We need to keep our money here and get ourselves in order. Quit giving money to the UN , we waste billions of dollars povideing money and equiptment and our men to this corrupt organization. quit giving money to other countries till we get our own taken care of, our taxpaying dollars need to go to OUR citizens not to those of other countries where the money is taken by the leaders to further their desires. untill we get our own country back on solid footing the only time we should be giving aid to ANY other country is in cases of extreme NATURAL dissasters to help the citizens survive and start to rebuild THEMSELVES, that does not mean we rebuild them, that is what there government is supposed to do, corrupt or not,if they dont rebuild their country they wont have a country to govern anymore. whne we quit wasting our money outside the US we will then be able to have more to help ourselves!
Americans have been screaming for reform for decades. All this current political theater is, is the unhonorable republicans trying to make the president look bad. Or, phony b.s. Unbelievable how much damage the republican party has done to this country in the last decade. Unbelievable.
The fear and fight against socialized medicine is like the fear of Electric Cars. The future is coming whether you dread it or not. This country is too big to avoid it and the greed of health care for profit at the expense of the dying will only propel it. Someday there will be justice for all. Not just for those that can afford to pay Blue Cross after their lifetime maximum on the policy runs out....
Also, insurance companies decide who they do and do not want to take on (rejecting those potential customers who are said to have "pre-existing conditions"), and non-medical staff at insurance companies dictate which medical/rehabilitative procedures are and are not covered. Where do either of these policies make sense, really? Not to mention that in this country, pharmaceutical companies charge an exorbitant amount for their medications.
there's not enough money to buy everything the government wants. at some point now or in the future something is going to give and whether we have everyone insured or not will be the least of our concerns.
What else should we socialize? Groceries, need them. Clothing, need it. Fuel, need it. Housing, need it.
Anything else you geniuses who know what is best for everyone want to force one group to pay for another group?
@ lvingbarefoot.
What do you suggest we de-socialize then? Military? Police? Firefighters?
Firefighters okay. People who carry guns for enforcement should answer to the government.
I am not anti-government. I think it should be a lean mean enforcement machine. A referee, not a player, like the left used to be. Now they have made it a player and when you do that, you lose your referees.
Strange... then why don't you turn down social security and medicare?..... or are you against those also?.... you know, you don't have to claim SS benefits?.... I didn't think so......
Kevin, you do realize I am forced to pay into it, don't you? Not a real good argument, most people would opt out if they could, many teachers do and they are as liberal as they come.
Also, as an employer, I have to match whatever they take out of my employees pay. Damn corporations are evil.
Electric cars? Reminds me of years ago when I worked in retail.
An elderly lady came up to me so afraid the government was going to take her right to pay at the pump.
This was in an affluent area. I guess money and education don't buy intelligence.
KB, what an asinine statement. Why should anyone that has paid in to it turn it down? It is their money. SS/Medicare was and is a forced bank account that most of us paid more in to it than we will ever get back.
Yours is a statement of weak mind. Those that have paid in to SS are only getting part of their money back. I could of made more money in a bank account but I had no choice.
What happened is the thiefs in DC stole the SS funds to spend it on "give it to those that didn't" pay.
We have way to many of these and too many that think like you. The scary part is you vote.
Bill, the weak mind comes into play when one doesn't realize the enormous benefit all of us Americans have reaped due to socialization. Heck, even insurance is privatized socialism. Yes those words are mutually exclusive, but think about it, say you opt to pay for insurance(car, health, home). Most people on the plans are paying for the folks actually using it. Socialism is not evil. Capitalism is not evil. Implementation can be evil. Both are great ideas with different goals. Weak minds can only see the benefits of one side, and due to their ego, their fear of being wrong, they refuse to aknowledge valid points of the opposing view.
It is so sad to live in a time when we have the technology in medicine to save a great many lives and reduce the state of human suffering, and yet, live in a culture so unenlightened as to not realize this knowledge and ability should be used to the benefit of ALL his brothers and sisters. Not just the ones who can afford it.
Kuatomonk
I don't disagree with most of what you say. My "weak mind" comment is about Kevin's statement that those that paid for it shouldn't take it. I hear (see) that same statement over and over.
What you are saying is good in Utopia, in real life we have too many corrupt politicians that misuse and misspend tax dollars for their either direct or indirect personal gain.
We will continue to work for a good answer on this subject. However I can't support a plan that those we elected to office won't participate in while they say their constituents must abide to.
Nor can I really tolerate the Kevin's of this world. I won't lose any sleep over them, but while I'm awake I'll do what I can to prevent the misuse of my and others money to support stupidity.
Kevin, Why don't you pay for a car then walk to work. Dumbazz
It saddens me that politics polarizes every major issue in our society. And it does so by turning facts into opinions, and lies into facts; different facts for different folks of course, all in neatly manipulated messages of those who 'represent' us.
There are several things sub-optimal about the current health care law, but one thing it will do (if left alone) is save almost everyone money, except for many hard-working and well serving physicians (the greedy and cosmetic ones will be fine) and some insurance executives. As is, every single person who has health insurance right now will pay less for it in the future, once the dust has settled. 'Health care' for millions of currently uninsured americans consists of the ER, and it costs us all a tremendous amount that could be avoided by regular check ups and preventative care. All who think this law will cost them money at the expense of others are simply misinformed.
The day that we all find it acceptable to literally watch someone die because they 'didn't choose to be responsible and buy health insurance' is the day we can honestly rule mandating health care for all unconstitutional. I pray that day never comes. Everyone gets healthcare. That is a fact. Therefore, everyone should pay for it. This bill ensures that everyone has reasonable access to health care (well, maybe), and that everyone who works has to pay at least something for it. (at least it trys to do that). Those who argue it's not right to force an american to pay for what they will receive, please check your logic and consider that you may be being manipulated by politics. Where where you when the patriot act took our money to invade or privacy and freedom? Why not argue then?
I just wish we could all stop the 'us vs. them' speak, and think about each issue as intelligent and independent americans. We all want to make this country a better place, call me naive, but I truly believe that.
