This decision will either define or redefine the founding principles of this nation...either result will amount to the single most influential court action in any of our lifetimes

And what should upset us all is that what they are deciding has absolutely NOTHING to do with the effectiveness, the legitimacy, or the moral construct of the Affordable Care Act. The only question that will get an answer... a POLITICAL answer... is whether or not the federal government can tell us to buy insurance under the COMMERCE clause of the Constitution.

This decision is NOT about freeloaders going to the emergency room for the flu ON MY DIME. Or the roll-over accident victim that had no insurance and cost us HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of dollars before they even regain consciousness. This decision IS NOT about the fact that this option was a compromise solution that kept the private industry involved in the solution while forgoing the need for a single-payer system.

This IS NOT, at all, a decision that will settle a damn thing... it will give fodder to one side or the other, but that's about all.

Mr. P, this is FAR less dramatic than you make this out to be. If it's allowed, it will be because of existing precedence. And if it is not, it will be because it did not match existing precedence on some level. No?

'If the justices allow the insurance mandate to stand, he said, then it "would allow Congress to control the most basic of decisions about how to live life – in other words, to withhold from individuals the very liberty that the Constitution was designed to protect." '

That's the crux of the issue.

If this precedent is allowed to stand, there will be no area of life that the Federal Government will not be able to 'dictate' to us, under the guise that 'it's necessary for the common good'. Once a precedent is set, there are no limits to how broadly it may be applied, as evident from the current interpretation of the 'commerce clause'.

This is not about 'health care', it is about the ability of the Federal Government to impose dictatorial control of every aspect of our lives - a direct challenge to the very core of the Constitution.

This decision is NOT about freeloaders going to the emergency room for the flu ON MY DIME

Are you not upset that millions upon millions of Non US citizens are going to the emergency room on YOUR DIME? Isnt that part of the bloated expense that we are all having a problem with? Or is addressing that problem racist or bigoted in some form?

This is exactly about freeloaders going to the ER on your dime. That is the main argument of the government, that everyone eventually needs medical treatment ( usually at the ER ) and those who don't have insurance cause everyone else to pay their costs.

If the Federal Government can force us to buy health coverage what is next? Like most government programs the cost is unsustainable. And where will the additional monies come from? I can just here it now. A study will magically appear that fat people cost the health care system more. So if your weight is out of proportion to your height, you will pay a fat tax in additional going on a government approved exercise program. Next certain foods that the Feds don't like you eating will be banned. Own a gun? Uh-oh, you have to pay a tax because gun violence adds to the health care debt. It will never end.

I'm impressed by how many people would sacrifice what remains of their protection from oppressive government just to win one particular result. There are zillions of ways to make health care better (but ObamaCare is not one of them) that don't tromple the Constitution.

Would any of those who would fundamentally end Federalism just for some perceived economic advantage care to explain your logic?

Dump this one and start over. This time do a real reform and not one that is based upon making lawyers rich.

To those who hyperventilate over ER costs, you should know that the costs you deplore amount to about 2% of our health care costs. ObamaCare has already done more damage than that, and the projected carnage over the coming decades is far greater.

@Lmarc

If you were in 100% full support for every other freeloader in our society, I might take you seriously...there is an easier and way more fair way to deal with healthcare freeloaders... require that any bills are paid by the care recipient, with state and federal powers that already exist...ie patient goes to doctor, without insurance or willingness to pay...the doctor/hospital submits that bill to the state or federal...the "gov" pays the care giver, then collects through paycheck garnishments, tax refund withholding etc

HOW ON EARTH does this work in England, Japan, Canada, and most of Europe? Are they 'less free' and has the government started dictating every aspect of their lives? Hardly.

I'D say we are 'less free' because we are tied to jobs we may hate, not free to move to a new state, a new job, or to be an entrepreneur. We live in fear of a disease or accident and our thousand-dollar-a-month insurance saying "sayonara, sucker!"

If this law was a 'government takeover' it would probably be more affordable and equitable. As it stands, the day it passed, the insurance stocks went up. If that doesn't tell you something, you're lost in la-la- land.

The government can't make you buy anything if this stands. There is not another issue like it.

Take the "car" example. You can't drive a car off the lot and have someone else pay for it.

Overblown right wing arguments. "This is the most important issue about our freedom.......". The most important item about our freedom was the Patriot Act, which passed right over our heads.

If they strike down the federal mandate, most states will enact their own. So much for the political issue of the mandate.

Also, tort reform is a non-gainer. Texas did it and it did nothing to lower health care costs.

Everyone will need health care, compelling everyone to get some is not wrong. I'm tired of excluding people with pre-existing conditions, or stopping insurance because of some predefined limit.

Republicans have no plans to replace it. Without some form of mandate health care costs will rise.

This decision is NOT about freeloaders going to the emergency room for the flu ON MY DIME

Kornfed: Are you not upset that millions upon millions of Non US citizens are going to the emergency room on YOUR DIME? Isnt that part of the bloated expense that we are all having a problem with? Or is addressing that problem racist or bigoted in some form?

Good morning Kornfed. My point was that whatever was decided was NOT about the validity or necessity for addressing the "freeloader in the ER" issue. In other words, I AM upset that they go to the ER on my dime and that I wish that THAT ISSUE was part of the Supreme Court argument...

In other words: The Supreme Court should rule that as long as the states allow people to show up at the ER and get free service that costs the federal government and U.S. citizens our tax dollars by driving up hospital costs, the federal government can force people to buy insurance to eliminate that unfair burden.

And yes, the burden of illegal immigrants in the ER should be addressed as well. Can we force them to buy insurance as well?

Your point is important, but, again, has NOTHING to do with what is being considered today... THAT is what I'm upset about.

Mr. P,

require that any bills are paid by the care recipient, with state and federal powers that already exist

I agree. But it has been tried. Hospitals have a huge system of collectors/lenders/"chasers" behind them that try to collect after the fact.

Are you suggesting people get turned away without proof of insurance or cash? In an emergency?

@ Roy Wilson...your contempt for this law couldn't be more wrong. You make the point that, and I quote, "If this precedent is allowed to stand, there will be no area of life that the Federal Government will not be able to 'dictate' to us, under the guise that 'it's necessary for the common good', which you bold for particular emphasis.

How have we forgotten history?!?!? The federal government has done this, as well as the Supreme Court, in many cases and for the common good of our country. Remember the repeal of the old Jim Crow laws? The forbadding of the premise of 'seperate but equal'? What about the instituting of Title VII? The outlawing of slavery? The instituting of the Clean Air and Water Act? Those are a few of the biggies, but this happens on a much smaller scale every year without the sense of loss of freedom and distress expressed by some of our brethern.

It is at times like these when it is encumbent on our nation and our government to act on an injustice that has riddled our country for a very long time. It is honorable and moral to accept and believe that everyone is entitled to healthcare. We are not immortals, prone to get sick or hurt and not always by your own doing, but still, as humans, not everyone is in position to "afford" the delivery of such services given their economic station in life. For that, you and I, who can afford to pay for our insurance coverage, are asked to share the burden of cost for those who cannot or willing opt out of the purchase of insurance, whose costs are annually driven higher not by the delivery of services to illegal aliens, as Kornfed above would suggest, but by a greedy capitalist industry that drives up the costs of insurance for their profitable business ventures.

I would argue this mandate, that is driving so many of our citizenry nuts, is no different that the state imposed law that requires one to have car insurance or pay an uninsured motorist fee. Now, not all states have this law, but the point made is that those who do not purchase insurance, drives up the cost for the rest of us regardless of which state you reside, thereby affecting interstate commerce, the very premise being argued in the highest court today.

I don't fear the "slippery slope" that some are going bonkers over. As a nation, if something pushed through Congress truly represents an ill that the majority of us can't live with, then like those in Wisconsin did to their state legislators...you throw the bums out. However, our nation is equally split on this issue and many who oppose do so on this false premise of a 'loss of freedom'...a trigger phrase that causes many to react emotinally without first applying thought.

The court has no problems creating law out of thin air so what is constitutional is probably not relevant.

You should have said THIS court has no problem creating law out of thin air. I don't think any Supreme Court in history has been this active in legislating from the bench.

Still, we'll have to wait and see.

These protesters upset me a bit. I can see where they come from, the individual mandate can be viewed as unconstitutional, but, if this bill was championed by the right (like they tried in the 90's, same mandate required) the right wingers would be for it, the lefties would be against it, and the righties would be screaming about personal responsibility being a good thing. But since it was a dem who championed the bill they scream about its existence. It makes no since, grow up people.

FYI - I support the bill and our President, but do think the individual mandate took things to far. If the right hasn't tried to associate universal health care with socialism then we would all pay a tax, and all get health care and no one would have to pay for anyone else. We are the only civilized nation that doesn't offer such services to its citizens, and we have the highest rate of preventable death in the civilized world. So before you demean Canada's health care just remember, you will live longer there than you will here, and having a car accident or heart attack wont destroy your financially for the rest of your life.

How is it that they would expect someone who has been unemployed for a lengthy period to afford mandatory health insurance?

@L

exactly opposite...every doctor / hospital would have a guarantee that the bill (every) would be paid, if not by the recipient or his insurance, then by the state or Fed...in which case the state or Fed would collect from that individual, thru wage garnuishments or tax refund withholding or even community service (work off the debt cleaning up the parks)

LMarcT

And yes, the burden of illegal immigrants in the ER should be addressed as well. Can we force them to buy insurance as well?

Your point is important, but, again, has NOTHING to do with what is being considered today... THAT is what I'm upset about.

I thought Roy Wilson addressed the point you were trying to make better than I could. I thought I would bring up an aspect of the overall problem that is very symbolic of the lack of problem solving our Federal Government is actually willing to perform.

As to your question as to whether we can expect these illegals to buy insurance as well...the answer is clearly, no. Nor will our poor be able to pay, it will be subsidized in the end. How do you expect the poor to pay for insurance, or the fines, if they do not have a dime to spare? Believe me, this has not gone under the radar of those that have crafted this bill. Just as their estimate in over all cost, it is subject to later revision, after the bill has been enacted. We have been deliberatly decieved yet again, and I, personally, am sick and tired of it.

As a soon to be medical professional I see the health care disparities every day. I volunteer at the free clinic on Saturdays to provide care to individuals that otherwise cannot afford to see a doctor or obtain appropriate medication. I have also volunteered in the ER and see the types of cases that walk in, most of them do not have to be there because they can be addressed in a primary care setting. In ER you are by law required to receive care and you can get away with not paying, especially if you have no address to send the bill to or you move frequently.

When comparing the American healthcare system to other developed countries ours ranks poorly. We also spend more on healthcare/person then other countries. In other countries all citizens have insurances and easy access to primary care.

Most cases that I have seen so far (primary care setting, free clinic, even the medical examiners office) deal with patients that have multiple chronic issues (e.g. hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia). These issues should be addressed early and monitored frequently. This should be done in a primary care setting using appropriate tools (e.g. good patient-doctor rapport, medications). These chronic diseases start for some people in their 20's and 30's so mandating that everyone have insurance and access to preventative medicine is absolutely necessary.

Just some food for thought, doctors/hospitals/lawyers/etc. make more money when people have serious complications or chronic illnesses that require intensive care and expensive medications. We also make more money when people keep smoking, don't wear helmets and drive after drinking alcohol. However, we don't go into the medical field for the money or the glory (just look at how long it takes us to get a real job, pay off our debts and actually get some good sleep) we go into it because we want to heal. That is why we want everyone to have health insurance so they can have access to good/proper healthcare without going bankrupt.

I hope that all of this negative rhetoric does not stop those who are trying to make the system better.

For all of those anti health insurance people Obama ran on a health insurance / health care for all platform and was elected along with a majority of Democrats in the Senate and House on the same issue. Americans put them in office to do this very thing. I support a socialized system instead of this awkward corporate profit guarantee system but I'm ahead of most in the game, it will come when we get tired of paying extra each month so a few people can make huge salaries.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says the government can't do this, most people confuse the Constitution with the Bill of Rights, but there is something in the Constitution's fundamental purposes and guiding principles that requires it. In the Preamble the government is required to "promote the general welfare." No one can argue that health care isn't general welfare.

Next certain foods that the Feds don't like you eating will be banned.

We already see this kind of intrusion into our personal lives. What about the movement to tax soda and soft drinks? How about the tax on alcoholic beverages? Or cigarettes?

It's already happening and has been happening for some time now. So subtle you barely notice.

Personally, I think there should be other ways to avoid the insurance mandate.

For instance, keeping a cool million or two in an escrow account, or an irrevocable letter of credit for ten million dollars from a bank or other financial instution.

Not that any of that would help me with the deadbeat who sprained his ankle at a Fourth of July picnic and skipped out on his emergency room bill. His name is only a few letters different from mine, so every few months I start getting phone calls from new debt collection agencies until I can convince them that almost the same name means different name, and that different name coupled with different birth date and different social security number mean different person, and therefore not obligated to pay someone else's debt.

But these days, Republican politicians don't believe in things like personal responsibility or civic duty.

I agree that the Health System needs to be improved!!!! But this is absolutely the wrong way to go about doing it!

Your sentiment is certainly appreciated but mandating anything is not a feasible way to resolve them Health coverage in this Coutry. Aside from that... this law does much more than provide Health care... It deprivates us of some very basic freedoms and that is unacceptable!

This law needs to be thrown out entirely and a new, less intrusive Bill needs to be proposed that forces the current, privately hel insurance companies to abide by stricter rules and regulations... The government has yet to ever be successful with any agency that has been created in the past so why anyone thinks this would be any different is beyond me!

You have seen it in the US, but probably have not experienced it in other countries. Best of luck getting to a specialist in Canada or Europe in the same timely manner as here in the USA. I've had an experience with my own child where multiple doctors, including specialists, told me there was nothing wrong with her. I pressed the issue with another specialist who solved a major problem. I would not have been able to do this in Europe or Canada because you always have to get approval to move forward. Sometimes waiting ends in death or serious disability. I'd rather be in debt than have a child who is dead or disabled because of the system.

My cousin had cancer and was dead at 21 in Canada. My neighbors mom passed away in England 2 weeks ago. They did not get treatment as fast as friend/family in the USA with the same problems. The other countries seem to have a great system until you actually get a major problem. Those citizens usually have no clue of how good we have it here in the US.

I want the government to stay out of my healthcare and health insurance.

Next certain foods that the Feds don't like you eating will be banned.

How is requiring you to be responsible for your own debts (so that I don't have to pay them, like I do now) the same as the federal government (as opposed to the Federal Reserve System commonly referred to as "the Fed") forcing you to eat your vegetables.

I don't care if you eat potato chips or broccoli, just pay your own medical bills so that I don't have to.

2014MD

As a soon to be medical professional I see the health care disparities every day

Are you not concerned that your pay will soon be part of the mandate as well? I suggest you research what happens to medical professional's pay in a socialized system. If the majority of you are willing to have the Federal Government fix your pay, and those that, in the future, are considering the medical profession still have the desire to help their fellow man, then I will concede that we are on the right track.

My fear is that our best and brightest will not pursue the medical profession under these circumstances, thus giving us a shortage of workers in a system that will demand far more than are already involved in medicine. Here is where those wait times for care, and priorities come into play.....

Are you not upset that millions upon millions of Non US citizens are going to the emergency room on YOUR DIME?

The actual numbers are closer to tens of millions of native-born US citizens, a few hundred immigrant citizens, and two or three non-citizens.

According to the Rand Corporation, immigrants pay their medical bills. Native-born US citizens quite often do not, especially when they have no insurance (and then the deadbeats try to shift the blame to immigrants, while the rest of us get stuck paying the bill in the form of higher prices).

Which is why we need to have an individual mandate.

Enough of the deadbeats and freeloaders.

this law does much more than provide Health care... It deprivates us of some very basic freedoms and that is unacceptable!

Requiring you to be responsible for paying for your own medical care does not "deprivate" you of any freedoms you deserve to have.

Being a freeloader is unacceptable.

Paying twice as much per capita as every other industrialized nation pays for medical care (like we do now) is unacceptable.

The 'freedom' to be a deabeat is unacceptable.

I would not have been able to do this in Europe or Canada

Baloney.

We are already forced into "Interstate Commerce" for our own good. Be interesting to listen to the Justices, especially if they claim we aren't.

Commonsense,

Are you not upset that millions upon millions of Non US citizens are going to the emergency room on YOUR DIME?

The actual numbers are closer to tens of millions of native-born US citizens, a few hundred immigrant citizens, and two or three non-citizens.

The is the worst case of denial I have seen in ages.

the cost is unsustainable.

The cost of eliminating ACA is much higher than keeping it.

1. ACA will LOWER the federal budget deficit by $160 billion over 10 years.

2. Without universal health care, Americans pay double per capita what other wealthy nations pay for health care. The current system most certainly does NOT save money.

3. Requiring ALL Americans will to have insurance will expand the pool of people paying in to the system by 50 million people per year, but the number of people receiving health care will not change.

I have a great job, but bad health insurance. I pay $350 per month in premiums for the lowest plan my company offers. When I see a doctor, it is a $40 co-pay, but if I need any extra tests they seem to always run about $500 each. Last year I needed an MRI - $500. I also needed some sinus tests to find out why I'm always getting dizzy and catching a cold every few months - also $500 - but I didn't get that one, because I didn't have the extra money. If I was younger, I'd just cancel the insurance and put that $350 a month into a savings account specifically for health care costs, but I'm in my mid 40s and am afraid that I'll be diagnosed with some disease and not be able to pay. Plus I have a 20 year old, full time student daughter who also needs to be insured. So I continue to pay. I wouldn't mind the high cost of premiums if I knew all of my costs would be included.

I'm absolutely for a socialized form of medicine. I would not mind paying higher taxes to insure that no one would be forced to forego medical treatment because they can't pay. Maybe they could bump payroll taxes up a bit and also add a bit to sales tax (I realize that some states don't currently have sales tax). That way, everyone is at least paying a little bit toward the cost. My daughter's boyfriend's father died at age 50, because he had a treatable illness but couldn't afford to go to the doctor. When he finally went to the ER it was too late. That should never happen in America, but it does every day. But there are so many out there who are so afraid that they might pay a little bit more for something than the next guy and not get as much use. We are all in this together and just think of how much better everything would be if medical expenses were one less thing we had to worry about!

Kornfed, at least I can point to legitimate research on the issue. You have nothing to back up your claim.

That's because your claim is a lie. The denial is all yours.

As the links below indicate, immigrants account for a tiny fraction of non-elderly health care that the goverment or the rest of us have to pay for. Immigrants account for a much smaller fraction of elderly health care, and elderly health care is where most of the costs are incurred.

http://www.joepaduda.com/archives/001031.html

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9230/index1.html

http://usafamilymedicine.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/about-health-care-costs-and-citizenship/

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-11/rc-rss110906.php

http://foundationcenter.org/pnd/news/story.jhtml?id=162600004

http://psychcentral.com/news/archives/2006-11/rc-rss110906.html

That would explain things Kornfed, your logic on a subject you clearly have a very limited knowledge of translates to meaningless rantings making it sound like you just hate people in general. Because clearly we need to build more bombs and spend less money on the American people.

Economist after economist has painted the figures of the conservatives as wrong, and your logic is based off of your lack of information. Try educating yourself on the subject before trying to portray yourself as someone with a clue.

I have to say at least DB Akron has educated himself on the complexities of the issues before posting his conservative views. Health care is not like any other industry, end of story. When you are dealing with customers that cannot pay for services at the time they are rendered, nor can they make guarantees of how they can pay it much of the time, it negates the usual business principals that republicans try to use.

By the way I am not really sure what illegals have to do with this...do you really think that they are going to be buying into this insurance? Trust me they are already use the system, you have always been paying for their healthcare. This is making sure Americans can get reasonably priced coverage and its not a great plan but right now the republicans are trying to crush the health care system. The costs of healthcare are proportional to the amount of people who can't pay for the services. Its just not cheap.

Personal insults is a liberal thing, Rush Limbaugh never called anyone a slut? You didn't agree with his assessment? Please Korn I have watched you insult people frequently. Me saying you are uneducated on the subject is observation based on your posts. I am a nurse, I know this subject is complicated and I also know the average person has very little concept about how the system really works. You yourself said that you don't use real data, that you use logic...how does one use logic without information?

Very interesting ploy to use Schalias own decision against him. Very well argued, regardless of the way it goes. Especially since the ICC is one area where Schalia has typically sided with the more liberal wing of the court.

Based on what I saw/am seeing, I still suspect 6-3 in favor of upholding the law as is, even if many view 5-4 as more likely. I wouldn't be shocked at a 7-2 decision, though the odds of convincing Roberts and Schalia are not very good.

Poor people will still not be able to pay...hello subsidies. The remainder that are forced to pay, will then use the services more often, for the common cold lets say, or other matters in which the uninsured would not see the doctor for. You are entirely wrong on all counts hehe.

Thats how all insurance programs work: The people who don't use the insurance [in this case, the healthy] keeps costs down for everyone else. Hence why the insurance mandate is a necessity for any healthcare reform, as without it, there is NO mechanism to lower costs.

The absolute worst case for everyone is the mandate being overturned, but the requirement to cover pre-existing conditions remaining. The reason is simple: Costs would skyrocket due to the most risky/expensive customers needing to be covered. Hence, why if the mandate gets overturned, the pre-exiting condition clause ALSO has to go. Hence the law basically being null and void if the mandate gets overturned, as its biggest provisions have been stripped out.

That being said, be careful what you wish for: Under such a ruling, a publicly run system would still be constitutional...[government could offer at-cost care, removing the need for an individual mandate].

One of two things will probably happen: the SCOTUS will uphold the law in its entirety or strike down and sever the individual mandate from the rest of the law.

What I'm most interested to see is how the right reacts to a conservative SCOTUS either siding with Obama or striking down a mandate that originated with conservatives. It should be a lot of fun to watch O'Reilly and Hannnity try to spin that.

^^ Not just conservatives: Remember who was Speaker of the House when the Republicans first brought up the individual mandate?

Shame Newt won't win the nomination, as it would have been fun to replay some of his past statements from the house floor in support of such a mandate. Kinda shows how far right the GOP has gone the past two decades though: From supporting the individual mandate as a viable alternative to the public option, to the mess we see in the GOP primaries.

But hey, Ronald Regan would be a far-left liberal in todays GOP. What does that tell you?

I really can't stomach more anecdotal "Founding Fathers Principle" Non-sense. That was gone the day the civil war started. The battle of the free markets is strife with skewed policies benefiting one Party or another.

The Health Care Law is more evidence that we are not capable of making meaning small changes to any system, everything has to be re-building the house for Political gain.

How about just doing one thing at a time, reduce fraud first, ensure Children and Elderly are covered and build from there. Common sense is nowhere to be found.

One of two things will probably happen: the SCOTUS will uphold the law in its entirety or strike down and sever the individual mandate from the rest of the law.

Heres the problem: Without the mandate, cost control goes out the window. With the REQUIREMENT that pre-existing conditions be covered, costs would skyrocket without a pool of healthy citizens to bring down costs. So if you strike the mandate, you MUST strike the requirement that pre-existing conditions be covered.

