It isn't the job of SCOTUS to make sure people have insurance. Their only job is to uphold the constitution.

There is no federal law that requires you to have car insurance!

DeeDee,

Except that the poor already have medicaid, which counts. And medicaid would be expanded. You may want to read up on this law more.

realist pondering

If the 5 overturn affordable healthcare there needs to be an "occupy scotus" and the impeachment process opened especially for Thomas and his illegal activities. His wife is a tool of right wing groups and they are profiting from this. IMPEACH CLARENCE THOMAS.

Perhaps instead you should look to your Representatives and Senators to propose, read, and then pass a bill that is constitutional.

Tom,

Hospitals do that already. My Grandpa went in for Gallbladder surgery. While he was there the hospital gave him an infection. They decided to just let him die instead of treating the infection or doing the surgery.

To force people to purchase something (health care insurance) only because they exist is unconstitutional.

Sorry, it's not quite as black and white, or as simple as this.

The commerce clause and Wickard v. Filburn...

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes".

The Court decided that Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce. Thus, Filburn's production could be regulated by the federal government.

Now, healthcare is way more far reaching in terms of effecting interstate commerce and the national economy than the wheat this guy was growing for his own personal use.

Just because you don't like the concept of something, that doesn't automatically make it unconstitutional. I don't like it that much either, I think the single payer system would have been a much better idea, but for the past 70 years SCOTUS has been setting precedent that expands the commerce clause, which I do agree with. As the world shrinks we start effecting each more and more, you know.

Any issues with increased costs doesn't come from being mandated to buy insurance, it comes because the healthcare industry is exempt from anti-trust laws. And really, we only have three options left, if we're not willing to go with single payer...

1. We all receive care and those of us who have insurance pay for those who don't.

2. We all receive care and we all have insurance.

3. Only those of us who have insurance receive care.

It seems like some of you complain about paying for others, and than complain when we know longer allow that to happen. Are you really, in 2012, advocating for option 3?

Really,

Under Obamacare, which was supposed to cost under a trillion, but now will cost nearly 2, not having health insurance will be illegal, therefore, everyone is covered.

The truth

1 - In a report released last week, the CBO actually found that the Affordable Care Act was expected to cost $50 billion less than they anticipated a year ago. The republicans are twisting the results by referring to the gross cost of the legislation for 11 years ending in 2022 — $1.76 trillion — and comparing it to the original cost estimate of $938 billion over 10 years ending in 2019. As FactCheck.org explained, “The 11-year figure is much higher because it includes three additional years of full implementation of the coverage provisions of the law.”

Lets make being homeless illegal and we won't have any homeless people.

Lets make hunger illegal, then we can say we don't have a hunger problem.

Good idea.

I will add to this, You are not being forced to buy insurance because you exist. You are being forced to buy it because sooner or later you will get sick and need care. If you are not insured that cost will be passed on to those of us who are insured! It is about fairness, Equality and the common wale fair!

Sarah, really those are the only 3 options?

How about one more, we truly open health insurance up to the open market, similar to car insurance?

Get the Government out of it completely, You can buy one policy for catastrophic and for sickness and injuries, and finally you actually pay for your own routine check up or buy another policy for that.

But God forbid people actually think or take care of themselves.

Wickard vs. Filburn, didn't force anybody to buy Filburn's wheat, just saying!

Silver - maybe I am wrong but this numbers come out like this correct?

938 billion for the first 10 years = 93.8 billion a year.

then in year 11 it costs 1.76 trillion - 938 billion which is 138 billion.

That sounds like a great deal for use tax payers, we paid in for 10 years to get 6, than starting year 11 we start paying year by year, sounds kind of like what happened during housing bubble.

(How did that turn out?)

Tom,

I'm all about getting rid of the health industry monopoly. That doesn't address what will happend with indigent people who need healthcare though. That's why I go with single payer.

And it's not about being forced to purchase something, it's about the effect on interstate commerce.

Sarah, two things, the first is I will not buy health insurance I will pay the penalty (the company I work for already told us as soon as this goes into effect, they are giving us health care, they will give all of us a 8-12 raise to get our own), it is way cheaper, then when something happens (if is not if) I will buy insurance after they fact because they have cover me for pre-existing conditions.

Pre-existing conditions aren't traumatic injuries. If you don't have it, and God forbid something like a car accident happens, I'll still be paying for you. But, that is your choice. A dumb one, especially if they're giving you a raise to cover the cost, but yours to make. A way to try to manipulate the system that you "hate" so much for your own benefit, while refusing to compromise on the parts that you don't like, though.

Second, it is about being forced to purchase something it has nothing to do with interstate commerce, currently you can't even buy health insurance over state lines.

Again, that's because of regional monopolies, and really??? Nothing to do with intersate commerce? So, I'm from Detroit, but I have a sister that lives in CA, what if one of us gets sick/injured on vacation? People who live in border towns? People traveling for work? People in the process of moving? Not to mention that the costs of covering those who are uninsured are spread nationwide, as is the price fixing, oops I ment setting, that goes on between the different providers.

You probably don't know this, but it is cheaper to pay out of your pocket for a yearly physical (for both husband, wife, and two kids), a broken arm, and 4 - 8 sick visits to the urgent care plus prescriptions then it is to buy insurance. Buts lets be honest you don't want to pay anything for that you want somebody else to pay it (like Government)

This coming from the person who doesn't want insurance at all? And, psst, the government paying for it through a single payer system IS me paying for it. Where do you think they'd get the money?

And I'm willing to pay the lowest possible tax rate that would provide the nation with quality care.

Really,

Just about every first world country on the planet has some sort of universal health care coverage, either through a mandate or a single payer system. When did I say I wanted to base it off of England's? There are many ways to do a single payer system that work and are simple and they provide good care. You're making excuses.

Actually my car insurance will cover me in that case, if something tragic happens at my or your home, home owners insurance will cover that. So not so dumb!

"A way to try to manipulate the system that you "hate" so much for your own benefit, while refusing to compromise on the parts that you don't like, though. "

Yes of course, why piss my own money away because stupid people think they know what is best for me. This is just a sound financial decision.

The current insurance system doesn't work well it needs to be fixed, but not by the inefficient government that you love so dearly, I am saying it is cheaper to not have insurance for the normal everybody things.

Tom,

The current insurance system doesn't work well it needs to be fixed, but not by the inefficient government that you love so dearly, I am saying it is cheaper to not have insurance for the normal everybody things

I am saying it is cheaper to not have insurance for the normal everybody things.

Yes, and if we all followed your "sound" financial advice, and none of us had insurance, then what would happen? The point is, every single one of us will use it at sometime, ergo, every single one of us needs it, to keep the others from milking the system and to keep it affordable for all of us.

Actually my car insurance will cover me in that case, if something tragic happens at my or your home, home owners insurance will cover that. So not so dumb!

But still totally, willfully, obstuse!!! There are many ways for you to be catastrophically injured that won't be covered. And those private insurance companies that YOU love so much will do their utmost to make sure that they don't have to cover you. At least the government doesn't have a vested interest in NOT paying or denying the care.

Really,

Not without a citation to where I can find that in the AHA, you mean? That's pretty ambiguous and most likely skewed by whatever TP talking point source you get your information from.

Do you have any specifics so I can look it up? If you do, I'm sure I probably could shed some light on it for you.

"Yes, and if we all followed your "sound" financial advice, and none of us had insurance,"

I only speak of not having insurance in the case that Obamacare is made law.

At least the government doesn't have a vested interest in NOT paying or denying the care.

Of course they do and should, the Government is us and our money should not be wasted.

"But still totally, willfully, obstuse!!! There are many ways for you to be catastrophically injured that won't be covered."

Please give me an example where a catastrophic injury takes place and I won't be covered?

Tom,

Please give me an example where a catastrophic injury takes place and I won't be covered?

No, because I can make up a thousand scenarios, and you can try to spin it anyway you want. That doesn't change the fact that there are ways you can be injured where care is denied. Especially if it's a completely privatized, monopolized, unregulated industry, which you seem to want. I don't think you're that stupid, and I'm guessing you're not down with wasting time either.

I only speak of not having insurance in the case that Obamacare is made law

Ah yes, back to your manipulation while refusing to compromise. The point is, even if Obamacare is upheld, if we all thought that way, we'd still all be screwed. But as long as you get your way, to hell with the society you profit off of right? And you all call poor people the "entitlement" class?

Of course they do and should, the Government is us and our money should not be wasted.

Only if you see the most basic functions of domestic policy as unimportant. The government will collect taxes regardless, what would you have them use that money for? War? I'd rather live in a healthy, productive society.

Tom - Plymouth

Actually my car insurance will cover me in that case, if something tragic happens at my or your home, home owners insurance will cover that. So not so dumb!

wrong - I don't know what state you live in but Medical on your car insurance is very limited - the rest is picked up by your health insurance. Mass standard is $5000 unless you choose to pay for more. If you are in NH (Plymouth?), and have NO CAR insurance (which is legal), then you are not even allowed to drive in Mass (car insurance is mandatory). Your car will get towed if caught.

You know why it is? Because people in Mass were sick of being hit by uninsured NH drivers and had to pick up the tab to fix their cars.

So it's kind of like that with health insurance - my premium is higher because it has to cover those who do not have it but rack up bills.

Allen-460794

Scotus needs to make sure the needs of the 50 mllion + uninsured are met.

No. The SCOTUS absolutely does not need to make sure the needs of 50 million + uninsured are met. Their job is to rule on the Constitutionality of laws and decide cases brought before them.

The Judicial Branch has absolutely no role in providing for the needs of Americans beyond making sure that the laws under which they live do not violate the Constitution.

Sarah-3043284

To force people to purchase something (health care insurance) only because they exist is unconstitutional.

Sorry, it's not quite as black and white, or as simple as this.

The commerce clause and Wickard v. Filburn...

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes".

The Court decided that Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce. Thus, Filburn's production could be regulated by the federal government.

Now, healthcare is way more far reaching in terms of effecting interstate commerce and the national economy than the wheat this guy was growing for his own personal use.

Just because you don't like the concept of something, that doesn't automatically make it unconstitutional. I don't like it that much either, I think the single payer system would have been a much better idea, but for the past 70 years SCOTUS has been setting precedent that expands the commerce clause, which I do agree with. As the world shrinks we start effecting each more and more, you know.

I'm sure you're normally an intelligent woman. However, in this case, you can't seem to understand that you are using the government regulating a man (or company, for that matter) who is generating a product for sale on the open market...which is COMMERCE...to justify the government compelling every single American to purchase goods offered on the open market.

Your citation would apply to Congressional efforts to regulate the health insurance companies (which are producing a consumer product for consumption on the open market) and not individual American citizens forced to buy consumer products from the aforementioned companies.

Regulating commerce does not equate to compelling people to engage in commerce....trying to establish a rationalization for this simple fact (such as, it's a "moral imperative") does not change anything.

The government is ONLY compelling people to buy a certain product because that one product affects EVERYONE commercially. EVERYONE. Your deciding not to buy insurance will only make costs go up when you go to the hospital after an accident and demand care.

If society let you die, that's one thing, but we've decided as a society not to let you die. So everyone pays for you. Yes, this affects not just 10% of the population, as some here have claimed, but 100% of the population.

Conservative need to be wary for what you wish for. If the SCOTUS says this is unconstitutional (and if Scalia is consistent with his previous votes, even he will say it's constitutional--but politics are involved, so who knows). The next step is single payer--and the constitution plainly allows the federal government to tax you.

"You have to wonder how many million of dollars the big insurance companies have put behind defeating any kind of health-care... It's like everything else, big money influences everything..."

Terry I think you have it backwards. The insurance companies want the mandate, why would they not want people to be forced to buy their product? In truth the only winners in that healthcare bill are the Insurance Companies.

The Obama administration argued in its brief that the Anti-Injunction Act does not apply in this case because those who do not obey the ACA’s requirement to purchase insurance would pay a penalty, not a tax.

Flip flop...flip flop....it is a TAX, no it is not a TAX, yes it is a TAX, NO to the SCOTUS....it is not a TAX.

Gotta love the spin from this administration.

The end justify the means scenario.

I suppose Kagan is still on the bench for this one. If so, she does not have any ETHICS left.

Why does the government get to tell you that you need to get health insurance?

Because the government pays if you do not have insurance and need urgent medical care and cannot afford it.

If someone has a heart attack and does not have insurance, the hospital treats them. If the person cannot pay, the hospital writes it off. The expense is then covered by the government and in higher premiums to those who do have health insurance.

I look at the fee as payment for this very basic level of insurance.

Bicker and spin all you guys want. I am so happy that the court has taken up this matter. I am sitting with popcorn in hand and waiting for the outcome. Either way this country is going to be at war with itself over preventative health care.

From what I read, in a memo to the late Edward Kennedy, the IRS will be the governments collection agent in this when penalties are assed for those who do not buy the insurance. That says, to me, that they will confiscate your taxes, in the amount of the penalty at the end of the year should you have a return coming. The penalties in the memo stated that the penalty shall be 50% of what the policy would cost each individual. An example in this case is that a family of four with the bread winner making $64.000.00 a year would pay roughly $11000.00 in insurance for that said family of four. Then there is the tax credit one would get for $3900.00 leaving a balance of $7100.00 to be paid by the insured leaving the insured with an insurance bill of $591.66 a month. But if the person does not get the insurance, the penalty would be the said 50% or $5500.00. In most cases leaving the non-insured with an outstanding tax debt since most people don't get $5500.00 back at the end of the year. Most working people will not be able to afford this kind of cost. Not at no $590.00 a month. But then it is designed to help those that can't afford insurance. So those that don't work get it free and those that do work pay thru the nose and go broke so that the people that don't work don't have to work. I wonder who this bill was really designed to help?

For the IRS to be involved, suggests that it is a form of tax.

It's funny how so many people use the "get government out of our lives" argument are the same ones who want to tell people who they should be allowed to marry and what they can and can't do with their own bodies...

Phony, bull$hitting HYPOCRITS!!!!!!!!

uchusky99,

Although your logic is faulty - just because the government pays for something doesn't mean it can mandate that you buy a private - the proper response of the Federal government with regard to the government paying for the uninsured is: First, the government does NOT pay for it; and second, it doesn't have to pay for it. If you think there's such a law then repeal it if you don't like it.

Brownsten: Let me help you here.

to justify the government compelling every single American to PURCHASE goods offered on the open market.

You see: that's just the problem: Every American is not able to Purchase these "goods" as you call them because of pre-existing conditions, or any other reason an insurance company can come up with to DENY them coverage.

This law is unconstitutional! We must change the scope of our freedoms in order to get this done. It is a noble thing to do to try and make universal health care a reality, but it will not work under the umbrella of our current freedoms. The choice we are now left with, is do we compromise some of our freedoms in order to address this problem.

This scheme is not the most popular one congress has foisted on the public. I sense that at this point there is a rush to sway opinion with devoted followers of both party's who spew talking points as if they are facts. We can do something that is better than this to help those who cannot help themselves. Sadly there is a significant number of people who choose not to have coverage and they will not like paying up under this program.

JR Browenstien,

Are you clueless? If that fact that you did not buy stock in an oil company at some point cause the price of oil to go up for everyone else on the planet, then your comparison would be valid.

The fact is you buying or not buying stock in an oil company does not affect the price of oil for everyone else so your comparison is invalid.

An for all those who say the mandate to but insurance is the same as forcing someone to but a cetain kind of car, or some other prodcut, you have not thought it through. It would be more like forcing you to buy ANY car, not a specific brand or model. And if the fact that you didnt buy a car caused others to pay more for your transportation, then that would be constitutional also.

JR,

I'm sure you're normally an intelligent woman. However, in this case, you can't seem to understand that you are using the government regulating a man (or company, for that matter) who is generating a product for sale on the open market...which is COMMERCE...to justify the government compelling every single American to purchase goods offered on the open market.

No, this isn't about buying or selling at all. It's about the effect on interstate commerce. If growing wheat in one's backyard effects it, than so does our healthcare system. It's not about HOW it's effected, it's about IF it's effected.

And if it is, which it clearly is in this case, the Feds have the right to regulate what is doing the effecting.

What I want to know is, why is insurance the focus? Health care is a product; why not allow the industry to work? Why is insurance necessary? Why is a third wheel this important? I want to be able to walk in to a clinic or a doctor, do what I have to do, pay at the desk and leave.
Insurance is a gamble; you bet that something will happen and the insurance company bets that it won't. What you pay, your premium, your wager, is based on the odds of that happening, just like the odds of a horse winning a race or the odds of a football player scoring a touchdown. The whole idea is that everyone WILL participate in the system, yes? Ever try making a bet that "One of those horses will win the race" or "One of those two teams will win the game"? Not going to happen; its a sure thing, and no bookie will take that bet.
The high rates are in place because of a combination of insurance companies, outrageous riders doctors have to carry, government-mandated floors and ceilings on Medicare/Medicaid payments, and more. We have a hospital about to close in our area because of billing issues with these institutions. We have community doctors stating upfront they would charge us less for office calls and basic services were it not for the government-instituted floors on what they HAVE to charge.

Seriously; get government out of the equation. Stop supporting the monopolies. Allow the doctors to charge what they feel is appropriate and overall costs will drop. Increase funding toward education of capable people, this will increase the supply of practitioners in the system. Clear the backlog of people waiting to get into residencies, that will increase the supply of practitioners in the system. Allow people to have a choice in the matter, take away the guaranteed payday, and medical practitioners will have to fight for their share like every other industry. Allow insurance to cover the catastrophes, the things worth gambling over, but knock it off with the day-to-day BS. I shouldn't need insurance to go to the doctor when I know I have an ear infection. I shouldn't need insurance for them to look me over and tell me if I'm in good, bad, or indifferent shape.

XD, there are plenty of other mandates. Take education: you are required by law to educate your children. That's an individual mandate, kiddo.

Independent

Actually if you built your own car and it caused the others to pay more for theirs it would be constitutional based on Wickard v. Filburn.

Toasty -

"Take education: you are required by law to educate your children"

What law might that be?

Sarah, why do you assume that those without health insurance will receive health care but not pay for it? There are still some responsible people in this country so you do not have to pay for everyone that receives health care but has no insurance.

I think two things are for sure if this is upheld and all provisions go into effect: 1) my insurance premiums will go up and my coverages will go down and 2) the insurance companies will make a ton of money

Oh my there are sure a lot of you on here who obviously haven't dealt with insurance companies or medical care for the uninsured. My brother doesn't have insurance due to job issues, recession, family obligations, etc. No preexisting condition. Blue Cross wanted $750 a month. He didn't have it. He developed a life threatening heart condition that required open heart surgery. Initially he went to a for profit hospital at the direction of their emergency room Dr. He stayed a week in ICU with just tests being run. After 5 days the "collector" came to his ICU room (still attached to machines, heart still being irregularly) and asked how he was going to pay. When they were told there was no money, the hospital person asked how much he had in his checking account AND in his billfold. He told them what little was in checking and they demanded all of it immediately. They also told him he would have to leave. So much for the compassion issue of a poster above.

I run a small company that offers insurance. Our rates have gone up a minimum of 25% each year and often more. We aren't allowed to get bids on our insurance because of poor participation of my employees. We have poor participation because my people make $8-$10 an hour and the premium is almost half of their monthly pay.

I'm not totally sold on Obama Care but SOMETHING has to be done. Those of us with insurance end up paying for those who don't and the insurance companies are laughing all the way to the bank.

XD, there are plenty of other mandates. Take education: you are required by law to educate your children. That's an individual mandate, kiddo.