God Bless,
Joe
Obamacare is the largest tax increase in American history.
http://www.atr.org/comprehensive-list-tax-hikes-obamacare-a5758
Bill, where do you get this from:
That is false. Most will pay far less into medicare than they get back.
Consider an average-wage two-earner couple together earning $89,000 a year. Upon retiring in 2011, they would have paid $114,000 in Medicare payroll taxes during their careers. But they can expect to receive medical services – including prescriptions and hospital care – worth $355,000, or about three times what they put in.
According to data compiled by Eugene Steuerle and Stephanie Rennane of the Urban Institute
That said, is it an entitlement if you pay in less than you take out?
When I read these posts, I'm amazed at how many lazy people that read MSNBC.
The Idiot In Chief went against the will of the people or at least the people that pay taxes and contribute to society. The worthless parasites that are ObamaIdiot's base, AKA: Welfare freeloading pieces of trash, will still get free health care, food stamps, low income housing, WIC, Cell Phones, etc. Why should they be any different than their freeloading leader...Obama. He has never provided for his family, the tax payers have. His dad / sperm donor never provided for him either. End this vicious circle of leeches, Vote for anyone else in 2012!
jmsmith, you are a pathetic example of the human race. Do you actually believe that, Medicare, food stamps, low income housing, WIC, cell phones, etc came into being under President Obama? If so, you are a sorry piece of trash.
Your rant against the President borders on a serious psychotic illness and it would be best for the world in general if you were locked up for the protection of everyone else.
Tell me, your dad/sperm donor, was he as disgusting a person as you seem to be? Is this what was passed along to you through the gene pool? We have witnessed throughout history the deranged and uncontrollable hate of people. It has never turned out very well for anyone.
Unless you live alone in some cave, you enjoy the same rights, freedoms and protections this government offers ALL citizens. Therefore, to refer to society as parasites you also fall into this category.
Yeah healthcare costs have come way down since ObamaCare. The history with Washington is that they create problems, they have no track record for ever solving any. ObamaCare panders big time to segments of the healthcare industry that were politically aligned with the Democrats, and there is no way it is ever going to reduce costs. But how was anyone suppose to know that up front, since we had to pass the bill so everyone could find out what was in it.
Rick,
Very little of the Affordable Health Care Act has even been instituted. The plan was to phase it in..Are you suggesting that when the CBO says it will save us untold billions over the first 10 years, they are lying?
Brad, keep up, the CBO has revised its figures and doubled the cost. Do you want to go through the history of the CBO's "great" predictions?
Livingbarefoot,
Doubled? Your link please?
Livingbarefoot,
I'm still waiting..To say "doubled the cost" is disingenuous, and an outright lie. Either you are a right wing schill, or totally uninformed. Probably both..
It is not letting me, but google it. It went up to 1.76 trillion.
Cost is lowered by capitalism, there has not been any in health insurance for years and yes the Republicans were the original culprits, but the D's 'fix' made it worse, like usual.
Also, insurance actuaries will raise cost today for future increases, always have. That explains why cost will rise even before full implementation.
Really? Then why the Hell are gasoline prices shooting off the chart? That's capitalism ~ without question. There is no shortage in the petroleum area, in fact, there are surpluses of refined products. But prices continue to escalate. Your statement lacks universal application and certainly errs on being correct. Oil is not the only field in which markets are "manipulated," thus inhibiting true capitalism from working. To reverse that would require a culture change and those are not immediate plus are often severely resisted by those reaping the benefits from said manipulation.
Livingbarefoot,
I did google it. And yes, they now estimate costs have gone up by $50 billion, but it is more than offset by $214 billion dollars in other savings and revenues. This is directly from the CBO' press release. You can find it under the heading:
Gross Costs Are Higher, but Offsetting Budgetary Effects Are Also Higher
So, you were saying? Doubled?
Are you are the only person that does not think our government, Big Oil and OPEC screw with capitalism?
Supply and demand theory works 100% of the time. It is not the root of the problem.
If the left wants to fight against the GOP about cronyism, I will join. But that is not where you have gone. It has become the rights cronyism bad, our cronyism good. Conservatives understand and are trying to fix their side of the aisle, unfortunately the left is only focuses on that side also and gives their side a free pass. Bush sucked, Obama is much worse.
Brad, newsmax has an explanation. The CBO report is confusing, but they do break it down so you can see the total cost increase.
The bottom line is what we have had for years is equivalent to government health care and that is why it is so screwed up.
Medicare when passed cost 4 billion in 1966, it was projected to cost 12 billion by 1990 but ended up costing 107 billion. Seems Congress has a history of understating the cost. ObamaCare has already been doubled by the CBO, and that price tag is only going to get higher.
When businesses start weighing whether it would make more sense to pay a 2000.00 per employee fine over the annual cost of healthcare, millions more then expected will end up on ObamaCare. This monstrosity is going to bankrupt this nation. Unless Obama's current spending spree beats it to the punch.
Funny how they tried to put off instituting ObamaCare until after the 2012 election. Funny how they have had to grant over 1200 ObamaCare waivers. Funny how we had to pass the bill before we could find out what was in it from the most transparent administration of all time. Funny, well it would be if it weren't so tragic for this country.
Livingbarefoot,
Not sure where you're coming from. Our discussion started with you stateing costs have doubled. I showed you where that is a lie. Now, your talking supply and demand. You state another lie. Supply vs demand does not work 100% of the time. Look at the gas situation. Demand is down, supply is up, but yet prices are going up because of speculators. So, it is not 100% of the time.
And now we have Rick lieing as well..He is also saying costs have doubled. Do you on the right just believe what you hear from Fox News, or do you actually research FACTS yourself? The answer is obvious.
Next?
Brad, there are other people in the discussion besides you. Try and keep up.
Livingbarefoot,
Ah, diffuse the issue when you can't speak the truth..