Also, another factor: The penalty for large business for NOT offering healthcare coverage is $5,000 per worker. If costs increase past that point, you will see business that stops offering coverage [cheaper to pay the penalty]. That would increase prices even more, leading to more business cutting coverage. And I can say, many business are already investigating this as an option. So if the primary cost-cutting measure gets cut, you will see less business offering coverage, and higher prices all around.

Hence why the mandate is so important: Without it, the entire bill falls apart.

But what about the people who don't have any money left over for insurance..In our case we have it but my husband had to take a job with way less pay to get affordable insurance mainly because of health issues I have. I mean people who pay rent, gas to and from work, utility bills and food. There are a lot of people I know in this situation. Plus you add the burden of illegal aliens who get medical through emergency rooms and food stamps. This is what makes me mad...is the number of illegals coming over and receiving these items...

This decision will be one of the four most important decisions in the history of the Republic, the other three that shaped our nation; Marlbury vs Madison, dred Scott, Brown vs bd. of education, and now this; if the court would rule the law valid, then there is no limit on congress under the commerce clause to enact any law ,and we will cease to be a Constitutional Republic !

^^ Incorrect. You make the assumption that mandating coverage necessitates government actually run the system.

All the law does is set minimum requirements for coverage. Nothing more. The government isn't running the day to day system, as it shouldn't. [That would be the public option].

And if Congress ever does overreach, feel free to cross party lines and vote out year rep...oh wait, "social issues" matter more to you? Then stop complaining. Vote your rep out if they don't do their job.

If this can be passed, then I guess I will have to leave this country because I don't want to be put in jail for being poor or if I don't want to go to the doctor. Sheesh... what is this country coming to?

if the court would rule the law valid, then there is no limit on congress under the commerce clause to enact any law ,and we will cease to be a Constitutional Republic !

The Supreme Court has ALREADY ruled that, several times, going back to 1808. Congress has the sole authority to regulate all commerce that crosses state lines. The General Welfare clause gives congress the right to pass any law that is in the greater good of the Republic as a while, and the Necessary and Proper clause gives congress the power to pass any law needed to implement the above actions.

If this can be passed, then I guess I will have to leave this country because I don't want to be put in jail for being poor or if I don't want to go to the doctor. Sheesh... what is this country coming to?

There are exceptions to coverage you know. And its a fine, not a jail sentence.

gamerk2,

Not so. The Court has ruled repeatedly that there are limits to the reach of the Commerce Clause. In particular, the Court has consistently held that plenary police power is reserved to the states. In practice, that means that the right to tell people what they must do (as opposed to what they can't do) is reserved to the states. If the individual mandate is upheld, two centuries of Federalism will go with it. R.I.P. There will be no limit to the Federal government's power.

It would be such a terrible shame to sacrifice our once great traditions just for an ill-conceived (not to mention corrupt) health care law.

What is wrong with simply regulating the insurance industry? You know, just like the airlines used to be regulated (and still need to be).

I see no reason for this over-reaching and unsustainable huge (especially in the number of pages) bill or law. I do not appreciate the government's inability to use such a simple tool as regulation. This "Act" is like bringing a knife to a gun fight. It is useless and in the end will result in death, either physical or financial, and maybe both for the US and it's citizens.

Reform = Regulation and not the over-burdensome clauses, rules, and requirements of useless legislation.

It appears anything too simple or too easy is asking too much and beyond our government's ability. I guess since our government can't imagine controlling an industry or a corporation they have chosen the greater of two evils and will try to control each individual human life within it's own borders, if not beyond as well.

Never before has Congress ORDERED all American residents to PURCHASE a CONSUMER PRODUCT as a CONDITION of being present IN the United States. Congress has CLEARLY EXCEEDED the limits of its authority under Article I of the US CONSTITUTION....Where would this TAKING end? It would NOT. If TODAY Americans MUST buy INSURANCE, what would preclude Americans from being FORCED to purchase the (flammable, BTW) Chevy Volt electric automobile from Detroit, or total home heating with a (bankrupt in both heat-source efficiency and business model) Solyndra-clone follow-on company's solar-energy panels from California?...Clearly a central government that can not only TAX your income but also can DICTATE what you will do with what LITTLE money you have LEFT after the various tax, fee, penalty and other taking schemes, that is a government WITHOUT any limit, and that is NOT America....If the Highest Court allows this sort of trampling, followed by trashing, of Article I, then BOTH America and the US Constitution are GONE, replaced by Amerika and a central Soviet-style thug-force apparatus that dictates, not governs...Signed, Yet an American Citizen

Considering Scalia and Kennedy have previously supported whenever Congress votes for, if they suddenly change course and say this is unconstitutional, it's pure politics.

All faith in the Supreme Court as an impartial body will be dashed.

This ruling is not about health care...it is about government control and whether government can force you to buy certain products. Once this door is open, it is only a matter of time when lobbyists will ask Congress to mandate Americans buy other products.

I am a Christian and opposed to pornography, but I am scared about Santorum's stance on pornography. If he viloates the first ammendment right to free speech there, what will be the next thing to be banned? Perhaps he will ban the Koran as it is a violent book.

Once we open the door to anything in Washington, it is very hard to close it...we will be slowly gutting our BILL OF RIGHTS!

Patriotic American: time for your meds sir. Don't you wonder why nobody is getting into your hateful drivel with you?

Individual responsibility is a good idea, but no where else (other than national defense, I guess) does an individual get free access to a benefit without regard to ability to pay, then later expected to pay.

Low income people (over 1/2 the population) can not afford medical bills, so the hospital gets stuck, they have to raise rates to cover losses, and your insurance goes up. Meanwhile the guy who thought at 29 that he didn't need insurance and then rolled his car can't possibly catch up on a $200,000 debt. There's no blood in that stone, you can squeeze him all you want.

There is no way I've heard to make people personally responsible AFTER the fact. And I wouldn't want to live in a society where we check for ability to pay before delivering emergency services. Do some want that?

Think of auto insurance. We don't allow you to drive without assuming we can somehow collect from you after you have an accident, total both cars and injure someone. In reality people without auto insurance can't afford an accident. Same with medical, except of course you need medical, you don't have to buy a car.

So the whole issue is how to pay for the freeloaders. If healthy people don't get insurance there will be only sick people insured and the system collapses. Without universal coverage (all paid by gov't) there is no way to get the uninsured in the tent except by mandates, is there?

JoeNY-you post is called a "parade of terribles" This might happen and that might happen and on and on and on.

In reality none of that happens.

If this precedent is allowed to stand, there will be no area of life that the Federal Government will not be able to'dictate' to us, under the guise that 'it's necessary for the common good'. Once a precedent is set, there are no limits to how broadly it may be applied, as evident from the current interpretation of the 'commerce clause'.

This is not about 'health care', it is about the ability of the Federal Government to impose dictatorial control of every aspect of our lives - a direct challenge to the very core of the Constitution.

Amazing how party that believes this and pushes against ACA is the same exact party that is trying to ensure they can impose dictatorial control over private aspects of our lives based on a desire to impose a certain religious doctrine at both the state and federal level.

To those of you crying about being forced to buy health insurance:

I wonder how many of you would sign over your home, car, savings accoununt, 401(k), your future paycheck or anything else that migh be of value BEFORE you visit ER.

It's not a matter of "if" you will needed, it's "when" you will need it.

For example, in TX, the number of uninsured Texas residents who rely on the medical emergency department as their primary health care provider continues to increase. I know, you will tell me it's the illegals because we all know that US citizens would never choose to NOT HAVE health insurance...or wait 50.7 million don't have it.

Who do you people think pays for all these uninsured? Those who do have it (higher premiums) and the government (aka taxpayer).

Plus, the rates are going up, the co-pays, deductibles, co-insurance, out-of-pockets are going up while the services covered are going down. Every year, the number of people who can afford insurance is getting smaller so the vicious cycle begins: the rates will go up, the co-pays, deductibles, co-insurance, out-of-pockets will go up while the services covered will go down.

I guess the likes of you don't care about the rights of the citizens who do have health insurance - let's fight for the rights of the deadbeats (does not include those with pre-existing conditions who cannot get insurance) who choose not to pay for it.

Anyone who believes this law will force illegals to pay for insurance is as delusional as the government that created this. If it were that easy, wouldn't we know where all of them were and be able to take care of the problem?

Seems everyone if focused on the legality of this Mandated Universal Health Care Reform legislation. I am more concerned about WHO is sitting on the SCOTUS bench, in particular Mrs. Kagan who should have recused herself from ALL proceedings.

Here is what she said during her "Justice confirmation hearings":

“If confirmed, I would recuse in all matters for which I was counsel of record,” Kagan told the committee in the questionnaire. “I would also look to the letter and spirit of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges (although it is not formally binding on members of the Supreme Court of the United States), the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, 28 U.S.C. 455, and any other relevant prescriptions. I would also consult with my colleagues in any case where recusal might be advisable.”

The text of 28 U.S.C. 455 states: “(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality mightreasonably be questioned. (b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances: … (3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.”

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/justice-department-resists-releasing-records-could-shed-light-whether-justice-kagan

Since she "protected" ObamaCare during her tenure as the Solicitor General, SHE SHOULD RECUSE HERSELF IMMEDIATELY:

Now that Obama’s unconstitutional monstrosity – the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare – has reached the Supreme Court, it is time for Justice Elena Kagan to recuse herself.

As solicitor general of the United States, Kagan headed up an office that formulated the Obama administration’s legal defense of the legislation.

http://investmentwatchblog.com/justice-kagan-and-obamacare-she-needs-to-recuse-herself-immediately/

Guess what....Kagan is STILL SITTING ON THE BENCH. This is like giving an armed robber in court the ability to sit on the Jury during deliberations of his/her fate in the court.

If Kagan continues to sit on the SCOTUS bench during these deliberations, this would be a COMPLETE and TOTAL slap in the face to the American people.

We are watching the politicization of the Supreme Court by the right-wing. This is political theater pure and simple. Everyone uses the health care system, you can't escape it, so everyone has to pay their way. I guess they prefer to mandate that we all pay for deadbeats that don't choose to purchase health insurance (or that can't afford it). Republicans all of a sudden are against it, even though just a few years ago they invented the "individual mandate" and they championed it... until Obama decided to use it. This makes a mockery out of the legal system.

Rev-1240041, #1- What a GREAT post. I just had to stop and find this first "reply" spot to tell you so. (Hope you don't get collapsed and take the whole 1st thread down you, which it seems like is "inordinately" frquent as the case here on this site.)

The Constitution works because it is suppose to be "circumspect" to include ALL. What you've so aptly shown in your post is a regulated Industry being totally and ABSOLUTE circumspect to itself, "only and over and above" the People that will be affected by it to their "leftout" consideration to detriment, Government approved and coddled outside of Regulation amounting to "outside of the Law"; and to the detrimental "effect" to Economic "actualities", that [those] same will then be blamed and held accountable to be penalized for.

CORPORATE WELFARE = "CORRUPTION" WELFARE (for its own thriving wellbeing, No?)

Wow! Strauss-Kahn's in the headlines facing sex charges again,(post-Sandusky Bend Over and Take It!) OH MY!!!! (sorry, I just had to get that disgustingly relevant aspect of "Prejudicial Corruption Welfare for its own thriving wellbeing" off my mind in order to be able to continue, later.)

Who's the moron who said "people are confused about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?"

THe Bill of Rights ARE LEGALLY parts of the Constitution -- amendments/clarifications of the Constituion. Therefore, an amendment IS the COnstitution, and therefore it applies to modern law interpretation.

Some people just need to go senile in their old age much sooner or simply pass away.

ideas to help fund health care cost:

$50 tax on cigarettes

$50 tax on 6 pack of beer

$50 tax on any bottle of wine and liqueur

25% surcharge for insurance if you are overweight

only true health reform is to reform some of our life choices that impact health care cost.

If Americans cannot change their life choices (you have the freedom to do so), you will at least be funding the $ that will be needed to support health care cost later.

have a good week

Never before has Congress ORDERED all American residents to PURCHASE a CONSUMER PRODUCT as a CONDITION of being present IN the United States. Congress has CLEARLY EXCEEDED the limits of its authority under Article I of the U.S. CONSTITUTION...Where will this TAKING end? It would NOT. If TODAY Americans MUST buy INSURANCE, what would preclude Americans from being FORCED to purchase the (flammable, BTW) Chevy Volt electric automobile from Detroit, or total home heating with a (bankrupt in both heat-source efficiency and business-model) Solyndra-clone follow-on company's solar energy panels from California, or any other goods or services from other campaign-donor pets TOMORROW? Nothing, absolutely nothing, can stop that storm-trooper force IF the American Citadel of the US Constitution falls in the High Court this year...Clearly a central government that can not only TAX your income but also can DICTATE what you will do with what LITTLE money you have LEFT after the various tax, fee, penalty and other TAKING schemes, THAT is a government WITHOUT any limit, and that is NOT America...If the Highest Court allows this sort of Congress trampling, followed by judicial trashing, of Article I, then BOTH America and the US Constitution are GONE, replaced by Amerika and a central Soviet-style thug-force apparatus that dictates, not governs...This will be the SINGLE most important case to come before the Highest Court in our lifetimes. As goes this case, so remains or falls America and the US Constitution. Signed, Marjorie Jo, Yet An American

heh. if ACA gets thrown out, that opens the door for a challenge on ANY AND ALL taxes.

sigh. what does it take to impeach a supreme court justice? the current conservative judges are all shameless crooks.

calmbeforethestorm, I apologize for some tough words l used, I'm just upset about this country's problems. It would be nice if we all come together as one and fix our Problems with this once great Nation. Have a nice day to all.

Oh, this is awesome. Color commentary for Supreme Court decisions. Well, guess what, guys. They're going to listen to a bunch of lawyers drone, they're going to ask hard questions to throw them off their game (and, apparently, this reporter), go off and play Tour of Duty for six months, and eventually issue their verdict.

There are no tea leafs to be read.

kevinoffsite

How about just doing one thing at a time, reduce fraud first, ensure Children and Elderly are covered and build from there. Common sense is nowhere to be found.

Agreed, let's do one thing at a time. The ACA does that. The 2000+ pages lays out the total package... the "end game" if you will. The "one at a time" aspect is in how and when it is phased in... one at a time but in a logical sequence and in a way that fits into a coherent strategy... "the end game".

Any other way is useless and will go the same way as our current approach to our national debt... one thing at a time with no logical sequence or strategy with every day bringing a new political discourse forward... to a most likely never ending non-solution. THAT's how well "one at a time" works for us... it doesn't.

No, the ACA approach is the only approach that will weather the politics of time and have a prayer of ever really being implemented. You don't like a detail? Fine. Change it. But change it with respect to the total package in a logical sequence.

If the Supreme Court finds the individual mandate unconstitutional, then the gloves are off and I and many other Americans should sue the city, county and state governments for assessing property tax and fees for services I have never used. My tax bill charges me for fire protection. I have not had a fire since I have owned property. My tax bill assesses fees for police protection. I have not used nor needed any police protection since I have been alive. My tax bill charges me for road, sewage and other infrastructure improvements that I have never used. This Supreme Court ruling can definitely set the stage for countless law suits to get government to reimburse me for services I do not want. So, go ahead Supreme Court, MAKE MY CENTURY!

Rev-1240041,

You are dead wrong on one aspect at least of what you say. The courts do not create any laws what so ever. The Congress is tasked with that. The courts only strike down laws, they do not create them. Certainly nothing out of "thin air" as you state.

If you think you are correct, name one law any court in America actually created? Go ahead and give it your best shot. You will not find a single one.

I don't understand why any Republican would be against this.

Every day they go on and on about "personal responsibility"... they complain about "paying for deadbeats" on welfare, they tell people to get a job, they whine about paying for someone else.

Well, we pay for all these deadbeats who do not have insurance. So now, this law requires them to be "personally responsible" and pay for themselves. But now Republicans DO NOT want them to be personally responsible? Republicans want to continue paying for deadbeats without insurance? WTF?

Here are the options:

1) We continue to pay for the uninsured with our money.

2) We require the uninsured to pay for themselves.

That's it... those are the choices. Everyone will use medical care at some point in their life, so we either pay for everyone or require them to pay for themselves.

commonsense,

Your example about state mandates for auto insurance are not an apt comparison to HCR. First the mandate is at a state level, which does have the power based on their specific state constitutions to mandate coverage. Second, driving is a privelege which is not essential, so a mandate does not effect everyone the way Obamacare does. Third, the federal government does not have the authority under the commerce clause to institute a mandate to buy any particular product, or service. The constitution purposefully limits the federal government powers, so that the states actually govern the people not the nation. It may seem a small difference to you, but it is one of great significance.

Costs claimed in the HCR bill already have been shown to be unrealistic and the 160 billion in savings over 10 years is actually an insignificant amount of money considering the deficits that Obama and democrats have run up over the last three years. within 6 months of its passage, the estimated cost of 960 billion + or - was pushed to over one trillion, not by conservatives or tea partiers, but by the CBO in its evaluation of the law once it gained the "full measure of information" from the law. The simple fact is that this law does not contain the provisions necessary to reign in increases in health care costs, other than the mandate which enlarges the group, thus spreading the costs over larger numbers. Your assertion that we pay more in health care costs than other nations with national type health care systems is also fallacy. On an individual basis, (what we pay in premiums vs other countries) the number seems higher, but when you consider that countries like Canada spend 40 cents of every collected tax dollar on their healthcare system in addition to individual contributions, the differences aren't as great. The quality of our system is the best in the world with the highest number of well educated medical personnel anywhere. if this were not the case, then why do so many come to this country seeking medical care? The issue of availability is also moot after reading story after story of long waits for surgeries and treatments from other nations who have universal systems. Finally the topic of sustainability enters the debate, and from what Europe is experiencing now, with their mass financial problems and large social commitments, it should stand as a warning of where programs like this are headed. There are exceptions, Germany, Sweden, and othe smaller nations have not yet had the financial problems others are facing, but then their population levels are far smaller than the 300+million here in the US. Canada, faced with an over taxed system of government health care is encouraging private clinics to open to relieve some of the pressure. Other nations are cutting back on care for similar reasons.

Some of you people crack me up. You say other countrys have national healthcare for all....and they pay hefty taxes to get it. You say it makes good sense and we should take care of those that can't take care of themselves but how many waivers have already been granted to certain goups to give them a pass on participation...if it is so good then EVERYONE should be included in it right?

Regarding illegals that are getting free healthcare....charge a hefty processing fee to wire money from the US to countries south of the border and get our hands on some of that $4B dollars that heads south each year.

archangel 3:16,

As you are a "born again budget hawk", would you mind telling us where you and your ilk were at during the Bush administration?

MSNBC and CNN are both reporting that today's arguments did not go well for the administration (CNN calling it an "absolute train wreck" and saying, "It looks like this law is gonna be struck down.")

The bottom line is, the end does not justify the means. If you want to improve healthcare, then have at it. But you can't trample the constitution to do it. You either need to change the constitution (there is a process for that) or find another path to your goal. I was very relieved to hear how the arguments today went. Losing our freedom is not worth this legislation.

The problem I see with the 'affordable' care act is that it does nothing to address the costs of medicine. I take a Rx for asthma. It was introduced to the market in 2000, and back then cost $98.00 for 30 pills. High price, but it works. Now twelve years later, and all of the R&D paid for, it's $165.00 for 30 pills. Can someone explain this gorilla in the room to me? How is any health care affordable with costs outstripping inflation for the past twenty years? Before the law was written, the POTUS went behind closed doors with medical insurance companies and Big Pharma, as reported on Frontline. But I digress. As for the individual mandate? I'm against the whole bill. POS, needs to be thrown out, and start over. Several posters said it best, regulate, take small steps, tweak the system. But hey, that makes sense.

Justice Kennedy is wrong. This mandate is not beyond anything the Congress has done before. I'll begin with a teaser. Since the 40's, all children must receive certain inoculations to prevent contracting and/or spreading disease. Parents must prove the children have had these before they can attend school. Fact, parents must prove the children have had them. Parents have to pay for these, or if they prove they can't, then the government pays. At least 2 other areas, I can think of, that forces people to engage in Interstate Commerce just to be able to live as society dictates. These are so taken for granted,and so obvious, few would think of them, but they are here. Hope the SCOTUS hasn't become so full of sh^t It qualifies as a constipated Elephant.

@ "Patriotic American" You really are blaming the GOP for spending the country into oblivion? Please now get over the 2000 Election. The Supreme Court upheld the law. They didn't make a law. The electoral college voted the way they voted. That is the law. It is too late for that election. If you want the law change, talk to your elected officials. Now in 2004 George Bush won the majority. It's over. If you believe one minute that the Iraq War was all Bush you are mistaken. Both parties voted for the use of military force. Both sides were privied to ALL the information the President had and the other nations in the coalition had.

The GREED of the Federal Government taking all that they can is what is destroying this government. It is entities such as insurance companies and banks that raise costs more than they should ever be. It is the federal government that forces banks and insurance companies from lending or insuring to high risk people. The root of the problem is the power of the Federal Government!

Insults won't get you anywhere. That is devisive and unintelligent.

What about basic humanity? It's a shame when society is willing to care for its pets or animals and could care less about human beings. Something is terribly wrong when only the "haves" can afford health care and the poor, elderly or "have-nots" is left to fend for themselves or their care is substandard. What about compassion? What about patriotisms? What about basic common decency? Although I cannot remember who said this statement, "You can tell alot about a society in how it treat or care for its old, handicapp, and poor." If this is correct, may God help and change our hearts as Americans. AND for the negative folks out there who have a problem with my assessment... having defended our Country for about thirty years, I will say what I please.

@JoeNY,

1) There have never been any government actions, Republican or Democrat to "control" the amount of sugar or salt you can have. They don't even try to control cigarettes. It has clearly been the function of government since the early 1900's to "influence" decisions. The FDA does not see its role as preventing people from having access to cigarettes, sugar, salt, etc. Instead they see the government's role as requiring that ingredients be labeled and that the consumer be warned of risks, usually by public service ad campaigns and other educational methods and by requiring information to be on the packaging.

2) I just ran afoul of the very thing you are bitching about. I had a very high PSA and was referred by my GP to a urologist "for a biopsy." There were several problems with this. a) The physician was doing PSA's on me without my knowledge. Current best practices require that a physician do "informed consent" before doing any PSA's. b) There was a blue ribbon task force that studied PSA's and their relationship to both prostate cancer survival and to overall mortality. They found that PSA testing, biopsies, and intervention did show a slight reduction in prostate cancer deaths, but NO effect on overall mortality. They recommended that asymptomatic "normal risk" men under 50 not be given PSA's at all and that they should not be administered without informed consent. This has been widely ignored. c) There have been three major (though badly flawed) studies recently --- one showed no improvement in mortality from either prostate cancer or for all causes combined. One showed a slight improvement in prostate cancer mortality but not in overall mortality. A huge amount of the improvement was linked to one institution out of 140 participating. The last showed only slight improvement in prostate cancer mortality and actually showed a slight inbcrease in overall mortality from all causes. d) The biopsy itself is very dangerous and again the FDA asks for informed consent. The urologist was adamant that the biopsy was "risk-free" and called it "non-invasive." He tole me that the PSA Rask Force was the same people who "recommended that no women ever get mammograms." This is two lies --- it is not the same people and no one ever made that recommendation. But my point is that this is what government typically does --- it tries to make information and recommendations available but does not force the issue very often at all. If even the most basic government recommendations had been followed, I would not have had a crapload of unnecessary profit-driven trauma dumped into my life.