What is this law

I'm surprised how many Democrats and Liberals are for the Government making it mandatory to buy a product from a corporation. All the Governments insurance policies are through private companies so the Government is telling Americans you will buy health insurance through one of these Private businesses or we will fine you / tax you how ever you want to define it. If you think this won't open the door to other Government Mandates you might not support you aren't paying attention. With one of the Occupy's biggest complaint being Government is ran by big business, having that government be able to make you buy from big business doesn't sound like a victory to me.

Kornfed, I think that is a imaginary law which also goes with most people's thinking that our Government has unlimited powers. I don't think mot people on these threads have the slightest clue on states rights.

And finally most on here are more than willing to give up other peoples rights to make themselves feel good.

WhoCares,

Sarah, why do you assume that those without health insurance will receive health care but not pay for it? There are still some responsible people in this country so you do not have to pay for everyone that receives health care but has no insurance.

That's what's happening currently. The cost of those who show up for medical treatment are passed on to the premiums of those who are insured. That's a fact, there's nothing debatable about it. Right now, you and are are paying for people who are insured.

I think two things are for sure if this is upheld and all provisions go into effect: 1) my insurance premiums will go up and my coverages will go down and 2) the insurance companies will make a ton of money

You're correct, but not because of the mandate. Many, many, first world nations have mandated health coverage. Rates will go up, because the healthcare industry is monopolized and excused from anti-trust laws. If everyone is really concerned about freedom of choice, that should be where the outrage is directed, not at the mandate. I'm not sure why you believe your coverage will go down though. If anything, Obamacare forces insurance companies to recognize, cover, and treat a greater variety of conditions, as opposed to the run around insurers used to get away with.

Don't trust any politician or their employees who pass along their talking points. The plans of our fearless usually have low estimates high promises when enacted and high costs and low benefits in practice. This appears to me to be one of the most impressive examples of this sad fact in history.

You know, I think the main issue of contention here really isn't one of personal liberties. It's one of economics. I think we can all agree that the responsible and smart thing to do is to have health insurance. The argument seems to be that because of mandated health insurance, premiums will rise on average Americans. The problem is, it costs more in the long run to treat a patient without health insurance. I'd rather pay a bit more now to make sure everyone is covered than pay an arm and a leg later for someone WITHOUT health insurance. I'm exaggerating, obviously, but only a little bit. The average cost of chemotherapy for 8 weeks ranges from $100 (With insurance, out of pocket) to $30,000 (Guess what the alternative is.) And as it's already been stated by numerous posters, a doctor isn't just going to let you die because you don't have health insurance. But that 30k has to come from somewhere, and if you can't afford it... Well, that's when things start to get iffy.

I don't care if you are a lib or a conservative. I want to know why anyone with half a brain thinks the government can run healthcare when they have failed miserably at everything they have put their greedy little hands on. C'mon people...no one can be that stupid to be for this nightmare.

Tell you what, cell up child services and let them know you're taking your kid out of school permanently and not planning on home schooling. You'll find out pretty quickly which law has the individual mandate for education... Go on, try it yourself.

Sarah, if this passes I better see my life change, but I suspect it will get worse not better. Insurance rates have more than doubled in the two years since this monstrosity was enacted. They better go back down when those uninsured by choice get added into the pool, but I suspect that the insurance companies will figure out a way to pocket the increase instead of returning excessive premiums to their suscribers as required by law.

Fact of the Matter,

Well said. I would also add that high costs also stem from fee for service and monopolies. If you go to a single payer system, all of this is taken care of, but that would be "gasp" socialism (not really, but that's what big pharma and the health industry will pay our politicians and news media outlets to tell you).

Carlos,

You can stop with the passive pokes, I don't work for the administration.

baylee and sarah,

i agree with you both. so, tom, i want to make sure i have your name so when you get sick one of these days and you end up int the er, i want to make sure none of MY money goes to make you to get better. after all, it's a free country, right? and you don't need my stinking money, right? my insurance premiums keep getting higher because people like you want to take advantage of the system and you have no conscience about how your greed is affecting others.

to be honest if we would all work together, we wouldn't have this problem. rather than having a government run single payer or mandate, what if we set up a cooperative? you don't have to join. but, if you don't you get nothing and no care or you can deal with the insurance companies. fine with me, but just for a moment, think about this: if every american were to pay into a cooperative just $10 a month, there would be three billion one hundred million dollars a month going into a health care fund. now, multiply that times let's say, three. we would have more than a hundred billion dollars over a year. AND if money was collected from everyone even if they are illegal, there would be more. AND if our employers added even a tenth of what they are pay now, it would be higher and our employers would save billions of dollars! they could even pass some of that saving along to us! (not that they would, but, we can dream)

in a cooperative, the program wouldn't be regulated by the government, rather states would administer it, collect money through your paycheck, social security check, ssi, whatever form of income you have and then pay out to doctors and hospitals. since payments would be guaranteed, we could negociate(sp?) for lower prices. and doctors and hospitals that refuse to lower their prices just wouldn't be part of the cooperative. it's like single payer, but it would be under the control of the people of each state and we would be able "borrow" state to state in cases of disaster. i don't know, but i believe there is a common ground that we could find if we really wanted to. i just got finished reading an article in the latest TIME magazine that addressed this issue. switzerland, that is an "extremely business-friendly" country, came to the conclusion that to make health care work, everyone had to buy insurance. the fight against it was just as bad as it has been here but they did it. now, two decades late, everyone had quality health care and costs are controllable. switzerland spends %11 of its GDP on health care, we spend %17. and, its health care is NOT tied to employers, people can choose to change their care every year. it is working quite well. taiwan chose universal access like medicare and they only spend 7% of their GDP on health. in this country, we rank below almost all advanced industrial countries in health over all; high infant mortality, shorter life expectancy. we have the most expensive, least efficient system of any rich country. example, an MRI cost $1080 here. in france it cost $281.

something has to be done. the status quo isn't working and i honestly feel that to open health insurance up like care insurance would just add fuel to the fire and more people would end up without insurance and more people would be denied services. if everyone pays, the costs go down for everyone. it makes logical sense. the more money coming in, the less everyone has to pay.

Auto insurance is mandated.

But righties say that is not the same as health insurance because driving Auto is a choice ....you can decide not to drive and then you don't have to buy insurance.

Ok. then that same argument makes the case for mandating health insurance even stronger. Since you absolutely have no control on when you will fall sick or require health insurance YOU CANNOT HAVE the luxury of not buying healthcare and then when you fall sick, have the rest of the tax payers pay for your treatment.

Or perhaps Obamacare can include a provision whereby people can refuse to buy the mandated insurance if they agree in writing that when they fall sick they will be denied treatment and be allowed to suffer.

Tell you what, let child services know you're taking your kid out of school permanently and not planning on home schooling. You'll find out pretty quickly which law...

What law might that be? ...and how do they know if you are home schooling? Do you show them your chalkboard and coloring crayons? These are real questions, this is not my area of expertise

Adam,

Excuse me, because I've reached a level of frustration here, so I'm being reduced to bold font for a moment...

The high cost of health care stems from the industry being exempt from anti-trust laws and the fee for service system. That's why you see price increases and numerous, repetitive, technically unneccessary tests that run up your bill. Furthermore, you don't have and have never had any real choices when it comes to your healthcare, because of those monopolies which are regional.

Under the current set up we have, where money is speech and corporations are people, Obamacare is the best possible outcome. Everything that is wrong with Obamacare is linked to the influence of the healthcare lobby and campaign doners. If we want it fixed, we should all be screaming about that.

And yes, every first world nation has universal healthcare, either through a mandate or a single payer system. It makes no sense that we live in a country with a military so huge that we spend 14 times more then the second biggest military, but we can't provide healthcare for our citizens.

Once the Government option was removed from the law(the insurance company's made sure of that); the laws doomed to be declared unconstitutional;

Those that equate the mandate to education are missing the point, you can chose to send your children to a public(government run) school or a private school, or home school, with this law you have not choice, you must buy from a private for profit corporation.

The mandate is in real trouble, since the court has already made up it's mind that this is not a tax, but a fee to be paid to private sources, with the government able to seize your bank accounts, home, stocks, bonds and any other property you possess, as a penalty (fine).

The vote will be 5-3 unconstitutional (Kagan cannot vote, since she was the Attorney defending the law in the lower courts.)

Hell, they just now are trying to get an anti-insider trading law enacted after how many decades of the stock market being mainstream?

Bill has been passed already. Obama needs to sign it.

Mr India,

Auto insurance is mandated. - WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

And yes, every first world nation has universal healthcare, either through a mandate or a single payer system. It makes no sense that we live in a country with a military so huge that we spend 14 times more then the second biggest military, but we can't provide healthcare for our citizens.

Sarah, we have this thing called the constitution that our Government is supposed to follow.

Well, for better of for worse, they've made it easier for families to home school children in the last thirty years. Some states actually test to make sure the kids actually received the proper education, but in others they just take the parents' words on it.

And Saxon, you make an excellent point. The answer, though, it incredibly easy: bring in a public option. Hell, that's essentially how public schools first started, although not quite as rapidly as just one law. The government began mandating education, and thus had to provide a public option for all children.

Alessa,

i agree with you both. so, tom, i want to make sure i have your name so when you get sick one of these days and you end up int the er, i want to make sure none of MY money goes to make you to get better. after all, it's a free country, right? and you don't need my stinking money, right? my insurance premiums keep getting higher because people like you want to take advantage of the system and you have no conscience about how your greed is affecting others.

How am I taking advantage of the system, again??? I'm not the one advocating for people NOT to be insured. If you actually read the posts, you know I'm in favor of a single payer system, however, you did not.

Remember...

Any issues with increased costs doesn't come from being mandated to buy insurance, it comes because the healthcare industry is exempt from anti-trust laws. And really, we only have three options left, if we're not willing to go with single payer...

1. We all receive care and those of us who have insurance pay for those who don't.

2. We all receive care and we all have insurance.

3. Only those of us who have insurance receive care.

It seems like some of you complain about paying for others, and than complain when we know longer allow that to happen. Are you really, in 2012, advocating for option 3?

to be honest if we would all work together, we wouldn't have this problem

Pssst, that's what the mandate means. That we all get insurance, so we all cover the costs, as opposed to what we have now. Those below the poverty line are covered through Medicaid, and voila, we're all covered!

Tom,

We already discussed the Constitution, and your arguments already failed as to this not being Constitutional. Reread the thread.

XDm9mm,

Who has required the hospitals to provide emergency care when people without insurance show up for medical care at their door step? Is it just because they exist? The state govt. makes it mandatory for the hospitals to provide this care - otherwise they could be sued for millions. The same authority that makes it mangatory for hospitals to provide care can make sure that people have insurance to get such care.

It is NOT the Supreme Courts responsibility to make decisions based on the number of people affected by that decision.

As a matter of restoring Constitutional law, and individual liberty, hopefully the individual mandate will be found Unconstitutional and non-severable, and the entire law will be thrown out along with years of authoritarian tyranny under Wickard v Filburn with that travesty finally overturned too.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas released his new financial disclosure form on Friday under pressure from Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) and others.

Mother Jones reported that his financial disclosure form indicates his wife, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, received a $150,000 salary from the group Liberty Central in 2010 and less than $15,000 from an anti-health care reform lobbying firm she founded.

Liberty Central, which she helped found, supports the repeal of the the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Weiner had taunted Thomas via Twitter on Friday, but his criticisms where quickly overshadowed by the so-called “Weinergate” fiasco that broke out Sunday. The congressman had previously called on Thomas to recuse himself from cases involving health care reform because of his wife’s financial connections to groups dedicated to its repeal.

“The appearance of a conflict of interest merits recusal under federal law,” a letter written by Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) and signed by 74 Members of Congress stated. “From what we have already seen, the line between your impartiality and you and your wife’s financial stake in the overturn of healthcare reform is blurred.”

The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 requires Supreme Court justices to disclose their spouse’s income, but Thomas had not disclosed Virginia’s income on his financial disclosure forms for 20 years.

“We knew that Justice Thomas’ family had a financial stake in opposing health care reform,” Weiner said Friday in a statement. “Now we know even more. It’s pretty clear the justice has one option here: recusal.”

It amazes me that there are still people that don't understand the reason for the mandate. You can't JUST get rid of the pre-existing condition problem for the obvious reason that many people will simply wait until they are diagnosed with something serious and THEN buy health insurance. That's a disaster for the insurance companies because then they end up paying for health care without collecting the premiums.

Another person made the argument that people get serious illnesses because of their lifestyle choices. The truth is that poor lifestyle choices increase your *RISK* for health problems but there are also many people that have serious health problems despite taking good care of themselves. There is such a thing as genetics and sometimes you're unlucky in the DNA department. It's even more obvious that some people need health care because of injuries that have nothing to do with eating a healthy diet. I find it sad that it was actually necessary to point things like this out.

Next, let's move on to the argument that emergency rooms don't just leave people in the street to die. It should be obvious that good health care is an ongoing process. If people never go to the doctor because they can't afford it they are far more likely to have serious health problems. Come on, now folks. Was it REALLY necessary to point that out -- or are some of you just so opposed to anything the President advocates that you don't even think about what you are writing?

Finally, let's talk about the republican mantra "repeal and replace". Well, during George Bush's two terms as president the republicans controlled both houses of congress and the white house. During all that time the republicans did absolutely *NOTHING* to reform health care. Mark my words, folks. If the republicans successfully repeal president Obama's health care reform they WILL NOT sit down with the president and the democrats in congress to compromise to pass a different bill. They'll fillibuster anything the democrats come up with and then they'll blame the democrats for not getting health care reform passed.

Based on what the republicans have done in the past I have ZERO reason to believe they will pass any kind of health care reform. If the republicans win we'll get the "repeal" but not the "replace".

Alessa,

First I have insurance currently and secondly if I go to the ER and it isn't something catastrophic I will pay out of my own damn pocket, but with the way ObamaCare is setup currently if it is something catastrophic, you can bet your sweet arse you are going to pay for it and you know who else will? Me because I will have been paying the penalty/fee/tax.

Hey I didn't write the law, but I will follow it exactly how it is written.

Now about what else you wrote, I like any idea that doesn't involve the Government.

Tom Plymouth -

Auto insurance Individual MANDATE - That too in South Caroline tee hee ...

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_policy/2011/09/south_carolina_and_the_individual_mandate_why_aren_t_conservativ.html

I think they should let people opt out of health insurance with the firm understanding that if somebody came to an emergency room with a heart attack and that person could not pay cash on the barrel, didn’t have insurance to cover, or hadn’t paid the equivalent of the “uninsured registration fee”, he would be thrown back onto the curb and allowed to die.

If righties want to commit suicide this way, I am perfectly Okay with that.

If this issue weren't so serious, I'd be laughing my ever loving ass off. The rush by democrats to push this bill through before the democrats lost their filibuster proof majority is exactly what is the problem. They left provisions in the bill that aren't Constitutional. They also failed to place in the bill, the ability to remove by court order only a portion of the bill if that portion failed the Constitutionality of that section.

If the SCOTUS doesn't strike this bill down, something very fishy is going on. The government isn't allowed to force you to buy any commercial product, or fine you if you don't. Auto insurance included. You have the right to not own a car, therefore you have the right to not being forced into buying auto insurance. The ownership of an auto is a prerequisite to the requirement of auto insurance.

Leave it to the dumb democrat politicians to be so shortsighted as to write a bill without checking it first... but we all know Nancy Pelosi said... let's pass the bill so we know what's in it. What a tool!

The query of how much have insurance companies really spent by now to suppress any type of health care plan is a riddle, of which the other part is the query, why are there no 99%er's in this health care bill protest?

It is not up to the supreme court to weigh the MERITS of forcing everyone to buy health insurance. It is not up to the supreme court to determine whether or not the affordable care act is a good idea or not, or whether or not every American should have affordable healthcare.

The SCOTUS has but one task here, and that is to determine whether or not the government has the power to force every American to buy health insurance. Period. The administration says the government DOES have that right under the commerce clause of the constitution, while the plaintiffs are arguing that the government cannot require someone to participate in commerce against their will, and then regulate it under the commerce clause.

I find that most who argue in favor of Congress having this power do so primarily out of their belief in the MERITS of the Affordable Care Act. This logic to me is a bit like saying, "If something is beneficial enough, then we ought to just suspend the constitution and not let it get in the way of doing something we think is right." But this is a slippery and dangerous slope, and would certainly result in future erosions of the constitution under the guise of "but it's a good thing".

I hope the SCOTUS decides to hold the line on government power and require Congress to find another way to make healthcare more affordable. Forcing people to engage in commerce against their will is an erosion of freedom that I'd rather not see happen.

We need to stop illegal immigration in this country. Believe it or not, that is a huge drain to our ER bill. Lets start there.

Mike, it is good for us why? because you say so? because the Government says so?

lack access to health care? Somehow forcing somebody to buy insurance solves that problem?

If that is the case we don't we just force homeless people to buy or rent homes, that should take care of our homeless problem.

Is this is the same argument that the right-wingers use for welfare? No. The conservatives say we need to "help" people to get off welfare by teaching them some personal responsibility by forcing them to get off it. So what's the difference with forcing people to pay for their own health care by buying insurance? Seems right-wingers want personal responsibility until it comes time for them to be responsible.

Home insurance and car insurance does not have include coverage for sicknesses or enough coverage for even moderate health care expenses (and nothing if it isn't directly related to the incident).

People roll the dice on health insurance all the time. True, the very poor get treatment in the hospital without paying (the bills still go to collection, so don't think they get off without any consequences) - and the rest of us pay for it. Unfortunately, if you own any assets, you will be forced to pay a hospital bill, until you declare bankruptcy. That's why 20% of all bankruptcies in the USA are due to unpaid health care costs.

Nothing is free in life, and I'm tired of paying for freeloaders (those that can pay for coverage but don't).

Sarah,

"

Tom,

We already discussed the Constitution, and your arguments already failed as to this not being Constitutional. Reread the thread."

I am not sure where it failed, I pointed out that no where in the constitution or cases does the Government have the right to force it citizens to buy something from a private company.

I never argued it didn't have the right to regulate an industry.

Mr. India,

Really, do you not understand the difference between states rights and the Federal Government? Really?

I didn't have time to read all the posts, so I'll just touch on the few points that stood out to me.

1 - Comparing Healthcare to Auto Insurance - There are people who are on both sides of this debate, but I'll try to put it to rest. The "requirement" to purchase auto insurance is often used as a justification for the "requirement" to purcahse health insurance. As many have pointed out, you only have to have insurance if you choose to have a car. However, I'd like to point out that emergency care providers are *required* to treat a person, whether they have the ability to pay or not. That's like giving everyone a free pass to drive whther they have insurance or not, and then shifting the cost of accidents to those that *choose* to purcahse the insurance. The mandate for auto insurance was enacted specifically to prevent this sort of situation. So, if you want to use that "auto insurance is a *choice*" arguement, then you also have to support removing the mandate that emergency medical providers treat anyone that comes through their doors. Otherwise, everyone is *choosing* to have access to health care, so everyone *chooses* to have the necessary insurance, just like with vehicles. (Please, people, compare apples to apples...)

2 - That leads to two distinct options to reduce healthcare costs; first, mandatory universal healthcare, or second, removal of the mandatory treatment provisions. I don't imagine that many people will support refusing basic healthcare to people just because they're too poor for insurance or to pay for treatment, so there's really only one viable course of action.

3 - Can the government mandate universal healthcare? In my purview, yes. In limited cases, the right of the government to require the purchase of healthcare (18th and 19th century sailors, as I recall) was upheld as constitutional because it was vital to the economic strength of the nation. Given the rising costs of healthcare due to under-insurance and private insurance companies more concerned with the bottom line than an individual's health, coupled with demonstrable proof that universal government run healthcare is more cost-effective and provides better basic care, just goes to show that the economic strength of the nation is very much at stake in this situation.