Google cbo 1.76 and you will get all the facts you need. Nobody is arguing this besides you.
www.cbo.gov/publication/43080
livingbarefoot, first supply and demand does not work 100 percent. Second, the system we have is very far removed from a free market society. Third, Americans are not going to let a patient die on the roadside. They will get treatment and third party payers will foot the bill. This market interference will raise the cost of care for everyone. In a free market system those who could not afford healthcare would not get care. In order for the healthcare industry to be a free market system, the interferences such as subsidies, third party payments ect would have to be eliminated. Only then, will the healthcare market place find equilibrium and we can call it a free market system. Until then, we will continue to pay for those who cannot afford care because Americans will not just let people die in the streets for lack of care.
Republican Americans would let them die. They even said so at their "debates".
Brad, so if you have a 'link' then it is true? Just look in my wallet and you will find the cost have more than doubled!!
And I thought 'Dick' was stupid!! LOL
So before 2009 'The earth was a void " in your world right ? Your insurance premiums did NOT go up every year ? Waaaaa, Waaaa Obama , muslim , kenyan , socialist communist fascist . What the new BUZZ word this weekend ?
When I read these posts, I'm amazed at how many lazy people that read MSNBC.
The Idiot In Chief went against the will of the people or at least the people that pay taxes and contribute to society. The worthless parasites that are ObamaIdiot's base, AKA: Welfare freeloading pieces of trash, will still get free health care, food stamps, low income housing, WIC, Cell Phones, etc. Why should they be any different than their freeloading leader...Obama. He has never provided for his family, the tax payers have. His dad / sperm donor never provided for him either. End this vicious circle of leeches, Vote for anyone else in 2012!
The real problems in the healthcare system were never addressed by the current administration, hospitals overcharging, drug companies overcharging, and doctors overcharging. Big sources of campaign funding for the candidates. Apparently insurance companies did not spend enough to support the Democrats
Tom
Don't worry the insurance companies got their piece. That is what the mandate is about. They also got to write big parts of ACA through Liz Fowler. Then Fowler moved onto the Obama administration to implement it. The only special interest group that was left out of it was the American people.
They over charge because the insurance companies are happy to overpay because they make more money that way.
I'm sure the President, just like everyone else, is fully aware we are being gouged by hospital and pharmaceuticals. I'm willing to bet the Congress is aware of this as well. However, given the amount of information we have received, our Congress has been bought by the medical companies so any hope of reigning in costs is slim to none. Our outrageous Medicare costs can be tied back to two issues. 1. The Trust Fund, set up for Social Security and Medicare, that had a 2.6 Trillion balance, was raided over the years, by Congress, and applied against other non-funded endeavors, with the intent of replacing the funds taken. 2. There has been so much waste paying Medicare claims. There is this weird system where the hospital submits a bill to Medicare. Medicare simply paid the bill without any verification. Medicare pays the amount submitted with the hopes of going back later to see if there have been any billing errors. God, talk about ass-backwards.
All this controversial wrangling over Social Security and Medicare can be resolved by Congress repaying the money taken from the Trust Fund and, change the procedure to paying Medicare claims by first verifying the costs submitted are accurate, and issuing payment on a factually correct invoice.
This is so not difficult. The only problem is that the facts have been knows for years and years but nothing has been done to correct it. If we are to fix our economy, this would be a good place to start. If we are going to claim to be fiscally responsible, we shouldn't be raiding Trust Funds set up for specific Government programs that the people have paid into their entire working lives. And get a firm grasp on how the government handles payments. Whether it is to contractors or doctors.
bottom line..if this health care act is so great why all the waivers ? if overturned it will be the end of obama...what a mess
I don't care whose idea it was, or who takes "credit" or "blame".... but the government forcing citizens to purchase anything from the private sector is unconstitutional and just plain wrong. Whether it came from Romney or Obama, it's wrong and will set a dangerous precedent.
And spare me the ridiculous car insurance analogy. Driving is something that you have to be educated and certified for in order to have that privilege.... being alive and breathing is a right, and the government must not be allowed to force you to buy something from the private sector merely because you're alive.
OK how about the case of Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942). The US supreme court forced a farmer to destroy his crops because it reduced the amount of grain purchased from the free market economy and made him buy it from a store.. It seems the government CAN force you to buy something..
The supreme court WAS WRONG in that case!
Filburn was growing his own wheat for his own private consumption. For the court to say he couldn't grow his own product and use it, especially when it wasn't entering interstate (or even in state) sales in order to force him to buy from the open market...WAS....WRONG!!
And Obama and Dems, or Romney, or whoever endorses the government forcing individuals to buy something from the private sector...IS WRONG.
I can only pray that the supreme court doesn't make the same mistake again, and doesn't let Obamacare ignore the Constitution.
When I read these posts, I'm amazed at how many lazy people that read MSNBC.
The Idiot In Chief went against the will of the people or at least the people that pay taxes and contribute to society. The worthless parasites that are ObamaIdiot's base, AKA: Welfare freeloading pieces of trash, will still get free health care, food stamps, low income housing, WIC, Cell Phones, etc. Why should they be any different than their freeloading leader...Obama. He has never provided for his family, the tax payers have. His dad / sperm donor never provided for him either. End this vicious circle of leeches, Vote for anyone else in 2012!
I find it appalling how the GOP/Tea Party has totally distorted the Affordable Health Care Act and the mainstream media has been complicit with this. The true value of what has already been implemented has been minimize due to a hatred for President Obama. It it also a travesty of justice that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has no moral conscience to remove himself from the discussion. He has a blatant conflict of interest due to his wife's role as a lobbyist for the healthcare industry which wants to see this bill defeated at all costs. It is unfortunate that unlike the more moral justices who have recused themselves from cases they deemed to have a conflict of interest, Justice Thomas cannot find in his heart to do the same thing. Some of the Democratic Senators who voted to approve his appointment may now have second thoughts whether they did the right thing. Also his close ties with the Koch brothers are apparent here as well. Many people will suffer if much of this bill is found unconstitutional. Hopefully we will learn from this experience and we will ALL do our due diligence before voting for an elected official and the Democrats in Congress need to do the same when it comes to approving a Supreme Court Justice.
djj I agree with you. Plus the hatred of President Obama of which you write has been there all along. There is nothing President Obama has done or The AHCA has caused these people to rationally hate him or it.