3) The FDA currently approves drugs. But around 30% of all new drugs perform no better than a placebo, but are approved anyway. Many of the new drugs are more expensive and no better (and often worse) than existing drugs but they are approved anyway. The drug companies are allowed to withhold as much clinical trial data from the FDA as they wish during the approval process. It's how drugs like Vioxx got approved. But again, government sees its role as insuring "safety" only.

"Corporations are people" and people can just die from lack of insurance, it's the conservative way. The biggest threat to our society is the Citizen United case which was passed by the same judges that may strike the AHC law down.

Lets see, health insurance corporations and oil companies are lobbying most of their money on republicans. Using two brain cells you can deduce that they expect higher profits (it is what a corp does) under a republican, which means higher costs for the rest of us. Why is it that innovative companies usually lean liberal and the companies that are older and do not want new competition, just want the same status qua, primarily conservative?

If this is held unconstitutional, the ONLY OTHER OPTION is Single-Payer, Medicare for all.

Conservatives, beware what you hope for.

Mac Forrester

There is quite a difference between mandating that you pay for your kids and being forced to pay for others.

Again, common sense used by the right wing of the court. Not idealistic wet dreams of the left were everybody gets health care but only those who work have to pay or get fined (TAXED), for all the swill chuging lardasses, to 5 pack a day smokers of whom all will be my responsibility even if they have none. Should there be health care? Yes but fair.

@ Indieparty.. Those "dead beats" still wouldn't be paying anything. In fact the upper and middle class would still be paying the majority of the bill. People and companies would not be able to compete with the legal monopoly that is the Government.

I'm starting the new slogan, "Fight for the bacon". Because if this law is allowed to pass, then you will have more government intrusion. You already have seen the first lady and the healthy eating enforcement going on in public schools. Next you will see federal exise taxes on foods that aren't the healthiest. Which will ultimately devastate many farmers. They won't ban them, but there will be taxes on sugars and sodium and pretty much only the wealthy will be able to afford the "Good Stuff." If that isn't a trample on your civil rights I don't know what is. I guess we all LOVE regulation, taxes, and loss of liberty in exchange for our safety! PAT DOWN THE FAT KID AT SCHOOL HE MIGHT HAVE A CANDY BAR!

Of course they are divided, the liberal judges see left politics, they don't see constituionality, which is what they are supposed to rule on.

Right on, geo1957883.

HOW ON EARTH does this work in England, Japan, Canada, and most of Europe? Are they 'less free' and has the government started dictating every aspect of their lives? Hardly.

I am fairly certain that they are all open for people like you to move there. I have friends in Canada that would not agree with your assessment. Their take is that is works, but it does NOT work well. They do not get the same level of care that is available to us. Can't speak for the others you noted. And, we have our own Constituion that is different and I for one believe, better.

My Mother works in a community hospital and often tells me stories of the young girls that come by who just had babies. They are there asking "where do I sign so I don't have to pay." You and I pay for that and I am NOT okay with it.

Once again the Bush mantra. There was a doctor who decided to do away with insurance, medicare and medicaid. He charged a flat fee of $79.00 for an office visit. The state, the city and the feds came down on him like a ton of bricks. Said he couldn't charge such low fees and mandated that if he wanted to continue to do so he would have to set up an insurance company in order to do so.

Healthcare is not about healthcare anymore, it is about huge profits and medical unions (AMA) and industry looking to extract as much from the system as they possibly can. There are no caps, you can't walk in and ask what something costs since costs are relative. Most people could care less, they figure that insurance or the gov. will cover the costs and healthcare professionals charge accordingly.

A single payer system is what is needed, remove the insurance companies from the equasion, they are a pool and gamble against the odds. The entire system needs to be revamped. Obamacare needs to be tossed and a new and intelligent plan, crafted so that huge tax increases are not necessary to cover everybody needing medical care. Set up wellness clinics, set up clinics that are co-paid by the patient and if they cannot afford it, then co-pay via the government with a voucher.

Major medical costs can be greatly reduced with timely interventions, pre-existing conditions should be covered with pallative care. Too often, health problems that are easily treated or prevented are ignored and when they reach the critical stage, they are very costly to treat. Obamacare was hastily crafted and poorly crafted. Start over. Look at what other countries do, why their programs are successful and after a thorough investigation, implement the best programs.

Amyshine

HOW ON EARTH does this work in England, Japan, Canada, and most of Europe? Are they 'less free' and has the government started dictating every aspect of their lives? Hardly.

----------------------------------

Yes, they are less free. Less free to fail and less free to succeed. They lack a Constitution and a history that tells them that their rights are inalienable and not a grant from their government...however benign and even solicitous of their welfare that government may be.

@ Tashmoiser.. Please take a look at the EPA or these green companies that have lost billions on tax payer subsidies. I don't think the wright bros or the henry ford was subsidized by the tax payers. Innovation comes from the private sector! They should be the ones taking the risks and rewards.

Military defense contracts are different because you are handling top secret material and working on national defense. You don't want the average Joe handling nuclear, biologica, or other types dangerous weapons. Just in case anyone wanted to throw that curveball in.

So what if people were "penalized" if/when they do show up at the ER? My guess is most people would get insurance knowing this--a car accident could unexpectedly put you in ER easily. What's the difference then between this and being "fined" after being pulled over for a traffic violation and not having proof of insurance? Nothing--it's being forced to buy something from the private sector at a profit.

But all that aside, the obvious answer is we need a Medicare-style health care for all, which is actually collected as a tax. Then the commerce clause, employers hassling with this, or religious employers whining about this would all go away in a flash. As long as health care is sold at a profit, our system will never work.

Stand aside Teapublicans, and let a single-payer system prevail!

The outcome of this case was a foregone conclusion from the very moment the first lawsuit was filed. The constitutionality of the health care reform law has absolutely NOTHING to do with the outcome of this case. What matters is that there are five republicans on the supreme court, so it will be 5 to 4 in favor of striking down one of the major accomplishments of a democratic president.

Anyone that thinks the constitution has ANYTHING to do with supreme court rulings is living in La-la land. Any time there is a politically charged case, you know in advance what the outcome will be and who will vote for which side. These days, not even established judicial precident seems to have any relevance.

Currently the Supreme Court is under republican control and that means they'll vote in favor of the republican position in almost every single case.

The real losers here will be the American people. Health care costs will continue to rise while health insurance companies continue to rake in record profits. Countless American families will lose everything when cancer (or some other serious illness) comes along, and every American will continue to pay $1000 a year for the emergency room care needed by poor people that couldn't afford health insurance. We won't see health care reform in our lifetimes.

Cincinnati Rick -- Freedom is relative. The US is a great nation, however, there is always room for improvement.

Right now people are slaves to low-paying jobs, lack of benefits, and therefore slaves to debt, slaves to fear -- fear of losing a job, even a bad job, fear of losing their homes, their health, their retirement investments, etc. And we sure as heck don't have equality or fairness or a level playing field in this country (no life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness). We do NOT have freedom in many important ways.

What I notice by the above posts is a very strong divide. Those that hope the law fails, see the law as an encroachment on our freedoms. In this I will agree. The law allows the government access into our personal lives by forcing us to purchase insurance. I haven't been to the doctor or hospital in over 10 years, so why do I need to purchase insurance? Why force it upon me? I haven't been to the doctor but about 5 times in my entire adult life and at those times I had employee sponsored health insurance.

Those that are for the law, somehow believe that everyone has to have it. They are willing to forego the Constitution over this. What does that say about their beliefs? The Obama driven law somehow is more important that the laws of this land. What are they thinking?

I agree that the health industry and the health insurance industry needs to be revamped in order to make it more affordable for everyone to have access to it... but not with this law... it was politically driven by jamming it down our throats. I have serious problems with an administration that would do that to the citizens of this country, the majority of them also have problems with the methods in which it was arrived at.

The justices may be showing their bias on whether they like this legislation or not, but this is just the oral arguments phase. After that closes, the justices will look at precedents and existing law and base their decision on the constitutionality of the law and not whether they agree with it or not. Many very conservative legal experts feel that this mandate is constitutional, even if they disagree with the law itself. The Constitution is a living document. If there is no clear definition in the Constitution itself or amendments to it, then laws passed by Congress and legal precedents become extensions of the Constitution as if they were part of the original document.

Despite how any questions by the Justices may appear to show signs to the pundits who are looking for anything to talk about, I'm still betting that the law will be upheld by either a 5-4 or a 6-3 decision, but none of us can be very sure at this point of how any of this this will turn out until the formal announcement in June.

I'm pretty sure our system works just fine. I pay for my insurance. I have annual exams. If I get sick I go to the doctors. BUT I HAVE THAT CHOICE AND I PAY FOR IT!!! People want to use there money the way they want to. It is their money! They WORKED FOR THAT MONEY!! It is NOT the governments WEALTH. They pay their taxes. They can donate to charities they believe in. They can take their kids, grandkids, parents, or whoever and do something nice with them. They can go on a vacation or buy stuff.

Do you think people should have to share the food they have in their refrigerator? Well it's beneficial for someone with little food to take it from someone who had a refrigerator full of it. Lets condone break-ins if only they want to raid the pantry!! Come on now. This isn't about humanity and giving to others. I give to charities when I can. I donate clothes. GIVE ME A BREAK though, the government has no business in telling you WHAT you have to do with YOUR OWN MONEY!!!!!

TruePatriot, you're exactly right. The fundamental problem with private health insurance is obvious:

Most businesses work better under private control than government control. Health insurance is not one of them.

Private health insurance companies make money from collecting premiums. For them, paying for health care is a business expense. Like any company they exist for the sole purpose of maximizing profits and minimizing expenses. That means that their entire reason for existence is to take every last penny they can squeeze out of you in premiums and deny every last claim they can get away with denying.

In contrast, a government run insurance program can return almost all of their income (minus salaries and other operating costs) in claims. They have no financial incentive to screw you. That's why every other developed country has a government run health insurance program available to everyone.

Just because you do not have comprehensive medical insurance, does not mean you are a freeloader. My preference would be to buy a $10K deductible catastrophic health plan, and pay all on-going expenses out of pocket. Preventive health care is a scam to make money for the doctors and hospital, treating healthy people. We should not be forced to pay for this scam. I have always paid my medical bills. I pay out of pocket right now for my regular medical care and prescriptions. That is what I wish to continue to do.

Truepatriot, there is a huge difference between fear and freedom. Fear can bring freedom to an individual. Take a bungee jumper... before jumping, fear is the adrenalin producing element that they are seeking... after the jump, the high occurs... so fear is not a liberty reducing emotion.

I almost lost my home... I wasn't fearful. I have lost jobs... not fearful in the least. I never fear losing a job... wanna know why? Because my freedom produces hope. I do fear the loss of freedom by government overtaking those freedoms and placing severe restrictions on my life. If that happens, I fear losing the hope my freedom provides. If I lose hope, I lose freedom.

That's right, because this unconstitutional mandate is seems to be going down the elderly are going to die without care and everyone is going to go bankrupt. Maybe a better solution that doesn't trample individual rights or deliver us to government provider where most of the talented Dr's leave medicine for more lucrative professions. There is a reason those from outside the US who can afford treatment come here, despite what the world healthcare rankings say.

The problem with this bill is that it allows the government to mandate purchase of a private product for all people, with enforcement options. If this is held up, it opens the doorway for similar laws. Now, some people argue that the health care industry is unique in that, sooner or later, everyone takes part in it. This is not so. There are people that deny all medical care as a religious issue. More to the point, though, there is another field that is quite similar in scale: FOOD. EVERYONE eats, and just about everyone (maybe not 100% subsistence farmers) buys their food. This law being ruled constitutional would open the doorway for the federal government to mandate that you buy particular food products.

Note, I'm not talking about banning the sale of certain food products, or taxing certain foods more. That's all legal already. I'm talking about mandating that every American buys 2 oranges a week, or 1 box of cereal per person per month, or whatever group in the food industry donates most to the next Congress. After all, its interstate commerce, and EVERYONE participates in the system sooner or later, right?

The freeloader problem has a simple solution: Don’t force hospitals to treat individuals
that do not have the willingness or ability to pay their bills. We act as if our country has some moral
responsibility to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves…………….we
don’t.

Government efficiency being what it is, I'll wager that the corporate profits are less than the bloated bureaucratic costs that will develop with government payer.

Joe-903244 -- The right-wing love to talk about how those who are insured carry the burden for those who are not. This is not the real story. Those who are insured carry the burden for others who are also insured who abuse insurance -- The obese diabetic who is a substance abuser for example, who ends up in ER on a weekly basis. It is not the indigent or uninsured who drive insurance rates up--it is this guy.

When people go to ER and skip out on the bill, hospitals are subsidized by the government via the Charity Fund -- This is a fund paid into by ALL tax payers.

Teapublicans who are financed by Big Business (oil, Wall Street, insurance companies) have you bamboozled. The insurance companies want the mandated increase in business, however they don't want it with regulations and competition via the Exchange. Nor do the Teapublicans who are likely to loose their current tax-payer subsidies for their health insurance.

Give this some thought and then come back and post.

The MAIN point here is the founding fathers never intended the Supreme Court to have the power to legislate. Congress was to set the law, the President signed it, and the court was to uphold it.
The peoples recourse for a bad law was to vote in a new congress and repeal the law.
We have strayed from the constitution to have a 9 members of royalty legislating. Read the Federalist papers, and your constitution!

Eileen

It was introduced to the market in 2000, and back then cost $98.00 for 30 pills. High price, but it works. Now twelve years later, and all of the R&D paid for, it's $165.00 for 30 pills. Can someone explain this gorilla in the room to me? How is any health care affordable with costs outstripping inflation for the past twenty years?

One of the factors is that insurance companies are taking around 70 - 80% of your health care funds and putting it towards executive salaries. Of course, they will tell you that it is for R&D, regulations, etc... but the reality is that 80% of YOUR money is going into the pocket of an executive.

ACA requires that these insurance companies only use 20% of the funds on salaries, while 80% of YOUR money will go to actual health care. The insurance companies fought this change, asking first to use 40% for health care costs, then 50%, then 60%.

This is one of the ways that YOUR costs are supposed to be reduced, because your funds will now be going to actual health care instead of a bonus check to executives. Among other things, this is my personal favorite aspect of the ACA. I know... call me crazy, but I like me money to actually go towards health care costs instead of a new private jet.

The huge problem I have with the Law is that instead of dealing with the real problem which is cost, it mandates that everyone must pay for everyone else. And instead of promoting healthy living the FDA and a lot of doctors take the easy way out and promote drugs. You want to lower the cost of healthcare, change the perception of what health is.

Last night, I was potatoeing out and saw a commercial of a doctor saying he was recommending Prodaxa, a blood thinner. 30 minutes later, I saw an ad for 1-800-Bad-Drug, for Prodaxa because it is killing people. The FDA might have plausible deniability, but the fact is that they are promoting the drug companies by endorsing drugs that are not making us healthier. The sad thing is is that the FDA can't be sued. The more the FDA promotes drugs, the more drug companies charge, raising the price of false care.

If, and I only say if because I know they are not, the FDA actually wanted to promote health, they would be promoting natural cures and living healthy. The problem is that we as Americans have been brainwashed into believing that the drug companies actually want cures. When you go to Costa Rica and go into the drug stores, they will sell American drugs along side of natural remedies, some found in the rain forest. The American drugs have dust on them. One they use I found particularly interesting was not a maintenance drug but a cure for psoriasis, yes a cure. The bark of a tree that you rub on your skin and it will be gone in a couple of days and never come back.

I will explain my point.

The FDA promotes Lipitor for reducing cholesterol. What they don't promote, and through lack of health education, is that Lipitor was derived from a mushroom. They can't regulate it so they don't promote it. Mushrooms also have been proven to stabilize the immune system, control cancers, and a host of other problems. They also can give an immune boost that will kick a cold out of you in a day.

The FDA has endorsed Uloric, which is a treatment for gout. What the FDA doesn't and won't promote to the public is that eating a dozen cherries every couple of days will have the same result.

The FDA is also intimately involved in keeping Medicinal Cannabis from becoming legal. It has been proven to battle things from cancer, MS, Stroke and Aneurisms, Aids, ocular degeneration from diabetes, autism in children and a whole host of other things. Google it, it is a very interesting read. And aside from what is the common perception, most do a one hitter before they go to sleep, they don't spend their days wasted. I don't use, but I would if needed. The FDA is fueled by the drug industry to keep it illegal. An interesting note: Most of the founders grew hemp.

The FDA also doesn't promote drinking apple cider vinegar if you have a flu or food poisoning. The vinegar is very acidic, and it throws your system into a sort of shock. Your system fights back and turns your body alkali. It will stop food poisoning and kill viruses because they can't live in an alkali environment, nor can cancers.

Now, these are four, I think strong examples of how the FDA is doing a disservice to American health. If they actually promoted natural remedies along side the drug alternatives, people would use the alternatives based on the side effects of the drugs until the drugs were a last resort. Drug prices would go down, and so would healthcare costs.

I must declare I am not a doctor, but I can say that I had high cholesterol for which the doctor wanted me on Lipitor, I started to eat a package of @!$%#aki mushrooms twice a week and dropped a hundred points in two months. I also have had gout that the doctor wanted to prescribe Uloric for, and after two years, eating cherries once a week, have not had a flare. Every time a bug comes into my house with my kids, I drink a small amount of vinegar, and have not had a cold or flu in five or more years. To be honest, I don;t even remember the last one, and that is with three kids in school.

Sorry about the ramble, my only point is that the FDA is doing Americans a great wrong by promoting things that have side effects that will kill people and make them unhealthy, and is driving the price of health care through the roof, when ten dollars a week would have more public health benefit at the local grocery store through educating the public.

Patriotic American said:

"NOTE to the US SUPREME COURT" - Don't make another mistake like you did in 2000 with "W". America needs this health care to stop the Insurance Companies from Bankrupting our Country. The Greed of the Insurance industry is Destroying this Country.

If the ACA gets passed, you may as well by stock in health insurance companies since people will be forced to buy their product. At that point, they can jack their prices to whatever level suits them. That will be the reality if ACA gets passed.

expatdownunda -- The problem with catastrophic insurance is that you pay expensive monthly premiums just the same. If you did get sick, let's say diagnosed with cancer that requires treatment over a period of years, you must pay the high deductible each year along with the monthly premiums. Most people can't raise $7,000 a year deductible, so in reality they would still go bankrupt from their medical bills, and would look back and wonder why they paid $200/month per individual for that without even prescription coverage! It's a complete rip-off.

This is why the Affordable Care Act is better than nothing. It will require insurance companies to use 80% of that $200/month premium toward provision of actual health care. But you can imagine that these companies don't want that regulation and are in cahoots with the GOP/TP to get rid of any improvements such as this in our current, broken system. Otherwise, why don't Teapublicans provide a real, viable alternative to "Obamacare?"

I'm not too sure the president would too upset about the mandate being ruled unconstitutional, nor many progressives. The president was never in favor of a mandate with penalty--this was passed by congress.

The only way to mandate health care is for it to be government administrated (no insurance middleman mark-up), and preferably with non-profit providers--many already exist in regions of the nation. Forcing people to pay a profit is why this is a problem, not to mention it's immoral to profit from sickness.

Even if government is less efficient, anyone who wants the status quo is delusional.

Thanks Roy Wilson, for being the beacon of common sense, that's often absent from these threads.

Oh, and Common Sense.....Please stop with the Democratic talking points, that now even the Democrats say are false. This Deficit "reduction" was based on "shell games" like the CLASS act, that claimed it was going to be a large portion of that deficit reduction and now has been eliminated as it was never going to work. Additionally, there is no one who can explain how adding a "supposed" 30 million people to the Insurance roles is going to reduce the cost of health care AND reduce the Deficit. Simply, because it will never happen. Everyone one with any business sense knew this would not work from the beginning, but, since we have an anti-business Administration, those in the know were ignored.

This case in front of the Supreme Court is quite straight forward. The Health Care Mandate IS unconstitutional. If all Judges were following the Constitution, it would be a 9-0 vote to declare the Mandate Unconstitutional. AND since there is no sever-ability clause, then the entire bill needs to end. This would be a good time for that to happen, while the damage to the Employer Sponsored plans is still reversible. We still need Insurance reform, the ACA didn't address that and will ultimately fail, as it is not a good plan or one that America can afford.

BrianB

I haven't been to the doctor or hospital in over 10 years, so why do I need to purchase insurance? Why force it upon me?

I have not called the police, or needed the police, in my entire adult life (because I live in an upscale neighborhood with one of the lowest crime rates in the nation), so why do I need to pay for police? Why force it on me?

I have never had a fire in my house, car, or any property... so why do I need to pay for the fire department? Why force it on me?

I use very few roads to drive to work, other people use far greater stretches of highway... so why do I need to pay the same for it? Why force it on me?

I did not agree on the Iraq war, so why do I need to pay for it? Why force it on me?

I have to wonder how many people here actually do not have health insurance, and do not want it. In other words, how many people here will really be affected by the mandate? On the other hand, how many here have stayed in a job they hate, because they have to maintain their health insurance due to what could become a pre-existing condition?

TruePatriot-445959

That is not entirely accurate. Yes, 80% must go to actual health care, but it is calculated company wide, not on an individual basis. So those that don't go to the doctor and are healthy will see higher premiums than they would have on a case by case basis.

John, you hit the nail on the head in sentence 1 of post #122. The rest, I'm afraid, falls very short of the mark.

Pharmaceutical spending accounts for 8-12% of health care costs. In comparison, med tech accounts for nearly 50%. You should be attacking GE, not GSK and certainly not the FDA (which neither endorses nor advertises drugs). No one stops to think how much one CT scan costs, hint: way more than most people's annual prescription bill. Another large sink in health care is patients who do not manage their chronic disease, i.e. do not comply with a treatment regimen. All this points to a fundamental truth: Americans do not value prevention or personalized medicine very highly. This may be due to poor science education in America in general.

Insurance only changes who is paying the bill, it does not change the pricetag. We need better education, better research, cost-comparative studies on all medications and procedures, and above all else, the public needs to place higher importance on preventive and personalized medicine. These will actually lower the cost of care, improve patient outcomes, and increase the overall health of our society. Insurance mandate accomplishes none of these things other than passing the buck to someone else.

To those of you crying about being forced to buy health insurance:

I wonder how many of you would sign over your home, car, savings accoununt, 401(k), your future paycheck or anything else that migh be of value BEFORE you visit ER.

You miss the point completely. If I have a home, car, savings account, 401(k) etc. I more than likely have a job that provides me with benefits such as health insurance so I wouldn't need to sign anything over. I'm covered. The issue with mandating that everyone purchase insurance who doesn't already have it through their employer is that their are those that won't be able to afford it so the Government will have to gift it to them which means the already insured will be burdened with the cost to insure those can't afford to insure themselves. This is a ploy to grow the entitlement give-me more democratic base because we now once someone suckling from the teat of the Government they don't come up for air.

However, the real issue here is about the Government dictating that you must buy something based on the lone criteria that you're a US citizen. I hear some of you liberals stating that the states will just issue mandates themselves and that's great they have the authority to do so while the federal goverment does not. The other loose argument liberals bring up is auto insurance yet nobody is forcing you to drive a car therefore you are not required to buy auto insurance unless you choose to drive a vehicle. Key word here, choose.