4 - To those that comment that the government shouldn't be left in charge of healthcare because they can't do anything right, I'd like to point out the long history of politicians watering-down and otherwise immasculating bills and government agencies, and then pointing to those same, ineefective bills and agencies as proof that government doesnt work. That's the same as me taking the batteries out of a remote controlled car, and then writing to the company about how crappy it is because it doesn't work. If you intentionally break things, they will, by design, not function properly. The same can be said for any government act or agency that is pared down, dismantled and then "Frankensteined" back together, or otherwise mangled before expected to perform their *assigned* duties--in which they inevitibly fail, due to the previous tinkering.

5 - The problem with healthcare today is with the current system. For-profit insurance companies determine if and when you get healthcare; if you disagree with them, then you have to pay for care out of pocket. It is in their best interest to pay as little as possible for your care, because the less they pay, the more profit they make. They can deny coverage because it's not cost-effective as an alternative treatment, even if the more expensive one gives you the greatest chance of recovery/survival, and can deny all coverage because you were sick before being afforded the priviledge of having insurance. They can raise your rates even if you haven't been sick all year--meaning you cost the company nothing that year--and you have no choice but to grin and bear it, even if it bears no relation to the costs you've incurred, or even the profit margins of the company. That's right, they can raise your rates just because they want to make more money off of you.

This fight is between the people who are scared of government, and see any act of authority it makes as an overstep, and the people who understand that for our nation to remain economically strong requires a healthy workforce, one that is not at the mercy of private companies when it comes to basic human needs (healthcare), and one that does not have to live in constant fear that a single medical issue can (and in many cases will) thoroughly bankrupt them.

Tom,

Regulating encompasses mandating coverage. Mandating coverage is regulating interstate commerce, because the effects of healthcare and those who receive healthcare without insurance, effect every state and every individual and our economy/commerce as a whole. Because every single person alive will at some point use healthcare.

Regulating commerce = Regulating healthcare = Mandating coverage.

Glad we agree that it's Constitutional.

Tom Plymouth - You stated something ridiculous about it being cheaper for a family of four to do a physical for each, broken bones, and 4-8 sick visits. So we have what, 13 visits in a year? Considering I pay about $150/mo for family medical coverage, that is $1,800/yr. Add in say $500 for deductibles and we are at $2,300. I don't know where you live, but if you think you can have 13 medical visits in a year with no insurance and come in under $2,300 for the year, good luck to you. Not to mention your scenario is about as good as a year could go for a family of four. God forbid your kid or wife gets cancer, or does something radical like have a baby! How about a family of two who has a child, then the father gets diagnosed with cancer that same year. With no insurance your staring at over $100K in costs. Your argument is invalid!

Reality is that this was a BAD LAW, despite its intentions. Deregulation is what was & is needed! Force the Medical profession to compete for your patronage!! Allow Insurance companies to compete across State Lines... (Look what happened to the Telecommunications industry!In the 70's Long Distance was something like 1.50 a minute, remember?) Ultimately of course, there is also one simple fact...... MEDICAL INSURANCE INTO & OF ITSELF IS A SCAM!!!!! The Medical profession charges HUGE amounts to Insurance companies which then come back & negotiate "on our behalf" reducing the charges to an amount thats STILL HIGHER than what a Doctor would normally charge on a cash basis. The Insurers can then say "We have to raise our rates because medical costs are so high" The doctors can say "We always have to take a loss when working with Insurance companies so we need to charge more to offset"...... Case in point? We payed cash for our son to be born 2 years ago. Total cost? $11,000.00 including hospitalization, OB/GYN, pre & post natal care. If we had ran it through Insurance? Try $65,000.00!!!!! (No this isnt out of pocket, our expenses would have been about $6,000.00. However if you factor in the monthly Insurance premium, (see below) this means that we would have paid over $15,000.00) Why such a huge desparity between our cash amount & the Insurance cash amount???? How about this?

The cost to insure my entire family through my Employers offered insurance works out to about $780.00 a month (X12= $9,360.00 a year). For this, we would get regular office visits for $25.00 per visist; Prescriptions for $15.00 co-pay (generic) Emergency room vists for $100.00. Now Lets look at the numbers... Number of checkups for us & our children? 5 xs a year Office/clinic visits when sick? Maybe 6 x's a year. Emergency room visits? Maybe once in the past 5 years. Prescriptions? lets say maybe 4 a year.

So lets see.... 5X$25.00 ($125.00)+ 6X25 ($150.00)+$100.00 (Emegerncy Room Fee) + 4x$15.00 ($60.00)= $435.00 Total Medical expenses for while insured. PLUS $780.00 per month insurance premium = $9,795.00 TOTAL Medical Expenses for LAST YEAR

Without Insurance... 5 x $75.00 ($375) + 6x$75.00 ($450)+$150.00 (Emergency Clinic Fee)+ 4X$20.00 ($80.00)=$1,055.00 Total Medical Expenses without insurance.. PLUS NO monthly Insurance Premium = $1,055.00 TOTAL Medical Expenses for LAST YEAR with $700.00 a month put into a Savings account means I have almost $9,000.00 at the end of one year SAVED UP FOR REAL EMERGENCIES.

And now your trying to tell me I HAVE to have insurance, or get penalized & pay to cover other people??? WTF???!!!!!

Hey Jason, I meant 4 - 8 for the whole family.

And if you truly pay $2300 a year for health insurance count yourself lucky (very lucky), now if you are leaving out what your company pays, well then I can't help you can't do math.

Those are the medical bills we had last(2011) plus a few prescriptions. (we have an HSA)

long story short between me and my company we pay around $900 a month for premiums and our family deductible is $5000. ($17,800 if we use everything)

Last we paid out of pocket just under $3000 in deductibles, so in real math we paid $15,800 for $3000 worth of medical.

Stopthecanibals - It is your personal belief that everyone should own health insurance, but the government cannot force you to buy it. This is the single issue of the bill that is under scrutiny. This one issue, if it fails, will stop the ACA completely, no matter how you feel about it. There are a lot of us that feel the Constitution is more important to hold up than a democratic written and approved bill that fails constitutionality.

It's very simple, if the bill is knocked down, all the democrats have to do is to pull that provision out of it and it goes back up for a revote... If it's all that good, like you think it is, it should pass just as easily, correct?

Sarah

Regulating commerce = Regulating healthcare = Mandating coverage.

Glad we agree that it's Constitutional.

I am pretty sure just equal signs between each, doesn't make them equal.

again the case law you put up top, never said anything about forcing somebody buy, it said if regulated you can't produce more than regulated.

The commerce clause and Wickard v. Filburn...
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes".
The Court decided that Filburn's wheat growing activities...

A ruling based on an activity. Not buying insurance is not an activity. In Gibbons v. Ogden the Supreme Court ruled that commerce is all commercial intercourse - all business dealings. If you don't buy something and don't replace it from another source then there is no activity or business dealing.

Also an excerpt from the ruling:

the power to regulate; that is, to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed

The rule they are trying to create now is that you must engage in commerce.

Stopthecanibals - It is your personal belief that everyone should own health insurance, but the government cannot force you to buy it. This is the single issue of the bill that is under scrutiny.

Brian, I never said it's unconstitutional for the government to force you to buy health insurance.

For those that think the government can't run anything correctly....then fess up and say they can't run the defense department, fire department, law enforcement, DEA, or border control either.

Bassai & Tom,

Because the mere act of NOT engaging in this area of commerce negatively effects every single citizen. This isn't like being forced to buy fudge pops. This is about engaging in an area of commerce where, if we don't all engage, we're all negatively effected and the entire nation takes a hit.

As long as there is an effect on interstate commerce, the Feds can regulate it. If an effect was found in Wickard, than you bet your butts, an effect will be found here.

This isn't about buying or selling or engaging at all. It's about the effect on interstate commerce. If growing wheat in one's backyard effects it, than so does our healthcare system. It's not about HOW it's regulated, it's about IF it's effected.

And if it is, which it clearly is in this case, the Feds have the right to regulate what is doing the effecting.

Tom Plymouth

aha

So if a state does it - it is state right...

for example - Auto mandates (which you said wrong wrong wrong) in south carolina and healtcare mandate in Massachusetts

But if the federal goverment does it , it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.....

Constitution does not apply to states ...really ? Really ?

LOL ...gotta love the rightie logic.

Kornfed...thanks for answering that question. What do we need the SCOTUS for, we have Kornfed deciding that the ACA is unconstitutional.

Mr. India,

I find a lot of people seem to have a hard time understanding that the14th Amendment pretty much killed all "states rights" arguments.

Tom - A company paying for your medical coverage is an obvious advantage of actually working. It is a tool for companies to be able to acquire the best candidates over other companies. So, technically it is a part of my salary, thus my money. However, if I were to forego coverage the company would not start paying me the extra money, so using the the companies money towards the cost is clouding the issue. People would expect to pay anywhere from $100/mo to $300/mo for a family. I also like how you just decided to not even talk about if you actually had high medical bills, not just well visits and a couple of colds and a broken wrist.

@Bassai

Everyone has access to healthcare, whether they can afford it or not. Therefore, everyone is already engaged in the "commerce" of healthcare, so regulating that "commerce" by mandating health insurance is well withing the bounds of what Congress can do. If there was no mandate to provide healthcare regardless of ability to pay, then you might have an arguement there. So Congress has 3 options: 1) require everyone to have health insurance so everyone pays for their own healthcare. 2) allow emergency providers to determine if you have the ability to pay before providing you potentially life-saving treatment. 3) allow for the treatment of people who cannot pay for the treatment, and shift the costs to the insurance holders.

What I don't understand is, with the current system (option 3) you support providing inaddequate care to the poor, and shifting the cost of that care to the rich (no one wins). However, if you support the healthcare law (option 1), then you are in favor of providing addequate healthcare to the poor, forcing them to pay a larger--but manageable--of the cost of their care, and thereby shifting less of the cost to the rich (seems everyone wins there). And option 2 is just unconscionable, that we would willing allow people to get sick and die because they can be refused treatment for inability to pay.

Then there's the fourth option, the (gasp) European option; provide universal healthcare via a tax increase to pay for the coverage (you have to pay for health insurance either way, but for seom reason if you call it a "tax", us Americans go ape-@!$%#), and allow for optional priviate insurance. It's true that European countries have worse healthcare than ours ***when considering things like minor illnesses and injuries*** but is widely considered superior to our system when treating ***life-threatening/fatal/terminal issues***, such as cancer (there are studies on all that). Most European nations also allow for the purchase of private insurance, if you're concerned about getting in quickly when you have the sniffles.

To Sarah,

I thoroughly enjoyed all your posts on this subject. It’s excellent prose that leaves no opportunity for any coherent opposing argument. I completely agree with everything you’ve written.

Noah,

Thank you!!!

RevLucifer is exactly on point and correct.

Also, for all the kevetching you hear about Canadians and their healthcare system, most wouldn't trade it if they could for the mess we call healthcare. They laugh as we pay anywhere from 2 to 10 x the amount for the same prescription drugs, services, etc. We seem to want to think our way is so superior to everyone else's, however the reality is, we are being completely ripped off by a broken system.

In my opinion, the only problem with the new healthcare laws is that they haven't gone far enough in overhauling the health insurance industry. It seems to me that making people buy into a crooked system without better reform will be the biggest fly in the ointment.

Most European nations also allow for the purchase of private insurance, if you're concerned about getting in quickly when you have the sniffles.

I have seen that in action, the rich pay more for private waiting rooms and faster access. Some pigs are more equal than others.

Bassai & Tom,

Because the mere act of NOT engaging in this area of commerce negatively effects every single citizen. This isn't like being forced to buy fudge pops. This is about engaging in an area of commerce where, if we don't all engage, we're all negatively effected and the entire nation takes a hit.

I am going to stop working out and eat only Twinkies. The government can now force me to buy a gym membership and eat sprouts since everyone is negatively affected.

you are given a tax break if you have dependents, but nobody is claiming the government mandates people have children.

you are given incentives buy electric cars, but nobody is claiming the government mandates people to drive priuses.

so if the government says: we want you to get health insurance. we will encouraging you to do so by raising taxes and making you exempt of it if you get said health insurance.

so...why is that unconstitutional? i'll tell you why. because the tea baggers think that gathering at the local village inn and stuffing their faces and exchanging their limited, incorrect and narrow understanding of the constitution with each other certifies them as constitutional scholars somehow...

First and formost in this entire line of disscution lets get the fact of the matter where it is. This is not Health Care it has nothing to do with being treated by any Medical personell. This is INSURANCE so not the same thing. Are people that igornante that they rely on an insurance company to determine the outcome of weather or not they get treated. Sarah-3043284 you keep refering to this as if it were the best thing since sliced bread but it dosn't make sence. Please show me where any of this guarentees anyone proper medical care. IF YOU WANT THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM FIXED THEN FIX THAT. IF YOU WANT LOWER HEALTH INSURANCE THEN FIX THAT. If you think this is good then the next thing is for the citizens to have them The US congress fix the Federal Government by passing a law that states are responsible to correct the problems of the federal Government. This country has a single payer form of health insurance it is called Medicare everyone pays into it an they have destroyed that go figure now they want to expand that to pay more to insurance companies. Look at the Facts.

Bassai, Perhaps the government should consider a provision of "special" hand-holding for people like you that would require it.

I like Sarah.

Sarah - out of curiosity, would you say the federal government is allowed to basically force everyone to buy pretty much everything because it effects interstate commerce?

Bassai, Perhaps the government should consider a provision of "special" hand-holding for people like you that would require it.

They used to do that. Had to sleep in a communal room with 30 other people, get up at 0400 because someone else decided we should get up, work out because someone else said I had to and eat what someone else said I should eat. What a great idea, we should make the whole country live like that.

Bassai. I used to do that too. It was called the Army.

Visit this from my and my wifes doctors point of view. My wife is 56 years old and has a genetic bone disease which is causing her joints and bones to dissolve. She has a full hysterectomy at 12 and was in a full body cast at 14 for a full year. She since has had both hips replaced and both knees replaced as well as a full blown staff infection in her left knee requiring her to have no knee for almost a full year, just a cement connector. Her medical records consists of 110 complete volumes and requires a full filing cabinet. She is otherwise healthy and is sharp as a tack. She has had the same doctors for almost 20 years, including the son of her original orthopedic surgeon. (his dad was the model for Hawkeye on MASH and contributed to the movie version) Both of her doctors have warned her that she needs to pay attention to this IPAB group, because her medical costs ( I pay for) and her condition will more than likely fall into the area of too expensive for the results they will produce. Apparently she looks to be the poster child for the " It cost too much for what you will benefit from" group. She will never be cured and will need continuing expensive care. We have already been informed by my supplemental insurance company that next year my rates will increase 22% and that this policy will not be available in 2014. I cant wait to see what kinds of hatred are tossed at me after posting this, but I wanted to make people aware that this is and will happen to US citizens who are and have been willing to pay for treatment.

Kornfed...thanks for answering that question. What do we need the SCOTUS for, we have Kornfed deciding that the ACA is unconstitutional

Wouldnt that make life easy Djay....Czar Kornfed! I like the sound of that

Allen-460794

SCOTUS is not in the business of making sure the people have insurance or anything else except the freedoms guarenteed us by the Constitution. Their business is to see that the other two branches of government don't violate the provisions and protections under the Constitution. The same Constitution Obama says the forefathers put in place as an impediment to what he wants and promised to do. Just a small matter of the law that has served our Country for over 200 Years!

Sarah-3043284

You missed one vital ingredient in the decision you noted. Wheat was traded between several states. Health Insurance cannot be bought across state lines. Each state has its own insurance regulations and therefore Health insurance is not an interstate commerce and the government in the first place has no power to regulate it and in the second place there is no power given to the Federal Government under the constituion to make individuals buy any particular product. If SCOTUS bought that arguement, since we the tax payers still own a large percentage of GM, the government could order that we all have to buy a car and even try to make us buy it from GM. It is beyond me why people can't grasp this simple over-reach for power.

What is really interesting is that the Health Care Mandate was originally a Republican idea that some came up with when the Clinton's were trying to do something about health care and everything fizzled. That's why Romney used it in Massachusetts. Gingrich used to be for it. Those are not the only two. I think that is part of the reason Obama switched from the single payer. It was a Rupublican idea and they thought it would be easier to get something passed.

I'm tired of people who feel that everyone deserves a free life and we can all live as a happy fun loving world. Sorry, it just will not happen. We need consequences for actions, not individual irresponsibility. If someone doesn't buy health insurance and they get sick, they should pay the consequences and if the consequences mean they go into eternal debt or die in the street, so be it. That should be the consequences method of enforcing health care compliance. We cannot afford to keep coddling people who take risks. We cannot afford to take care of people who take the system for granted and deliberately use the system as a freeloader. Let them pay the consequences, not us! We are not responsible for the outcome of everyone else's life and it is fallacy to think that we are.

dbk you are an idiot, health care is like no other business. If you can compete when 30% of people don't pay and you are forced to take lower and lower amounts of money by health insurance companies and no regulation, it wouldn't. You would see the entire healthcare system collapse under that weight. Too many people do not understand healthcare.

That Shaking my head, every lower court has basically ripped on all arguments presented to them on this and today was no different. You not liking the law doesn't mean that the law isn't constitutional, that is the point. You not liking the government spending their money on American people instead of bombing Iran is not relevant. This is a constitutional argument and the arguments against it are not holding up, they were flimsy and based on past decisions that have nothing to do with this.

Have to love newsvine.

There must be an unusual amount of gluttonous couch potatoes around here who don't like hearing the truth. People actually collapse comments they simply don't agree with.

Go ahead and collapse this one as well.

Buy or Die!

That should be the choice. If you opt out of the system, then you should be denied care if you can't pay.

Who is it that doesn't want a single payer not for profit health care system?

Insurance companies are raping consumers, and have paid Congress through bribes to assure their cash cow isn't over regulated.

Wake up or you will soon find yourself under complete control of corporate America!

Phil, eternal debt means hospitals don't recoup their costs, how do you expect the healthcare system to hold up under 30% of people not paying their bills. People are completely stupid on this issue, its not as simple as your making it and the crossing state lines applies to having to have some kind of commerce to trade, the lower courts have dismissed this argument, saying the constitution doesn't actually say that, previous ruling on other things have and it has nothing to do with this. Every supreme court expert I have heard has said they would know the first day if they were going to buy into it and if they were going to play politics because the constitutionality really isn't a question, it would show. Obviously they aren't playing politics.

ObamaCare takes control of 1/6 of the total United States economy for problems that affect less then 10% of the population. We got a terrible piece of legislation that was written behind closed doors in secret locations by the most liberal members of the Democratic Party. It was entirely partisan in the way it was passed, and even Obama rushed it into law without a clue of what it contained. I guess Obama needed to sign it so he could find out what was in it.

The government has absolutely no track record for any program running efficiently or effectively. Waste, fraud, and abuse haunt all government programs, and insolvency is nearing for both Medicare and Social Security. There is a complete and total lack of oversight for which Fannie and Freddie are perfect examples. We did not need a 2000 plus page bill to solve the problems with healthcare, unless the goal was simply to destroy the current system in a two step process to a single payer nationalized government run program.

Jan

The people who can't pay get denied service unless there is a charitable organization that will help. Consequences need to be paid by the individual who loses the gambling game in insurance. We are already losing the same amounts of money or more on freeloaders as it is, and all it does is draw even more freeloaders who want something for nothing! This all started with the mandate that hospitals can't deny anyone who comes in for service, it passed about 12 years ago. Individuals must be responsible for themselves, it is not the charter of our government to be a nanny to everyone. People need to feel the cold hard reality of life, not be coddled by liberal policy that forgives and even promotes individual irresponsibility.