There is reason for GOP hatred focused on Obama. Republicans did everything in their power to derail the Clinton nomination in 2008, knowing full well that she would be a formidable candidate in the fall election. They even initiated an overt campaign of crossover voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries knowing that Americans would not elect a black president. They were wrong, just as they are wrong today in thinking that the general population will heap all of our current financial woes on Obama. Republicans have twice in recent history miscalculated ~ no way Clinton could beat GHW Bush. But he did. No way Obama could beat McCain. But he did. If SCOTUS affirms the AHCR Act, it sill devastate the Republican Party. If it strikes it down, Democrats will be wounded but not mortally. We won't know until June when the court says it will issue its ruling.
Jim
You couldn't be more wrong. I think every American knew that we were going to get a democrat President. We just knew Hillary better than Obama. And since we knew so little about Obama he seemed to be a better choice than Hillary. He spoke well and he sounded good. We just didn't realize that he was so full of BS. After the election I thought it was going to be interesting to watch him and see what direction he would take. We now know him. I think he has failed im many areas. How's that GITMO thing? How's that patriot Act thing? What do you think of his war in Afghanistan? I'm sure you're going to go with that lie about republicans stopping him from doing the right thing but I will say BS to you. His health care act is just about as well thought out as most of his work He satarted out on the right path but veered in the progressive/liberal direction. Didn't he say we need to reform health care because of the high costs? Have your premiums gone down? Mine just went up 50%.
I live in Chicago. I knew he care less abotu anything. When he wanted to run for President he went to a black powerhosue in Legislature and asked help in his running for President. He never said what for? He finally did said that campaign reform and he said so muchh in his announcement.
Right in a second, I knew he is not tellign the truth. He was for reform because he did not think he can raised money. If he can he will throw reofrm in a ditch. And he did.
Obama never had gut sense of working man. It was like a white thing that black people do not udnerstand. It is not racism but the reality of the thinking of his mind. He never had and does not have passion for uplifting black people who voted for him in high 90%.
The passion that Hillary had and things she wanted to do, Obama had no clue and has no clue.
The Gitmo thing was blocked by republicans, they refused to prosecute terrorists on American soil. Hows your right to a trial working out for you?
The Patriot Act was used by the Bush Administration, we were told it would "keep us safe". Now you have a problem with the safety your party wants you to have?
The president didn't write the ACA law. He only signed it. You thinking he wrote it is your mistake. It was written by democrats and modified by republicans. Modified is a polite way to say they watered it down.
Your healthcare went up because of GREED. The insurance companies are jacking it up before the healthcare law kicks in. If you want to blame someone for your insurance going through the roof, blame the multi-billionaires and their lust for money.
When I read these posts, I'm amazed at how many lazy people that read MSNBC.
The Idiot In Chief went against the will of the people or at least the people that pay taxes and contribute to society. The worthless parasites that are ObamaIdiot's base, AKA: Welfare freeloading pieces of trash, will still get free health care, food stamps, low income housing, WIC, Cell Phones, etc. Why should they be any different than their freeloading leader...Obama. He has never provided for his family, the tax payers have. His dad / sperm donor never provided for him either. End this vicious circle of leeches, Vote for anyone else in 2012!
Just 50% of American Households pay federal Income taxes. Our country is falling deeper and deeper in debt with no end in sight. $15.5 Trillion and counting. Lets add yet another misconceived entitlement program that is paid for by those already stuck with all of the bills. It is not cold hearted to not want our country to go broke, it's being responsible.
Payroll taxes? That covers SSI and Medicare. 50% of all household in the USA pay NO FEDERAL income tax after filing. That number was just 14% in 1984. Seems that people have found that not working or not working very hard, isn't too bad in this country. The actual fools who study hard and bust their butt will be forced to pay the way for those who don't. Your argument doesn't hold water.
Dahly, you do realize that the Nation had a budget surplus the day King George II was anointed? President Obama has started the cuts and if you read the news you would know that mandatory cuts are set to take effect later this year. Just because King George drove the Nation into debt at such a rate that it will take some time to pay it all off doesn't mean President Obama is to blame. Even though the GOP has tried to thwart all stimulus the persistence of President Obama and the economic intelligence of Chairman Bernanke have our Nation heading in the correct direction after the 8 years of unlimited spending and tax cuts under King George. President Obama has implemented the largest cuts ever in our Nation's history. President Obama has already increased the tax revenues that are being collected due to the improvements in the economy. President Obama is intelligent and understands that there has to be a balanced approach of cuts and increases in revenue. It is the GOP who created the debt and the increases in the current debt are 100% attributable to the debt the GOP caused because we are paying interest to service the debt the GOP created. You do understand that if the failed reign of King George had not squandered the surplus we would not be in debt at all now? I know you don't understand this but your leader created the debt out of surplus. If he had not squandered the surplus our Nation would not be in debt today.
Federal income tax is different from capital gains taxes. So Dayyly when you spout off your "stats" remember that people like Flip Romney are in your 50% that paid no Federal Income Taxes. All of Flip's "income" was donated to the Morman Church and deducted from the Capital gains that he was already paying half the rate that people who earn their money pay as income tax. When people like you use statistics to mislead it shows that your intentions are malicious. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Under your analysis, the rich pay all the taxes and they obviously keep getting richer.therefore, paying taxes makes people richer and poor people don't pay any and they get poorer so we should raise taxes on everybody and make them all richer.
Dahly, you have to remember that a large bulk of that 50% number are the high school and college students who have part-time jobs. They submit income tax returns, and get what they paid into federal income tax back because they didn't make enough to go over the minimum income threshold for paying federal income tax. Both of my sons, who work part-time in between their school hours got 100% of their federal taxes back because they both made under $6000 from their jobs. But they are thrown into that 50% group.
Additionally, don't you find it sad that the 50% who don't pay that the Grover Norquist Republicans keep bringing up have such a small income, that they qualify for the federal income tax exemption? Think about it. The six Walmart heirs have more combined wealth than the bottom 30% of American households. That's just 6 people! Look at the quote from Wikipedia below for an illustration of the unequal distribution of wealth in this country. If you want an equitable taxing system, then the top 20% should be paying 85% of the taxes in this country, which does not happen.