IndieParty

There is a difference between public services and forcing people to pay money to private companies.

Fedup-3314606

...'Maybe a better solution that doesn't trample individual rights or deliver us to government provider where most of the talented Dr's leave medicine for more lucrative professions. There is a reason those from outside the US who can afford treatment come here, despite what the world healthcare rankings say.

First off, there are non-profit providers that already operate very successfully. A non-profit means that doctors are paid the prevailing rate as a part of overhead. So, no, the talent does not leave. BTW, many rich people go to Europe for treatment. The US doesn't have a monopoly on good medical professionals. This is BS propaganda used by Teapublicans to attack any progress ever attempted in this country.

Secondly, we do have "talent" here, but the words "available" versus "accessible" (i.e., "affordable") are NOT the same. Why do we have a system where providers need to make a profit off the sick, or worse, why do we have the insurance middlemen who also take a share of profits? It's not only a bad model, it's immoral.

It's odd that the Holier-than-Thou Crowd on the Right support profiting from the sick.

john

But you Republicans want to privatize all those industries too... so what is the difference between this and YOUR overall Republican goal of complete privatization?

And you prove the point that healthcare should be a public service, just like police protection. The biggest problem with healthcare is the profit-focused insurance companies that care more about money than the overall health of society. The fact that insurance companies are sentencing people and children to death, because providing health care will cut into their profits, is a societal problem. But, seeing as how you are a Republican, maybe you would understand if you viewed the sick as a fetus... then you might actually care.

MmmMmmBeer

Just because I brought up pharma does not mean that the FDA is not involved in Med Tech industry as well. And by not educating the public about living healthy and other options, they are promoting a course of action in the health industry. And that is to prescribe drugs with side effects that you must take other drugs to counteract.

IndieParty

For your information, I am not republican.

"I suggest you research what happens to medical professional's pay in a socialized system. If the majority of you are willing to have the Federal Government fix your pay, and those that, in the future, are considering the medical profession still have the desire to help their fellow man, then I will concede that we are on the right track"

It has already happened, but the government doesn't set our pay, the insurance companies do with the rates they set for reimbursement.

IndieParty

You admit the biggest problem with healthcare is profit-focused insurance companies, and at the same time advocate that everyone must give them more.

Throwing money at a problem rarely solves underlying problems, look at how the government functions.

And, again, I am not republican.

IndieParty,

I have never had a fire in my house, car, or any property... so why do I need to pay for the fire department? Why force it on me?

You bring up great point. Why I am forced to pay for the uninsured - whether medical or auto policy? If I don't have any kids, why do I pay for schools with my taxes? Also, those who have kids get a tax deduction which those who do not have kids don't get. If I have never broken any laws, do I get a refund for not using the local police, or state police?

Let's start with the Congressmen(women) giving up their taxpayer funded health insurance. They get the same thing as the rest of us: high premiums, high deductibles, high out-of-pockets, and crappy coverage - and no insurance when you no longer have the government job.

expatdownunda -- The Affordable Care Act allows you to keep your current insurance if you choose.

IndieParty-- We need a discussion in this country about good citizenship. It used to be considered patriotic to do your part -- paying your taxes, contributing to War Bonds, sending care packages to the troops, collecting rubbish, but most off all paying your taxes. Somewhere along the line this has been lost, thanks to the Teapublicans.

MmmMmmBeer-- Education is part of the problem -- for example expatdownunda who does not know s/he can keep his/her current insurance. Those who watch FOX Noise and listen to Hate Radio sure as heck are not well informed with FACTS. But as so many continually point out, if people could actually experience the improvements of the Affordable Care Act, then they would know the difference. But until our nation experiences things like preventative care, we are not going to place much importance on it.

bayllie -- Agreed. I pay more in taxes because I can't benefit from the $1,000 per child tax credit, yet at the same time my taxes go toward education other people's children. I'm not for the tax credit (or very few if any--lifestyle choices should not be a factor--just income), however I'm okay with helping educate future generations for the betterment of my country (per the point above about good citizenship).

Mygirl1#1.102: One of the best and most coherent posts I've read lately. After your 1st paragraph, I wrote an almost parody, of the remainder of your post, back when the President and Congress were in the thick of creating this hodge podge of a health care program being considered today. I, and so many others were then called everything from Liberals to "belly crawling communistic snakes" by the right wing nuts. You are correct. This can be done with virtually no increase in taxes, yielding much better health care, much better cost containment apparatus, and a much higher quality of life for all Americans. Even yet though, this one would make a good stout springboard to jump over into a "universal, single payer" system. Regards

Brianb-999431

What I notice by the above posts is a very strong divide. Those that hope the law fails, see the law as an encroachment on our freedoms. In this I will agree. The law allows the government access into our personal lives by forcing us to purchase insurance. I haven't been to the doctor or hospital in over 10 years, so why do I need to purchase insurance?

You need to buy health insurance because you won't ALWAYS enjoy the good health you do now. No matter how healthy you are now, the time will come when something horrible is going to happen to you.

Most people, for example, eventually get cancer and/or heart disease. Treatments for cancer often run into hundreds of thousands of dollars. If you don't have health insurance that means that you will either:

A. end up paying almost everything you own for your treatments (unless you are very rich) or

B: end up in an emergency room without being able to pay for your care, which means that everyone else will have to pay for your health care.

Now, perhaps you're young and you're planning to buy health insurance when you hit middle age. Well, if that's your strategy you're part of the reason that health insurance premiums are so high. The insurance companies don't get to collect your premiums when you're young and healthy but they DO have to pay for your health care costs when you finally buy a policy at age 50. That translates to higher premiums for everyone else.

In other words, you can't avoid being part of interstate commerce when it comes to health care. You're **GOING** to get old someday and that means that you're going to need health care.

this thing has been a horrible failure since day 1.

Joe: " They won't ban them, but there will be taxes on sugars and sodium and pretty much only the wealthy will be able to afford the "Good Stuff."

2 things:

1. I've noticed when I go grocery shopping, very often you must pay MORE for LESS sugar and sodium.

2. Are you sure you want to call sugar and sodium "the good stuff?" Seems to me one could easily make the opposite argument.

So the arguement goes....eventually everyone will need health care (not necessarily true), so it impacts interstate commerce and the Commerce clause applies.

Well, everyone WILL die and thus need internment. Should everyone be required to purchase funeral insurance? The undertakers would support this view. Or everyone WILL use toliet paper someday. So should we required require everyone to purchase Kimberly Clark toliet paper (the equivalent of a single payer system managed by the government). The truth is that the mandate is nothing more than the first step to a singer payer system and the single payer will be you and me and every other American that pays taxes. The government has no money unless the raise taxes, print it or borrow it. In the latter two cases, we simply dilute the buying power of what we can hold on to. Have you purchased a cup of coffee lately. Or a pack of Lifesavers. Or a loaf of bread. Perhaps we need food insurance so that we do not have our own money to buy it, the insurance company will. Sounds a lot like socialism to me.

Just spent time reading the transcripts from this morning-

Judging from what I read, Kagan is, definitely, in the tank- to the degree that she seems to forget what side of the bench she is on.

Sotomayor, by contrast, seems to have left the reservation. Her questions and arguments with the Solictor General make it seem that she ain't buying what is being sold.

Go figure.

And, to Bill in Mill Creek- if you want to know about any court that makes law, rather than interpreting it- spend a little time studying New Jersey. Our state Supreme Court enacted the Council on Affordable Housing- which forces communities to build, no matter the make up of the town.

It also enacted a state income tax.

By judicial fiat.

123ang

I want the government to stay out of my healthcare and health insurance.

I hear the same line when I go to my moms house for the holidays. She is on Medicare, remind me again who runs that system? Government you say?

Guess which network news station she watches? Amazing how people are easily brainwashed by talking points. (The left news networks are just as guilty, I bash all propaganda entertainment networks, news is no longer reported, only opinion)

Wanna talk Death Panels? Medicare is government run, while the insurance industry is out to make a profit. Who do you think will be willing to let you die to make the extra buck?

The thing that is constant in all these socialistic or semi-socialistic health care ideas that allow them to be affordable is having criteria to determine whether it is worth the cost to treat an individual. For example; does a person deserve a kidney transplant if his heart is bad or if he is too old?

Well, if you're going to have criteria the simplest and least subjective is, if you don't have the money, you don't get it. Somehow, I feel like I did not originate this idea?

john

You admit the biggest problem with healthcare is profit-focused insurance companies, and at the same time advocate that everyone must give them more.

Throwing money at a problem rarely solves underlying problems, look at how the government functions.

Actually I stated that I would prefer healthcare to be a public service, and I stand with those who want to remove the middle man (private profit-focused insurance companies). Much the same way everyone needs socialized police protection, fire protection, roads, stop lights, etc. Health care should be the same.

With private insurance companies jacking up the cost because they want bigger bonus checks, and taking 80% of the costs for executive salaries, we will never lower the costs with those companies at the helm.

So, would I like to see the ACA changed? Yes. Should we scrap the entire thing? No. Why? Because I am a realist and I know that "starting over" really means that we go back to the old way and nothing changes. With two parties so polarized, no one will agree on anything the other side suggests. And with the GOP being completely owned by big business, lobbyists, and health insurance companies... they will never do anything that will cut away at their profits.

That being said, we should keep the good parts of ACA (preexisting conditions, children, insurance companies must use 80% of health care costs) and work on the bad parts. If the mandate for private insurance bothers you, fine... let's change it to a medicare style mandate where everyone still pays, but you are not forced to buy a private good. Scrapping the entire mandate just puts us back into a system of people like me paying for the uninsured simply because they don't want the bill.

I personally know two die-hard Republicans who are against this bill because they do not have insurance and do not want to buy it. One recently had a cat-scan for a head trauma... guess who paid for it? You did, and I, and everyone else. So there needs to be some sort of mandate where everyone pays, otherwise we will just have more people like that.

IndieParty

Do you mean like the Welfare system? Everyone who is even close to 133% of the poverty line will make sure they stay below and go on Medicaid. Companies that now pay for their employees will dump them on the market because the fine is less than what they were paying.

You are right, there are good things in the bill. Preexisting conditions being a big one. Each of the good ones could have been accomplished with one page bills, not the megalith we see.

Most of these socialistic health care systems require sacrificing the aged for the benefit of the young. At 73 years old, I have no problem with that. I do keep insurance because I am not rich enough to do without it, I can get health care , if I want it and my children can not be held liable for my health care debts.

I am not good at explaining my thoughts but what I am trying to say is that I do not want my kids to suffer because of any illness that I might have. They only have to take care of themselves and their children.

My daughter-in-law is a nurse, she rushes her family off to a doctor often, my daughter is conservative and her family rarely sees a doctor. Both families are equally healthy.

John, you are partially correct about FDA, it is a division called CDER that regulates med tech and medical devices, different set of rules and regs than the FDA follows. However, you are incorrect it is the FDA's responsibility to educate, promote, advertise, anything. We have an entire Department of Education for that. Besides, even if the FDA did "promote" some type of perpetual drug-induced state in America, you are talking about a drop in the bucket of our health care costs. It's the other 92-88% of spending I'm more worried about.

You and TruePatriot completely miss the point. Regardless of your personal feelings about the ACA, an insurance mandate will not influence the actual care received nor affect patient outcomes. As a society, we are having the wrong debate entirely. Reason being: politicians want to be re-elected, and corporations want to pay dividends to their stockholders.

This law does not address the underlying issue of why our care costs so much. Again, American people do not value prevention, we do not value chronic disease management, and we do not value personalized medicine. If this discussion board shows anything, it's that the only thing Americans do value is the almighty $$ and trying to keep some in their pocket. That is greed, not health care.

bayllie

You bring up great point. Why I am forced to pay for the uninsured - whether medical or auto policy? If I don't have any kids, why do I pay for schools with my taxes? Also, those who have kids get a tax deduction which those who do not have kids don't get. If I have never broken any laws, do I get a refund for not using the local police, or state police?

Ohhhh... don't even get me started on people with kids forcing everyone else to pay for their gremlins, and these same people turning around and complaining about paying for contraceptives. Pisses me off. So we have to pay the medical expenses for you to procreate, we have to pay for the schools to educate that little retard you call a child, we have to pay more in taxes because you decided to act like a cock-roach and breed, but you don't want to pay someone else to get contraception? ... Sorry... see what I mean?

Anyways... this is the unfortunate necessity of living in a society. We ALL have to pay for sh** we don't like. That's life.

If we only paid for what we use, there would not be enough money in the system for anything. I would pay very little for medical care, because I eat healthy and work out everyday. While one of the monsters from "People of Walmart" would lose their home, car, and everything they own to medical bills. Is it fair? No. But life isn't fair.

That is our reality. That will not change... it is the price of living in a civilized society.

Justice Kennedy is a disgrace to any bench - never in the history of this great nation have so many members of SCOTUS so deserved to be tarred, feathered, and hanged.

The Affordable care act was not written but insurance companies. The Insurance companies are the villain in the health care system. The ACA didn't address tort reform, or sky rocketing drug costs. The advertising budgets for the drug companies are bigger than Nike. Who do you think is going to pay for this?

Obama care will increase cost.....period, end of question.

You have more people being covered under one policy (Dependents to age 26).

You have more preventative services covered at no cost.

60% of Americans will qualify for a government subsidy based on their household income.

The only way to get the subsidy is to enroll in one of the silver plans on the state/ federal insurance exchanges.

The government is deciding what services will be covered, and what the out of pocket expense will be. (Gold, Silver, Bronze plans).

The end result will be the death of employer based group policies. Everyone will end up enrolling in an individual policy on the health exchange so they can get their subsidy.

MmmMmmBeer

I disagree that I miss the the point at all. Even though I did hit on the FDA, my point was the same as yours that the discussion should be about healthy living, and a society that lives healthy needs less care, and thereby reduces cost. I may have opinions about the mandate, but my intention was to bring the underlying cause of high costs into the discussion.

john

Each of the good ones could have been accomplished with one page bills, not the megalith we see.

Again... I am a realist. If you think the two polarized parties we have will agree to a one page bill, without lobbyists interference, you are on drugs.

I am guessing that drug is a hallucinogen, because you are living in a fantasy world if you believe that will ever happen.

@ True Patriot... I actually had to study Pfizer, Merck, and I'm forgetting the third pharmaceutical company for my Business Strategy course when I was in college. This included going through years of financial statements and researching a lot about the company. There is so much government regulation that prevents efficient R&D from occurring. Most of these companies are significantly financed by debt. The only way they pay for the research and the people doing the research is by the sale of their product. Not too mention many of the frivolous lawsuits that they fight everyday. They are constantly battling in the legal system. All of these regulations and legal processes cost money. The main goal of any business is to increase the wealth of the shareholders. That is what it is about. The more taxes, the more regulation, the more 'red tape' that exists, the higher it is going to cost the customer. It's not GREED of the 1% that people always refer to. This is just a political snowball that melts upon contact if you look passed all that garbage. It is a scapegoat and everyone loves a scapegoat.

Next insurance and banks of any kind is what drives up prices. Do you really think each class of person is going to pay the same percentage? No it is going to be the same mucked up system we have with the Federal Income Tax and all the entitlement programs we have.

Do you really think a vehicle should be worth $30,000 or a house worth $225,000? I invite you to watch DIY network and shows like the property brothers. I seen this total s. hole go for $300,000. That isn't even close to what it should be worth, but the access to mortgages or loans is what drives these prices up. If there were not mortgages, don't you think people would be paying only thousands of dollars for houses. If you didn't have this conglomerate of insurances, which insurance is intended to be insurance for medical emergencies not yearly checkups, then people would be able to afford checkups and physicals out of pocket. If the FDA didn't control medicines as they do today, a person would have easier access to them. If there was tort reform, then you wouldn't have all these lawsuits that threaten doctors and ultimately increase premiums. If people took responsibility for their actions, did their research then we would have these problems. I'm not saying negligence shouldn't go excused, but why does the Government need these LARGE, EXPENSIVE, Bureaucratic Machines for every entity?

I had a lot of stuff floating through my brain.. Sorry for the rambling.

IndieParty

I don't use drugs. And I am a realist also.

I think it would be better for them to do nothing, than do something they shouldn't.

@PATRIOTIC AMERICAN...Please change your "tag". Youre a socialist NOT a "patriotic american"!

So why was my Post #1.3 'collapsed'? It seems that Liberals are the first to quash 'free speech'.

'If the justices allow the insurance mandate to stand, he said, then it "would allow Congress to control the most basic of decisions about how to live life – in other words, to withhold from individuals the very liberty that the Constitution was designed to protect." '

That's the crux of the issue.

If this precedent is allowed to stand, there will be no area of life that the Federal Government will not be able to 'dictate' to us, under the guise that 'it's necessary for the common good'. Once a precedent is set, there are no limits to how broadly it may be applied, as evident from the current interpretation of the 'commerce clause'.

This is not about 'health care', it is about the ability of the Federal Government to impose dictatorial control of every aspect of our lives - a direct challenge to the very core of the Constitution.

Hey joe, you did alright! :)

I'd love to see the end result....

If after this we see the high court find Constitutional grounds for this law to exist, then no further challenge will come into place preventing me from finally receiving medical care for the injuries I suffered in a 2004 accident when the 2014 package rolls through. Keep in mind too that most injury victims in auto accidents rarely walk away with the financial support needed to pay for all the medical care required...such is my case. I need the 2014 provision to throw out pre-existing condition denials to pay for my care...10 MISERABLE YEARS LATER.

If we see the opposite happen and this law is thrown out as un-Constitutional, I'd have a solid and undeniable legal argument to stop paying liability or any other type of automobile insurance to operate my vehicle on public roads, highways, and freeways. I'd love to stop supporting the greedy bastards who put me in the poor house when I was a passenger in a car which was insured by a @!$%#ty company who chose to harass and belittle me after surviving a horrific accident in which I was a victim. Only then will I be able to afford the doctor visits which my insurance will not cover due to pre-existing conditions.

Either way, both turn out pretty good for me.

Government Health Care is the best thing going - just ask any active duty service member or retiree that has TRICARE.

If you don't want the "Obamacare" fine - but you either pay cash or have valid proof of insurance when you take your "cheap ass" to the emergency room and yes if you can't pay, stick a bandaid on it and suck it up and drive on.T

The ones complaining about the "big government" or the ones that can't afford the insurance and abuse the emergency room.

Sally Lu said:

I'm absolutely for a socialized form of medicine. I would not mind paying higher taxes to insure that no one would be forced to forego medical treatment because they can't pay. Maybe they could bump payroll taxes up a bit and also add a bit to sales tax (I realize that some states don't currently have sales tax). That way, everyone is at least paying a little bit toward the cost. My daughter's boyfriend's father died at age 50, because he had a treatable illness but couldn't afford to go to the doctor. When he finally went to the ER it was too late. That should never happen in America, but it does every day. But there are so many out there who are so afraid that they might pay a little bit more for something than the next guy and not get as much use. We are all in this together and just think of how much better everything would be if medical expenses were one less thing we had to worry about!

Of course you are for socialized medicine! Because you feel someone else should pay your way. Instead of looking to others to take on YOUR responsibility, why don't you do something for yourself? Get a second job to help pay for YOUR medical costs. Have your grown daughter get at least a part-time job to help cover her medical costs. I know the approach is novel to a lot of people that expect others to take care of them, but gee, why don't you exhaust all your options before you look to others.

And we are not all in this together! 49% of American citizens do not pay one cent in federal income taxes. The 51% of us that are paying the taxes are getting sick and tired of supporting the 49%. Don't you get it?! Eventually there will be more takes than givers - and it will get to the point that there just won't be enough "dole" to go around. You clearly seem to think that "others" have unending sources of money to give you.

And although your comment about your daughter's boyfriend's father dying at 50 because he could not go to a doctor for treatment is a heart-string puller - and it is a load of crap. As obviously there are very able bodied people in his family - his son, you, your daughter - that could have helped him. But you'd rather put his death on the shoulders of us! That's a true socialist for you.

Replying to Erinsfire ... Yes it is true that some thing with less sodium or sugars are more expensive. Not down the fruit and vegetable isle though. People pay for convenience for ready made meals which are more expensive. Sometimes it is more expensive to extract natural salts and sugars out of foods. The watered down milk is cheaper than the whole milk though. People have the choice to go to fast food or cook. I work and I cook. I cook normally for 4. Normally, it takes between 30minutes and an hour depending on what I am cooking. Don't get me wrong, I grab quick meal foods as well, which I pay for at the grocery store. If you add taxes to stuff like chocolate or sugars, you hurt small businesses like bakeries. Things will cost more. God knows a man would have to pay a fortune for their wife's wedding cake! *That's a joke* Are you really going to deny an occassional sweet from your children? Especially christmas and easter candy? It's just one slippery slope if the government interferes in your life. It's one less freedom. Let people make their own choices. Let them suffer the consequences with the knowledge that they know what they are doing. People know. People need to take responsibility. Each moment we let the government do what they want, regulate what they want, we take away our freedoms. In a socialist society everyone is the victim and the government is the father.

You have to love justice Roberts questions

Ahh, True Patriot, the first sign of a losing position is to resort to the name calling that seems to permeate many of your comments. I never claimed that all the medical talent was in the US or that everyone seeks treatment within the US for all conditions. That would be the point of individual freedom. Under this bill, it would be illegal to work outside the network by the way which would seem to include treatment outside the US (IRS fines ahead). Non profits do operate successfully in the US, should be applauded and may be part of the overall solution to helping those who can't afford insurance.

How does taking the money/profit out of healthcare solve everything? Think bureaucratic process and efficiency is going to add value to healthcare? I'll wager that corporate profit is less than bureaucratic waste. Want to lower what the Dr.'s earn? Should we regulate what they make? That won't have any effect on who enters into medicine would it? I'd rather pay to have the best specialists over somebody who would have otherwise been a paper pusher prior to government involvement.

If this bill is so beneficial, why are ~60% of practicing physicians contemplating retirement vs. continuing their practice. That will surely help the patients, especially at the time that the largest demographic in the country reaches the age where they are most in need of the services. The bottom line is that this bill was never created to achieve anything affordable anyway. It was a red herring all along.

The Supreme Court will rightfully strike down the mandate as unconstitutional. I am going to love having Obama's vision of the single payer program explode in his face. This law was just the stepping stone to his dream of a socialized America!

He is a complete failure - not only as a President, but as an American!

Kenney know his answer weeks ago, so stop with the Etch A Sketch. The American people are up to your games, we are not blind. KENNEY is on the GOP/TP team.

Hopeful American

Of course you are for socialized medicine! Because you feel someone else should pay your way.

You do realize that "Obamacare" requires them to PAY THEIR OWN WAY. And getting rid of "Obamacare" will just go back to the way things were, where the tax payers and YOU pay for other people.

The 51% of us that are paying the taxes are getting sick and tired of supporting the 49%. Don't you get it?

Wow... you completely contradict yourself. And the worst part is that you are not even smart enough to realize it.

This whole thing about "Obamacare" is that YOU no longer support them, they have to get insurance and pay for it. Not you, THEM.