Rick, check the efficiency of medicare and medicaid versus any private company and the numbers are actually better, that is a fox news lie.

30% of people that are uninsured are actually usually employed in businesses that cannot afford to cover them or low paying jobs that don't offer insurance. They are not just beggers, this will actually lower the overall costs, all independent analysis have dismissed this Fox rhetoric for the lies that they tell.

Seriously people understand so little about the health care system, and making it private would kill the health care system. Only third world nations don't have some kind of nationalized healthcare, simply put there is no way that the health care system could hold up to the weight of having 30% of people not paying and then private insurance refusing coverage right and left like they do. Hospitals bread and butter has always been medicare and medicaid because its the only reliable payment.

If you guys don't want a health care system, fine privatise medicare but I guarantee you it won't be long before hospitals shut their doors.

The sting of the reality of life is far more effective a deterrent than any government meddling and intrusion.

Phil you won't have nurses and doctors willing to practice if they are required to let people die based on charity. Hell I am an ICU nurse, it takes hours to get a catholic priest to come give last rites let alone expect some money.

Phil I really hope you are never in need because you really are a cold jerk.

I thoroughly enjoyed all your posts on this subject. It’s excellent prose that leaves no opportunity for any coherent opposing argument. I completely agree with everything you’ve written.

The logic is that since I agree, it's coherent and leaves no opportunity for opposing argument?! Sarah is clearly articulate and presents her points well. However, there is PLENTY of room to disagree (coherently). By contending that the government can force us to buy insurance because it affects interstate commerce (which they are charged with regulating), one could extrapolate that the government could therefore force us to buy just about anything, again under the pretense that it affects interstate commerce. If the constitutionality of this bad law is upheld and congress has the nose of the camel inside the tent, there will be no stopping at what else they will try to pass off as regulating commerce. Let's hope the SCOTUS sees this very obvious breech of constitutionality and shuts it off before it ever gains a foothold.

Bruce, there is no obvious breach of constitutionality, that is the problem with all of the arguments. Gotta love republicans, they can control our bedrooms but call the whine police if you try to help the poor.

Stop treating the free loaders and there will be a significant decrease in the number of free loaders.

If doctors want to work pro bono, that is their decision, and then it would be the doctors charity, it still would promote freeloaders coming around to take advantage, just like the system now.

"I think two things are for sure if this is upheld and all provisions go into effect: 1) my insurance premiums will go up and my coverages will go down and 2) the insurance companies will make a ton of money"

Ummm, no!

First, two things are for sure, period.: Whether or not this is upheld, your insurance coverages have (and will continue if possible) gone down AND your premiums have (and will continue if possible) to go up. They would go up more and faster if not for the ACA legislation, and insurance companies already were scr#wing you and would continue to scr#w you until they were prevented by law from doing so or were mandated no longer "for profit" companies in a some sort of national system. Most people who were denied coverage for specific things (by ins. companies) were denied after they got sick for the first time, after having health insurance "forever"....that's why the Affordable Care Act was necessary and had greater than 60% support among Americans.

During the run up to ACA, insurance companies were on their BEST behavior trying to lower support for the legislation by actually doing what they're supposed to do. They were attempting to not look like the problem that they are. It's not good enough for these people that insurance is an all cash industry and for most rate-payers the company basically takes payment for absolutely nothing year after year after year after year, they decided they could make more if they weeded out the people who ended up getting sick after paying for years, as soon as the bills started racking up. That's why ACA was, and IS, necessary and having read all the arguments on this forum, I am not surprised this part of it ended up in a Supreme Court hearing simply from all the lack of clarity about the bill and about our Constitutional powers (from detractors, mostly).

People talk about long wait times for health care in a National system....it's about time people accept that that's how it is now.....for everyone except VIPs, friends of doctors and the wealthy....while the poor die from or are rendered unable to work by stupid, silly, curable diseases. That must end. Every doc's appointment I make for my father, other than emergencies, is at least four to six weeks off and I live in N.Ca and he has GOOD insurance and as far as insurance forms, that's not changing until we have single-payer. Digitized records and forms will cut some of that down but that's always been a problem in healthcare.....the only ppl who have that down to a science are those "evil, governmenty Medicare socialists" who seem to have a fantastic sytem that works by the numbers.

Hmmm, imagine that: a government agency that works well. Must be a first....lol

The "needs" of the 50 million does not trump the rights of 300 million.

Allen-460794

Scotus needs to make sure the needs of the 50 mllion + uninsured are met.

Allen, I am under the impression the role of SCOTUS is to determine if the letter of the law has been found to be a correct decision or not.

During the next few days, I know many will comment on the arguments presented to the Court. But how many of us are Constitutional scholars? Do the majority of the average population actually have the ability to follow and understand this issue?

I know I am not one of those skilled in the law. Many will present arguments here based upon their thoughts. Some may be near accurate and some will be, well, just weak statements without actually ability to comprehend the law.

The most unfortunate situation of the court is one where the members of the court may follow political winds of social engineering rather than exact the correct interpretation of law.

Personally, I can't wait to hear the comments of those who know more than most.

Seriously, doctors don't work pro bono. Neither do hospitals but they do not recoup costs of hospitalized patients. You are asking hospitals to break every law mandating them to care for patients in emergency situations and not do that. Change the law? Fine but I can guarantee you nurses and doctors are not in it for the money, you really think we will continue to work in this kind of profession if we have to see people die because of creeps that have no concept of healthcare and are greedy?

Not to mention the largest users of it are medicare and medicaid and since that will be private most everything wrong with the elderly won't be covered and the hospitals won't get paid for it. Hospitals will shut down, they work at very low to no profit margins as it is, you want to shut us down fine. But when you die, I really won't care about that one.

Jan,

People have completely lost sight of the realities of life. Life is hard, life takes WORK to live and when liberals think that society can support as many freeloaders as come forward, it all falls apart. I don't care if you think I'm a jerk, I am a realist, we need to stop coddling people. History has not been kind to people who think they can live off the welfare of others and expect everyone else to support them. The reality is, people who do not support themselves need to feel hunger and let that drive them to better themselves. Yes of course there are always people who cannot support themselves and that is ok and normal to support them. I am totally opposed to able bodied people freeloading and taking advantage of everyone else and the liberal policies forgiving people for irresponsibility have made the problems worse, not better!

Jan - can you explain why the federal government has the power to do this? And if you can, do you believe the federal government has the right to force everybody to buy (practically) anything?

The problem with republicans is, they refuse to accept that there is nothing in the constitution that prohibits this law. There is greed, there is outrage there is people are generally stupid and don't realize they are already paying for the uninsured but there are not people listening to all of the supreme court experts saying that simply put there is no constitutional reason to shoot the law down. It would have to be legislative.

First of all, its mandated to be offered, if you read how its written the states are outraged because they have to offer it. Every single person is not required to buy it. Do people really understand what the law is?

Phil, I am a nurse I know all about the hard realities of life. I also see the realities of what it takes to run a hospital and while your saying we should have to compete to lower costs...hello? Not like its a profitable business, are you expecting doctors to work for free? Are you expecting nurses to not get paid? Healthcare has costs, and the largest users are the elderly. The largest amount of uninsured are employed but healthcare costs so much money and with the economy how it is, they can barely feed their families and keep a roof over their head let alone buy 500 dollars a month in insurance.

There is no country outside of the third world that doesn't have some kind of government healthcare, it operates differently than any other system and the rest of the world acknowledges that. I like the idea of private insurance for the young and healthy, but we have got to find a way to get more people insured, its the only way to lower costs.

First, Jan, the constitution doesn't create limits, it creates powers. It isn't a question if the constitution prohibits it, it's a question of if the constitution permits it.

Second, doesn't the bill essentially make everyone get healthcare or pay a fine?

Sarah-3043284

How am I taking advantage of the system, again??? I'm not the one advocating for people NOT to be insured. If you actually read the posts, you know I'm in favor of a single payer system, however, you did not.

Alessa was actually agreeing with you and I. She was picking on Tom, Plymouth. Great posts by the way - I am impressed with how well written they always are.

I think anyone who feels they have the right to choose not to have health insurance but can afford it, should have to deed their house, car, savings account, 40(k) or anything else of value if and when they get sick and use ER or a hospital. Most of us can wing a doctor visit but it's a different story when you break an arm or need surgery.

It's great to talk about freedom and not being forced by the government to have something as long as there is someone else (those with health insurance and the taxpayers) who will pick up the bill for you.

I guess the rights of the rest of us, who have insurance, don't matter. We HAVE to pay extra to pay for those who want to but cannot get insurance (due to pre-existing conditions) or those who choose not to because they feel that having a new flat screen TV or a new IPhone every six months is more important.

Obamacare failed in its basic mission because nothing in the law reduces the cost of delivering health care in our country. Meaningful and realistic Tort Reform would be a good statrt, but the Trial Lawyers Associations wouldn't stand for that.

This gargantuan legislation is over 2,700 pages in length, and , the last I heard, the regulations to ENFORCE THE LAW were about double that in length. The length and the massive explosion of government bureaucracy just to administer the law, should indeed tell you that this is government control of healthcare.

Then there is the mandate that everyone must buy, except those already given exemptions, exceptions and special dispensations ...... and those who "cannot afford" it will be subsidized by the federal government ...... hhheeeelllllllllllllloooooooooooooo WELFARE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jan-21270

The problem with republicans is, they refuse to accept that there is nothing in the constitution that prohibits this law.

The problem with Democrats is, they refuse to accept the fact that there is nothing in the constitution that authorizes this law. Interstate commerce my ass. I do not cross state lines when I see a doctor. If one does, then only the goods and services that actually cross state lines are authorized by the interstate commerce law, nothing else. The misapplication of the interstate commerce clause has, for a very long time, been the federal government's bogus excuse for usurping authority that they are denied under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. This nonsense has got to stop, and NOW!

Tsk: If ONLY the health care mandates only focused on HEALTHCARE. However, included in the massive tomb are some of the highest tax increases in the history of the country.

No one is asking why 1,500 businesses and unions were granted waivers. No one is asking about the intrusive government's ability to go into your bank accounts (note that not too many are aware of the IRS being the confiscatory agent for this 'tax/not tax' mandate) nor are too many aware that doctor/patient confidentiality is now out the window.

Then, no one is asking how this will be paid for. Increased taxes and fees on just about everything. Lots of hidden fees, added taxes (parent's with children with special needs will suffer, people making prosthetic devices will suffer, and, this bill profits private insurance and big Pharma. Now, if the bill stands, the largest group of customers in the history of the planet will be handed over to the private insurance companies and, to sweeten the pot, there are no real restrictions in place to keep these newly wealthy businesses from increasing their rates. Ditto hospitals.

The only caps on the system will come in the form of panels who will get to decide who is too old to receive medical care beyond a set fee.

The Constitution says the governments duty is to "provide for the common defense" which Republicans love, but also to "provide for the general welfare" which they hate. How can you provide for the general welfare of a population when your hell bent on exploiting those same. Corporations have for years been undermining wages, and what used to be called "benefits". Ever wonder why they didn't just pay those "benefits" in cash? The goal has always been to slash compensation and reap all the spoils for themselves. The rich are the true freeloaders in as much as they don't pay fair wages for the work done, to keep more for themselves. They have bought this government, mostly through Republicans. Americans have in the past had no recourse with bad corporate behavior, only through the government can we have a fair shake. Any wonder the Republicans want to drown government in a bathtub. Once they're out of the way they can take us back to 1900 when the select, ridiculously wealthy, few determined how things were going to be for everybody. Don't expect this bought and paid for "Federalist Society" Supreme Court to rule in favor of something to help the common folk.

this is not a revenue-raising measure, because, if it's successful, they won't -- nobody will pay the penalty and there will be no revenue to raise"

bulls--t! it's not affordable, therefor it will not be successfull...hence all the revenue to raise. revenue #1 priority not healthcare.. Hello

And by the way, Sarah, I do pick your option 3. I would modify it by saying that the uninsured should receive health care if they pay their own bills. There is no Constitutional or God-given right to health care, period, much less at the expense of others.

The Constitution does not say a word about health care; it is therefore by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments a power not authorized to the federal government, and therefore reserved to the states or the people. There is no right to receive health care anywhere in the Constitution.

As far as God-given rights are concerned, "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat." (2 Thessalonians 3:10) In other words, if you don't work, and therefore pay for your own food, you should not eat. This applies to health care as well. If you don't work, and pay your own medical bills, you should not receive health care. Period.

The cost of health care is so high because too many people have it. It is a simple matter of supply and demand. Because so many companies offer health insurance, and the government has medicare and medicaid, the demand for health care exceeds the supply. Many doctors, including my own, are not taking any new patients. If more people are covered as a result of Obamacare, the demand will increase even more, without increasing the supply; therefore, the costs of healthcare will skyrocket. This will inevitably decrease the quantity and quality of health care available to each of us.

The Constitution says the governments duty is to "provide for the common defense" which Republicans love, but also to "provide for the general welfare" which they hate.

Maybe they hate it because that is not what it says.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

This Nation finds its strength in our rigorous belief in Freedom of Speech and the sharing of views whether popular or not. I have read the "collapsed" comments above and there is nothing wrong with them, they represent fair expressions of Free Speech. THOSE WHO DID THE COLLAPSING SHOULD MOVE TO IRAN.

Tabasco Ed,

you are a perfect example of what is wrong with people like you who quote the Bible as proof for anything out side of their Church.

As far as God-given rights are concerned, "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat."

I don't think Jesus ever judged the worth of one's life based on the fact if they could afford health insurance (what about those who cannot because of preexisting conditions??)

more people are covered as a result of Obamacare,

So who is disposable according to you? Who should not have health insurance so YOU can have a cheap one??? Who do you want to die because they're "too poor" therefore unworthy? Single moms? Retirees? Minimum wage workers?? Unemployed??

Yours is the most inconsiderate, selfish post I have read in a long time and it's not because you are naive or uneducated or even ignorant. You hide behind the Bible while you judge others. Who are you to decide who gets to live and who does it?

Before you tell me that you were talking "only" about health insurance , know this: people who have it live longer on average than those who do not. So before you cry about supply and demand (which in this case is crap), consider this - we are all equally worthy.

This Nation finds its strength in our rigorous belief in Freedom of Speech and the sharing of views whether popular or not. I have read the "collapsed" comments above and there is nothing wrong with them, they represent fair expressions of Free Speech. THOSE WHO DID THE COLLAPSING SHOULD MOVE TO IRAN.

Freedom of speech does not confer the right to be listened to. And no one person collapses a comment, it takes a whole bunch of people expressing their opinion by clicking on the little box to do it. Freedom of speech, expressing of opinions, gee maybe you should be the first to go.

When "Jesus" was around there was no such thing as health care. It was work, eat, and kiss Roman ass or die. Those were your choices then.

We have many choices now. The problem is people make a lot of wrong choices and expect someone else to clean up the mess.

This law does nothing to encourage people to obtain health insurance. It is still far cheaper to ignore the law and pay the fine. This law doesn't do anything to control the cost of health care either.

For God's sake; why all this bickering over something that actually decreases the deficit (not by much, but its still something) and something that may not be perfect but is a step in the right direction. I agree with Sarah and the defenders of ACA: why shouldn't people be forced to buy health insurance. What is so bad about that??? People are already forced to buy insurance for cars; why not add in healthcare. Both meet the same purpose, because both seek to protect people from massive financial costs. Plus the individual mandate does nothing to "socialize" 18% of our economy (much to my dismay). It simply expands regulations in the healthcare industry. Costs are going up mainly because people are living longer and more efficient (yet expensive) systems are being developed. That, and the companies are increasing prices. I say go to a single-payer public healthcare system and model it off of the Top 5 nations in healthcare efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and live longevity. Simple as that. I find it weird how the Republicans want the government to make people more "efficient" and independent (contraceptive and abortion bills, cut welfare and safety nets), yet refuse to do that with healthcare. I wish the act was more powerful; hell, maybe if Hillary wins in 2016 we can actually get universal healthcare (hope so).

I don't see how the ACA is unconstitutional. It could be interpreted as part of the commerce clause, and part of the government's authority to preserve the health and welfare of the American people. Healthcare costs are skyrocketing, and part of this is because of moochers and the healthcare industry itself. We cannot afford to have a private, free-market healthcare system. It is just the truth. I frankly don't like private healthcare. Ever since I watched Michael Moore (wait for the conservative onslaught) on Morgan Piers' show, where he stated that companies shouldn't decide whether people should get the healthcare that they need. Nor should they necessarily deny people because of pre-conditions. It may be a bit more expensive for the pre-conditions issue, but saving a person's life should at the very least cover that cost. I would favor a socialist healthcare system when I start working; maybe it would keep one more burden off my shoulders.

Oh, and this used to be favored by conservatives. This option was offered in the 90s by the Heritage Foundation to counter Hillarycare. I say go socialist; I don't care. And I am tired of people using the Constitution as a shield. It was made over 2 centuries ago; of course we need to expand the powers of government. And the rest of the freaking world has government healthcare; including "socialist Europe," and they have lower costs, higher life expectancy rates, AND a more efficient system. Obamacare may not be perfect, but at least its a step in the right direction.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

OBAMACARE LEGAL 2012

SOCIALIZED MEDICINE 2012

DEMOCRAT CONGRESS 2012

This nation was not founded by people who wanted cheap ... health care

Are you saying that this country was founded by people who wanted healthcare to be needlessly EXPENSIVE?

Or that this country was founded by people who wanted their heirs to be burdened by DEADBEATS who skip out on their medical bills?

And KKKornfed, immigrants are the LEAST likely segment of American society to receive free medical care. There are two parts to that. First of all, immigrants are HEALTHIER than native-born US citizens and receive less care. Secondly, when immigrants DO receive medical care, they are FAR more likely to pay their bills, and far LESS likely to rely on government largesse to do so. Please spread your hateful lies elsewhere.

Tom Plymouth 1.61

Toasty -

"Take education: you are required by law to educate your children"

What law might that be?

I believe that is known as truancy. You can be stopped by a policeman for skipping school. Truant laws are all over the nation. Read a book.

Obama Biden 2012

Allen-460794 "Scotus needs to make sure the needs of the 50 mllion + uninsured are met. "

SCOTUS needs to make sure the rights of 310 million Americans are protected.

If the Federal government can require that we purchase a product or service from private, for-profit companies, where does it end? The precedent set would allow it to have dictatorial power to force us to do things that we do not want and effectively eliminate the freedoms that the Founding Fathers warned would result from an all-controlling central government.

This could well be the most important decision in the history of our country.

Dont you people have anything better to do with your time then have hour long debates with strangers over the Internet who's opinions your never going to change. It's not my business but geze, their must be something you have to get done. I only read half of this column and was shocked at how much time I wasted.

Pat in So Cal,

Hahahah typical ideologue. You attempt to quote something to support your position, and yet you can't even quote it right.

The Declaration of Independence does indeed say "provide for the common defense." However, it says PROMOTE the general welfare, not PROVIDE. Perhaps you should learn to make sure you know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.

It'd save you from looking quite so ridiculous in the future.

However, I realize that looking ridiculous is par for the course when it comes to ideologues on either side. Logic doesn't enter the equation...ever. Which is too bad since both sides do have legitimate arguments in regards to this and other issues.

At the end of the day though, the federal government has neither the legal, nor moral, right to DEMAND that its citizens purchase something, without the option to forego it, or else be fined for it.