"In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth
What's worse is that the top 20% owns 93% of the total wealth in this country. See the charts from the link below.
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
That talking point of 50% of the American public pays no taxes is a red herring in what is the real story about taxation and wealth distribution.
I did taxes for a few years and my wife still does, but now only for people we know or are customers of mine.
You all would crap if you knew how much of your money slackers get.
Say I work part time and make $12K a year and you bust your arse to make $60k. If I work the system properly, I will make more than you!
When I read these posts, I'm amazed at how many lazy people that read MSNBC.
The Idiot In Chief went against the will of the people or at least the people that pay taxes and contribute to society. The worthless parasites that are ObamaIdiot's base, AKA: Welfare freeloading pieces of trash, will still get free health care, food stamps, low income housing, WIC, Cell Phones, etc. Why should they be any different than their freeloading leader...Obama. He has never provided for his family, the tax payers have. His dad / sperm donor never provided for him either. End this vicious circle of leeches, Vote for anyone else in 2012!
jmsmith, the same comment over and over. You are looking like a horses A@@.
I have had insurance for pretty much my adult life. Every time I got a job I took the employer healthcare. Back troubles have caused me to have two surgeries and I will probably have to have more. My daughter has a form of cerebral palsy and will possibly require surgeries on her foot a couple of times in her lifetime, she has had one already. I feel more at ease knowing that because of this health care law we cannot be denied coverage because of these preexisting conditions. And as for the mandates I think everybody should have to carry healthcare, we are required by law to have insurance to drive a car, nobody really complains about that. So why the big deal about health insurance? You might never get into a car accident and you might not get sick but what happens when you do? Who pays for it? We will be paying for it one way or another so it might as well be mandated so at least we can get a handle on it
We are required by our states to carry insurance to drive to protect other drivers. Don't like it use a bicycle or a horse drawn carriage. We should not be required to buy something or pay a tax to live. That is why some are upset. We should not have to pay a living tax. If you want universal health care it would have to be a single payer system, this is nothing more than a forced gift to private insurance companies payed for on the backs of all tax payers.
Robert Willey-5042353 What many healthy people fail to realize is that it could happen to them. My daughter had a stroke at birth. I waited until age 34 to have her, saved money, bought a new home and even had a college fund as well as a retirement fund. Now, if my employer finds out I have a daughter with special needs I may lose my job. Illegal, yes but it has happened more times than I care to remember. If I make too much money, my daughter does not qualify for state run healthcare. I cannot buy her coverage. Her first of 4 brain surgeries cost 1.2 mil by the time all was said and done. No amount of personal responsibility can prepare you for that. This healthcare law means for the first time in 13 years I will be able to not fear getting fired from a job. For the first time in 13 years I will be able to buy insurance for my daughter. And for millions of families it means they will be able to live above the poverty line AND have insurance. I was one of the lucky few that did go back to school and get a good job. But I meet families all the time that are forced to stay below the poverty line as far as income, in order to maintain healthcare for a special needs child or spouse with medical issues.
Good luck to you and your daughter. My daughter had a heel chord release, it wasn't terribly bad.
When I read these posts, I'm amazed at how many lazy people that read MSNBC.
The Idiot In Chief went against the will of the people or at least the people that pay taxes and contribute to society. The worthless parasites that are ObamaIdiot's base, AKA: Welfare freeloading pieces of trash, will still get free health care, food stamps, low income housing, WIC, Cell Phones, etc. Why should they be any different than their freeloading leader...Obama. He has never provided for his family, the tax payers have. His dad / sperm donor never provided for him either. End this vicious circle of leeches, Vote for anyone else in 2012!
The GOP "warns" us all that the entitlements are going to bankrupt the Nation. They claim this from the very inception of these programs. The "warnings" have never, ever, ever come true. Now, the GOP says the Affordable Healthcare Act will bankrupt the Nation. I am sure in seventy-five more years the GOP, if they are still in existence, will be making the same "dire warnings" about how the Nation will be bankrupt. The GOP has failed to pass the Transportation Bill, the GOP failed to fund the much needed NEXGEN air traffic control system. The GOP failed to pass the Federal Infrastructure Job Bank that would put 100,000s of people in great paying jobs with good benefits and at the same time fixing the infrastructure. The GOP politicians have tried to thwart economic stimulus. This is the most amazing inaction the GOP has ever undertaken. The GOP were the only people who thought it was a bad idea for the Nation to stimulate the economy after the GOP put the Nation on the brink of a very dangerous deflationary cycle during the Second Great Depression. Ron Paul and Rand Paul should be forced to eat crow for all their wrongful and mean-spirited criticism of Chairman Bernanke. Go back and read how Ron and Rand have been saying since 2008 that Chairman Bernanke was "debasing" the US Dollar. The Pauls have been claiming the sky is falling since President Obama got elected. It is the same old racist argument that every racist makes to "scare" people that the guy that is different than us is going to ruin every thing., i.e., there goes the neighborhood. The fact is the US Dollar is the safe-haven that it has always been for the entire World. The 2yr, 5yr, 10yr and 30yr rates prove that the GOP and Ron Paul and Rand Paul were wrong. Everyday the economy gets better and that proves Chairman Bernanke is correct in his assessment of the problem and implementation of the proper plan. The GOP is so oblivious didn't even realize that the pitfall the Nation faced was deflation.
r
JeezusismyDog: Agreed. I was wondering what the real effect of a balanced budget amendment would do if one was really passed into law? Would it really shrink government and thus reduce the need for tax revenues? IMO the size of government would stay relatively the same as it is currently and the balanced budget would be paid for by the middle class with increased taxes on us.
I suggest you do taxes one year and see how much money we throw to able non-contributors, it is scary.
A person making $15k with children makes much more than someone making $60k with children.