You are literally complaining about "supporting" people who do not pay taxes, but you want to remove "Obamacare" and go back to supporting people who do not have insurance. My God, did you even get past the second grade? You lack the capacity to understand basic principles. Do you realize how pathetic that is?

I am going to love having Obama's vision of the single payer program explode in his face.

And I am going to love laughing in your face, when it gets struck down and YOU go back to paying for the uninsured again.

This whole system is crazy. What we need to do is copy the most successful insurance programs in the World (France, Taiwan, etc.);

1 - The government sets a 'minimum standard of care' that all insurance companies must offer (no exclusions) on a competitive basis nationwide.

2 - The government should ensure that all residents have an insurance card (universal health care).

3 - Employers should be required to pay a payroll tax to a health care trust fund that is equivalent to X% (approximately what they currently pay for employee health insurance).

4 - The balance of any funds needed to fund universal health care should be covered by a National Sales Tax.

Based on experiences in France and other 'enlightened' countries, the total cost of health care in America would be reduced by about $1 Trillion per year ($10 Trillion over 10 years), which would eliminate all of the Federal Deficits over the next 10 years and actually result in a $1.7 Trillion SURPLUS (based on Obama's 2013 Budget).

IndieParty

You do realize that those under 133% of the poverty line will not have to buy insurance, and now are entitled to get on Medicaid, right?

I’m afraid the corrupt Republican Supreme Court justices will do exactly what the insurance companies tell them to do. If this was a Republican written law there would have never been a challenge to its constitutionality. Of course since it was passed by Democrats that means it’s unconstitutional??????

It is truly a sad day in America when we can’t even rely on our Supreme Court to be fair and impartial. The Republican Party has successfully polluted every part of our government with corporate paid flunkies and that includes the Supreme Court. It becomes more obvious everyday that The corporations are running the show and their right wing Republican employees are working hard everyday to destroy our democracy one corrupt politician [ or judge ] at a time.

To all the right wing posters out there, keep right on supporting these people with your hate filled rhetoric. Just remember one day your rights will be stripped away to and you won't be able to do a damn thing about it.

Well, it appears Obamacare is an oxymoron. Obama doesn't care! After all, he didn't celebrate the 2nd anniversary of health care reform being passed and signed into law.

We need real reform, not some reform that nobody read prior to voting, had 100's of pages added to it hours before the vote, passed in the early hours of the morning, and told we would have to pass it to find out what's in it.

Good bye Obamacare!!!!

ORB 1943 #1.152, "Nice home run"

Everyone seems to be pontificating on the relative merits, or lack thereof, of various features of the new ACA. The SCOTUS is actually supposed to be determining Constitutionally, if the Congress can order citizens to buy something from private enterprise or be fined if any do not. While the states and many municipalities make us obtain clothes at our own costs, and/or legal efforts, worthy of hiding our nakedness, lewdness, and inappropriateness, there is 1, maybe more, federal statutes requiring citizens the gaining of and wearing appropriate clothing yielding proper decency within the public. Not doing so is punishable by fine, and/or imprisonment. Besides one runs around naked during a cold snap, one could catch a cold and spread it through many wearing clothes.

You do realize that those under 133% of the poverty line will not have to buy insurance, and now are entitled to get on Medicaid, right?

And how is that different than us paying for EVERYONE who does not have insurance?

IndieParty,

Anyways... this is the unfortunate necessity of living in a society. We ALL have to pay for sh** we don't like. That's life.

And that's the truth of it. As a society, we should expect to give up things just because we are part of that society: schools, fire, police, etc. are things that we need whether we use them or not but it will be there incase we do.

That said, rising insurance costs have contributed to a trend in which fewer employers are offering health insurance, and many employers are managing costs by requiring higher employee contributions. Many of the uninsured are the working poor and the unemployed. Others are healthy and choose to go without it. Some have been rejected by insurance companies and are considered "uninsurable". Some choose faith-based alternatives to health insurance (pray the cancer away???). This problem will not go away and it will get worse.

I wonder how many people would agree with the insurance company's decision not to insure their loved one (child, sister, father, etc.) if they had a pre-exiting condition. Or if the insurance company decided not to pay for a kidney transplant because it cuts into their profit. Do you think ANY of them would say: I understand - business is business? I don't think so. I wonder how quickly they would change their view of these poor companies just trying to make money.

By the way, Republicans supported and individual mandate until Obama did. Mitt Romney backed the GOP's individual mandate in 1994. Gingrich supported the individual mandate in the '90's, again in 2005, then again in 2007, then again in 2009. A former Republican President (Bush1) supported an individual mandate.

So anyone who claims that the Republicans are NOT hypocrites is full of $hit.

Indie Party:

You are delusional! Do you honestly think people are going to buy the insurance? They would pay the "tax" or "penalty", which is nothing compared to the insurance cost. Then they will keep on using the emergency room as their doctor's office, and we, the taxpayers will still pay.

We need reforms, but forcing people to buy something - kind of - is not the answer. The living on the "dole" people will still be living on the dole. The only difference is the federal government might scrape in a little money for the penalty. And where will that money go? What federal government abyss will it go down?!

So Indie, I am laughing in your face! Because you clearly are clouded by your ignorance not to understand that the takers will keep on finding a way to take.

If the law gets struck down, then perhaps we can have a BIPARTISAN bill from Congress that does what we need, instead of this monstrosity that nobody read and we had to 'pass it so we could find out what's in it'.

This "forced to purchase" thing is a mere technicality.

Freedom may win this battle, but it will lose the war. All ObamaCare has to do is come back as a tax/universal plan and it will sail through, a la Social Security and the other thumb-sucking babysitting programs.

@Roy Wilson#1.171: My Gwad Man! I love it! Where the hell were you back in 09 and10 when this present mess was being put together? I, and many others said then what you are saying now. We were then called the sorriest sons-a-bitching pack of Socialists hell ever created. Hope you stick to your guns on this. Regards

Really?-1739510

They don't HAVE to accept every insurance plan out there.

They can operate on a cash basis if they desire. They can turn down patients by hending them over to another doctor.

You are naive. How is a doctor going to pay for their malpractice insurance? In 2009, OB/GYNs could end up paying more than $55,000 per year for insurance coverage. Insurance for general surgeons can cost between $22,000 per year and $34,000 per year.

At $75 per visit, an OB/GYN would have to see 733.33 patients a year just to cover that. What about the rest? The nurse, the rent, the equipment, his/her salary? And that's assuming that he would have that many cash-paying patients.

Those who do not have insurance do not go for regular checkups - they just use ER as a mean to get better, and then they stick everyone else with the bill.

Ron Paul's aide who died left us with $400k in unpaid medical bills. He was unable to obtain affordable health insurance because of a preexisting condition.

John, touche' it appears we are on the same page about underlying issues...it's just very sad to see our whole country caught up in a debate about "who" pays in lieu of facing the complex subject of "what" we are paying for.

Verrilli tried to defend the requirement that uninsured people purchase insurance. “Everyone subject to this regulation is in -- or will be in -- the health care market,” Verrilli told the court. “They are just being regulated in advance.

This appears to be a liberal trait. Regulating in advance. Taken a step further, we will be able to convict dissidents before they speak out against the dear leader or convict a alleged criminal before an investigation or trial (see Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin case being tried in the press by race baiters before an investigation is completed).

I guess we will need to get used to having all of our actions being regulated in advance by Big Brother if the SCOTUS buys into the Obama argument being pressed by his shill Verilli!

@ Roy Wilson - I wouldn't worry about being collapsed, you still have the most votes by far.

“Everyone subject to this regulation is in -- or will be in -- the health care market,” Verrilli told the court. “They are just being regulated in advance. "

Consumer spending is the largest part of the economy. Everyone born is in -- or will be in -- multiple marketplaces. It would then be reasonable for the government to microchip everyone at birth so that they can easily track consumer spending preferences, migration, and a whole host of valuable demographic information.

Don't think of it as losing privacy...think of it as being regulated in advance.

Verrilli's argument is no different than that requiring children be educated - or that motor vehicles meet certain requirements - or that electronics be discarded appropriately - or that individuals register for selective service. There are many requirements that ALL of us are subject to.

Everyone is regulated in advance - because - many of those regulations and laws were in place before we were born (or conceived). We all enter the world being regulated and we will be regulated until each of us dies. That has nothing to do with the government.

Either way SCOTUS decides the issues - health care is now part of the political landscape. If ACA is struck down - there will be vocal demand for something to replace it. If ACA is allowed to stand - there will be vocal demand to change it. The SCOTUS decisions on the issues are only the beginning of the battles to come ...

I'll admit right up front that a) I do not like the Health Care Reform legislation, particularly the personal mandate that all buy insurance, and b) I've no clear notion as to whether it does or does not violate the constitution.

It feels as if it should be unconstitutional, not because the government is going beyond its power to regulate interstate commerce (when did buying insurance become a multistate activity), but because I feel it is none of the government's business whether I do or do not buy insurance. If I were 18 to 30 years of age, and faced with shouldering the expense of health insurance premiums on my own, there is no way I would be covered. It just would not be an effective use of my money.

So now the court is hearing arguments from both sides, and that is a good thing. I'm not certain on which side they should render their decision, I only hope that it is under a clear and transparent interpretation of the Constitution.

commonsense I would argue the Warren Court was very busy making law. Because many of the problems about this law are a direct result of rulings of the Warren Court.

Hey out there - has anyone thought of turning some of these freeloaders away from the hospital ????? Pass a law saying hospitals can't be sued by these freeloaders and cure half the health care problem !!! Come on now it's common sense and reasonable !!!! PS , I have plenty of sympathy for the sick but why not turn some of these freeloaders away ??????

Anyone who thinks this court is going to rule in favor of Obama is deluding themselves.

the only healthcare reform i've ever heard from the right is take away patients rights. They argue that healthcare costs rise because doctor's are required to have malpractice insurance. So in essence, if a surgeon has a fight with the spouse or a little too much wine the night before, and inadvertently screws up the procedure, you can't sue them? Medicine for profit sucks. Sorry, that's my story and i'm sticking to it.

btw, you teatards can scream all you want about your rights being taken away. They already have been when your former leader enacted the Patriot Act in the wake of 9/11.

Do you like privacy in your healthcare? You won't have it if this bill goes into effect. The government will own your medical records but they exempt themselves from the Privacy Act on pg 455 Bye Bye HIPPA. Will everyone be covered? Pg 354 says special needs people will be restricted in their enrollment. And for all the liberal women Yes the bill says that the government will decide which healthcare conditions will be paid. You do remember that the president runs for election every four years and can't serve more than two terms. What if the next one is right of right will the things you want still be covered.? Want to see something funny Obama vs Obama debating the healthcare bill on youtube.

I am not afraid of socialized medicine. I am afraid of this bill. Remember what power you give to your government they will use. Everybody that is not a democratic member of congress that has actually read the bill is afraid of it. I will not support a bad law because the system before was worse. There is no reason not to do it right and this time with transparency. Not with "you have to pass it to see what's in it" I've seen some of what is in it. I challenge every one supporting it to actually read the 2700 pg abomination our congress forced on us. An Independent Voter

Much to many uninformed or purposely obtuse individuals posting on this thread, My Medicare is paid out of deductions from my weekly checks. Anyone claiming that those who disagree with Obamacare shouldn't be entitled to medicare are just plain idiots. The system existed when I was way too young to vote and ever since I started working those deductions have been drawn from my paycheck. The same goes with social security. I've paid into the system all my life. So stick it where the sun doesn't shine by saying that I should not receive those two benefits that I have been paying into by government fiat and it wasn't my choice. I would gladly receive a lump sum check from the government for what I paid into the system and opt out of it. The money I put in was MY money.

To indyparty idiot who was saying since he's never needed the police, fire or other public service so he shouldn't pay for it... Yes you should. The constitution says you should... but the constitution doesn't say I should be forced to purchase healthcare. Your argument was very stupid... or you don't know what it says in the Constitution... which is highly likely!

Honestly? I hope the section of the law compelling the purchase of insurance is ruled unconstitutional, and that, in having that done, it opens the way for the legislating of either a 'public option', or 'single payer' (like many other modernized countries have).

Medical reform needed, is a given, by both sides of this argument. The real problem is the 536 idiots, ramming through mandates that do NOT apply to them, are too all-inclusive, and do NOT address the real problems that caused this mess in the first place.

They put up a law that is so confusing, the only people actually going to make money on it, is the federal government, and all the lawyers. At the same time, they are going to reduce benefits for people that have payed almost the ultimate price, (our veterans and military retirees,) as well as other seniors, just to protect their reelection buddies.

As far as big oil, the pharmaceutical companies, and big corporations generally only supporting the "right" wing, check your facts. They cover their bets by supporting, financially, BOTH sides, just to make sure they are covered on both sides of the bed they crawl in.

One post I noticed was a very valid one, a justice that worked on this, has defended this previously, and is now sitting on the bench to control the "legality" of this, and as such, is definitely not my idea of a non-biased judge/justice. Justice Kagan should not even be allowed to participate in this discussion.

Let me guess ..... all these supreme court justices have their healthcare taken care of. Right?

I find the arguments that the GOP are throwing at the ACA are quite unreasonable. They claim that if it becomes constitutional, that the government can force someone to buy broccoli. Under that argument, they claim that if you let the government do this, then it will cause that. So technically, why didn't they apply it to other famous court decisions, like civil rights or voter enfranchisement??? That is what their argument is literally asserting.

And what is so bad about the ACA???? 30 or 40 years ago this would have become law instantly. Then again, back then we had two relatively moderate parties. Now we only have one. Not only does it REDUCE the deficit, it lets millions of uninsured Americans to become insured. It will save money and lives, like it already has. And for those who claim that it violates the Constitution, tough luck. I personally support the Constitution, but I cannot see the viability of abandoning a perfectly acceptable system of healthcare because of our principles. I mean, the Founding Fathers NEVER thought that healthcare would turn out this way. Never. I mean, the Constitution in 230+ years old; of course we need to amend it. May all you fervent Tea Party activists remember: a man who is killed for his principles is a martyr and a hero; a man who dies because he will not adapt his principles to contemporary society is an idiot.

Personally, the ONLY reason why I would EVER support the individual mandate being ruled unconstitutional is so that we can go for a public option or single payer. But that won't happen until after the election (if ever).

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

OBAMACARE LEGAL 2012

PUBLIC OPTION (SINGLE-PAYER) SOON

All these Obama supporters, dragging out the same old, tired arguments about why we need Obamacare, not whether it's legal or not. Lots of what-if's and exploiting the poor and children, to attempt to give their point credibility, and ignoring that they fought to give any other solution a chance to work, because those other solutions wouldn't be under government contro;
They prove they don't care about law, justice, individual rights or even our nation's economic peril.
They want as many of us trapped by the neck, under the governments boot heel, as possible.
I personally would like to see the Supreme Court of the United States, trash the entire bill, followed by Obama getting tossed out on his progressive, socialist rear end, in November. That would make my day.

While I feel that there need's to be some kind of health insurance remember the people making these decisions for us have the very best medical money can buy and pay nothing for it. The average person could never even come close to being able to afford that kind of insurance. We're the ones paying their bill and they're selling us down the river.

A very simple question.....If you couldn't purchase Health Insurance across State lines before ObamaCare and you still can't purchase Health Insurance across State Lines after ObamaCare fully kicks in.....Where does the Regulating INTERSTATE COMMERCE come into play ???...

Each State will have to set up the Health Exchanges for its residents. It's really no different than each State currently having a State Insurance Commissioner that decides which companies are allowed to do business in the State.

The ONLY thing Interstate about the whole thing is the ability of the Federal Government to TAX or PENALIZE across all State Lines for non-compliance ......

Freshieee said: I find the arguments that the GOP are throwing at the ACA are quite unreasonable. They claim that if it becomes constitutional, that the government can force someone to buy broccoli. Under that argument, they claim that if you let the government do this, then it will cause that. So technically, why didn't they apply it to other famous court decisions, like civil rights or voter enfranchisement??? That is what their argument is literally asserting.

First of all, if you support the ACA, any argument against it, no matter what it was, would be quite unreasonable to you. The premise of your statement is incorrect. Nobody is saying that the government WILL force you to buy something else like broccoli. What people are saying, is that since this has gone in front of the supreme court for a decision, and if they rule in favor of it, the government can force you to buy something because this will set the precedent. It would open the door to all sorts of infringements the government can make into our lives. I am not GOP, but can still see the dangers involved here due to the laws of our land.

Commonsense said:

3. Requiring ALL Americans will to have insurance will expand the pool of people paying in to the system by 50 million people per year, but the number of people receiving health care will not change.

Dude, really? If the amount of people getting treatment won't change, then why are we doing this? By your logic everyone who needs treatment is getting treatment - therefore there is no problem to solve.

Idiot.

Mike, the reason it effects the interstate commerce laws is because the program is federal. Lets say I live in one state, have insurance in that state, and have to move to another state. I will be forced to purchase a whole different policy in that new state. I have lost whatever benefit I had with my old insurance. I might have to pay a more expensive rate, or lose some of what was included in my previous policy. It's all tied in with the fact that the federal government is mandating it, no matter where I move to.

Justice Ginsberg is wrong in comparing Social Security to this health insurance scam.. If you work you pay into Social Security and if you don't work you do not get taxed.. In the same rules the number of years you do work count towards the % of benefits you receive.. The better solution would have been providing medicare/medicaid to people who do not have an above poverty level income and net worth of X including home and possessions..

I am curious as to how many of our elected officials stand to profit from insurance or medical industry investments?? The medical industry is out of control and so is the insurance industry with profits climbing through the roof and CEOs getting record bonuses..

Why would any rational American even trust anything the supreme court does considering they make disastrous decisions like "Citizens United"(corporations are people too). Give me a flippin' break. I wouldn't trust any of those clowns as far as I could throw them. They are just as corrupt if not more than most of the politicians in our country. And people wonder why we are going down the tubes? And what's even worse, they are not elected, they are "plugged in" for life so we are stuck with these corrupt b*stards forever!! God help us!

Here is the million dollar question - Of all the top democracy's in the world why are we the only one that doesn't have national health care??? Here's a few clues, profits, greed and corruption.

LMarcT...the question that needs to be asked,,and is not,,is...why the tax payers have to foot any bills for illegals to begin with ? If they need health care,,they can go back where they came from. I am also not happy with any health care reform that is created by the health care industry and insurance companies...that have made sure there were no cost controls in it anywhere. And am not surprised that our elected have sided with this law since lobbyist have made sure lots of money was passed out to ensure this was passed.

Freshieee

We don't always agree, and most of the time we don't. But I will give you props for the broccoli comment.

Because that is actually the truth. The government would actually be better off mandating our food supply to make sure that is healthy like broccoli, than this law. Imagine a society that actually took care of themselves and ate properly, most diseases that are caused by our unhealthy attitudes would not be an issue and costs for healthcare would go down.

It's interesting that a lot of people have talked about the mandate as the beginning of a snowball rolling downhill, but what about auto insurance? You want to drive (legally), you need insurance. Just figured I mention that.

I am not for the individual mandate. In fact, as one who believes a single-payer system would work better than what we have, a public option being a nice availability, and universal (affordable) healthcare as being tantamount to a strong nation... I hate this bill. Passed as an excessively long document full of legal jargon and passed in a hurry. It's full of political toxicity (a repub-derived bill full of repub provisions that was debated in the congress over a year, only to be labelled "ram-rodded" and "without input from the Republican party"). I believe Bill Maher said it best when he described it as "a blowjob to the insurance companies." Curious then, he uses it to describe it as one of Obama's achievements (and a continuous thorn in Mitt Romney's side, lol).

When you overhaul an engine, you carefully inspect every component and re-use only that which is in good condition and supports the goal you have in mind for the engine. Even then, nearly every component (new or used) will ideally be tweaked or modified in such a way as to get as close as you can to being certain that the engine will run well. Yes, one can slap something together and have good luck with it. Yes, you can blueprint an engine and wipe a cam or drop a valve through no fault of your own. But you should still take the time to do it right to insure ultimate success. This is what a good machinist does. A good professional will apply similar principals to their field. Why aren't our professional policy makers (which are typically rich lawyers)?

From what I hear, the mandate came from the insurance companies complaining that they can't bring in enough premiums to pay out their policies. They made this claim whilst posting extravagant profit margins. Where was the threat of legal action over practices of extortion or breach of contract? Where were the cries of "if they can't make money doing a service then they shouldn't perform the service" that we heard so much from the people that wanted Detroit to fail (and ultimately would've cost the country untold $$$ and plunge us into an economic depression- this is fact). This reminds me a lot of giving the banks money to unfreeze credit just so they can not unfreeze credit and wound up buying other banks.

The current healthcare bill was intended to see no one paying premiums without getting services in return and to "stabilize the rising cost" of healthcare. Bull@!$%#. Spend 5-10 years with thousands of experts and millions of testimonies to iron out the details to overhaul a system in desperate need of it. @!$%# the newscycle, @!$%# continuous campaigning, @!$%# this left/right/center bull@!$%# that doesn't exist. They should've done it right from the get-go. They would've been closer to finishing a proper system even before this @!$%#ty legislation would go into full effect.

Heartening to read how many people do get it. Obamacare is a joke, if allowed to stand it will usher in the largest tax increases in American history. It will destroy doctor/client privilege, your medical records will be open. GE is going to profit mightily. They have the machines that will code all the records, amass all the documents and they have been waiting with bated breath, along with a whole slew of other of that ilk.

Obamacare will punish children with special needs, it will tax creators of prosthetic devices, (those devices under a $100 are exempt, like there's lots of those out there) it punishes employers who have fifty or more employees who don't provide health insurance (wait, wasn't that what the bill was supposed to do) it attaches 'fees' to a very large and interesting array of products and services and, it has a panel to oversee it. The IRS is the collection agency, that should tell you something. Oh, and your bank accounts, guess you won't mind them taking money out of them, will you? Oh, those panels, sorry, but they are death panels and they will indeed ration healthcare. Over seventy, need a kidney, too bad.

Why not just nationalize health insurance to a standard policy for all who want it and make it one fund like Social Security.. This way the government could get control of medical costs that we all know are getting insane.. $80 for a 20 cent aspirin and $350 for a $17 IV and so on.. They could also get caps and controls on law suits that drive prices of care and supplies through the roof.. If someone wants more coverage they can buy it just like a 401k or IRA.. Some key things like health care and energy should be controlled and prices capped for the benefit of the citizens.. I know it is not that simple but this would be a far better idea than the mess of $hit they are trying to shove down our throats..

If the 'read' by court watchers is accurate, it would appear that we're back to 'square one', or worse.

If the individual mandate falls, the rest of the act becomes unworkable because it would be cost prohibitive, leaving us in worse condition than before the law was passed.

It's a shame that the Democrats in control of Congress chose to 'do it their way, and ignore the Republicans'. If they had worked together, a bipartisan bill could have prevailed, instead of letting Nancy Pelosi write the bill (When asked why she didn't ask for Republican input on the bill, she responded - because 'we won').

Cincinnati Rick had this to say in regards to Amyshine pointing out that England, Japan, Canada, and most of Europe have nationalized health and asking if they were "less free" or the government was dictating every aspect of their life:

Yes, they are less free. Less free to fail and less free to succeed. They lack a Constitution and a history that tells them that their rights are inalienable and not a grant from their government...however benign and even solicitous of their welfare that government may be.