I will never purchase this insurance, regardless of what the federal government does or says. I do not recognize its right to force me to purchase anything. If the Supreme Court rules that ObamaCare is constitutional, then I will have lost what little respect I still have for the Court.

It will have proven that it isn't interested in the rights of the citizens of this country.

Roy-

Healthcare is a service that involves EVERYONE. Not just everyone who loves motorbiking. Not just everyone who loves to ski. Not just everyone who likes to smoke or drink. EVERYONE. Nobody is not affected by healthcare. If I decide not to buy insurance and I get into an accident, guess who is gonna pay the damn bill?? YOU. That is why the individual mandate is so appealing; it forces responsibility OFF of the rest of society and ON to those who must shoulder that burden. Simple as that.

And as to your precedent argument; the government still cannot mandate you to buy broccoli. Even if the ACA is upheld, you still cannot be forced. Why??? Because broccoli is not a necessity. Healthcare is. And not buying broccoli does not directly harm the rest of society. Skimping on healthcare does. So enough with this Founding Fathers bull@!$%#. Not everything that the Founding Fathers told us was true. Some advised us against a strong central government, fearing that the economy would falter; they still do. And what do we have now??? A strong federal government, and a strong (used to be, now is recovering from worst recession) economy. In fact, the reason our economy collapsed was because of a LACK of government regulation. They advised us to steer clear of a superpower role and to shy away from alliances; while we have gotten in tough areas like Iraq and Vietnam, we still are the world's most powerful nation, and all the world depends on US to protect it. And that helps us economically, diplomatically, AND geopolitically. I personally say that we should adopt a universal healthcare system, but this is a step to it and to true healthcare reform. And yes, this could be an important decision. And I find it surprising how your party claims to be the party of individual responsibility and backs that with demands for cuts into social services, and yet the oppose the one law sponsored and backed by the "welfare-mooching" liberals that forces individuals to accept the responsibility of paying for their health expenses. What ever happened to personal responsibility???? Do you suddenly renounce it if Obama backs it??? You do know that people who mooch off the healthcare system are essentially taking the private sector equivalent of welfare, don't you??? Why oppose individual responsibility when it is being packaged into a law??? Why here, why now???

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

OBAMACARE LEGAL 2012

Freshieee,

I truly feel sorry for people like you. You live in a reality blind world where the government is the answer to all of your problems and if we just let the government do it, everything will be fine. It's sad that you are as illogical and lacking in critical thinking skills as you are.

You say the government will "reform" the healthcare system and this is the way to do it. So, exactly HOW does placing a political entity that has historically PROVEN that it couldn't run a lemonade stand, much less anything of real importance even being to "reform" the healthcare system hmmmm?? Ever hear of Medicare and Medicaid? Oh yes, those are marvelous examples of the government's track record in the area of health care.

And I'm sorry, but "Obamacare" does NOT force people to accept the responsibility of paying for their health expenses. It forces them to BUY government mandated healthcare of face financial penalties. That is a totally different concept, though it's obvious you haven't grasped the difference.

Please learn to distinguish the difference between individual responsibility and government sanctioned tyranny. I won't hold my breath waiting for you to figure it out though.

Ideologues are not exactly the sharpest tacks in the box.

Sarah - interstate commerce

the activity embracing all forms of the purchase and sale of goods and services

It is really profound that you cannot understand that simple concept

The high cost of health care stems from the industry being exempt from anti-trust laws and the fee for service system.

PROFOUNDLY FALSE! The cost of healthcare in each state varies because each state regulates differently, regional demands for services vary, and the cost of living varies. Auto Insurance and homeowners insurance also works that way, and they break these done to Counties and Cities.

In our country we You actually have 3 states that have only one insurance company. A few just have a few companies but the majority have 30 - 40 different Health insurers to choose from out of over 180 MAJOR companies and non-profits that offer health insurance.

Just put your name and number online stating you are looking, you will get lots and lots of calls.

Wow! Some of the best and highly intelligent minds in law and the SCOTUS have taken on this matter. Yet some of you think you know more than they do. Why don't we just call them up and say stop this we have the answer, why waste there time.

You don't know what you don't know, let the experts do there jobs.

DB,

I'm not sure why you think I don't understand that.

Interstate Commerce...

trade between states: trade that involves more than one state, and therefore is, under the Constitution, a proper subject of federal law

Do you really believe that the healthcare industry stays within each state as a separate entity??? That the costs of paying for the uninsured are calculated by state only and not nationwide??? That people from one state never seek treatment in another??? That we don't fly all over the country looking for the best care regardless of the state we live in??? That we don't crash our cars driving cross country??? That my MI Blue Cross provider will never have to deal with a doctor outside of MI???

Get Real.

You do realize that the healthcare industry is exempt from the Sherman Laws, correct? You are aware that this is a fact, not an opinion, right?

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/02/03/Monopolies-Threaten-Health-Care-Cost-Controls.aspx#page1

http://arizona.typepad.com/blog/2009/10/health-insurance-monopolies-and-the-antitrust-exemption.html

http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/protecting-health-care-monopolies

http://www.timesunion.com/opinion/article/Too-many-health-care-monopolies-555867.php

You really need to stop embarrassing yourself on here DB.

Furthermore, Everyone Else, enough with the straw man arguments...

There are two reasons why the slippery slope argument here, as in yours where you're saying the Feds can now force you to buy anything, is disengenuous...

1. You're not being forced to engage in commerce or buy anything, YOU ALREADY DO. Inevitably you will seek healthcare, ergo you're already engaging and not being forced to.

2. The insurance market only works if everyone participates. That's not true for any other example you can give. The vegetable market doesn't need 100% participation, does it? If we continue to allow health insurance to be voluntary, the healthy people will exit the system and only reenter it when they're sick, CRASHING THE WHOLE SYSTEM, and we will be left with the clusterf**k we currently have.

Freshieee

Tom Plymouth 1.61

Toasty -

"Take education: you are required by law to educate your children"

What law might that be?

I believe that is known as truancy. You can be stopped by a policeman for skipping school. Truant laws are all over the nation. Read a book.

I believe that those are state laws not federal laws. This discussion has been about federal law and what the federal government can compel you to do not a state. Something Toasty conveniently overlooked in his responses. Both you and he are either being disingenuous or should take your own advice and read a book.

Sarah-3043284

... disengenuous...

Pot meet kettle.

Bassai,

How so? You know, simply insulting someone, doesn't make your insult truthful. Please show me where any argument I presented was disengenuous.

The problem with republicans is, they refuse to accept that there is nothing in the constitution that prohibits this law.

Jan, you obviously don't know much about the constitution. The constitution is a document that gives the federal government EXPLICIT powers, and if a power is not given to the federal government BY the constitution, then the federal government does NOT have that power (which is stated in the constitution). In other words, if it's NOT in there, then they DON'T have the power. That is why it is so important to tie this law into the Commerce Clause of the constitution, because if it can't successfully be tied to the commerce clause, then the federal government does NOT have the power to do it. Period. The founding fathers well understood that the appetite of government for power is voracious, so they sought to limit it by specifically enumerating its powers in the constitution.

In recent years, the federal government has gotten around this problem by loosely tying legislation to the constitution in ways that the founders probably never intended... For example, abortion is now legal because I supposedly have a constitutional right to privacy. The obvious questions from this are: Where does the constitution guarantee me a right to privacy? What is the tie in between abortion and privacy? Why do I also NOT seem to have this same right to privacy when hidden cameras are all around me and gathering information on everything I do? Why does this special right to privacy allow my daughter to get an abortion but NOT to get a physical exam for sports without my consent?

Bottom line, once you start butchering the constitution and "adapting it" to fit what you want to do, you might as well not have it in the first place. That's about where we are in the USA.

Sarah-3043284
Bassai,

How so? You know, simply insulting someone, doesn't make your insult truthful. Please show me where any argument I presented was disengenuous.

How is it insulting to say that you are disingenuous? And if you take offense at that kind of a characterization then why have you used it here and in a follow on post below?

Allow me to retract slightly. Perhaps you were only using hyperbole rather than being disingenuous.

Examples:

You statement about how much we spend on the military went something along the lines of we spend more than the next 14 countries. Maybe it was hyperbole, but I think you made a disingenuous assertion to bolster your case because that is not a correct statement. I addition when it comes to a percentage of GDP we rank number 25.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm

You have stated that insurance companies are a monopoly, invoking it's negative connotation, but then leave out that what you advocate, government takeover, would in fact be a monopoly. You have done that in a couple of posts.

That gives you two or three examples. I might be able to find more if I took the time to search back through the posts. I am not going to do that because the erratic scrolling caused by some of their scripts on this web page drive me crazy.

Bassai

Freshieee

Tom Plymouth 1.61

Toasty -

"Take education: you are required by law to educate your children"

What law might that be?

I believe that is known as truancy. You can be stopped by a policeman for skipping school. Truant laws are all over the nation. Read a book.

I believe that those are state laws not federal laws. This discussion has been about federal law and what the federal government can compel you to do not a state. Something Toasty conveniently overlooked in his responses. Both you and he are either being disingenuous or should take your own advice and read a book.

I never mentioned whether it was a federal law or a state law. I simply stated that it was a law. And as for the state/federal thing, both states have the right to regulate industries. That gives the federal government the right to regulate the healthcare industry (supporting positions on pre-conditions). As for the individual mandate, the Constitution clearly states that the federal government's responsibility is to promote the general welfare, among other things. Keep those strict free-market ideas, but in this case private healthcare has become a dud. Simple as that. The free market doesn't always work, because externalities and other factors often add up to make private industries inefficient. And the ONLY way to start addressing costs is to have EVERYONE buy insurance so costs don't get dropped on innocent people.

The Wizard of Wisdom

Freshieee,

I truly feel sorry for people like you. You live in a reality blind world where the government is the answer to all of your problems and if we just let the government do it, everything will be fine. It's sad that you are as illogical and lacking in critical thinking skills as you are.

You say the government will "reform" the healthcare system and this is the way to do it. So, exactly HOW does placing a political entity that has historically PROVEN that it couldn't run a lemonade stand, much less anything of real importance even being to "reform" the healthcare system hmmmm?? Ever hear of Medicare and Medicaid? Oh yes, those are marvelous examples of the government's track record in the area of health care.

And I'm sorry, but "Obamacare" does NOT force people to accept the responsibility of paying for their health expenses. It forces them to BUY government mandated healthcare of face financial penalties. That is a totally different concept, though it's obvious you haven't grasped the difference.

Please learn to distinguish the difference between individual responsibility and government sanctioned tyranny. I won't hold my breath waiting for you to figure it out though.

Ideologues are not exactly the sharpest tacks in the box.

No, "Wizard of Wisdom," it is YOU who should be pitied. I may have some idealistic philosophies, but at heart I am a pragmatist. I do not think that the government is the answer to everything: for example, I don't think the government should pay for your cell phone insurance. But unlike you, neither do I think that government is always the problem. I personally don't think that the private healthcare industry can reform itself nor will they, as they are currently making huge profits. Nobody in their right mind who has to answer to shareholders would change the game if it would lose money.

Yes, the government has made some mistakes, especially in the case of "appropriating" funds from programs like Social Security, but SS and Medicare and Medicaid are some of the crown achievements of our nation. We developed programs to help seniors and the poor receive the care that they need in order to stay afloat and healthy. SS cut poverty among seniors significantly; check the facts.

And if our government cannot hypothetically manage a lemonade stand, why have it in control of anything at all??? Why not turn over the military to the private sector, because obviously THEY know how to defend our nation efficiently? Why not let the private sector determine what the price of a good education is, huh??? Or let them decide what laws are to be issued and how to try criminals????

And technically speaking, the ACA forces people to take responsibility by forcing them to buy private insurance so that they don't force the costs of their treatments on to the rest of us. They may be different, but they accomplish the same results.

And yes, I know the difference between government tyranny and individual responsibility. However, if those uninsured people who could afford health insurance but decide not to had the latter, we would not have to choose the former, would we not???

And yes, idealists aren't the smartest people. Unfortunately, you haven't realized that I am not being idealistic; I am being pragmatic. It is a fact that our private healthcare system is unsustainable, and it is a fact that we need some sort of government-issued healthcare (single-payer or public option) to lower the costs of healthcare. If you weren't an ideologue, you'd know that.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

OBAMACARE LEGAL 2012

I never mentioned whether it was a federal law or a state law. I simply stated that it was a law.

Quite right both you and Toasty neglected to draw the distinction between what the federal government can compel you to do and what a state can. Regulation of an industry isn't relevant. Laws requiring you to educate your children are a power left to the states. Likewise compelling you to buy something is not a power relegated to the federal government.

As for the individual mandate, the Constitution clearly states that the federal government's responsibility is to promote the general welfare, among other things.

The preamble to the Constitution is not considered to be law. It grants no power and restricts no one, it sets the context for what follows.

Keep those strict free-market ideas, but in this case private healthcare has become a dud. Simple as that. The free market doesn't always work, because externalities and other factors often add up to make private industries inefficient.

Nice red herring, but in that spirit keep your mercantilist-cum-socialist ideas.

And the ONLY way to start addressing costs is to have EVERYONE buy insurance so costs don't get dropped on innocent people.

Mores the pity that they didn't do anything to address costs.

As for the externalities thing, I should have said that those can be corrected by government regulations; but private healthcare won't work. In this case, its a dud. We pay far more than any other nation in the world and get less efficient care. Why??? Mostly because people are living longer and the costs associated with that. Personally, we should offer a public option and go universal like the rest of the developed world. I never meant to criticize capitalism in general; just free-market purity.

USA Today, 6 July 2009:

Still, experts say that before committing the U.S. to footing the bill for universal health care, Obama should consider it has cost Europe.

A World Health Organization survey in 2000 found that France had the world's best health system. But that has come at a high price; health budgets have been in the red since 1988.

In 1996, France introduced targets for health insurance spending. But a decade later, the deficit had doubled to 49 billion euros ($69 billion).
"I would warn Americans that once the government gets its nose into health care, it's hard to stop the dangerous effects later," said Valentin Petkantchin, of the Institut Economique Molinari in France. He said many private providers have been pushed out, forcing a dependence on an overstretched public system.
...Cost-cutting has also hit Switzerland. The numbers of beds have dropped, hospitals have merged, and specialist care has become harder to find. A 2007 survey found that in some hospitals in Geneva and Lausanne, the rates of medical mistakes had jumped by up to 40%. Long ranked as having one of the world's top four health systems, Switzerland dropped to 8th place in a Europe-wide survey last year.
Government influence in health care may also stifle innovation, other experts warn. Bureaucracies are slow to adopt new medical technologies. In Britain and Germany, even after new drugs are approved, access to them is complicated by the fact that independent agencies must decide if they are worth buying.

When the breast cancer drug Herceptin was proven to be effective in 1998, it was available almost immediately in the U.S. But it took another four years for the U.K. to start buying it for British breast cancer patients.

"Government control of health care is not a panacea," said Philip Stevens of International Policy Network, a London think-tank. "The U.S. health system is a bit of a mess, but based on what's happened in some countries in Europe, I'd be nervous about recommending more government involvement."

The lesson that we should learn from the rest of the developed world as it drowns in it's see of red ink is that that is not the way to go. We should look for another solution rather than falling down the same rabbit hole like we did with Social Security and Medicare.

Bassai

There are ways we can elude the problems in Europe. We don't have to literally take their plan in its entirety, but utilize it in a way that preserves some private involvement in the healthcare industry while controlling the costs and making it both efficient and affordable for everyone. I for one favor a single-payer system that partners with the private sector; hospitals are given funding by the government, and the government contracts medical companies for producing drugs and medical equipment. The German economy is based on private-public partnerships; why not do the same with healthcare????

Addressing frivilous lawsuits would be a great place to start. This is a HUGE reason insurance rates and healthcare costs are so outrageous. There is a reason Dr.s call their businesses "practices". People need to understand that. The Government forcing it's constituents to purchase health insurance will do nothing but be a boom to insurance companies. Looks to me like this borders on infringement of our rights to "LIFE & LIBERTY".

Move to Cuba! Move to Canada! I have a nephew in Canada. He says it's great if your break your arm. If you break your ,get in line for a month or more for a CAT scan and be prepared to drive a hundred miles or more to get it. It will be the same here. If we yanked the government out of healthcare we would have cheaper costs. What good is free healthcare when you can't afford food or a house because of the 50% or more of your income, you'll be paying in taxes.

the high cost of medicine is a direct reflection of Government control. IE a Rigid system of graduating doctors, (30k annually for 300 million people) and import controls on meds and a limited number of facilities allowed in communities. This is all GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED top to bottom. There is no free market or private industry and that is why you are paying too much. NOT because people are forced to buy an insurance product that hardens and allows more people in the industry to get really rich.... Get real.

Jolly anyone can set up a pharmacy and get medicine hold on to it and drive the prices up by 300% search it it is going on right now in this country

you cannot despense without a license or operate a pharmacy. THat's my point. They want massive schooling and limited pharmacist graduating so they can control supply and dispensing mechanisms. This is what drives up costs. If there were a lot more pharmacist, imported drugs and the like. Everyone would be paying less.

Such nonsense from the people who claim to know what Canadian Healthcare provides. Emergencies have NO wait. The average wait for nonemergencies is 2 weeks.

How long is it in the US--about 2 weeks! The same.

If you have Medicare, guess what--you're in a socialized system.

Don't like Canadian or British healthcare, let's try German or French healthcare, considered the best in the world. Yes, they have universal care.

The ONLY reason the government has gotten involved in healthcare at all is because the private sector, based on profits, has made such a complete mess of it.

The private sector ignored the elderly and the poor, the big drivers of healthcare, so the government had to involve itself. If the government got out, do you think the private sector will be rushing in to insure the elderly and poor, the ones who use healthcare the most?

This is nothing like Canadian health care. There is no public option here. All healthcare is provided by private insurance companies. No doctors are employed by the government.

You pay taxes into S.S. for a benefit that is guaranteed by law.

You pay taxes that pay for police, fire, and EMS, a benefit that is guaranteed by law.

When you show up at the emergency room at the hospital, you can not be(and should not be) turned away, and must be cared for as guaranteed by law. This is simply a tax that helps pay for the benefit you are already guaranteed.

The reason this tax is unprecedented is because Health Care is technically a private consumer product owned by corporations. This is the problem. We need to take the profit motive out of our healthcare system. A profit motivated health care system causes high costs and low benefits by definition.

Why do some of us accept that trying to make money by denying care is a good model for our country?

Yes, that is the solution. Unlicensed Joe Shmoes just freely dispensing medicine willy nilly without regards to safety... Yeah, that sounds like an awesome plan...

free man 1,

The insurance costs are not going up because of the govt. - they are going up beacuse the healthcare system in US is "greedy" - the doctors are greedy, the hospitals are greedy and the insurance companies are greedy. They can charge anything they want - even when the normal inflation is 2 to 3% and everyone's raises (except the private dotors, and insurance company executives) are based on this number, the healthcare costs go up by 10% every year. Why? because the people who are in charge of this industry are greedy!! On top of it you are spinning yarns about the Canadian healthcare system. Your friend must be living in a remote town! No one in Toronto and major towns/cities has to travel 100 miles to get any kind of treatment.

DfromSpencer, you know the original reason for the need for change in health care. Unfortunately, many amongst us are too scared to death of another liar scamming the system for $, and are too prideful to consider the thousand's who are seriously ill and are not receiving the right amounts of care, or are not receiving care at all.

It is also a shame regardless of whether the health care bill is appealed, or not, that it does nothing to address the ineptness of much of the American medical profession.

The problem is Americans have an entitlement problem. The whole attitude of "getting something for nothing (or next to nothing)." Things cost money. Being insured costs money.