And you'd be right, G-9. It is fiscally impossible to reduce expenditures to meet revenues without not only hamstringing the economy but also provoking civil unrest of the highest magnitude. Not funding a problem area does not make it go away. Contrary to the conservative argument, we are NOT OVERTAXED. Certainly not at the federal level. This allegation is often raised when there is no other viable argument to rely on. There is this galactically stupid concept that if we simply cut expenditures, we will be able to work out way out of this hole. That is a self-defeating argument for even with proposed drastic cuts offered by hardliners on the right, we still add to the deficit and national debt under all offered proposals. A balanced budget would of necessity require an increase in revenues which translates "Taxes." So these 'solutions' such as the Ryan plan reduces expenditures but at the same time impacts the economy and adds to the deficit and national debt while never eliminating problems that remain ~ but are now unfunded. Brilliant scenario.
lvingbarefoot., scary is a corporation with a negative tax rate, and there are many. Please, your argument is weak at best.
When I read these posts, I'm amazed at how many lazy people that read MSNBC.
The Idiot In Chief went against the will of the people or at least the people that pay taxes and contribute to society. The worthless parasites that are ObamaIdiot's base, AKA: Welfare freeloading pieces of trash, will still get free health care, food stamps, low income housing, WIC, Cell Phones, etc. Why should they be any different than their freeloading leader...Obama. He has never provided for his family, the tax payers have. His dad / sperm donor never provided for him either. End this vicious circle of leeches, Vote for anyone else in 2012!
JeezusismyDog - This scholar says, "Tax Cuts are bankrupting the Country". Really, I wonder what business school taught him that? How about the freeloading pieces of trash that don't contribute anything to the economy are bankrupting this Country????
JeezusismyDog doesn't want tax cuts because he doesn't pay taxes.
JeezusismyDog stop pan handling from the tax payer and how about you get a job and maybe tax cuts will be more important to you.
Jim in Texas- if you dont think were over taxed, feel free to pay my federal income tax this year. You people want big govt. you want the federal govt. to control everything you do. What do you mean certainly not at the federal level????? the feds will strip you of everything you have if you let them. People like obummer,pelosi,reed,schummer,sorros,boxer,feinstein. Millionaires reaching in your pocket. This administration is the biggest disgrace I have ever seen. Mr. obummer give me $50 and he does, ok now give me another $50, well I dont have it he says, so you take his arm and twist it behind his back and insist for another $50. HELLO... does anyone feel that.
Our country and many others have been going broke for quite a while now. since President Reagan when we hit the trillion dollar mark our debt has risen to our current 15.5 trillion dollar mess, every president since has seen the debt raised by an average of 10 percent a year. Funny part is only now has it become such a life changing issue that we are forced to hear about it and our government has virtually shut down and done nothing to help the people or the economy. Did President Obama raise it faster that all other presidents before? Yes. Did the four presidents before have the problems facing this president? No,with the exception of GW the terrorist attack was horrible. But GW took that situation that should have made us stronger and unified and turned it into something that caused fear and got our service people killed. Not to mention took away some of our freedoms that a lot of people posting are not will to give up. So instead of our law makers that are all taking government money complaining about the big bad president why haven't they offered any real solutions to help the economy and fix what is really wrong with this country... THEM
Gee it seems to me the biggest upset some people have with the Affordable Care Act it does NOT go far enough to rein in costs. Which could have been done if the Republicans had been about creating aspects of the law that would have stolen some of the thunder from the Democrats instead of utilizing fear "DEATH PANELS" Gee imagine if they had said "Look we are going to make sure insurance companies stop overcharging and drug makers will have to reduce what they charge" since they are fiscally minded. Sometimes its about upping the ante for everyone's benefit instead of finding nuances to throw rocks at. Love my Democratic and Republican brethren for loving this country beyond their individual opinions!!
None of the speculations in this article deal with the likely outcome:
-> The SCOTUS will uphold the law as most legal experts (not just democrats as the article snidely implies) expect.
-> Obama will win re-election - as all current polls -(go to realclearpolitics obama vs. romney and see for yourself), suggest.
In this scenario: the law will simply continue to be implemented.
GOP won't like it, and will fight, of course. Paul Ryan is currently fighting to destroy Medicare. Rick Perry calls Social Security communist - so big deal that they hate Universal Health Care too. What a "shock".
Obamacare needs to go back to congress and they need to do it right this time. The objective should be to reduce cost and improve quality.
In the United States that is achieved by allowing companies to strive to get your business and lower cost to maximize profit. The current system requires them to increase cost to maximize profits.
Living Barefoot: what current system- under the pre obamacare it has been demonstrated that year after year the for profit private insurance companies have increases premium's at a higher rate then the overall inflation rate. Doctor's average earnings are not extravagant, nurses dont retire t young ages, last I heard having a for profit hospital being built was last done in 1948 so who do you think is making a profit?
Drug costs to the user/patient could be dramatically reduced if drug manufacturers were prohibited from marketing their creations as though they were retail products. Billions are spent on advertising pharmaceuticals to the public when marketing should be restricted to only those who can legally prescribe them ~ licensed physicians. I should not have to "ask my doctor if Brand X is right for me." or if "my heart is healthy enough for sex." That should be a decision made by the one most qualified to make that determination. Tonight, just for sh*ts and grins, get a pad and pencil and list every drug commercial you see on TV. Its astonishing the percentage of broadcast and cable advertising that is consumed to market prescription only drugs. You are paying for these lavish commercials every time you get a prescription filled. Now even hospitals in my area are running commercials to compete with each other. All of these costs are recovered in prices charged patients and prescription recipients.
If the Supreme Court strikes down a law that benefits so many Americans and their families, the public will see it as just more judicial activism from the right wing fringes.
It will just be another unpopular "Citizens United" type ruling that will only reinforce people's disgust with the radical right.
Harbinger, So you say. The Obama "unaffordable health care act" has already hit my pocketbook, big time. My health insurance has increased 24% and 31%, over the last two years, respectively. Taxes are sneakily increasing, at a time when people can't afford the increases and the Bill has several more hidden tax increases that will slip in over the next year. You can call the Right whatever you Far Left doorknobs want to call them, but cancelling this moronic Bill is sensible and prudent.
Dr. Vaknin has written extensively about narcissism.