Actually, Cincinnati Rick, Great Britain, Japan, and Canada (as well as most, if not all, European countries) do have constitutions. England is a constitutional monarchy (the whole idea of a "constitution" comes from them), and that constitution does say that individual citizens have some rights that the government cannot trample on (one of them being the right of trial by jury). So, golly but your whole point is just plain wrong.

I see that Roy Wilson is back with the typical "talking points" that have to be corrected, again. First, the whole "individual mandate" thing is Republican. It was supported by Republicans (including Newt Gingrich) when Clinton tried to pass his bill. It was passed in Massachusetts and signed by Romney. The individual mandate was always a Republican idea--to which liberals finally caved as a way of getting something like a healthcare bill signed.

Suddenly, it's leftist and liberal. Amazing that the right wing has such a short memory that they cannot remember that it really was their idea that the left caved and accepted as a condition.

Furthermore, Roy Wilson brings up the whole "we have to pass the bill to know what's in the bill." Yes, Roy, that's how it works, guy! That's why bills don't become laws right away and have to then go through the Senate and then get signed by the president. The House of Representatives proposes a bill--they then argue about it--right up until the point that the bill is approved, people are adding things in and taking things out. Until it is approved, it's not a bill--it's a proposed bill. Only once it is voted on does it have a final format that everyone can sit down and read--that's why it isn't a law.

Then, the bill goes to the Senate which approves it, denies it, or comes up with its own version. If it is approved, it moves on to the president. If it is denied, it basically dies (there are ways to resurrect, but it's basically dead). If the Senate comes up with its own version, that version goes to the House--which might approve it, sending it on to the president. If the House doesn't approve it, then they go into reconciliation (at which point bills usually die). If the bill emerges from reconciliation--it is then voted on. If it passes both the House and Senate, it goes to the president.

Yes--Roy--you have to pass the bill to find out what will be in it. There are usually several competing forms running around--sometimes, people sneak stuff in at the last minute in order to kill the bill. But, a bill is not a law. It's a proposal. That's the job of the House--to hammer out the rough draft which then goes on to the more august body which looks at it to see if it is sound.

For heaven's sake, people--if you don't understand how your own government works, why are you voting? Please, let those of us who understand how a constitutional democracy works, vote in real elections and primaries and so forth--and the rest of you, just vote for American Idol, okay?

All I'll say is if this is unconstitutional then so is mandatory auto insurance.How many years has that been around.

But you don't have to drive, You can walk or you can bicycle or you can hitch hike.. What if you are a faith healer and medical care is against your beliefs..This law is like requiring you to by car insurance if you don't have a car.. It does nothing to get at the root problems with the health an insurance industries.. If you are below poverty level and can prove it your care costs are extremely low.. If you are in the 50% who can afford care then you pay a little more.. Get rid of the insane law suits and costs will go down 1/3..

PARADOX - The US government requiring you to have insurance, but not requiring you to have identification to vote.

That is humorous, and so is the likelihood of enforcing either.

This has to be a record. 220 comments under the first comment before collapse. Must have been rather civil?

@ a matter of fact.....so 4-6% profit is a huge profit for the Insurance companies?

This is about the govt. taking our freedom of choice away from us and doing it in a very expensive way. (I notice how many forget Obamacare is taking money from Medicare to put in Medicaid, further rationing care for Seniors, you know, the folks who paid into the system all these years. Bet they love getting the shaft in this deal! NOT)

I'm right with the poster who said the only people making money from Obamacare is the govt. and the lawyers..... it is the only truth at this point. The bad thing, is neither the govt. or lawyers can provide us with health services. So why do it?

We still need Health Care reform...I sincerely hope the High Court is the first step in making this happen.

Brianb-999431

Freshieee said: I find the arguments that the GOP are throwing at the ACA are quite unreasonable. They claim that if it becomes constitutional, that the government can force someone to buy broccoli. Under that argument, they claim that if you let the government do this, then it will cause that. So technically, why didn't they apply it to other famous court decisions, like civil rights or voter enfranchisement??? That is what their argument is literally asserting.

First of all, if you support the ACA, any argument against it, no matter what it was, would be quite unreasonable to you. The premise of your statement is incorrect. Nobody is saying that the government WILL force you to buy something else like broccoli. What people are saying, is that since this has gone in front of the supreme court for a decision, and if they rule in favor of it, the government can force you to buy something because this will set the precedent. It would open the door to all sorts of infringements the government can make into our lives. I am not GOP, but can still see the dangers involved here due to the laws of our land.

Brian

Yet the same applies for the examples I stated. I mean, for example, the Court could have applied the same argument to giving women the right to vote, asserting that it would allow them to vote for free contraception (contraception wasn't available at the time, but still the precedent existed). And besides, broccoli (or most other products) are not similar to healthcare or health insurance. You will need healthcare no matter where you live or what you do, and choosing NOT to buy healthcare even if you have the option can affect ALL of us directly, because WE will have to pay the bill. Many economists have supported the individual mandate, like Fareed Zakaria. I am tired of abandoning perfectly good ideas because of ideology and different interpretations of the Constitution. I am tired of it. The ACA or Obamacare (whatever you want to call it) is an imperfect idea, yet it will help. In order for healthcare as we have it right now to work, EVERYONE has to be involved. If they don't, the system will collapse. Simple as that. And why are the conservatives arguing about it now??? They had 20 years to bitch about it; they only went after it when Obama compromised on the individual mandate instead of the single-payer. He even took out the damn public option and they keep piling it on him.

And to those saying that this law will require people to buy health insurance because they are simply breathing, the same applies for taxes. People have to pay taxes because they are living and breathing in the US. However, the Constitution explicitly allows it. Unless you want socialized medicine like I do, you'd support this bill. And even if you don't, you cannot throw absurd arguments on things like broccoli. The broccoli industry and the healthcare and insurance industry are two completely different things. Brian, my friend, you are taking the implications of the law on its face. You have to delve deeper through its details. The individual mandate should be maintained. I have become very iffy on the issue after reading all of these posts, but the individual mandate is a step in the right direction to REAL healthcare reform. And yes, I trust the government in healthcare reform. I know that they have botched a lot of things, but that doesn't completely mask all of their accomplishments (Civil Rights, voter enfranchisement, social safety nets, etc). And frankly, I don't trust the private sector to do real healthcare reform. I trust the government more than the private sector. Some may call it crazy; some may brand me as a government loon, but that's my opinion.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

OBAMACARE LEGAL 2012

Just Wanted to chime in here... As it stands right now I'm totally against this monstrosity of a law, however I would sign up tomorrow if there was a mandate in place that limited profits to any company involved in "HEALTHCARE" to just 5%. This is the only way you're going to bring cost down. If you want to monopolize an entire industry, and blanket the whole country with it, then doing business as a healthcare provider/insurer whatever, is a privilege with certain restrictions, nuff said. PERIOD! If this law is allowed to stand. "I hereby renounce, any and all United States Citizenship, as well as all Rights and responsibilities pertaining to or derived from any incorporated municipality thereof." And If all you tards out there have a problem with that, well just go ahead and deport me back to Nevada, it's were I was BORN. You fools talk about personal responsibilities, Most of you don't even know what a U S citizen is, let alone how to act like one. We are not an Empire, we are not a Democracy, what we are is collection of Republics, united under one corporate charter, The Constitution. And believe it or not People, those of us whom run this world know THIS and take full advantage of this fact. WAKE UP people, or better yet stay sleeping. Either way doesn't affect my livelihood or my ability to make a living. There's my 5 cents, have a good day people...

Freshieee

Well, that wasn't fun at all. I think you are wrong. There is a direct correlation between broccoli and health care. I will try to explain, even though I know I won't get anywhere.

You eat broccoli.

You supplement that with other foods that are healthy, ingesting less salt and processed foods.

You reduce or eliminate bad habits such as overindulgence of tobacco, and alcohol.

You just eliminated proven causes for many of the things that are treated.

All of a sudden, you are living a more healthy life.

You don't need to go to the doctor.

You don't need expensive tests and drugs.

You don't need health care other than emergencies and basic exams.

Healthcare costs of the pool go down because there are less sick people.

This law treats the symptoms, not the underlying disease. The disease is that Americans are becoming obese and sick because of the choices they make of ingesting things that should be considered poisons. Then they are prescribed drugs that mask those symptoms. Then more are prescribed to mask the side affects of the first drug. Etc, etc,etc.

Basic logic would dictate that if you eliminate the disease, or substantially reduce it, the symptoms will go away or be reduced. And thereby the costs of healthcare will be reduced. It is very basic math. It doesn't take six hundred idiots in Washington, It takes three hundred million Americans understanding what is making them sick, and why.

Oh, and by the way, it is only the over the top political correctness that will ever re-elect a failure. And before you call me a racist, I would gladly vote for a Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice ticket. At least Colin Powell would have a clue about how to run a military. And Condoleeza, even though she has made mistakes, has admitted them and would never follow the same path again, and was one of the best foreign diplomats this country has ever seen by never taking @!$%# from anyone.

Democrats blew this from day one when they scrubbed the word "tax" for the word "penalty." Congress has the right to levee a tax but not to impart a penalty for failing to purchase a product.

Even Social Security is a tax. Medicare is a tax. Neither is a penalty (though some may feel as though it is.)

There are a few things that all could agree on:

1. Eliminate preexisting condition clauses for all insurance companies - it balances out in the end.
2. Allow insurance to cross state lines just like car insurance does. It balances out in the end.
3. Allow our children aged 26 and less to be insured by their parents. Actuarial tables show they are generally very healthy.
4. Allow the poor to purchase subsidized catastrophic health care policies that kick in at a limit, say $10,000. If the government wants to run that company, go for it.
5. And institute a tax to pay for it.

Hey Nancy, that wasn't so hard. And I am an evil Republican for crying out loud!

If you want to get the Republicans on board, throw in some tort reform and it is a slam dunk.

--------------------

Requiring me to pay a penalty if I do not buy a product is unconstitutional and always was.

John

While we constantly disagree, and now would not be an exception, I will respect your position. And know that I would never call you or anyone a racist unless there would be substantial evidence. My own father didn't vote for Obama (voted for McCain because of experience), and he's a pretty smart guy.

The Crux of the Matter? Should read the crooks of the matter and their lap dog speaks out -

"So why was my Post #1.3 'collapsed'? It seems that Liberals are the first to quash 'free speech'.

'If the justices allow the insurance mandate to stand, he said, then it "would allow Congress to control the most basic of decisions about how to live life – in other words, to withhold from individuals the very liberty that the Constitution was designed to protect." '

That's the crux of the issue."........need we point out he obvious to Mr. Wilson?

The insipid talking points of a whining shill for the zealous religulous thugs and the hugely profitable health Industry, health for the highest dollar and zip for the rest, you can always hock your house or sell one of your children I guess. Yes very Christian of you and a fine bag-man for the Oligarchy and Plutocrats...your masters. Hogwash...Wilson...if you don't want into the health coverage fine use the "op-out" provision and go it alone (pay your own way) and let the rest of America pay into a health care fund and build on the successful "Romney Health Bill" yes Wilson I said successful.

It is people spreading lies and dis-information as you that confuse the matter and leave 100,000,000 - that is 100 million or more uninsured or under-insured and where will the known costs of not allowing the start of a Romney like national health plan lead the country if the status-quo is maintained? Where is that little item in your grand scheme Wilson?

More smoke and mirrors and irresponsibility, time to means test everything and raise the tax on the 1% from (The Buffet Tax Rule)* about 15%. The tax paid by the multi multi multi Millionaire Romney, he refuses to release his tax returns for the last ten years only last years, he is another tax dodger. He has at least tens and tens of millions, he does not even know the mountain of millions he has secreted away from the country he loves so much and now he wants to lead us...what is wrong with this scenario?

Equality of tax status first along with good job creation and it all starts with a first step in the right direction...lean forward not backwards.........

Back to your drawing board!!

*The Buffet Rule would raise the tax on these tax dodgers to that of the office secretary a fair plan in which we all pay our fair share...what is wrong with tax equality? Some like paying 15% and not creating jobs hiding money in The Cayman Island and who may that be?

It's not so much that the vote in lockstep with their party, it's that the members were appointed because of their strong opinions that happen to strongly correspond to the President who appointed them.

There are lots of 9-0 and 8-1 decisions too, but they're usually on very obvious issues.

I had the accidental good fortune to attend the oral arguments for Ledbetter when it was argued. What impressed me was that ALL the justices seemed highly competent and exceptionally motivated to understand the relevant law and come to the correct decision.

MSpielman has it about right - the justices have their individual ways of looking at laws and the provisions of the Constitution, and there are "competing interests". (One common, but weak, example is the freedom of speech. "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech...", but it is none-the-less illegal to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.)

It's too bad that more of those calling the court political can't see them in action. I'd suggest starting by listening to the replay of today's audio recording. It will be available (no doubt on-line somewhere) this afternoon at 1 pm.

The court is political, you don't think that citizen's united wasn't political?

Eric,

I think Citizens United was the only result that a plain reading of the plain text of the Constitution could have been reached.

From the First Amendment to the Constitution, the supreme law of the land: "The Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech...".

What Constitutional support do you have for any other position?

Corporations are not people, plain and simple. Also, most corporations are multinational, why do other countries get to pick our elected officials. Look at the outcome, you think that citizens united was anything other than a give away to the Republicans? You think more money in politics is a good thing?

Philly Bill--AIN'T that the truth? I was flabbergasted at those who said that Sotomayor should be put on the court because they needed someone who wasn't an old white man to interpret the constitution

In my life, 'old white men' have interpretted it in FAVOR of Blacks (Deseg, Civil rights) Women (Roe V Wade, etc) and ALL sorts of 'non-old white men' issues, and yet the HISPANICS seem to feel like they cannot be represented by the MOST qualified judge, but only by a HISPANIC judge?

I would like to see the day when the President (of EITHER party) gets a list of potential candidates for judgeships (not JUST for the Supremes) that have NO identifying info such as political party affiliation, race, sex, or ANYTHING other than how they voted on issues.

If you are going to tax corporations then they have the right to lobby for their interests. "No taxation without representation". Shouldn't companies have any say in the laws and regulations to which they are subject? I'm sure you are just as adamant in your call that unions not be allowed to contribute to political campaigns/groups. Eliminate corporate taxes if you want to reduce their political contributions. I say reduce because there will always be companies that support political beliefs/views, can't be eliminated, see unions. Money will never be removed from politics (nor has it ever been) as long as men are involved.

The vote will be 5 to 4 Unconstitutional ALL because Chief Judicial Activist John Roberts and his gang of 4 thugs has been ordered to declare it Unconstitutional by the Fundamentalist Church,

the only way this would had ever got a fair hearing is if Judicial Activist John Roberts and his gang reclused (Pardon my spelling) themselves.

^^ Doubt it. Kennedy AND Schalia have both consistently upheld the ICC. Roberts too. I find it unlikely all three of them vote against it in this case.

I suspect 6-3 in favor of upholding the law, which most people don't consider a possibility because they simply assume Schalia/Roberts as automatic no votes. Both respect the power of the ICC, and thus at least one of Schalia/Roberts/Kennedy will vote to uphold the law.

Eric,

What part of "The Congress shall make no law..." confuses you? It has nothing to do with corporations, which by the way, are protected by the same First Amendment's freedom of association.

As for money in politics, yes, I do think more money in politics is a good thing. If there had been more money to expose Obama's true positions, maybe we would have elected a better president. It's hard to see how we could have done worse.

I'm with the Founding Fathers on this. The antidote to bad speech is more speech. Period.

As they knew back in their day, freedom of the press belongs to those who can afford printing presses. There is nothing new under the sun.

So tell me, Eric, would you really like the GOVERNMENT to decide who gets to campaign and who doesn't? Do you really want the incumbents to decide who gets to say what? The vast majority of Americans disapprove of Congress - the same Congress that has had a roughly a 98% re-election rate over the years. Do you really want to limit the money challengers can spend to unseat the entrenched interests?

Really?

So, why is money considered speech?

It doesn't really matter how the court decides. This was a bad law to start with. We know that, because the republicans thought it up.

Anything short of a single payer system will fail, but we will miss the very small gains we get from the health care reform if it goes away.

If I were the major medical providers, I would be surrounded by lawyers to follow a negative decision up with suits about the constitutionality of treating anyone without a valid insurance card. They would win on the precedent being set right now.

Yeah, the evil Republicans thought it up from their "...seat at the back of the bus." when they were even allowed in the room. So the spinning starts apparently.

Even the Supreme Court of the United States no longer makes any effort toward the appearance of impartiality and non-partisanship. All three branches of our government are so corrupted by political influence as to be entirely incapable of addressing the pressing needs of our country. Our Republic is toast, destined for the ash heap of history.

Let's hope that whatever next government rises from the ashes will derive the clear lessons from the failings of the past 30 years, and recognize that if money and power are ever again allowed to assert disproportionate influence over the policies of the nation, the end result will be the same.

Bart,

Money is considered speech if only because the Supreme Court ruled it so in Buckley v Valeo. More importantly, it's a common sense ruling. As our Founding Fathers recognized, freedom of the press belongs to those who have printing presses.

It costs money to be heard. Standing on your front lawn yelling "Vote for my candidate!" is not much different from being completely silenced. The only way to have robust debate is to allow people to pool their resources (i.e., money) and buy exposure. There's no other practical way.

For those who naively think that we should trust the government and the broadcast networks to determine who gets to speak and what they get to say, all I can say is "You gotta be kidding!"

No matter what your political stripes, surely you don't want Congress (approval rating only slightly below zero) to regulate it do you? Talk about incumbent protection laws! Which of course was what McCain-Feingold was.

Or how about the TV networks. Do you want FOX News to regulate speech? How about MSNBC?

Let us hope SCOTUS NEVER changes its opinion that money = speech.

Lets not let that drivel called the Constitution get in the way with the pressing needs of the country.

Folks, we can cover every individual in this country, just like they do in European countries, the day we accept that a national or VAT is needed to finance it. You can't name one country that has national coverage that DOESN'T have a national tax to pay for it. When we're ready to pay an additional 15-20% tax every time we go to Costco we can cover everyone. The strawman arguments before us are silly.

Fred, your argument is right on the mark.

And I would add that we would all find it a quite affordable additional tax burden IF (a big if) those products from Costco (and Walmart, Kroger, Safeway, Kohls, etc. etc.) were made in the United States of America, and IF we could enjoy the phenomenal prosperity which would result from the full employment and economic security which would result by Americans changing our thinking as consumers, and "buying American products and services."

And how can we accomplish this fundamental change in our thinking as consumers: That 15%-20% VAT for the purchase of American products and services increases to a100% excise VAT for purchase of all imported products and outsourced services.

Economan-

"There are zillions of ways to make health care better (but ObamaCare is not one of them) that don't tromple the Constitution."

That being said...

Why haven't any of them been implemented?

Universal Health care and the Individual Mandate have been a Republican talking point for over 20 years. And now that Obama has adopted it the country is going to implode from the tryanny!!!

GMA FB!!!!

@John-737278#1.97: Nope. Well, there is a difference in the ages of whom we pay for. Whom do you think pays for those costs those parents can't pay? Same thing here.

Its a slippery slope when you start legally mandating the purchase of one product or another. We already have it with car insurance, and look at what's happened in that industry.

They decide how much coverage any particular individual can have, and how much it cost that person; based upon your driving record.

So, my question is; if we mandate health coverage will there be a sliding scale with regard to how much it costs, and what the insurance companies will cover?

That, plus the fact that ObaMANIACS said they wouldn't support Hillary's plan (which originally included mandates) makes me wonder if rejection of this bill would be such a bad thing?

If we are to have government intervention in healthcare, then there should be a public option without any mandate.

Just as December 7th, 1941 - a date which will live in infamy - January 21, 2010 - the Citizens United decision by the current SCOTUS is a date that will define the ignominy and stupidity of partisan appointments to the Supreme Court. Those voting with the majority deserve to be labelled traitors and I hope that history gives them the justice they have so cravenly earned through treason.

The constitutional issue is interesting, with varying opinions. But to me the real issue is more practical,

in that when the government becomes involved in a industry costs go up. Obamacare is a sure way to

bankrupt the country. The cost is healthcare is driven up by unfettered lawsuite's by trial lawyers,

taking a gaming & lottery mentality into the health care industry.

In spite of what the media says and reports on, their are many healthy Americans that go their

entire life without need for very little health care or no health care. Healthy people makes for

poor stories for the media. If the unaffordable health care act isn't overturned by the justices, it

will be overturned by American people in 2012 election. Maybe the Feds can attempt to make

everyone purchase Time Shares in Florida, since almost everyone will retire someday. Controlled

Life, less liberty, and the pursuit of a Federal colossus.

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
Thomas Jefferson

ObamaCare is intended to bankrupt the country. It is also the first of a two step process that will play out if Obama wins a second term. Then win or lose in the courts, Obama will simply eliminate the private healthcare insurance industry in favor of a government run single payer system.

As a by product of the nations bankruptcy Obama will sign the United States sovereignty over our economy to the G20 and IMF. Obama will sign the International Criminal Court Treaty which means both Russia and China will have to approve our going to war. Obama will sign the Rights of the Child Treaty which will allow poor countries to sue the United States. Obama will sign the Global Ban on Small Arms, the Law of the Sea Treaty, and most likely ban weapons in space.

Obama is working a master plan, and if re-elected it will play out. Just like he said to the Russians, this is my last election, and afterward he will have more flexibility. How many other countries do you suppose have gotten a similar wink and a nod from Obama?

"Kenney gets the last move", "We already know his answer". The Citizens of this Country are not Blind. Kenney is Unconstitutional and should be removed. We all know hes on the GOP/TP team. Kenney is playing a dangerous game with our Country and the Constitution. Wake up America, they are destroying our Country.

@Fedup...the individual mandate WAS a Republican idea. Speaker Newt Gingrich, Sen Orrin Hatch, Sen John Chafee, The Heritage Foundation (to name a few) ALL favored the individual mandate over the employer mandate during Bill Clinton's stab at HCR. The idea originated with the Republicans in the late 80's early 90's.

Any SCOTUS decision is irrelevant at this point. The damage has been done. Health care is a commodity - using either side's arguments. Health care is not something an individual receives - it is not something that can be relied on - it is a simply a service to be purchased. Health care is no different than a mobile service.

The health care industry is no longer sustainable. In thirty years - when the bulk of the boomers have died - there will not be enough 'business' to maintain the high tech, for profit, health care industry. The writing is on the wall - hospitals will be equivalent to buggy whip factories.

The entire basis of all the arguments - on both sides of the issue - is to prize as much money from the boomers as possible - before they are dead.

No matter how SCOTUS decides the issues before the court - the damage has been done. And the real battles will begin ...

The European countries are going broke with social medicine, but since they cut out the private sector they have no place else to turn. And they haven't had to pay for their own defense for over 60 years..., we have paid that freight. Why would we want to emulate Europe?!

Whether this law is upheld or not, we are inching towards a socialist society one welfare recipient at a time. Nobody has any responsibility for themselvesanymore, because the gov will take care of them; right? Large portions of our society like the gov taking care of them, and they don't see anything wrong with staying home and watch satellite TV and cashing their gov check each month.