If you're unwilling to pay for it, what makes you think you ought to have it? Birthright? Yeah right.

The people that are implying you can get healthcare in this country without insurance and without a demonstrated ability to pay couldn’t be more wrong. I waste a tremendous amount of time dealing with social workers trying to find some way to help patients pay their bills. If they can’t pay and nobody will pay for them then appropriate care is frequently denied. I have counseled countless uninsured dialysis patients to get their dialysis in emergency rooms (at 10x the cost of outpatient) because no outpatient facility will take them. I watched a 22 year old boy die last summer because we couldn’t find a surgeon willing to donate his/her time to perform a transplant despite being called twice that a liver was available. I witnessed a patient denied a heart bypass last week and given inadequate and cheaper medicine as a substitute. EMTALA ONLY COVERS EMERGENCIES. A relatively simple illness like a scratch can turn into a systemic infection that costs $250,000 to treat. Do you have that kind of money? I don’t and I make far above the national average. We all pay for this as a society. Not only does this drive up the national debt via medicare (which all taxpayers pay) it is morally reprehensible. I am not aware of anyone working in healthcare that does not support the ACA. Single payer is the way to go but the ACA is a step in the right direction.

Lkessler, I see nothing wrong with feeling entitled to be healthy. Although I generally agree with your statement. The wealthy sure feel entitled to generations of wealth and the impoverished are seemingly entitled to generations of poverity... hmm... maybe there is something fishy going on here.

Jolly Joker, You are mistaken in blaming the rigidity of professional medical education on the government. The vast majority of the standards placed on doctors, pharmacists, nurses, physical therapists ect... are self imposed and have nothing to do with the government. I agree that the standards are rigid and in almost all cases extreme but the government has nothing to do with it. Self regulating professions do not rely on the government for regulation.

I can guarantee you if your college aged son or daughter died from lack of medical care and no insurance, people would feel differently about this. People are awfully fine about letting other Americans die while we spend 4 times as any other country on defense, thats what we need more bombs.

I am sorry if republicans don't like it, there is no constitutional basis for repealing the law. The lower courts shredded every argument that has been made. You may not like that, but its the way life is, it would have to be done through legislation and you are not likely going to see republicans get full control in a very long time at the rate they have pissed off women.

By the way the supreme court today made it VERY clear that they do not consider this a tax.

NOAH, Don't give me that garbage. The medical schools are CAPPED and so are the pharmacy and nursing schools. BALONEY.! You are perpetuating a myth that you cannot defend. Medicare trains 30k doctors per year to graduate on a population of 300 million. 1/2 are women who have kids and don't even practice medicine full time. 1/3 of the remainder are specialist who live off the referrals. Thats why there is a shortage of doctors. NOT The free market. Your argument is so bogus it makes me want to puk. Most of the funding for hosptials and clinics come from Medicare, medicaid or the private sector sudsidizing those two industries. The average physician and specialty physician make more than the president of the united states. YOu are a bunch of money grubbing glorified auto mechanics. GET REAL.

Jolly Joker where did you get the numbers that the average salary was more than the president, they work many times up to 80 hours a week for an average salary of between 150-200k a year. That is your average doctor, this has steadily decreased over time.

You are a first class jerk.

Don't these poor elderly people in the photo above realize that they are going to be the first to go once Obama Care goes into effect? There ARE going to be 'death panels' as Ms. Palin stated. There IS going to be rationing of health care, there IS going to be denying services. You see how the Post Office is doing don't you? Whenever the government gets their grimy greedy hands on any segment of our economy, they ruin it. HELLO!!! I personally don't want the government in charge of my health care. There were many ways to 'fix' the system without taking over the entire thing!

Wow, fear mongering at its finest. Thanks Against Union Thievery, I am against stupidity so please try to deal with your fox news habit, they breed stupid people.

Noah

If your going to blame people for making medical costs rise at three times the annual inflation rate you should blame the right people which would be the insurance companies and they are the ones that FORCE doctors to perform unnecessary tests, tell them how long people can stay in the hospital, which drugs they can prescribe, which illnesses they can treat and which they have to let go by the wayside. My primary care physician has repeatedly told me that for every hour of clinic time he spends he has to spend six to eight hours of office time filling out forms for insurance companies. Why is this you ask, well can we all say malpractice claims? So it looks like the Insurance companies and Lawyers are driving up the cost of care not the doctors. If you don't believ this look at the cost of care in states that have passed tort reform laws like Oklahoma and a few other progressive states.

The medical schools set the number of students admitted and the number of graduates, the federal government has nothing to do with that, maybe they should, but they do NOT.

this is not a revenue-raising measure, because, if it's successful, they won't -- nobody will pay the penalty and there will be no revenue to raise"

bulls--t! it's not affordable therefor everyone will pay the penalty and it won't be successfull ...hence all the revenue to raise. #1 priority is revenue not healthcare..Hello

This Nation finds its strength in our rigorous belief in Freedom of Speech and the sharing of views whether popular or not. I have read the "collapsed" comments AT #1 above and there is nothing wrong with them, they represent fair expressions of Free Speech. THOSE WHO DID THE COLLAPSING SHOULD MOVE TO IRAN.

I will take governmental health care over corporate health care any day. The government has an interest in doing what serves America best, corporations have an interest in what fattens their wallet. Distribution of corporate health care is directly dependent on how much profit they want to make, not on taking care of you. Palin has never been right about anything so I don't put much faith in her assumed "governmental hit squads of the elderly." And most people with a half of brain has blown Palin off. You think our government can't get it right? You need to check out our military, NASA, national highways and many other things. Socialize health care and oil now if you want prices to come down.

jan--

do you know if you don't get annual med test the gov says you must have (which will be unaffordable because worthless ins won't ccover them) they will add $25 a mon on your premium the next year. and that's not the half of the 700-1000 page bill. so before you go calling someone stupid you may want to read up on it since you're so smart. and i didn't learn it on fox news.

dick---The government has an interest in doing what serves America best, corporations have an interest in what fattens their wallet

how much did obama say this would bring down the deficit? gov and corps have the same interest...and it's not you

The government has an interest in doing what serves America best

The government is the tall hog at the special interest trough and only has an interest in doing what is best for it.

And the winner is......

http://youtu.be/bOaLLdpVz

Since The POTUS ran on bringing the country together which as we have seen is one of his many lies, lets just split the country up based upon political beliefs and we can stop all of these arguments and focus on the important things in life......

Here is a model separation agreement:

1. Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by land mass, each taking a similar portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy. Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides had such distinct and disparate tastes.

2. We don't like redistributive taxes, so you can keep them.

3. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU.

4. Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA, and the military.

5. We'll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and you can go with wind, solar, and bio-diesel.

6. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore, and Rosie O'Donnell. You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them.

7. We'll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart, and Wall Street.

8. You can have your beloved lifelong welfare dwellers, food stamps, homeless homeboys, hippies, druggies, and illegal aliens.

9. We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks.

10. We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood.

11. You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us.

12. You can have the peace-niks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.

13. We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.

14. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political correctness, and Shirley McLain. You can also have the U.N., but we will no longer be paying the bill.

15. We'll keep the SUV's, pickup trucks, and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find.

16. You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors.

17. We'll continue to believe healthcare is an earned luxury and not a basic right.

18. We'll keep "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" and "The National Anthem."

19. I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute "Imagine", "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing", "Kum Ba Ya," or "We Are the World".

20. We'll practice trickledown economics and you can continue to give trickle up poverty your best shot.

21. Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name, our constitution and our flag. Would you agree to this?

PS: Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin Sheen, Barbara Streisand, and Jane Fonda with you.

PPS: And you won't have to "Press 1 for English" when you call our country.

The govt does NOTHING efficiently. And we are supposed to believe they will start now with something as complicated as health care. LOL You guys crack me up.

The CLASS portion already found unfundable by actuary and Sebelius.

Child only policies cut back or eliminated in well over half of the states.

Principal Group announces they are leaving health insurance.

Start up funding and doc fix not included in initial cost (imagine that), which puts the first number way over the Trillion mark it was supposed to stay under.

The govt only cares about its insatiable appetite for money to feed itself.

"The government has an interest in doing what serves America best, corporations have an interest in what fattens their wallets."

The scary part is that this statement is actually correct...though not as Dick intended. Is what serves America best what may be best for you as an individual? Has your useful lifespan as a contributing member of society ended? Remember the question during the last election about the elderly lady needing surgery and Obama responding more or less that at some point people should just take a pill and go home because basically they have lived a full life already?

Our debt levels are at record levels and increasing at record levels and the current Congress has no intention of even passing a budget to show how far out of whack things are and will become. On what basis do you think that decision is going to be made? On an individual basis or on a societal basis?

Corporations make a profit, that's not a bad thing. If they can't make a profit they will not be around to honor the contract that they sign with the individual. You can argue whether or not the profit is excessive or not, if it is the company is likely charging a higher premium and purchasers are then free to go with another carrier. There are better ways to fix the current system without trampling on our rights as individual citizens.

Jan

I don't watch Fox news. I cancelled my cable a long time ago. You on the other hand, poor thing, have your head some place where the sun don't shine. You need to educate yourself and just look at the facts before you accuse ME of not knowing whan I am talking about. Have a great day!!

HEJUSTDOESNTGETIT

Since The POTUS ran on bringing the country together which as we have seen is one of his many lies, lets just split the country up based upon political beliefs and we can stop all of these arguments and focus on the important things in life......

You're right. He just doesn't get it, HEJUSTDOESNTGETIT... but I do. I've watched while Obama, time after time, moved to the center to try to gain support from the Re-Pigs, only to see them mover farther and farther right. Hell, Obama's moved so far center, he's center right and your party just continues it's venture even "righter". You people are so right now that you can't even remember what you "used to" support.

But, yes, we are divided... and, yes, I guess you could say Obama caused it. He caused it because he tried to shake hands and you people would have none of it and marched straight right. So in a weird sort of way, it IS his fault... he should never had extended his hand to anyone so determined to hate at any cost.

I'm just glad the Supreme Court settled everything.

If the Federal government can require that we purchase a product or service from private, for-profit companies, where does it end? The precedent set would allow it to have dictatorial power to force us to do things that we do not want and effectively eliminate the freedoms that the Founding Fathers warned would result from an all-controlling central government.

This could well be the most important decision in the history of our country.

It's one thing to make insurance more affordable/readily available and quite another
to require all adults to purchase it. This goes against the constitution and
logic: An adult has the legal right to refuse medical care (some are even opposed to it
and will never use it; I don't agree with them but it’s their right as a legal
adult) so why so they be forced to purchase health insurance.

If you, or anyone for that matter, are involved in an accident--car accident, natural disaster, shooting, mugging, etc.--paramedics will show up to render medical assistance and, if needed, will haul your but to the emergency room for additional medical care. If you do not have health insurance, who pays for that paramedic and emergency room care? Good ole people that have health insurance, that's who. They pay through increased premiums to cover the care being provided to the free-loaders. These free-loaders know that no matter what the status of their financial situation, they're going to get free medical care in the event of an accident. If the injuries are such that the person is unconscious, the paramedics or the ER staff will not stop the treatment, because the patient can't decide whether or not to refuse medical care.

We are a society of human beings, that will not let someone die by the side of the road because they do not have health insurance. We must spend funds to maintain paramedic service, hospitals and emergency rooms. Those funds have to come from somewhere. Our taxes and our rising insurance premiums cover the added expense.

If you're going to get free ER treatment, you need to pony up some of the cost. Granted! You may never have an accident, but that doesn't negate the fact that the service is there to be used, and will be used, if necessary.

So, I have no problem if the Government comes after you to claim some of that expense. You don’t want health insurance! Fine don’t get any; however, you will be billed (or penalized, if that’s what you want to call it) for the free medical care you will receive if involved in an accident.

By the way, all of you who think this is undue Government intrusion, do you own property anywhere in the USA? Next time you pay your property tax bill, take a close look at what all the charges listed on that bill are. Besides the actual property tax, the city and the county tack on additional fees for sewage, garbage, roads, sidewalks, fire and police, etc., etc. You are forced to pay these fees whether or not you use any of these services. Your property can be abandoned and you still must pay the fees.

So, spare me the indignation crap about the Government forcing you to pay for an unwanted service. There are many precedents where the Government is already reaching into your pocket for many services, whether you use them or not.

This is why the Supreme Court will not deny the health care mandate. If they do, they will open up an can of worms that can bring down our entire society and take us back to the wild west days where everyone was out for himself and you had to haul your own water, dispose of your own sewage, generate your own electricity, walk in mud puddles and trash littered streets (that is if there are any streets), put out your own fires, defend yourself against criminals, etc., etc. I’ll bet that’s what you right wing, anti-Government freaks want—COMPLETE CHAOS!!

Folks we live in an age of fast international travel, so a disease in one country somewhere can be infecting you tomorrow.

Infectious diseases know no boundaries does not care whether you have private health insurance or not, and it does not care whether you work in the corner office as CEO and get around by limo, or if you are in the mail room in the basement and take public transportation or walk.

It is as simple as for as long as people come in contact with each other and 1 person have an untreated infectious disease like TB for example and start coughing up a storm on the bus, train, cinema, theatre, office, supermarket, ER, restaurant, or at a party or even at some happy hour or even a wedding reception or at your childs school, there is the liklihood that someone or some people can become infected. Whether you are in first class or coach on an airplane and some passenger has an untreated infectious disease that can be spread through airborne means like coughing, spitting etc then someone else can become infected and pass it on to other folks.

Have you checked your and your partners status regarding HIV/Aids and other sexually transmitted diseases or even their/your hepatitis, herpes etc status recently? Hmmmm If you are infected who is paying for those Aids drugs that are so expensive and which must be taken for the rest of one's life.... by the way the HIV/Aids infections continue to be on the rise in the heterosexual community as well.

If you are infected how long do you think your private for profit health insurance company is going to pay for your treatment after you reach your cathastropic cap? Think any other private for profit health insurance company is going to insure you now that you have a pre-existing condition? How about that High blood pressure, diabetes, cancer etc?

The thing is though that if we all are covered under a public not for profit healthcare program, the person who had the infectious disease like TB ( hepatitis, hiv/aids, meningitis etc) would no doubt have gone to the doctor for his/her yearly physical or even done a walk-in visit and this disease would have been diagnosed and treated earlier before many more people became infected.

If any of the infected people do not get diagnosed and treated because they have no healthcare coverage and cannot afford to pay for care or do not know they are infected, then they are simply a carrier infecting a lot more people around them causing an epidemic. By the way the private for profit health insurance companies are going to raise their premiums on their members to cover the now increased cost of that many more of their members being sick.

Those of you who think that a person can go to the hospital ER and they have to treat you, well that may be but they are going to pass the cost on to others who have for profit healthcare coverage, which in turn causes the for profit insurance companies to raise their members premiums as they are not willing to take the loss to their pofits.

So those of you who are so against a public option not for profit health insurance plan like a Medicare for All, you are already subsidizing the healthcare of those who can afford to purchase healthcare but do not want to do so, so they use the ER, and you are also subsidizing the healthcare cost of folks who are lucky enough to qualify and be covered by Medicaid, and even those who cannot afford the private for profit healthcare plans on their own, cannot get Medicaid coverage and uses the ER.

It is time that everyone is covered, whether the person is here legally or illegally or even visiting from abroad, as accidents and illnesses are no respector of persons period.

One other thing re all those polititians who are busy trying to get rid of a nationwide healthcare plan.... hope you remember that not only can they afford to pay for their own healthcare plan but why should they when they already have nationwide premier healthcare/dental coverage paid for by the masses including...by you. So even if there is no public not for profit healthcare/dental coverage option for the likes of the rest of us, they and their families are already taken care of.. at your and our expense... LOL

Plus many of the folks that are talking against a public healthcare plan are probably pretending to be ordinary people from the masses when they aren't and are probably in the top 1-10% imo. Some are already covered by Medicare thus are in a public not for profit healthcare plan and thus aren't doing you any favors as they are probably thinking that if a Medicare of All plan is instituted they may have to pay higher premiums. Considering that Medicare is socialized healthcare plan that everyone who works must pay for through their FICA taxes, and is overseen by the federal government, how is it that those on Medicare are not complaining about wait times for treatment, doctor visits etc like some folks believe would happen if such a plan was put in place for all people in this country?

We need a public option Medicare for All not-for-profit healthcare plan in this country period. As the Good Book states..... 'love thy neighbor as thyself'..... and 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'...

Peace...... think for yourself....stop the selfishness.....

Change who pays all you want, won't change what you are paying for. This insurance mandate won't lower health care costs one cent, it won't even help to lower the rising slope, it will only mask where the funds come from (hint: still coming from your pocket, you will be paying for healthcare one way or another).

hejustdoesntgetit--

beautiful

lmarct---he tried to shake hands and you people would have none of it and marched straight right. Not addressing health care costs will destroy the middle class. just look at your paycheck

did you even read hejustdoesntgetit? because you don't get it. and the healthcare mandate will be a disater to the economy. i am looking at my paycheck. no one should be a slave to healthcare

Jan , get your head out of the sand...

bz1---Plus many of the folks that are talking against a public healthcare plan are probably pretending to be ordinary people from the masses when they aren't and are probably in the top 1-10%.

who are you pretending to be? i'm guessing you are not going to have to come up with extra $750 mon to cover you and spouse. these people have real concerns and since you will not have that burden for whatever reason then your opinion is moot. plus 1-10% have no reason to be concerned much less pretend to be ordinary people against healthcare. you are as dillusional as obama.

Charts... I do not have to pretend at anything. This whole discussion reminds me of the discussion in 2007 and early 2008 about the housing bubble and what could be done about it then.

Many people in their selfishness, were so busy saying that folks were irresponsible and should lose their homes and also that the banks should not lower the interest rate, also that a contract is a contract blah blah blah, that they were not looking at the bigger picture. Well now these folks who were supposedly responsible and purchased homes that they could afford including putting 20% plus down are now finding that things are interconnected. The massive forclosures brought the value of everyone's home crashing down for the masses. LOL

This is the same thing with the healthcare problem. Many folks who have insurance are not looking at the bigger picture and the hidden cost to them not realizing that the for profit health insurance companies are making sure that they enjoy a healthy profit and to pay their shareholders a dividend as well as pay their management teams millions of dollars in salaries and stock options.

In their selfishness they do not seem to realize that helping others to be covered by healthcare coverage they are also saving money themselves.

I have coverage so perhaps I should not care what happens to those who do not, but as I believe in "love they neighbor as thyself', and 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' I do care about what happens to others not as fortunate.

There needs to be a public option Medicare For All plan that is financed through a state sales tax in which everyone pays and everyone is covered no matter their status whether rich or poor, here legally or illegally period imo. Employers should have nothing to do with providing healthcare coverage as a part of any benefits package or have anything to do with healthcare at all period.

Until people in this country realize that they we are only limited by their own selfishness we will continue to spend a significant portion of gdp paying for healthcare in this country with the same poor outcome as we already have now.

One other thing... I probably know more about healthcare insurance than you do. Also I have lived and worked in other countries where coverage was through a public not for profit nationwide healthcare plan. There was also private healthcare coverage through the private for profit health insurance companies, for those wanted to purchase same.

Isn't it funny how people here will agree to rebuild other countries infrastructure and provide healthcare for them but loathe to do the same for their own countrypersons here.... but I suppose it really isn't about a public option healthcare imo, this arguement is really about thinking that by shrinking govt we will be better off because if the govt becomes involved in providing a public not for profit option healthcare plan somehow that will be socialism.

In another few years the healthcare situation will be like the housing situation the past few years. Many more people will continue to lose healthcare coverage as the premiums become more costly and covers even less.