Dr. Vaknin States "I must confess I was impressed by Obama from the first time I saw him. At first I was excited to see a black candidate. He looked youthful, spoke well, appeared to be confident -- a wholesome presidential package. I was put off soon, not just because of his shallowness but also because there was an air of haughtiness in his demeanor that was unsettling.. His posture and his body language were louder than his empty words. Obama's speeches are unlike any political speech we have heard in American history. Never a politician in this land had such quasi "religious" impact on so many people.
The fact that Obama is a total incognito with Zero accomplishment, makes this inexplicable infatuation alarming. Obama is not an ordinary man. He is not a genius. In fact he is quite ignorant on most important subjects."
Dr. Sam Vaknin, the author of the Malignant Self Love believes "Barack Obama appears to be a narcissist." Vaknin is a world authority on narcissism. He understands narcissism and describes the inner mind of a narcissist like no other person. When he talks about narcissism everyone listens. Vaknin says that Obama's language, posture and demeanor, and the testimonies of his closest, dearest friends suggest that the man is either a narcissist or he may have narcissistic personality disorder (NPD).
Narcissists project a grandiose but false image of themselves. Jim Jones, the charismatic leader of People's Temple, the man who led over 900 of his followers to cheerfully commit mass suicide and even murder their own children was also a narcissist. David Koresh, Charles Manson, Joseph Koni, Shoko Asahara, Stalin, Saddam, Mao, Kim Jong Ill and Adolph Hitler are a few examples of narcissists of our time. All these men had a tremendous influence over their fanciers. They created a personality cult around themselves and with their blazing speeches elevated their admirers, filled their hearts with enthusiasm and instilled in their minds a new zest for life. They gave them hope! They promised them the moon, but alas, invariably they brought them to their doom.
When you are a victim of a cult of personality, you don't know it until it is too late. One determining factor in the development of NPD is childhood abuse "Obama's early life was decidedly chaotic and replete with traumatic and mentally bruising dislocations,"says Vaknin. "Mixed-race marriages were even less common then. His parents went through a divorce when he was an infant two years old. Obama saw his father only once again, before he died in a car accident. Then his mother re-married and Obama had to relocate to Indonesia , a foreign land with a radically foreign culture, to be raised by a step-father. At the age of ten, he was whisked off to live with his maternal (white) grandparents. He saw his mother only intermittently in the following few years and then she vanished from his life in 1979. "She died of cancer in 1995."
One must never underestimate the manipulative genius of pathological narcissists. They project such an imposing personality that it overwhelms those around them. Charmed by the charisma of the narcissist, people become like clay in his hands. They cheerfully do his bidding and delight to be at his service. The narcissist shapes the world around himself and reduces others in his own inverted image. He creates a cult of personality. His admirers become his co-dependents. Narcissists have no interest in things that do not help them to reach their personal objective. They are focused on one thing alone and that is power. All other issues are meaningless to them and they do not want to waste their precious time on trivialities. Anything that does not help them is beneath them and does not deserve their attention.
If an issue raised in the Senate does not help Obama in one way or another, he has no interest in it. The "present" vote is a safe vote. No one can criticize him if things go wrong. Those issues are unworthy by their very nature because they are not about him.
Obama's election as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review led to a contract and advance to write a book about race relations. The University of Chicago Law School provided him a lot longer than expected and at the end it evolved into, guess what? His own autobiography! Instead of writing a scholarly paper focusing on race relations, for which he had been paid, Obama could not resist writing about his most sublime self. He entitled the book Dreams from My Father.
Not surprisingly, Adolph Hitler also wrote his own autobiography when he was still a nobody. So did Stalin. For a narcissist no subject is as important as his own self. Why would he waste his precious time and genius writing about insignificant things when he can write about such an august being as himself?
Narcissists are often callous and even ruthless. As the norm, they lack conscience. This is evident from Obama's lack of interest in his own brother who lives on only one dollar per month.. A man who lives in luxury, who takes a private jet to vacation in Hawaii, and who raised nearly half a billion dollars for his campaign (something unprecedented in history) has no interest in the plight of his own brother. Why? Because, his brother cannot be used for his ascent to power. A narcissist cares for no one but himself .
This election was like no other in the history of America . The issues were insignificant compared to what is at stake. What can be more dangerous than having a man bereft of conscience, a serial liar, and one who cannot distinguish his fantasies from reality as the leader of the free world?
I hate to sound alarmist, but one is a fool if one is not alarmed. Many politicians are narcissists. They pose no threat to others. They are simply self serving and selfish. Obama evidences symptoms of pathological narcissism, which is different from the run-of-the-mill narcissism of a Richard Nixon or a Bill Clinton for example. To him reality and fantasy are intertwined.
This is a mental health issue, not just a character flaw.
Pathological narcissists are dangerous because they look normal and even intelligent. It is this disguise that makes them treacherous. Today the Democrats have placed all their hopes in Obama. But this man could put an end to their party. The great majority of blacks voted for Obama. Only a fool does not know that their support for him is racially driven. This is racism, pure and simple.
The downside of this is that if Obama turns out to be the disaster I predict, he will cause widespread resentment among the whites. The blacks are unlikely to give up their support of their man. Cultic mentality is pernicious and unrelenting . They will dig their heads deeper in the sand and blame Obama's detractors of racism. This will cause a backlash among the whites. The white supremacists will take advantage of the discontent and they will receive widespread support. I predict that in less than four years, racial tensions will increase to levels never seen since the turbulent 1960's.
Obama will set the clock back decades. America is the bastion of freedom. The peace of the world depends on the strength of America , and its weakness translates into the triumph of terrorism and victory of rogue nations.. It is no wonder that Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, the Castrists, the Hezbollah, the Hamas, the lawyers of the Guantanamo terrorists, and virtually all sworn enemies of America are so thrilled by the prospect of their man in the White House .
America is on the verge of destruction. There is no insanity greater than electing a pathological narcissist as president.
Michael A. Haberman, M.D.
You can always find what you're looking for. I'd like to see him write an article on how Bush (43) was a narcissist.
This is a perfect example of right wing projection.
Everything there applies to Republicans and conservatives, not to President Obama.
Nice try, though!