President Obama's policies are socialist, and the Democrats don't even need to try and hide that anymore; it is just a fact. And the President will have far more latitude to push us closer to socialism after the election; he is so excited, he just can not wait!

full employment and economic security which would result by Americans changing our thinking as consumers, and "buying American products and services.

That sounds great! Start telling people that make minimal wage to go an buy a fan made in the US by "Americans" that will cost $ 250.00, compared to one in Wal-Mart at $ 20.00

Not too patritotic when you can hardly make ends meet.

Washington has been waging a war against poverty for decades, and we are no closer to winning today then when we started. Washington is waging a war on drugs and has been for decades, and we are no closer to winning it today then when we started. Washington has been calling for energy independence for decades, and we are no closer to achieving that today then when the call started.

Washington has been talking about tax reform for decades, and today we are still talking about it. Washington has been saying it will cut the deficits and get our national debt under control for decades, and yet today we are running the largest annual deficits in history with a national debt that will soon top 20 trillion.

Washington has been talking about the need to cut waste, fraud, and abuse from Medicare for decades, and still nothing. Washington has been talking about the need to save Social Security for decades, and yet it is still on the path toward insolvency.

Washington has never missed a chance to raise their own salaries, perks, and benefits. But as for the rest of the problems facing this country, they have solved NOTHING. They never will. Washington has almost nothing to do with solving anything, and almost everything to do with taking care of themselves. They do have the finest healthcare our tax dollars can purchase for them, and we get a 2000 plus page bill of pandering to special interest groups. Gee thanks.

Here's a fun game. Open up the transcript of the arguments, then search for the last names of each of the nine justices. Which one of these things is not like the others? There's one name that will return 0 hits. Hint, it starts with a "Th" (and ends with "e worst excuse for a Justice in Supreme Court history").

Lets face it folks the fix is in. The right wing justices on the Supreme Court are as crooked as Bernie Madoff... If you want evidence all you have to do is look at Bush v Gore [5 to 4] and Citizens United [5 to 4]. These justices are just puppets for power hungry billionaires like David and Charles Koch. If you don’t believe me then you should ask yourself; why do these so called impartial justices hang out at David Koch’s palatial Colorado estate for days on end? It’s a safe bet that their not discussing the weather but are actually planning new ways to advance their extreme right wing agenda.

What saddens me the most is how Republican politicians have conned millions of Americans into believing their ever expanding web of lies. It’s mind boggling how corrupt the Republican Party has become and that corruption has infected the Supreme Court as well.

It will be a happy day when the SCOTUS overturn this steaming hot pile A.K.A. Obamacare. Why anyone in their right mind thinks this is a good law needs their head examined. That said, health care is broke and needs overhaul. Hopefully the politics can be removed from it and something much better comes from the ashes. Getting health care providers in competition for services is going to have to be a foundation of the new bill. This will not just rein in costs but lower them over time. Competition is good.

Economan - I had the accidental good fortune to attend the oral arguments forLedbetter when it was argued. What impressed me was that ALL the justices seemed highly competent and exceptionally motivated to understand the relevant law and come to the correct decision.

That is because before they even did anything they more than likely read the Laws, unlike most of the Newsvine posters that did not even read President Obama's Health Care Reform Act (aka ACA) and the President's Proposal.

MSpielman - It's not so much that the vote in lockstep with their party, it's that the members were appointed because of their strong opinions that happen to strongly correspond to the President who appointed them.

Really then why did the US Supreme Court Rule in Favor of President Obama's January 21, 2009 Patriot Acts (plural) that also extended the President Bush Patriot Act (singular), specifically 2010 the section on NO Material Support to Terrorist Organizations.

You really need to do the research into President Obama's January 21, 2009 Patriot Acts, if you cannot find that, start with Preemptive Detentions, Material Support To Terrorist Organizations, Censorship and Monitoring of All US Communications (especially internet), relationship to US Insurrection Act and the US Military Use of Deadly Force Against US Citizens, S.1959, H.R.1955, as those are just parts of the whole President Obama January 21, 2009 Patriot Acts (plural), President Obama shown on this link during a staged News Media Event January 22, 2009 signing into US Law(s) his Patriot Acts 04:38 minutes of 11:55 minutes:

Naomi Wolf: 'Obama can lock any US citizen up without trial'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLSeD19m3UE

Now let's talk about Legitimacy and Legal Precedent:

Buy Business Insurance or we put you out of Business; Buy Fire Insurance or we burn you down; Buy Health Insurance or we break you legs - Organized Crime

Buy Insurance or we Fine you - President Obama

Do you see any difference between either case of Extortion and Racketeering.

Let's talk about relevance. Everyone screaming about Greedy Corporations, CEOs, etc., while defending the Corporations of Insurance.

President FDR knew during the Great Depression that by eliminating the Insurance Corporation from the Medical Profession that the costs to the US Citizens would significantly decrease to the point where the US Citizens did not have to decide between Food OR Medical Treatments.

President Obama even said the same thing, that the PROBLEM with US Health Care is the Insurance Corporations:

President Obama, Face the Nation, September 20, 2009:

Obama: No, the difference is that they're making huge profits on it, Bob. I mean, let's take the Medicare HMO programs that are being run by insurance companies. It's estimated by everybody that they're overcharging by about 14 percent. This amounts to about $177 billion over 10 years. About $17 billion a year, $18 billion a year. That's just going to pad their profits, hasn't been shown to make Medicare recipients any healthier. And in fact because those huge subsidies are going to insurance companies, Medicare recipients are not getting a good deal. Now if we are enforcing what should be the rules around Medicare and making sure the people are getting a bang for the buck, it's not going to be possible for insurance companies to simply pass on those costs to Medicare recipients because ultimately it's Uncle Sam that's paying for those services anyway.

Now let's talk about why (motives) President Obama did nothing about the above, if he already knew to get rid of the Problem with US Health Care you get rid of the Cause (Insurance Corporations).

Which brings up:

Eric-913730 - The court is political, you don't think that citizen's united wasn't political?

How many of you READ the Section of Source of New Revenues of President Obama's Health Care Reform Act (aka ACA), that gives (not loans US Taxpayer Money) $67 Billion to the "Insurance Industry", $23 Billion to the "Medical Device Industry", and $20 Billion to the "Pharmaceuticals Industry". Calling them "Industry" does not make them any less of being Corporations.

Total cost to US Taxpayers for President Obama's Health Care Reform Act Corporate Welfare, $1.7 Trillion, adjusted for inflation $2.1 Trillion with the resulting US Budget Deficit and the current cuts to previously Budgeted by US Congress Projects, Programs, etc..

So based on them getting that by US Law, what did President Obama get as Quid Pro Quo. Do you think it was a coincidence that the Citizens United Case was heard at that time. Go read the transcripts of the Legal Brief of the US Supreme Court by President Obama's Buddy "Mr. Corporate America" Before the Citizens United case was even heard. As either the US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Unlimited Corporate Campaign Contributions or Rule the 2008-2009 Elections Illegal and Invalid for "Mr.Corporate America's" admitted violations of US Laws, McCain Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, prior to and during the 2008-2009 Elections.

After the US Supreme Court Ruling, "Mr.Corporate America" was slapped on the wrist with a fine of $200, 000 for his admitted violation of US Laws, while President Obama got $1 Billion of Unlimited Corporate Campaign Contributions from the Insurance Industry, Medical Device Industry, and Pharmaceuticals Industry.

Fred Larsen - Folks, we can cover every individual in this country, just like they do in European countries, the day we accept that a national or VAT is needed to finance it. You can't name one country that has national coverage that DOESN'T have a national tax to pay for it. When we're ready to pay an additional 15-20% tax every time we go to Costco we can cover everyone. The strawman arguments before us are silly.

Have you ever lived (not just visited for a few months) at Europe. First just like Candidate Obama arguing with Joe the Plumber about VAT, that is NOT how they Fund their Universal Health Care. Second, A VAT is NOT a Sales Tax like Candidate Obama got all confused about. Third, A Value Added Tax is used to persuade their Citizens to buy like items manufactured in their own Nation, instead of buying Foreign products, goods, or services with a VAT added to offset the loss of the sale of that Nation's Product. Fourth, The other thing that was out right opposed by Candidate Obama is what is used to Fund European Health Care, a Flat Tax plus Sales Taxes.

The irony is that the Successful European Health Care Programs are modelled from post World War II, the US Military Governments institution of President FDR's Universal Health Care For All US Citizens for the Nations Citizens occupied by the US Military. As accomplished by President FDR during the Great Depression by eliminating the Insurance Corporations from the Medical Profession with the Result of the savings of 80% of Medical Treatment Costs. note: from President FDR's Papers, his other motive was also to chop the source of money for the sympathizers of Mussolini and Hilter, "Italian Organized Crime" owning the US Insurance Corporations and US Labor Unions (why he also suspended all US Labor Union Activities).

BigAl Las Vegas,

Nice FAILED attempt at deflection of Blame.

Pertaining to Bush versus Gore, go research the Electoral College.

Get out a piece of paper draw a timeline, look up US Supreme Court Records (and scheduled cases), now write on the timeline: President Obama's Closed door Whitehouse meetings with the Insurance Industry, Medical Device Industry, Pharmasecutical Industry; President Obama's The Proposal; President Obama's Health Care Reform becoming US Law; his buddy "Mr.Corporate America's Legal Brief of the US Supreme Court; the Citizens United Case heard by US Supreme Court; President Obama receiving $1 Billion of Unlimited Corporate Campaign Contributions from the Insurance Industry, Medical Device Industry, Pharmaceuticals Industry.

Use your computer for research, not just looking at Porn.

mandated health care insurance was a Heritage Foundation (a purely republican think tank) idea long before President proposed it.............the republicans have been the guiding light on this all along...look how Romney embraced it.

Unconstitutional to mandate health care insurance but ok to mandate abortion requirements and unnecessary, unwanted and unfunded procedures by LAW. Ok to tax everyone by law for fire, hospitals, police, schools, armed forces, education, parks, because these things are all used by the collective at one time or another....with no out clause for a person waiving these services and becoming exempt of their cost...........

how can one form of socialism mandates be constitutional and others not?

Is it constitutional to charge me higher medical care and taxes so those who choose not to buy medical insurance can receive medical care and services when they suddenly are in need---and we ALL are in need at one time or another...many times over...who is healthy and without need for their entire lives or lives a life free of accident?---

protecting the supposed rights to refuse service and therefore cost for one while ignoring the rights of the other who must end up paying the bills not just for themselves but for the illness or injury of those who seek medical care without the ability to pay for it is unconstitutional............we are all equal under the law.

Produce a waiver allowing those who wish not to participate to sign that states under no circumstances will they accept medical care or services without cash on hand and will accept being denied such care for lack of funds---even on pain of death. Not one of these opponents of the health care reform law would sign such a thing because they EXPECT to get care as needed to sustain life and quality of life whether they can pay for it or not...these are the people bleeding the system and the middle class of money while assuring the rise of health care costs to a level where even with insurance no one but the uber wealthy will be able to afford any health care at all.

how can a country of such great educational wealth be so dumb................all it seems to take is a little rage, a target and boom...........everyone loses.....and for what?...who benefits from this law being dismantled? Why is this taking place now after the last 2 or 3 years of court fights...now amid the President race? If it walks like a duck and squawk like a duck it must be politically motivated foul....the republicans have everything to gain politically and the rest of us have everything to lose for their cause.

I hope being smart makes a comeback as the cool thing to be and dumb finally is seen for what it truly is..........just being dumb....and before the collapse of our nation would be nice.

The floodgate is now open. The government's lawyer was unable to articulate and close any argument to justify the government's massive overreach and unconstitutional taking, and that clear in 52 of 131 pages of the day's transcript - and that even with help from two jurists acting as allies to at least get in some talking points the fumbling government lawyer could not get into the record himself. That anyone insists on viewing the fundamental dismantling of America in broad daylight as a partisan issue really boggles the mind.

What I really want to know is if Clarence Thomas has a say and a vote in these proceedings. You know the Justice Clarence Thomas who hasn't paid taxes on $700,000.00 his wife made while working for the KOCH brothers at the Heritage Foundation. Clarence Thomas should be in prison for the white collar crime of tax evasion and I find it a travesty that he is in anyway connected to these talks on several different levels! If you or I hadn't paid taxes you know we'd be in prison.

So following the thought that it's unconstitutional to make people buy insurance I guess I can let my car insurance lapse. Wooohooo that's a big bill every month and yet I'm mandated to buy it.

Based on the transcript I don't think the justices are going to find the mandate constitutional, but I will wait for the ruling in June. The argument over whether the mandate being thrown out nullifies the rest of the law should be interesting.

How hilarious that people blame 5 justices for being politically motivated, rather then suggesting the other 4 are simply ignoring the constitution. People here are trying to suggest paying taxes that pay for police, fire and such is the same as a mandate, wrong. This is new territory for the federal governments control over our lives plain and simple. It could very well just be the tip of the iceberg, as who is to say what is really discussed when the mic is turned off or the door closes.

Just because people want to say this party supported it, or that party came up with it, well quite simply it doesn't make it right. They could have written a bill that never would have reached the Supreme Court, but they didn't. No matter how flimsily you try to tie it to other aspects of society or history, this is and will stand as a precedent setting decision. You can already see the headlines, it will be the right decision if the the mandate stands, and the wrong decision if the mandate falls. At least on this site.

United we stand, divided we fall. We are living in a time of the greatest division in this country. Politicians know that the more divided the nation, the easier for them to retain power. The constant drumbeat of class warfare, race warfare, religious assaults, partisan political assaults, and so forth coming from Washington is by design. It is hard to discern any moral or ethical behavior from Washington or society as a whole any longer. How sad, and how pathetic.

Exactly Rick.

Democrats blew this from day one when they scrubbed the word "tax" from the House Bill and replaced it with the word "penalty." Congress has the right to levee a tax but not to impart a penalty for failing to purchase a product.

Even Social Security is a tax. Medicare is a tax. Neither is a penalty (some may feel as though it is.)

There are a few things that all could agree on:

1. Eliminate preexisting condition clauses for all insurance companies - it balances out in the end.
2. Allow insurance to cross state lines just like car insurance does. It balances out in the end.
3. Allow our children aged 26 and less to be insured by their parents. Actuarial tables show they are generally very healthy.
4. Allow the poor to purchase subsidized catastrophic health care policies that kick in at a limit, say $10,000. If the government wants to run that company, go for it. Most folks could make installment loan payments on $10K for 5 years = $180 a month at 3% interest. That's reasonable for Heaven's sake!
5. And institute a tax to pay for it.

Hey Nancy, that wasn't so hard. And I am an evil Republican for crying out loud!

If you want to get the Republicans on board, throw in some tort reform and it is a slam dunk.

Hey BigAl, #2.33 - Home Run, I second that big time.

Doubt it. Kennedy AND Schalia have both consistently upheld the ICC. Roberts too. I find it unlikely all three of them vote against it in this case.

I suspect 6-3 in favor of upholding the law, which most people don't consider a possibility because they simply assume Schalia/Roberts as automatic no votes. Both respect the power of the ICC, and thus at least one of Schalia/Roberts/Kennedy will vote to uphold the law.

I agree, everyone thinks that the Conservatives NEVER vote for a "liberal" issue; yet they voted that Texas' sodomy law was unconstitutional; Kennedy voted with the liberals on the "New London" case dealing with eminent domain; and Roberts voted with the liberals in "Snyder v. Phelps." Yes I do think that unfortunately the mandate will stand, if for no other reason than Obama's backup plan of Taxing and Spending provisions. Congress has ALWAYS had the ability to raise taxes; all they have to do is tweak the wording - "oh sorry, it's not a penalty, it really IS a tax, just like SS/Medicare, thanks Ginsberg!"

If your lack of purchasing something REQUIRES the rest of us to pay for it when you need it, then I see no reason you can't be required to purchase it to begin with.

If you don't buy a car and need one, taxpayers don't have to pay for you when you need to walk somewhere.

If you don't buy insurance and need it (say you broke you ankle walking somewhere) we all have to pay for you to go to the ER.

Please tell me you see the difference, otherwise its sort of pointless.

But I see your point on one level, the mandate is the worst choice in this matter. It only exists out of Obamas need to be bipartisan, its a republican idea that goes to the very core of their beliefs, Individual Responsibility. Funny how republicans are now running Away from individual responsibility and their own ideals.

We the corporations?

If your lack of purchasing something REQUIRES the rest of us to pay for it when you need it, then I see no reason you can't be required to purchase it to begin with.

The problem he is that by allowing the government to overstep its bounds, no matter how laudable the reason might be, you are opening the to untold abuse of the system by self serving bureaucrats. this will set a precedent that government can violate the laws and rules that created it and gave it power if, during a particular administration the "need" can be justified. What will you allow them to do next?

I do not believe that the government has the right to REQUIRE you or me to purchase something from a private entity; no matter how laudable the reason might be. If the government is allowed to continue in this direction, where will they stop? If they can do this, can they require that you buy your next car only from GMC? Can they require that you only use Merill-Lynch for your 401(k), Pension Fund or IRA. Can they require you to only get your Home Mortgage from Bank of America. Can they can require that you can buy your home, car, and life Insurance only from AIG or your Groceries from Harris Teeter. Do you see where this CAN Lead? Given the trustworthiness of our congresses over the past 30 years, would you be willing to trust them with so much power? I believe that George Washington supposedly said:

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant but a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”

but you also say:

If you don't buy a car and need one, taxpayers don't have to pay for you when you need to walk somewhere.

That is not exactly true. We do it now; it is called Public Transportation. Look around, you might even have it in your city or town; it's a big thing that kinda looks like bus.

Please tell me you see the difference, otherwise its sort of pointless.

And what exactly makes it pointless? is it because you disagree with the premise? Because you fee that you have the "Moral High Ground", is everyone else's opinion just garbage and that tyrannical actions are justified if they are, in your eyes morally correct? If that is your opinion, then I suggest that you consider the words of C.S. Lewis:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

and finally you say:

It only exists out of Obamas need to be bipartisan, its a republican idea that goes to the very core of their beliefs,

The Republican "individual mandate" was a part of a far larger package that included sweeping reforms in Medical practice, Hospitals, pharmaceutical, and tort reform. To make the statement of :

its a republican idea that goes to the very core of their beliefs,

is like saying that only the left rear tire is really the whole automobile; an unbelievably stretched oversimplification.

The only other product you might be compelled to buy would be a product that if you did not buy, would cause the cost for everyone else that buys that product to increase. I an't think of any other product that fits this criteria

But, We, if you don't purchase a car and use public transportation the taxpayers do subsidize your mode of transportation. Therefore, would not the same argument be compelling enough to require purchase of a car...that would be if the internal combustion engine were not considered evil?

We don't all have to pay for someone to go to the ER for a broken ankle. If you don't have insurance, the hospital should continue collection actions against the person who did not pay.

Finally, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about the same number of uninsured people use the ER as insured people, excluding Medicaid covered individuals who utilize the ER at about twice the rate of either insured or uninsured people. The extra cost from overuse of the ER is not necessarily from the uninsured, but those who are already subsidized by taxpayers.

WTC: Chris saved me a lot of typing--sailor, rest your oar! Well done! Also kudos to Book-em (The old Hawaii 5-0 was the best) I would add these things

You wrote: "If you don't buy a car and need one, taxpayers don't have to pay for you when you need to walk somewhere."

That statement displays remarkable schizophrenia in your view of what government should or should not do. When I walk somewhere, who pays for the sidewalks, streets, bridges etc. that I use? Everyone uses them. Health care is not always used by everyone (I had no insurance until age 25 by choice to keep my expenditures low during college and post grad studies). The mandate would remove that choice from me.

Please tell me you see the difference

Chris, the problem with your response is that it is the INDIVIDUAL MANDATE that the Republicans are howling over, that the Supreme Court is considering and is one of the clauses that the Republicans insisted be in the ACA. The rest of the ACA is really not at issue and is not what states are challenging in front of the SCOTUS. In addition

If they can do this, can they require that you buy your next car only from GMC? Can they require that you only use Merill-Lynch for your 401(k), Pension Fund or IRA. Can they require you to only get your Home Mortgage from Bank of America. Can they can require that you can buy your home, car, and life Insurance only from AIG or your Groceries from Harris Teeter.

is disingenuous. The ACA does not specify which insurance company you should buy your health insurance from. You, as a consumer, have the right to choose your insurance company. Your employer has the right to choose which company they want to contract with to provide health insurance for their employees. There is NOTHING in the ACA that mandates you MUST use "XZY Company" for your health insurance needs.

OldSchoolLatinTeacher

"Chris saved me a lot of typing--sailor"

Not sailor .... MARINE!

I just get hot with people who think they occupy the "Moral High Ground", anything that they want done is justified. That is when my mind drifts back to an old Latin phrase:

Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius

OldSchoolLatinTeacher:

People thought that GWB infringed on individual liberties, and the left howled. (though now they are strangely silent with the current administration in charge--even when grandmas and wheelchair-bound kids are body searched) - Remember, it was the Crawford Village Idiot that rammed that law through to "keep us all safe". And remember, he also violated the law by tapping phone calls with no warrant, snooped in your e-mails and mine and who knows how many other ways our civil liberties were trampled. But, you tin foil hat wearing right wing crazies all were fine with that because, after all, george is a "good Christian boy" and a republican. We all know only Democrats want to destroy our freedoms.

Who's paying attention here?

I find it interesting the conservatives howl about the mandate, and they didn't blink an eye about the patriot act.

Chris: D'oh! I need my d%$^ reading glasses! Deepest apologies.

God indeed knows His own and watches out for Marines.

There are many conservatives who don't like the Patriot Act, Obama seems to like it just fine though.

Paul: What does that make Pres. Obama since he has continued GWB's policies? When is Gitmo closing? What about Obama's ability to assassinate citizens with no due process? (GWB didn't do that--phone taps and assassinations are not on the same level--But BHO has no such qualms) Even Salon writes about it. (http://www.salon.com/2012/01/30/leon_panettas_explicitly_authoritarian_decree/)

Who's the idiot? Who's wearing the tinfoil hat?

Cat-1200657

Chris, the problem with your response is that it is the INDIVIDUAL MANDATE that the Republicans are howling over, that the Supreme Court is considering and is one of the clauses that the Republicans insisted be in the ACA. The rest of the ACA is really not at issue and is not what states are challenging in front of the SCOTUS. In addition

First, it is not Republicans but the states that are challenging the law. I am not a Republican, but I would also challenge the law. You have COMPLETELY missed the point of the argument. It is NOT the individual Mandate, but the fact that congress is trying to overstep it's bounds because they lacked the intestinal fortitude to Do THEIR JOB Correctly and make ACH be funded by a TAX. That is right, A TAX, not a tax credit, or a tax deduction, but a TAX; get it?

Our constitution is a document that restricts what the government can do. It says to the three branches of government the same that was said in Job 38:11

Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further

it is all about RESTRAINT of government and how far it can delve into your life. If you allow the congress to violate those protections, you open the same door to any abuse that they want to inflict upon us. The Constitution was written in a way to protect you and me from what government CAN become if left to its own devices and Machiavellian desires.

Government is made up of people that can be corrupted by either profit, power, position or a combination thereof, and Congress has not had the best track record for the past 35+ years. Do you really want them to have unlimited power over what they can charge you for or take out of your paycheck? Do you want them to have the ability to kill you without the due process of law like they did to Al-Awlaki even if the SOB really deserved to die? Any time you ignore the rules, no matter how laudable the reason may be, you open the door for abuse. Is that what you want?

is disingenuous. The ACA does not specify which insurance company you should buy your health insurance from.