Wonder what folks are going to do then?

Peace.....

@Against Union Thievery

There ARE going to be 'death panels' as Ms. Palin stated. There IS going to be rationing of health care, there IS going to be denying services.

There ALREADY are death panels - they are the people at health insurance companies that decide: A) If they will even give you insurance to begin with. Got a serious pre-existing medical condition? Nope sorry. No health insurance for you!!! B) Whether you get to keep your insurance when you need it. Develop a serious medical condition while insured? If you are too expensive to keep on the books, they WILL try to find a way to discontinue your coverage. C) What types of treatment they will actually cover. If treatment A is more effective but also WAY more expensive than treatment B, guess which one the insurance company will go for. D) Whether someone is too old to receive benefits. Are you an 75 year old man with a tumor on your pancreas? Someone at the insurance company (their death panel) will look at that and say, "That is a waste of money. Let the old man die."

Insurance companies are the one with death panels. Insurance companies are the ones who want to ration health care. Insurance companies are the agents of evil here! Stop believing the millions of dollars of propaganda and misinformation they are putting out to sway the weak-minded. "These are not the droids you are looking for..."

Askboutit,

There are two reasons why the slippery slope argument here, as in yours where you're saying the Feds can now force you to buy anything, is disengenuous...

1. You're not being forced to engage in commerce or buy anything, YOU ALREADY DO. Inevitably you will seek healthcare, ergo you're already engaging and not being forced to.

2. The insurance market only works if everyone participates. That's not true for any other example you can give. The vegetable market doesn't need 100% participation, does it? If we continue to allow health insurance to be voluntary, the healthy people will exit the system and only reenter it when they're sick, CRASHING THE WHOLE SYSTEM.

There you go.

If we continue to allow health insurance to be voluntary, the healthy people will exit the system and only reenter it when they're sick, CRASHING THE WHOLE SYSTEM.

Based on that illogic the health insurance industry never should have come into existence.

freeman1 you are full of delusional bull@!$%# like all retardicans are.

@offtheirheads

On one hand you have "retardicans" as you put it, and on the other you have "demo@!$%#s".

I guess that makes you a demo@!$%#.

In that case - John Doe will likely already have Medicaid.

That's not how it works. The more healthy people who have insurance, the cheaper health insurance is for everyone.

Health insurance is like gambling. When you buy health insurance, you are gambling that you will get sick or injured. If you do, then the insurance pays out. The monthly payments you make are based on odds that the insurance company calculates, which is determined by your relative health and the relative health of everyone else with insurance. So if only unhealthy people--fatties, smokers, chronically ill, elderly, etc.--buy insurance and young healthy people don't, then what you pay each month goes up.

But if all the other healthy people in our nation pay into health insurance, prescription become dirt cheap, hospital fees reduce dramatically, and your doctor visit becomes affordable. Even for both John Doe's.

Don't take my word for it. The RAND Corporation, the think tank the U.S. uses to scientifically decide many important issues, did some studies on this health care bill. They're saying it's better for this bill to go through.

the Surgeon General is not in private practice and is not involved in healthcare reform

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas released his new financial disclosure form on Friday under pressure from Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) and others.

Mother Jones reported that his financial disclosure form indicates his wife, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, received a $150,000 salary from the group Liberty Central in 2010 and less than $15,000 from an anti-health care reform lobbying firm she founded.

Liberty Central, which she helped found, supports the repeal of the the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Weiner had taunted Thomas via Twitter on Friday, but his criticisms where quickly overshadowed by the so-called “Weinergate” fiasco that broke out Sunday. The congressman had previously called on Thomas to recuse himself from cases involving health care reform because of his wife’s financial connections to groups dedicated to its repeal.

“The appearance of a conflict of interest merits recusal under federal law,” a letter written by Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) and signed by 74 Members of Congress stated. “From what we have already seen, the line between your impartiality and you and your wife’s financial stake in the overturn of healthcare reform is blurred.”

The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 requires Supreme Court justices to disclose their spouse’s income, but Thomas had not disclosed Virginia’s income on his financial disclosure forms for 20 years.

“We knew that Justice Thomas’ family had a financial stake in opposing health care reform,” Weiner said Friday in a statement. “Now we know even more. It’s pretty clear the justice has one option here: recusal.”

So if Thomas should step down are you forgetting anyone else who should also not participate in the decision? Chirp.................the sound of crickets as your so called liberal mind is blinded by biased facts.

Oh that's right Kegan, she helped with this POS bill.......Chirp!

@Sarah

I don't see how you have fully refuted the argument that the law is unconstitutional. All I can see is how you've added your own arbitrary spin on what the commerce clause means (even though it doesn't actually say that)

I'm sorry, Sarah, but I must have missed that fine print in the constitution. So basically what your saying is that the constitution says something more like:

Congress shall have the power to regulate interstate commerce*

*Actually, this clause shall be so construed as to give congress the power to not only regulate commerce, but also anything that may affect commerce and even to institute commerce by individual mandate as long is that would have an effect on commerce.

Nope, last time I checked the power was to regulate commerce only.

bz1---Plus many of the folks that are talking against a public healthcare plan are probably pretending to be ordinary people from the masses when they aren't and are probably in the top 1-10%.

who are you pretending to be? i'm guessing you are not going to have to come up with extra $750 mon to cover you and spouse. these people have real concerns and since you will not have that burden for whatever reason then your opinion is moot.

What I think is so funny is the Democrats got caught in one of their lies and one of their intentional "let's fool the people" policies. You see Democrats can NEVER tell you exactly what their intentions are because no rational person would approve. So they intentionally mislead the people that can be misled.

So why didn't they just call it a tax when they passed it? Do you realize if they had called it a TAX from the very beginning it would have been a national health system from the very beginning with the stroke of an Obama pen? So why didn't they? Because the American people do not WANT nationalized health care!! So Obama and his cronies thought they would be sneaky and simply put in a "mandate". But they didn't think of the consequences. This mandate is unconstitutional and will be found as such. Therefore the basis of ObamaCare will be cancelled and the rest will collapse like a deck of cards.

Again, so funny that if the Democrats had simply called it a tax from the very beginning there would be nothing we could do and it would be in our lives forever. But Democrats can't tell you the truth and by trying to mislead and lie to the American people the health care law will fall. How long will you continue to hear the lies and misleading from the Democrat party before you FINALLY realize the weasels that they are?

Chartsweb: So what is your point? WHO do you think is responsible for your insurance? "The rich"? "Your employer"? "The government"? "Me"? I have the correct answer for you: it is YOU!! YOU are responsible for your own healthcare!!

The solution is NOT the government. The solution is EACH person should pay a percentage of every cost. Obviously as costs get higher insurance covers most or all (let's call it a major medical policy that covers costs over, say, $10,000). But up to the $10,000 the insured must pay a percent of EACH cost. Something like 20%. Why? Because so many have NO IDEA what the cost of health care is!! All they know is "I pay my $35 co-pay". So when the doctor suggests a test you simply say "fine" without any concern of whether you NEED that test. Then the test costs the insurance company $1000 and YOU wonder why premiums are going up? Say you had to pay $200 of that test (20%) -your FIRST question will be "do I NEED this test?" and "WHY are you suggesting this test?". In discussion you determine the test really isn't needed and you don't think it is worth $200. BAM!! You ALSO saved the insurance company $800!!

Secondly, do you know how much your doctor office visit is? You have no idea!! Why? Because it doesn't matter to you (when I say "you" I hope you understand in my example I am speaking about "all of us" generically). You pay the $35 copay. What does it matter whether the doctor is charging $100 or $200. You just pay $35 and the insurance company pays the rest. But what if you had to pay 30% of the visit? The FIRST thing you would ask your doctor is "how much is your visit?". When they say $200, and you realize that will be $60, you will call around and find a more affordable doctor. This will force YOUR doctor to be "competitive" in the market and before long the visit will be $100 so you only pay $30.

In other words until WE have a stake in the cost of our health care we will never get control of these costs. Just like WE keep electronic costs down at Best Buy by "competition" so can we keep health care costs down when WE are involved in the purchase we will search for more affordable options which will lower prices. Government CANNOT lower prices and will actually cause costs to rise. Only WE can force lower prices but only if we KNOW what the prices are AND we have a direct stake in those costs.

Chart....see answer at message # 2.44... so that I do not have to repeat myself.

There needs to be a public not for profit Medicare For All option period imo. Now that would actually give folks a choice wouldn't it. Imagine the private for profit health insurance companies competing with that. That would be real competition.

It is time that everyone contribute to their healthcare cost whether they are here legally or illegally, rich or poor period. That is the only way to control healthcare cost. If a group of people are excluded from being able to obtain coverage then we are setting up a situation where there will always be some folks who seek healthcare from the ER with no opportunity for follow-up/ongoing care and which cost all of us more in the end.

Those folks who seem to think that it is a good idea to exclude some folks from regular means of health care i.e. primary care etc just remember that infectious diseases are no respector of persons.

For example, Bird flu, TB ect does not care whether you are a poultry farmer, day laborer or the CEO of a top 500 corporation, just like HIV/Aids do not care whether you are heterosexual or homosexual or asexual. Infectious diseases do not care whether you are a christian or a heathen or pretending to be a Klingon on Moon Base 9. In an epidemic who do you think is going to pay for your care when you reach your private for profit health insurance catastrophic cap?

Whether we have a not for profit public option plan and a private for profit healthcare option plan or both the for profit insurance companies are not going to go out of business. Medicare is administered by private insurance companies now. The difference is that the federal govt set down the rules and regulation and provide that these companies must adhere to, and the percentage that they can take as their payment for administering Medicare.

These companies cannot simply raise the cost of the Medicare premiums as they do with their own private for profit lines of health insurance premiums. The feds also provide oversight. If Medicare should be made into a voucher etc program and left up to the market forces then we will have the same out of control costly mess that is the private for profit healthcare market now.

By the way it was once noted that folks covered by Medicaid for example received better care than folks who had private health insurance. The feds/state (at least the state where I reside) do standard/level of care utilization and review, to make sure that the patients are receiving timely and cost effective healthcare whether they are hospitalized or in the doctors office or elsewhere. Thus healthcare programs like Medicare and Medicaid are constantly being monitored for cases of fraud, abuse and that the patients are receiving the appropriate standard and level of care that is necessary for the best outcome if I am not mistaken.

But of course because these 2 programs are govt mandated programs and with govt oversight they are therefore socialistic programs thus bad for the country because this is communism in action blah blah blah. LOL And of course we should not forget that we all know that the govt is supposedly unable to do anything right, even after all these years, so let's give them over to the private sector who would supposedly do it better because govt has no function in our lives and should have no responsibility towards the people because that would be socialism, which leads to communism and the fall of our republic, our democracy and capitalism blah blah blah, hence the incessant call for doing away with rules, regulations and oversight and when this is not done there are those in Congress who underfund and defund these oversight departments into pointlessness until some catastrophy occurs and then the blame game begins while people suffer..

There are those who believe in the 'go it alone theory' i.e. that it should be every man and woman for him/herself and govt agencies like FEMA is not necessary...until Mother Nature does her thing and then FEMA becomes very necessary, because the private sector is not going to make those harmed, whole. Why didn't the private for profit sector not rebuild the levees or bridges or roads?

How about the Gulf with the Gusher in the Gulf, how is it that people are still suffering and their way of life like their businesses and the wetlands are still destroyed due to the destruction wrought by private companies reckless stupidity? How is it that when a new nuclear energy reactor is built, it will be funded by all of us through our govt? Why aren't the private sector folks rushing to fund this, or to fund the next bridge or road or upgrade the electric grid or extend wireless to the rural areas etc?

Yep...govt have no role indeed... Until the cost is too great to bear or some epidemic occurs or there is not enough cancer medicine- (like occurred recently), then suddenly govt have a role in our lives after all....

It seems that the govt making sure that there was more cancer meds available was not socialism then....but now the govt making sure that we all have healthcare is socialism and too intrusive?

What a country....

Peace.....

Thanks for hitting the nail on the head. If you drive, many states require you have car insurance. Under the law you also have to have a driver's license and there's that little thing called a wheel tax. Most of us fork over the required fees. Of course there are those that risk not getting caught and many do not, for driving without a license, insurance or paying wheel tax. Even if you don't drive, many states require you to have a state id that you pay for. We complain, but most ante up the $$.

Health insurance is going to have to be taken over in part by the government, because even a broken leg can cost you plenty out of pocket, even if you have an employer who pays all or part of your health insurance. Eventually, health insurance/health care will be one more tax. There will be "basic care" for 98% of us and the very rich, including most of Congress, will have unlimited care(most of them do, because they can afford it and most of us pay for it!

Forcing people to buy health insurance as a requirement for living is the right step?

This law requires people to buy health care if they can afford it, but it's still a bs law and totally unconstitutional for those that prefer not to. I didn't spend my whole life working out, eating healthy, dance classes, jogging, watching calories, so I could be forced to buy health care and make things cheaper for unhealthy slobs who don't really care about their health. If this law passes I'm leaving this country before 2015.

To Amanda. Good Bye, it's already law.

Amanda,

Health insurance isn't just for unhealthy slobs. The birth of my daughter would have cost well over $50,000 without insurance. With insurance I got away with paying about $3,600. Also I had an ER visit a few months ago for slamming a finger into my car door. It would have cost me $8,600 to get treated. I paid $90. Unless you're an investment banker on Wall St, odds are you can't afford to get your finger slammed in a car door or God forbid, you get a life threatening injury from a snake bite, car accident, or other unforeseen event. If you have the means, go for it. Where will you go? Europe? That's a socialist dystopia there. Canada? Socialized medicine there too. Mexico? Don't drink the water! China? Enjoy your restricted ability to communicate.

Yes!! Take some freakin' responsibility in your life and don't mooch off of others!!

If you are against the mandate then you MUST be a Democrat as you think I should be forced to pay for people like you that decide NOT to have any coverage and want to leach off of me?

Amanda Plumley

This law requires people to buy health care if they can afford it, but it's still a bs law and totally unconstitutional for those that prefer not to. I didn't spend my whole life working out, eating healthy, dance classes, jogging, watching calories, so I could be forced to buy health care and make things cheaper for unhealthy slobs who don't really care about their health. If this law passes I'm leaving this country before 2015.

Right - because healthy people never get cancer.

Hey Really... I'm just pointing out how much of a lemming the Republicans are... Duh!!! They listen to the likes of Limpballs and O'Reilly and go against the very nature of their party because they are told they must!!

Please explain how taking responsibility for ones self is bad? And if you DON'T then you should be penalized either through death (which no one will accept and then there will be an outcry of why didn't they treat them!!) or taxes for those too stupid to think of the possibility of needing coverage.

If Republicans truly were for less government then they would want this as they want each and every person to pay for themselves and NOT have the government OR other citizens cover the costs of those that think they "don't need it"!!

I know 3 people (like the self absorbed "I exercise" and don't need it Amanda) that "didn't need it" from the last company I was at that then mooched off of myself others by ending up in the hospital with no coverage! Then we got to hear "Oh, please give donations for our medical.." and then two of the three ended up just shirking the rest of the cost... So who do you think ended up covering for those people?? You and I through our coverage!!

Beaker1,

It's the cost of living in a society. Too many Republicans want to be lone wolves and not live in a society, pay taxes, etc. But don't try to take away cable TV, internet, cell phones, running water, electricity, or other perks of living in a society.

There's two solutions to the rising cost of health care: 1) Cover everybody so everybody contributes or 2) Only permit health care to the people who can afford it. Think of going into a hospital and getting a credit check while you bleed from a stab wound or go unconscious from a heart attack. Can't afford a life saving liver transplant because you suffer from a rare congenital disease? Too bad, enjoy your slow and painful death.

Amanda, thanks for the highlights of why you look great. Please leave your mirror long enough to look at 50 million uninsured Americans who could lose a loved one because they can not afford treatment. Forty five thousand Americans die every year because they can't afford treatment. When you leave add extra bubble wrap and label your mirrors fragile.

I'll take that over allowing people who can't afford it to die on the steps of hospitals. What are we supposed to do? Nobody wants their taxes to go to any social programs anymore that benefit the people who might need medical care (except for me, I'm all for helping any one in any way I can...that's how Americans used to be, and proudly so), so do we continue to let them die on the steps or do we find a way to make sure everyone has insurance?

Maybe it's not perfect but at least someone in our government is trying. I've never heard one person who bitches about this country's problem come up with a viable solution. Only complaints. And it's usually not a complaint because of a system, most people are completely ignorant of the ins and outs of any system but love it or hate because of who created it.

So what is the right step? Outside of "get rid of so and so", which is not a solution. What is the solution?

Really - "the ant and the grasshopper"... sigh... Your argument against the mandate is to quote something that shows WHY we should have the mandate?? YES, that is the point, people don't take responsibility for themselves like the grasshopper!!

So there should be a way to MAKE them do it, which is what this mandate does. True, some will still slip through and continue to leach off of me and others as they will have some reason they can't pay. Doesn't mean they won't use the services I pay for though!!

And if you think this will open the door for government control on everything else you need to remove your tin foil hat. If anything why is it that the government can limit my speed to 55 on highways? There was no speed limit in the constitution!! (and don't say they don't set it as they "withhold" funds if states don't follow the mandates they set already!!!)

Honestly do you think people will really choose purchasing insurance over a $600 fine? The law will most likely be found unconstitutional, however it would be even more inefficient.

I paid more than $600 out of pocket for an ER visit with insurance.

@SilverFlyer....there is just one SMALL problem. You quote using FactCheck, which, is liberal and ran by Obama-ites. In other words, FactCheck will COVER for Obama and is NOT a good source or UNBIASED source of information. Many don't know that, but its true. It is ran, owned, operated, by Obama's friends so obviously THEY are going to say his health care law is wonderful ?

Amanda, the fact is that you already do pay when someone who does not have insurance gets sick. If an uninsured person has a heart attack, the hospital treats them and writes it off if they cannot pay. Who essentially pays then? The tax payers!

This way, those that do not have insurance are at least putting in for that basic level of coverage.

As far as you paying more to cover sick people-that is and has always been how insurance works. 10 healthy people pay for 1 sick person. That is the reality of insurance always. I use less than 10% of what I and my company pay each year for my insurance. That goes to pay for the person who gets cancer or needs a heart translpant etc... That is how it works-nothing in this law is new about that.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas released his new financial disclosure form on Friday under pressure from Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) and others.

Mother Jones reported that his financial disclosure form indicates his wife, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, received a $150,000 salary from the group Liberty Central in 2010 and less than $15,000 from an anti-health care reform lobbying firm she founded.

Liberty Central, which she helped found, supports the repeal of the the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Weiner had taunted Thomas via Twitter on Friday, but his criticisms where quickly overshadowed by the so-called “Weinergate” fiasco that broke out Sunday. The congressman had previously called on Thomas to recuse himself from cases involving health care reform because of his wife’s financial connections to groups dedicated to its repeal.

“The appearance of a conflict of interest merits recusal under federal law,” a letter written by Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) and signed by 74 Members of Congress stated. “From what we have already seen, the line between your impartiality and you and your wife’s financial stake in the overturn of healthcare reform is blurred.”

The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 requires Supreme Court justices to disclose their spouse’s income, but Thomas had not disclosed Virginia’s income on his financial disclosure forms for 20 years.

“We knew that Justice Thomas’ family had a financial stake in opposing health care reform,” Weiner said Friday in a statement. “Now we know even more. It’s pretty clear the justice has one option here: recusal.”