While I am not a fan of President Obama, the post by Concerned Ctzn is actually an excerpt from an article written by Ali Sina in September of 2008. If I can find out about this urban legend, anybody can. And while part of me thinks that it describes Mr Obama to a tee, that is only my personal opinion. Don't pass gossip on as fact-it makes one look stupid.
Too windy Mike!
Well put, The left obviously cannot see this.
- Typical garbage from the right. Spin a intricate story to prove your point and hope no one checks it
Maybe the President can borrow Governor Schweitzer's VETO brands...
I really don't give a sh*t. I get great benefits through my employer and this law does not effect me at all. I do feel bad though for people who would lose coverage, even though they haven't really gotten it yet, should the law be struck down.
As far as the Supreme Court goes I find it funny the Democrats are asking for "judicial restraint" when they've asked for the opposite so many times; that goes for Republicans too. Parties only make the strict constructionism argument when it's politically convenient for them and then they twist what is strict constructionism and what isn't to suit their own needs anyway.
Politics is the art of saying what you want to say regardless of reality. Whats new?
Finally the american people will get its day in court. This law will be overturned by the supremes. Goooooooo teaaaaaaa partyyyyyyy.
I hope you feel that way (you've gotten your day in court) if the Supreme Court doesn't rule in your favor.
And F$%K the tea party
Go tea party? Everyone's on their own and to hell with you if you can't make $200,000 a year. Because if you don't make at least that you won't be able to afford health insurance. Just go die some where you little people.
We are forced to pay for the health care for the politicians in Washington now for life if I am right, so now we are going to have to be forced to pay for are own health care, which is not as good as there or as cheep. If we have to pay for our health care then they should have to pay for theirs at the same cost we have to pay for the same policy.
Bubba, what do you mean by, "we'll have to pay for our health insurance, I pay for it now, big time, don't you?
I was playing golf with a teacher last week and he commented that Obama care was a good thing. I agreed that he would think it was a 'good thing", because he was retired and his Union paid for his insurance, via the taxpayers. He won't have to pay for the irresponsible, under Obama care, the taxpayers will. So of course, to him, it's a good thing. What is scary now, is how close this Country is to having teachers, Union's, City, State and Federal employees, welfare and others, that are on the insurance dole, outnumber the taxpaying public. Once that happens, enter socialism. ....and then what?
eh dave- who do you think pays now when an uninsured person gets a heart attack- the health insurance fairy? duh
No paxil, we do. The big difference is we don't have tax sucking government right in the middle of it. Inject that into the middle of health care and what happens? The same thing that always happens, bureaucrats will clog up the system with trillions of extra costs and health care will be even less effective. If you don't believe that, I am truly amazed. ....but then again, there is nothing that you bleeding hearts do that doesn't amaze me.
This entire scenerio is a slippery first step towards "single pay", which is Obama's long term plan. Obama care has always been destined to fail to pave the way for it. As long as we still have voter's with common sense, it won't happen.
Dave - Switzerland has our same system, Obmacare. Had it for 20 years now. Why don't you google it and see how it's working..... One of the top health care systems in the world.
BTW...you know who proposed this health care system in the 1990's when Hillary was trying for a single payer system... Ya, you did..
Sorry Don, Switzerland is an extremely wealthy Nation. They don't have anywhere near the welfare base or low income base, we have created. Why don't you google England and Canada? You will find out what comparable Nation's are dealing with. ....and it isn't a good thing. Nice try.
Don-2316123 is correct.
The ACA law is working well in Switzerland. Dave D-1046643 is comparing apples to oranges. England and Canada have different healthcare systems.
America is an extremely wealthy nation as well.
Why don't you google healthcare ratings and justify the reason America is below Saudi Arabia in healthcare? Please explain why we are the most expensive and yet one of the poorest in services.
Be honest here, I'm sure your patriotism demands us to be number one in the world, right? But there are few things left that we are number one at and healthcare isn't one of them.
It interferes with insurance company profits to require them to pay customer claims. The best thing to do is collect policy premiums, then dump the policyholder if they get sick, especially with a chronic or life threatening disease. Prepayment for services doesn't mean you can get those services when you need them. That costs the insurance company money. What was Obama thinking? If Obama owned a membership in a country club, then showed up black, they can easily deny him services for being the wrong color. Non-Republicans just don't understand these truths.
Some people are also whining about state mandated sexual harassment in Virginia and elsewhere. Women can't be trusted to make decisions about their personal care. They are sort of like farm animals. Other esoteric women's health care like breast exams and pap smears are never asked for by men. Women need to stop wasting money on frivolous things like contraceptives, even if they get cervical cancer or ovarian cysts. It may be God's will for them to get sick or pregnant. They are fighting against religion by asking.
We need a Republican president so national laws can be passed to straighten things out and put God first, men second, and women third.
Here is the commerce clause from the constitution: "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;" Now I ask you, does that sound like it grants congress the authority to mandate citizens purchase a product?
During the legislative process, I send a proposal to White House and each Legislature to avoid this situation on mandate.
It was simply, if some one do not want to buy insurance, they do not have to. If they get sick and get medical service then they have a choice. Thye can pay from their own personal resources for the services. If they do not pay then they will be forced to enroll in a program where certain percentage of their income will be taken to get them insurance and bills paid.
Most people sooner or later ends up needing medical service. Large majority will ultimately fall one or the other without coersion. If they can pay their bills, it is good for the coutnry since individual bills tends to be lot higher. If they cannot afford then they are in insurance pool.
Ther trouble with the law making was that, they did not work hard enough to find ways where both sides can have win-win. It ended up like we win, you lose is better than win-win.
There is a solution on medical malpractice, there is a simple solution for uninsured that both can accept. But they will not score browny points and they cannot make it election issue.
I was so sick of watching faulty law being eneacted even though I agreed with most of the objectives.
@!$%# the cost this is america and we are americans.WAKEUPAMERICA. if other lesser countries can have uv healthcare we can too. just remove the greedy lobbieing bastards.
Wealthy folks from those countrys come here for Healthcare Why is that Genius.
frankbrown
For the procedure, of course!
Do you know the country they come from reimburses the United States for those procedures?