Again you have missed the point completely. It is about the abuse of power and the fact that once the precedent is established they have more wiggle room to step further off base. In baseball, if you step too far off base and can't get back to the base in time you are out. In legal precedents, if you step off base and get away with it, they move the bases closer together. the next time you are 3 feet closer and stand a better chance of getting away with even more. When will enough power be enough? Sir Thomas More, in A Man for All Seasons, asked the same type of question to William Roper:

"Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake, not for his!

You seem to want to cut down the restrictions that prevent us from having excessive government; is that the case? Would you be happy if any American citizen could be turned into a smoking hole at the behest of some nameless person in the federal government without due process? Once the virginity is lost, the next time is not nearly as big a deal.

Our legals system's rulings, from the local district to the SCOTUS, are based on precedents. If we allow the Government to violate and overstep their authority, where will they stop? That is the whole issue here; not healthcare or individual mandates, but whether congress will follow the charter set out for them by the constitution. If they fail to follow that charter, I believe that they will one day cease to be the servant and become the master; and a terrible master they will be.

When I lived in England, I heard a rather amusing story about George Bernard Shaw. It went:

At a social gathering, a well know female tabloid reporter was trying to get an interview with George Bernard Shaw. His friends suggested that he stay clear of her because she would "drag him through the mud" in the tabloids. Instead of following their advice he went directly to her and asked:

Madam, would you sleep with the King?

She said "If he so commanded, Yes, I would."

Shaw then said, "What would it take for you to sleep with me?"

She said, "How Dare You! What do you take me for, a common whore?"

Shaw's reply was, "I established that with the First Question. Now I am merely attempting to establish the price."

The first time you set the precedent, you have established a basis for future rulings, anything after that is just a negotiation exercise of agreeing on today's going rate. I fear that, once given, there will be nothing to stop more of the same from happening until we end up in an Orwellian Society. Don't think it can happen? Just look at what happened to Germany between 1930 and 1945; it can happen here too if we fail to restrict the government's power

OldSchoolLatinTeacher,

Chris: D'oh! I need my d%$^ reading glasses! Deepest apologies.

Not to worry. Technically we ARE a Department of the Navy; We're the MEN'S Department!

The issue is that we should not have to pay for the freeloaders, they gambled with their health, and if they lose the gamble, THEY should lose, not us. Remove the law that says that all people must be treated despite their ability or inability to pay. We should not be forced to support people who are irresponsible, this whole health care deal is an attempt to fix something that shouldn't have happened in the first place and I'm positive that the 'fix' (obamacare) will only make things far worse, just as most Democrat driven initiatives I've seen since the 1970's.

Congress already has the power to force people to buy insurance, there is past precedence. Before the war of 1812 they enacted a law forcing all Merchant Marines in the service of the United States to have private insurance. This was on the books for over a hundred years and was never challenged, heck plenty of the founding fathers were still around when it was written. So clearly congress does have the power to force a whole industry to purchase insurance.

The question is does that translate to the entire country.

Chris: My dad, a 29 year Navy vet (which makes my above error even worse), might take issue with that, but not too strongly... Be advised though, at age 77 he can still shoot the center out of a target with his model 1911 Colt 45. We lived in SoCal and he used to take me up to Pendleton with him for his pistol matches--good times for a kid! He was stationed at Miramar. We were glad to see the Marines have that base now... They won't let some desk jockey close it.

Chris: One last thing. I have three students who will be at MCRD after this school year. They are among the most focused and well-motivated students I have and the Corps will only make them better men.

Phil--AMEN. Then again, I can see a 'logical progression' from requiring everyone to BUY insurance, which is if you cannot afford babies (to feed, house, clothe, educate and provide decent medical care for ONE, much less a passel) we should be able to REQUIRE that you either get the norplant, an IUD, or sterilization. We should NOT be forced to pay for the poor to continue behaving irresponsibly in THAT way, either, and just imagine how many FEWER potential criminals we might have if ALL Parents were forced to PROPERLY care for any child?

Wow--looking back on that, maybe THAT's not a bad idea?

But I can already HEAR the liberals howl. Because on MOST things, they do NOT want the POOR to be responsible, ONLY the ones who have some measure of success.

If you don't buy a car and need one, taxpayers don't have to pay for you when you need to walk somewhere.

If you don't buy insurance and need it (say you broke you ankle walking somewhere) we all have to pay for you to go to the ER.

There's a little bit of precedence this reminded me of. I know the two are not a fair comparison. But even if you don't own a car and have never driven drunk in your life, car insurance rates go up ever so slightly when you buy alcohol. I know it is nothing like the person who is "so healthy" they "don't need insurance" and then racks up a $100,000 bill from a car wreck. But it is an example of how the actions of others not covered by a policy still impact your rates. Crime also causes homeowner's insurance and car insurance rates to go up.

Here's where the big difference is. Someone who's uninsured house is destroyed in a tornado does not cause your homeowner's insurance rate to go up. Someone who's uninsured body becomes severely damaged by a tornado does cause your health insurance rates to go to up (if they don't pay).

To Chris: Oohrah.

Pragmatic-3918582

Here's where the big difference is. Someone who's uninsured house is destroyed in a tornado does not cause your homeowner's insurance rate to go up. Someone who's uninsured body becomes severely damaged by a tornado does cause your health insurance rates to go to up (if they don't pay).

But that is not exactly correct. In Florida, after Andrew, there were many "uninsured homes" (In 1993, many mortgage companies didn't "check" that you had insurance. Many people in South Florida didn't have insurance, but they had told the mortgage that they did anyway.

When Andrew hit, the insurance rates in all of Florida (Orlando, Tampa, and Panama City, etc.) jumped even tho Andrew was only about 40 miles wide and went south of Miami (Cutler Ridge, Culver City, Homestead, Florida City, and a lot of open, unpopulated area.) The entire state was punished for something that cut less than a 50 mile wide swath in an area that, once you were outside of Miami, was mostly unpopulated except by alligators.

@Bookem' Danno

We don't all have to pay for someone to go to the ER for a broken ankle. If you don't have insurance, the hospital should continue collection actions against the person who did not pay.

The glaring flaw in this logic is that you can't collect blood from a stone. There are people who use these services that NEVER pay. Do the healthcare providers simply eat the loss? Hell, no! They bump up the costs of their services to compensate. You know... those services that you and I are paying for when we go in for healthcare. Like it or not, we ARE paying.

Paul..... when it comes to who illegally wiretapped first, check Bill Clinton in a top secret program called "Echelon". He did it before Bush. Sorry to burst your bubble.

And for those who say government can compel auto insurance, remember, it's only through the states, not the federal government, and the mandate is only for those who drive a vehicle, not for every single person. Liberals have a hard time understanding those differences. Anyway, can one of you supporting this tell me why the government, either on the state or federal level, doesn't mandate life insurance? We all die, so why no mandate for life insurance? Poor arguments!

The Supreme Court should overturn the bill, Congress has overreached on their authority. Anyway, this bill does nothing to lower premiums or rising health care costs. It doesn't do what the Obama administration has advertised to the American public.

You can if you garnish their wages. We do it all the time to those who owe taxes to our Government.

Right, Tony!

I would guess that MOST uninsured people who need major medical do not ever repay in full. The reason that most of the uninsured don't purchase insurance is that they feel they can't afford it. So when hit with a disease they really can't afford that. You can collect for the rest of their life but someone trying to live on $22,000 per year is not going to be able to even pay the interest on a $150,000 medical bill.

Headshake-

reality check. How are you going to pay off a debt garnishing the wages of someone who works at Walmart? Or USED to work at Walmart until they were injured?

The "they can pay their own way" argument assumes everyone is well off. More people are not than are.

Reality check, then how do you expect those same people to pay the penalty of not purchasing health insurance?

They won't. Your exempt from the penalty if you don't make a certain amount of income. No sure what the cut off rate is; so what this all comes down to is the usually group of freeloaders who do nothing to better themselves will get another freebie from the Dems.

Momaid see pg 769 increasing birth intervals between pregnancies. PPACA has it covered.They are already going to tell you how far apart your kids will be. Anybody who supports this bill should actually read the dang thing.

I love the argument from liberals that Obama's policies are no better or worse than Bush's. (phone taps, Gitmo, Patriot Act) So then you admit the current POTUS is as much as failure as the last one? Great, I would never give Bush four more years in office and so I won't vote to give it to Obama either.

@ Old School Latin Teacher:

GREAT AVATAR! Calling the President a SNOB for a DUMB false remark made by a GOP person that holds a MASTER'S DEGREE.

The Hypocrisy! Please name yourself something else. You do not represent anybody that teaches anything, other than ignorance and hate.

Let's assume that what Santorum said was true -WHICH IT ISN'T-: I guess you tell your students that being Janitors -just like Gingrich wants- is the BEST that they can hope for....Right?

The intellectual forces of the workers and peasants are growing and getting stronger in their fight to overthrow the bourgeoisie and their accomplices, the educated classes, the lackeys of capital, who consider themselves the brains of the nation. In fact they are not its brains but its @!$%#.

- Lenin in a 1918 letter to Maxim Gorky.

And you call him "socialist" I would NOT want anybody that I appreciate to be your student

Paul-3525835 - Who's paying attention here?

You really need to do the research into President Obama's January 21, 2009 Patriot Acts, if you cannot find that, start with Preemptive Detentions, Material Support To Terrorist Organizations, Censorship and Monitoring of All US Communications (especially internet), relationship to US Insurrection Act and the US Military Use of Deadly Force Against US Citizens, S.1959, H.R.1955, as those are just parts of the whole President Obama January 21, 2009 Patriot Acts (plural), President Obama shown on this link during a staged News Media Event January 22, 2009 signing into US Law(s) his Patriot Acts 04:38 minutes of 11:55 minutes:

Naomi Wolf: 'Obama can lock any US citizen up without trial'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLSeD19m3UE

Now let's talk about Legitimacy and Legal Precedent:

Buy Business Insurance or we put you out of Business; Buy Fire Insurance or we burn you down; Buy Health Insurance or we break you legs - Organized Crime

Buy Insurance or we Fine you - President Obama

Do you see any difference between either case of Extortion and Racketeering.

Chris-382117,

Why is it that the 1% of the US Citizens of the US Military know more about these and other matters that really don't concern us (US Military Health Care aka Tricare).

Chris-382117 - Technically we ARE a Department of the Navy; We're the MEN'S Department!

After training with the USMC, I strongly believe that the Jarheads (just ribbing my Senior USMC NCO that is telling me to get off the computer so we can move my Command Team plus one support Team to another location) need to be a separate Branch with their own Budget instead of the Redheaded Bast*rd Stepchildren of the USN. A longtime ago when I was going thru Redacted with the USMC it always seemed that we got the USN's leftovers and crumbs or whatever the US Army did not want. example: Towards the end of the War, I was wearing camoflagued ripstop nylon jungle fatigues the ones with slant pockets as a LRRP/Ranger calling in airstrikes at Plei Can (Ho Chi Minh Trail) to slow down the NVA so that US Military could unarse Vietnam. After the War the US Army had hundreds of thousands of these as surplus so they were transfered to the USMC after the US Army switched to those Service Station O.D. Green fatigues with baseball caps. Almost a decade later while training with the USMC, I ended up wearing the same camoflagued ripstop nylon jungle fatigues the ones with slant pockets with USMC stenciled on the pocket (same NSN as before). Yes, kind of tells you how long I have been in the US Military (Recalled from Retirement to Active Duty, less than 2 months and no more recalls as Too Old for most of us.).

My USMC Redacted Senior NCO is laughing about that "Men's Department", kind of pissed off the USN Redacted Officer of my Command Team. That's what happens when you get US Army, USAF, USMC, USN, Agency all in one place (my big headache). With that now both of them are ragging on me, so they can shut down the comms, pack up, and move, 6 degree F weather. 1 day from now back online if nothing goes wrong.

As the not so average USMC Battalions being stood up would say, Semper Fi Do or Die.

It is true one is not mandated to own a car and therefore buy the insurance required by law...and believe me there a a ton of folks our there driving without it.....and it is your CHOICE to own a car or ride public transportation....

but there is no CHOICE when a person suddenly becomes ill, or has an accident or develops a chronic illness due to environmental conditions or starts losing their hearing or eyesight or develops a heart condition or gets cancer..........since these are not CHOICES but none the less MUST be tended to there should be a mandate for the purchasing of health insurance to cover the INEVITABLE NEED OF HEALTH CARE THROUGHOUT A PERSONS LIFE.................INEVITABLE....it will happen over and over and over again irregardless of how we eat or how careful we are or how well we exercise as life is dangerous. Do you honestly think all the people who are up in arms about being mandated to provide themselves with health care insurance will NEVER BE IN NEED OF THESE SERVICES THROUGHOUT THEIR LIVES?.....of course they will, it is a sure thing. The point is who pays and by mandating it will drive the cost down for all.

This is a no brainer....and I assure you it will evolve to an even better plan....hopefully some day we will join the rest of the civilized, industrially developed, well educated countries of the world and put socialized single payer health care into law...why are we the riches, most powerful and yet the slowest to get this?

Ego or greed or stupidity...........take your pick.

There ARE actually other "picks" than ego or greed or stupidity...and some of them involve rugged individualism, good habits and remarkable, fortunate health...

There are plenty of people in this country - and other countries - who have, in fact, never had an illness sufficiently serious to require a doctor's visit. These people never get any media coverage because it is not a good story and the media has been tasked to bring forward a different narrative of endless illness, gloom, catastrophy and Chicken Little sky-is-falling in order to corral the gullible animals into a pen on the animal farm where the government is their keeper, with dominion over them.

It is time that Americans woke up. This country has been run into the ditch and off the cliff by deficit spending from which it will never recover. This entire fantasy of healthcare for the masses is an illusion. Few of the socialist countries that the central Amerika planners wish to emulate have a healthcare system worth a snap. Few of the central planners give a darn about you and your problems, choked as they are by their own problems to hold on to power and to continue taking from the masses. You are on your own; do you not get that? Rather than chasing an illusory health benefit, most Americans would be better served to simply learn, relearn and live the simple health principles and prudent lifestyle choices that their forebears practiced. People will live a lot longer with good nutrition, adequate sleep and less stress due to less debt than they will with radiation machines and toxic pharma. Solve your own problems and stop looking to a government that is broke and broken.

I Respond: Get over it and get over yourself. You're not that important and you have too thin a skin if my avatar bothers you that much. Your post is that of a five year old throwing a temper tantrum. How old are you, 20? 25?

I am not part of public education. I teach in a private school in a low income area. We have to compete with "free" public education and we have to be that much better. My students are all well-motivated and successful. You will no doubt work for them someday because they have been taught how to think, not what to think as occurs in public education.

Have a nice life.

For sure the individual mandate is unconstitutional. The federal govenerment ie Congress went to far on this one. Case in point on the heathcare mandate. Can Congress mandate all purchase Dental Insurance? How about Life Insurance or long term disability insurance? Or burial isurance for that matter? The list could go on and on. Where will individual freedom and liberty end up if Congress does not stop trying to be the big Nanny for us all? I can tell you...the trash bin of history!

Rick, well said. You are absolutely correct.

Do you realize how stupid the whole idea of getting mad at the insurance companies for not covering people with pre-existing conditions is? If health Insurance companies aren't allowed to deny someone based on the fact that the individual will bring drain the company of millions of dollars, anyone with a brain will just wait until they get sick and then purchase health insurance. That would bankrupt the health insurance companies in no time flat. Then everyone will be stuck with the slow, poorly run gov't provided health insurance. Result: More people die in waiting rooms.

Sorry, with the exception of the ban on pre-existing condtions exclusion, I really cant see how the "ACA" does much to control the insurance industry In fact it writes there control of the US healthcare system into law.

The insurance industry wrote through WellPoint VP Liz Fowler essentially wrote the law. She then moved to the Obama administration to work on implementation. There is one way the insurance industry can get around the requirement to spend a certain percentage on patient care that will increase profit and delay care. I am sure they will write plenty of other loopholes into the implementation regulations.

There are no restrictions on insurance company death panels. There are no controls on how the insurance industry drives up provider administrative costs.

In 2018 the Cadillac Tax bomb goes off and many employer insurance plans will be taxed out of existence. The insurance industry will no longer have to extend discounts to large employers They will be able to feed off of everyone as individuals at much higher rates.

The insurance industry owns many politicians in the national government. They wouldn't have allowed this to go through unless they were sure they could continue to profit handsomely.

Seriosly,

If health Insurance companies aren't allowed to deny someone based on the fact that the individual will bring drain the company of millions of dollars,

You just explained the problem with our entire healthcare system, and you not only agree with it, you use it as a cornerstone of your argument...MONEY. The ACA simply makes regulatory adjustments (Children covered, pre-existing conditions) to a market that shouldn't even exist.

But go ahead and think that helping old people and sick children should be all about the poor Insurance companies PROFIT.

ACA fundamentally changes what is paid for in the health care realm. Instead of getting paid for "doing stuff". Prevention is enhanced, and coming soon will be programs where doctors are given a lump sum to keep you healthy. Some of this is already going forward in the field of mental health now.

If you can prevent costly chronic conditions then health care costs go down.

Additionally, if you compel everyone to have insurance then the healthy who don't buy insurance until its too late will pay their premiums and assist in paying for those with chronic conditions. Without that, the chronically ill are too expensive and health care costs go up.

So, if you don't have a mandate how do you get everyone covered for insurance. Easy, universal care like all the other major countries have. They do it better and cheaper than we do.

Oh, and it forces people to buy that which they may have chosen not to.

The "needs" of the supposed 50 million without health insurance does not trump the rights and freedom of the remaining 300 million.

We - So help me understand. The insurance companies are supposed to operate without a profit. Have you EVER taken a Bus 101 class. The primary purpose of ANY business is to make a profit. Otherwise it goes out of business. Your appeal to emotion is called a fallacious argument. You cannot use factual data nor reconcile this law's basis with the Constitution, so you throw out an argument based on emotion. Typical Left wing thinking. the fact you cannot grasp how DANGEROUS this law can be is frightening. What makes our country so unique is our dependence on our liberties. When those are taken (in this case maybe GIVEN away) it's just a matter of time and we cross from socialism to communism....all in the name of "helping".

Chris (post 3.2) I could not have stated it better. thank you.

NC, everyone should pay for their health care agreed? The constitution doesn't say people should get free stuff does it?

The rights of every American not to have to pay for someone else's health care is more important in my opinion.

Eric,

Ah, so we would be forced to buy it for our own good, eh? The government or YOU will decide such issues?

So, what if it is for our own good to be told where to live? Or which jobs to forced to train for due to shortages in certain occupations? Yes, yes, I know, that would NEVER happen. Just as no govt could EVER force us to buy something we do not want...such as Obamacare.

I think that all young people should be drafted after high school into the military for the good of the entire country. We would always have a trained defense force and be able to teach discipline and patriotism to a group that often has no direction at all. WOW, what a concept!

Will you be the first to sign up, Eric?

And once everyone has this utopian universal healthcare, they will religiously go in for their annual checkups, and stop eating unhealthy, and get more exercise, and practice better hygiene. And after we get the evil corporations out of the picture, we can limit the excessive pay that the doctors receive for their services as well, because after all it is a human right for these services. That way we can have people who would have otherwise been an office jockey enter into the medical field to practice medecine.

NC, we had that, it was called world war II and it was called the draft.

Eric - So am I to gather that you ARE for Obamacare, but you oppose fighting for your country. I don't want to make assumptions, but your tone suggests that. And by the way, the draft was in effect well after WWII 'til 1973. Honestly, I don't have a problem with having every HS grad enter into the military for two years. first of all, it will provide some needed discipline and maturity. The amount of students who go to college on the backs of American workers' dime and flunk is astounding. Thirty percent drop out their freshman year, and that does not count those who fail...so it's higher than 30% total. Let those who want college on a "free" dime serve first before we taxpayers foot their bill for education.

I hope they overturn this law. It's an abomination - nothing but a Health Insurance Company's dream Act. We need real reform in our health care - Universal Health Care, a Single Payer system for all. The Europeans do it and don't complain and live longer lives as a result. What we have now is corporatocracy run amuck. We are fast becoming the new serfs to our overlords who pay for our congressmen to hoodwink the unter-menschen uneducated sheeple. It's enough to turn you into a Bolshevik! F' 'em! Time for a real revolution. Let's get rid of this crony capitalism and establish a real democracy, getting back to the basic foundations of our Constitution: We the People! Not We the Corporations.

Don't you think people are going to pay the $95 per year penalty and not pay $6,000 or more in premiums for healthcare? obamacare does nothing to take care of this. Whether some of you can actually open your eyes and leave Alice in Wonderland is yet to be seen. People will opt to pay the small penalty, tax, penalty, tax, which is it obama? Then when faced with a serious illness, they will ask the insurance companies to cover them with the best insurance they have, no deductibles, or copays. Your living with Alice if you think millions of people will not do this. Even the court is questioning how it can be a penalty, then tax, then penalty, then tax, and now penalty. None of these politicians have a clue on what is in it. If you do not put your foot down on this, the government will start to dictate other items that you have to buy.

"Then when faced with a serious illness, they will ask the insurance companies to cover them with the best insurance they have, no deductibles, or copays."

Your logic makes no sense. The penalty they will pay for not having health insurance does not entitle them to a relationship with an insurance company, so they can ask the insurance companies for nothing. Same as now.

For those who brought up the 2000 election of Bush vs. Gore and suggest that this court decided the outcome for Bush, I hate to let facts get in the way of a good rant, but you might want to read this NY Time article! LOL

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/us/examining-vote-overview-study-disputed-florida-ballots-finds-justices-did-not.html

ConservativeNotRepublican-2806513

Do you realize how stupid the whole idea of getting mad at the insurance companies for not covering people with pre-existing conditions is?

You do realize the whole concept of insurance is to spread the risk among many? Trace insurance back to its roots. Read up on latter day commercialization, e.g. Lloyds. While rating may vary for various risks, the one and only reason insurance ever can be profitable is to spread the risk over as much of the line of insurance you are trying to cover. Attempting to pick and choose only "good risks" has never worked out well for insurers. Actuarial tables covering the entire population are going to be much more accurate than guessing who will be a good risk and who will be a poor one. Why do you think syndicates at Lloyds take small participation percentages on a large number of policies rather than write 100% of far fewer policies?

Healthy people, e.g. for the most part young people don't need insurance. So that means the cost to older people becomes enormous. It may not be fair but I hate to tell you, if you have a family you ARE already being subsidized by others.

The only way to make it somewhat affordable for everyone is to cover everybody. That means the healthy AND the unhealthy. Regardless of what you think, you ARE paying for the cost of those uninsured or unhealthy people. You can't really be that naive to think hospitals are going to eat the loss for treating those who cannot afford to pay.

.

I still do not think a bad bill is better than no bill at all. A bad bill stops people from trying for a good bill.

Do you realize how stupid the whole idea of getting mad at the insurance companies for not covering people with pre-existing conditions is?

Are you that soulless that you think it's okay to die because they couldn't get insurance? Oh wait, that's your 'freedom'.