Wow More Insurance touting Democrats touting on the need of Insurance. It is abserd to think that the need is there. The only reason insurance works is because you are paying for it. Before Insurance Companies existed people wer still treated by Doctors. It was a pay as you use system and it can still be that way. Insurance is nothing more then a scam. It is based off of probabilities and it is probably likely that everyone will need to see a doctor so they inflate prices so that 30 or 40 other people can get rich off of your $. The Hospitals, Staffs and Doctors don't get but maybee 30% of what you pay so you are fighting for a mandate to pay a middle man. There is your insurance. HEALTH CARE IS the only Commerce that dosn't have a requirement to price goods and services so therefore they can charge what ever they want. Where in this plan are these things addressed. Give us a break fix the problems not force your solutions which have nothing to do with the problems.

To buy a car and have insurance is a choice. To buy a house and have insurance is a choice. To work and pay income tax is a choice. Currently, to work and buy health insurance is a choice if available.

To be born and have to pay lawyers health insurance is not a choice. It's a infringement of our basic principles and freedom.

And I was just starting to warm up to Obama until this came about again.

Amanda, clearly your as blonde as your picture shows.

All of that dance class and fitness drain your IQ?

No matter how good of care you have taken of yourself, you could get cancer. You could get an autoimmune disease, you could develop an aneurysm and it burst. You are not immune from disease doing those things you have lowered your risks and that is commendable but not buying insurance, not having routine checkups with a gyn, is playing with fire and if you are not then you are doing everything you could to prevent catastrophic illness.

Oh and Amanda don't let the door hit you in the butt on your way out of the country but every other modern country has universal health care and higher taxes than we do. You just enjoy third world living.

Can the requirement for higher taxes in other countries be a by-product on the entitlements mandated? Could those countries now be going hardship in the EU because of their social policies?

So the argument for seems to be generally that people can't/won't take responsibility for their actions therefore a mandate is necessary to assure that everyone is protected and nobody is harmed and everything is "fair". Life is not fair people...kindergartners learn that (at least they used to). So when the current scheme fails under the structure as it is currently designed and single payer comes in to save the day (I know...I'm a whack job, save the comment), the same argument can be applied to your eating habits (those burgers are killing people), your hobbies (motorcycles are just too dangerous), etc. because after all, its costing us all money? Right?

A mandate is necessary to generate enough money to provide health care for as many people as possible. I'm in my mid 20's and frankly, paying for health insurance is not a worthwhile gamble because I am unlikely to need medical care. However, if everyone like me was required to have health insurance, there would be that much money in the pot for those who need it.

Too often, a serious medical problem is all but a death sentence for the uninsured. We have advanced enough in society that it need no longer be this way, and it is a shame that we are so far behind most other first-world countries in this respect.

And to those claiming "its unconstitutional," why don't you please back it up with an explanation why you think that? I'm guessing most of you have never read the constitution, let alone understand its meaning.

Hey dumbo- Commerce clause you low IQ moron. Can you think??

But you are probably ok with Kagan, her deep involvement in crafting the ACA with the Obama administration was not a conflict huh! Funny how you see things only to the left. And please leave Anita Hill the liar out of this.

People came to this country for freedom, not healthcare. If you want free healthcare move to Canada or Cuba!

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas released his new financial disclosure form on Friday under pressure from Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) and others.

Mother Jones reported that his financial disclosure form indicates his wife, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, received a $150,000 salary from the group Liberty Central in 2010 and less than $15,000 from an anti-health care reform lobbying firm she founded.

Liberty Central, which she helped found, supports the repeal of the the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Weiner had taunted Thomas via Twitter on Friday, but his criticisms where quickly overshadowed by the so-called “Weinergate” fiasco that broke out Sunday. The congressman had previously called on Thomas to recuse himself from cases involving health care reform because of his wife’s financial connections to groups dedicated to its repeal.

“The appearance of a conflict of interest merits recusal under federal law,” a letter written by Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) and signed by 74 Members of Congress stated. “From what we have already seen, the line between your impartiality and you and your wife’s financial stake in the overturn of healthcare reform is blurred.”

The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 requires Supreme Court justices to disclose their spouse’s income, but Thomas had not disclosed Virginia’s income on his financial disclosure forms for 20 years.

“We knew that Justice Thomas’ family had a financial stake in opposing health care reform,” Weiner said Friday in a statement. “Now we know even more. It’s pretty clear the justice has one option here: recusal.”

Freeman1 until, and unless, the Supreme court of the United States says otherwise Obamacare is the law. YOU move out of the country country if YOU don't like it. Why are so many opposed to health care coverage for all? Jesus would be for it I am sure. Why are you so opposed to it?

When we see how they vote then we'll know what the corporations that control our country wanted.

I like how people try to equate Thomas' bias with Kagan's. As if having a financial interest in the outcome of the case is anything like thinking the bill was solid law with good policy.

As if having a financial interest in the outcome of the case is anything like thinking the bill was solid law with good policy.

She was a hired mouthpiece. Her financial interest was her pay check. She would have argued that the moon was made of cheese without batting an eye.

The ILLEGALS are encouraged to break laws, providing they vote for the corrupt politicians that encourage them. They will be fed, get housing, get healthcare, get everything that we Americans work for!!!

How about every illegal caught be interrogated to determined who hired them, for how long and what they were paid... and if taxes, social security and medicare were deducted from their wages. The issue is as much people hiring them as them coming here.

The corporations want the illegals here because it drives down labor costs. If illegals were bad for corporate profits then they would be gone. The needs and the desires of the common citizen are irrelevant.

Of course, illegals do not have to have the health insurance- only us fools do. We will pay for anything they need... This needs to be put down. It is already a major fight, and even if the Court does DECREE it to be the law of the land- this will be another straw on the Camel's back between Americans. This nation is way too split on this idea.

I am optomistically thinking the mandated health insurance will help curb part of illegal immigrant problem. No proof of health insurance will separated the citizens from the non-citizens.

If they are ILLEGAL, help them and turn them over to ICE for deportation. If the are LEGAL, help them and then work on reimbursement. If there is absolutely no way to collect reimbursement, it would be covered by a fund that the carriers set up for this situation.

Now that the President and Janet Napolitano has given ICE prosecutorial discretion regarding deportation. ICE will no longer deport all illegals. They will only press cases against felons, repeat offenders, gang members, those with an egregious record of immigration violations and those who pose a risk to national security.

Is that why this president has deported more illegals than any other?

Pragmatic-3918582

Is that why this president has deported more illegals than any other?

That is not true, but amuse me and cite your facts and sources to substantiate that..

Pragmatic, your point however true is irrelevant when the border is not being secured to keep them deported. When states are being bashed bc they are standing up to illegal immigration by the Obama administration it defeats the purpose of deporting them.

Now if Obama stopped all the petty injunctions and lawsuits on these states and instead used those funds to open more immigration offices right in the major crossing zones and kept our men and women returning from other nations employed temporarily on the border to keep out the deported, then we might have a better argument to retain him as POTUS. A POTUS who ran 'pro border fencing' issue!! He believed we had a border security issue to the extent a fence was necessary, now he suddenly gets elected and no longer believes that?

I am getting sick of people using the 'but, but he has deported more than anyone else' argument. If I keep finding a coyote in my hen house every night, catch him and take him a few miles away from my hen house, keep leaving the door open to the hen house, the coyote knows where there is food so he will keep coming back bc its easy pickings with the door open. Eventually all my good laying hens will be gone, so no eggs for me and then all the rest of my hens will be gone, so I am out of food. My stored resources will dwindle until I am forced to ask for assistance to feed MY family. How much sense does that make. I should have been smart and closed the door and maybe shot the coyote but I do not like to take lives so to keep my conscience clean all I have to do is shut the door. Maybe not the greatest comparison but it was the simplest one I could come up with.

And please refrain from calling me a racist, I am not!!!

The idea is that if everyone is paying, things will get cheaper, its a socialist program and not only is it completely unconstitutional, it will also backfire or be abused in some way as socialist programs always are.

I don't have health care, I've never needed health care, and If I'm forced to buy it just to stay in this country I'll leave first.

You will eventually. Uncontrollable things will happen in life. People need insurance. I just don't agree with how the government is attempting to fix it.

We had a baby born 9 weeks early. The bill is over $600,000 right now and the billing isn't over. It has took them 9 months and all the billing isn't complete.

The inefficiency of the health care field as a whole is one of the biggest reasons for the cost of health care.

You are forced to pay for SS, Medicare, unemployment, and Medicaid. The argument against on the mandate ground is largely emotional and political.

Wrong, They simply don't work. Problem solved don't have to pay for any of it. It's definitely political and emotional, however those two things never lead to good decisions.

Everybody uses health care whether they buy insurance or not. Those that can't afford insurance (I pay $1,700 a month, more than my mortgage, to insure me and my family) can't afford their medical bills either. When they don't pay, somebody does. So you should care, Amanda, that people are mooching off the system as it is now, driving the cost of your insurance-free doctor visits higher and higher. And if you've never needed a doctor in any way, just wait. Old age has a habit of making you need it, even if you're in top physical condition your whole life.

You have a choice, everyone obtains insurance...or when folks without coverage show up for treatment in the EM without money they are left in the street to die.

It's all about responsibility, both personal and as a society.

Amanda Plumley

The idea is that if everyone is paying, things will get cheaper, its a socialist program and not only is it completely unconstitutional, it will also backfire or be abused in some way as socialist programs always are.

I don't have health care, I've never needed health care, and If I'm forced to buy it just to stay in this country I'll leave first.

So if you decide to have kids some day- will you pay for the delivery with cash? What about if you get gravely ill - are you OK with hospital bills bankrupting you?

Really.

Can you buy a car without a seat belt? It you could, would it be legal?

The government already mandates that you do many things. It is not a problem for me since I vote and have a voice in who my elected officials are and on the decisions that they make.

Hey Really, try telling the millions who currently enjoy the benefits of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid that they are "failed systems". Seniors alone would laugh you out of the room.

No Mike,

Amanda is Ok with mooching off the rest of us for her needs. She is EXACTLY the kind of person that requires we have this statute in the law. People like her are the problem, not the rest of us.

I'd be Ok with Amanda not having to pay any tax as long as she is willing to get a tattoo that says she has no insurance so when she gets injured in a car accident, falls down the stairs and gets a brain injury, or gets cancer and then they can wheel her out into the street to die.

People that "think" they can afford to pay for a hospital stay have never actually seen how much they cost and are fooling themselves and mooching off of others.. My wife spent 2 weeks in intensive care as she was the passenger in a car accident that wasn't her fault and the hospital came after her for over $200k. And that didn't even include the cost of the 7 other surgeries she needed AFTER she "got better" to remove rods, add screws, put in plates and other items.

Really,

I am 55 years old and I recall ten years ago that "they" said that social security would not be around in the next ten years.

By the way, The ACA is already law.

this is going to backfire badly people will not submit to it and your talking about a huge huge group of people that will simply say no. The court can rule whatever they want the president can say whatever he wants but all in all they simply will not pay.

Really,

This would NOT be precedent to force you to buy any product. It would be precedent to force you to buy any product, that if you did NOT buy it, it would cause the price of that product to go up for everyone else. And that is a good precedent. If your refusal to buy a product caused the price to increase for everyone else, becasue everyone eventually needs the product then you should be forced to buy the product or pay a fine

You are trying to compare apples and oranges

The Goverment has a reign on cost assosiated with Medicare and Medicade so cost are controlled in these programs. There is nothing in this plan that would controll the costs of Medical treatment or the cost of this particular insurance mandate. You pay a specific amouont out of your earnings each pay period up to the set dollar amounts. Then on top of that you will pay for specified needs from your ss check where is anything like that in this bill. These insurance companies can charge you whatever and there is nothing you can do about it. In an open market you can refuse to pay the middleman and pay for your services directly. The ones providing service receives their payment directly and dosn't have to wait 3-4 months for the middleman to pay them. All the rethoric is just that it is a simple minded attempt to make it appear as if the problem was fixed. If more Doctors and Hospitals refused insurance and dealt with cash only you may even see their costs drop. You don't have insurance to pay your grocer, barber, butcher and for the energy you use cause you know you will need it and most people don't have an insurance plan for their legal needs but you think you need it for your medical needs. This is the attitude and belife that has caused the problem. Lets get this repealed and get the Real Changes that are needed.

the government already forces you to buy from a 3rd party insurance... it is call auto insurance... hence the reason i don't drive cause i can't afford auto insurance... i would just sit at home and die like so many are saying i should do...but when i try they lock me up for attempted suicide... go figure

So, Gene.....you are going to just pay cash out of pocket for your care? You must be part of the "1%" to be able to afford that.. My extremely healthy 32 year old daughter's first month's bill for her breast cancer diagnosis, pre-op testing, physician consults, bilateral mastectomy with reconstruction, with just a 2 day hospital stay was over $100,000. That does not include the cost of 3 months of of chemotherapy and follow-up care and testing, and the continued follow-up care, medications, and testing for many years (basically forever). She is alive and well and yes, she had and continues to have insurance. People like you (and Amanda) are the ones who get in over their heads, declare bankruptcy, and don't pay - it is the rest of us taxpayers and insurance payers who end up with higher taxes and higher insurance rates because of YOU failing to plan for your future. The Affordable Care Act brings in a bigger pool of money from healthy people until they also have a need.....whether at a young age because of an unexpected disease diagnosis or because of an automobile accident (even if not their fault). It allows people to maintain good health by having annual physicals and detecting health problems early, thus treating at lower costs. The overall result is a healthier population, and LOWER costs for everyone. For anyone who says they don't want to pay for other's healthcare costs.......well, you already are....with higher taxes and higher hospital bills, higher doctor's bills, higher medication costs, and higher test costs (labs, x-rays, MRI's, etc. And those of us who are smart enough to buy insurance....our insurance costs are higher because of your lack of foresight. Go ahead and leave the country if you want......you won't find it any better anywhere else.......all European countries, and most other countries already have a much stricter universal health care system....and it works. The ones that don't are countries where you wouldn't want to live.

Amanda:

The idea is that if everyone is paying, things will get cheaper, its a socialist program and not only is it completely unconstitutional, it will also backfire or be abused in some way as socialist programs always are.

I don't have health care, I've never needed health care, and If I'm forced to buy it just to stay in this country I'll leave first.

Kudos and well done. Quite possibly the most shallow and uninformed opinion I have ever read.

Smilynn has me smiling thinking about this post !

Good post ! Absolutely right.

The U.S needs to realize that we cannot buy friendship with other countries. It is a policy that has been entrenched in the minds of idiots for decades. It is a failing policy !

Keep our taxpayer money at home and use it here !!!!!!!!!!!!

We are the most powerful country in the world precisely because of the foreign policy of "sending our money to other countries". Should we seed our influence to China or Russia?

That's a very uninformed statement. Illegals account for 1.5% of healthcare costs in the entire country, and they are estimated to be 4% of the total population. Obviously, they are not the main driver of costs here. They are definitely a problem, but not the huge boogieman they tell you it is.

You should be more worried about the 18%, and growing, of uninsured that go to emergency room only once they are in really bad shape, instead of addressing health concern when they are in the early stages. Problems that could have been prevented are just ignored and that makes the costs skyrocket.

Worry about: doctors prescribing unnecessary procedures, drug companies paying for direct consumer advertising, medical device manufacturers marketing procedures with no actual value, insurance companies with huge overhead costs and CEOs with ridiculous pay scales, unscrupulous lawyers ripping off the system, medicare and medicaid fraud, medical schools overcharging for tuition, professional associations forcing fees for licensing... you get the idea...

The
Supreme Court of Injustice that is totally whacked like Tea bagging history of
the way they have ruled in the past striking down McCain/Feingold campaign law to show transparency
in Elections by a 5 to 4 margin along there party lines the justices are most
surely at odds over the RECLUSING
themselves from cases that they are illegally ruling on.

The
Truth is Health Care carriers have constantly said the reason High premiums exist is the uninsured. Further research has pointed
directly at the reason Premiums that were exploding at rates so fast before
this law of Health Care passed have now consistently been held more in check
then in previous years without proving the Law is starting to rein in cost.
Research also has proved that the lobbyist are trying to overturn anything
related to HealthCare law in order to return to the outrages profits and
increases in premiums they had been used to before the law existed.

Sending $ out is making this country great? I do not think so. I think that what is making this country great is that America picked up so much momentum in the decades when it was really starting to take care of it's own, that it is still living upon this energy - that is rapidly becoming a myth. As for becoming great from giving $ away, if this was a universal effect, we would see everyone around us filled with charity. And still, charity is a good thing; but it is not considered charity to give to evil that falls under another definition.

I'm Sorry but for a much loved giving nation there sure were an awful lot of people cheering as the towers fell on 9-11!!!

and wasn't the whole concept behind the act that we Americans sway too much of the world with our policies and acts of open immorality that are viewed as "the thing to emulate' by their younger generations?

Close'em up folks, paying for their allegiance is not a good bet you will keep it or that you actually ever truly had it!! I will take the neighbor next door who help me take trash out when he sees me carrying a large load over the other neighbor who I pay to keep his dog from relieving himself on my lawn.

Totally unconstitutional and imposing on our right to LIVE!!.... this country is going to far.

And unless you were born in a home birth, gotten no vaccinations, never gotten antibiotics for an illness, and never had a physical, you've used health care. You have a right to live, but think about how your living self got to be the age it is with health care. Who paid for that health care?

The
Supreme Court of Injustice that is totally whacked like Tea bagging history of
the way they have ruled in the past striking down McCain/Feingold campaign law to show transparency
in Elections by a 5 to 4 margin along there party lines the justices are most
surely at odds over the RECLUSING
themselves from cases that they are illegally ruling on.

The
Truth is Health Care carriers have constantly said the reason High premiums exist is the uninsured. Further research has pointed
directly at the reason Premiums that were exploding at rates so fast before
this law of Health Care passed have now consistently been held more in check
then in previous years without proving the Law is starting to rein in cost.
Research also has proved that the lobbyist are trying to overturn anything
related to HealthCare law in order to return to the outrages profits and
increases in premiums they had been used to before the law existed.

I do not feel it is my resposibility to pay for anyones health care other than my family

You already have been for a long time now.

Any one who is now paying health insurance or property tax are paying for everyone who does not have or choose not to have insurance when they go to the hospital. Ms Plumley really thinks she will never get sick or be in an accident is living in lala land. I bet she will go to an emergency room if she get sick or seriously injured and we who pay for insurance/property tax will pay her bill. She should just say thank you very much to all of suckers...

Sorry Anthony, that is the way society works. All of us live off of the work of others, be it roads and highways, running water, electricity. Nobody made it all on their own.

None of that matters. It had special interest support.

It has the support of home land security, the real idea behind it is everyone needs to visit a doctor eventually, and I'm betting there is a loophole some where in this law that allows the government access to our health care records. It's a way for big brother to keep tabs on us. I wouldn't be to surprised if bar code tattoos are the next requirement to live in this country. Big brother needs to take a pill, and go reread the constitution.

Oh no! The government knows I sprained my ankle when I was 10! WHAT WILL I DO?! *ahem* In all seriousness you have a hunch there is some loophole and yet have no proof of it. I'd be a pretty vocal activist against it if such a thing existed.

If you want to talk special interests, just follow the money and find out who is funding your opinion against the health care law. Big pharma, for-profit insurance companies, and small government watchdog groups. Nothing wrong with the last one, but the other two are well-known and troublesome.

Dear Amanda:

Inquiring minds want to know....

What country do you plan on removing to that does not have some form of Govt mandated health insurance?

I realize you are very, very, VERY young, but YOU are the person that SHOULD be required to carry insurance. You are not immune from catastrophic illness, and you would be the leech on the system that would not be able to pay, driving costs up for everyone else.