You have to love the way MSNBC tries to sway the results of the poll with the wording "and solve a national problem." MSNBC doesn't have much to say about our national debt, the massive annual budget deficits, the fact both Medicare and Social Security are going broke, but healthcare is a problem.

That's an excellent point, Croaker.

Gotta love Republicans that created the mandate in the first place now saying "it's evil".

Congress works for corporations who finance their elections. Good luck get anything that might help the millions who are uninsured, unemployed and underemployed! Heck, we haven't even seen the end of the housing crisis yet! And the billions spent each week on the war machines? Do you hear any complaining from either party about the wars adding daily to our federal debt?! Didn't think so. Don't expect to get a rational poll that would ask tough questions about how our corporate congress and military industrial complex works in America. MSNBC, FOX, etc, all work for the corporate/military money machine. The days of REAL independent reporting and journalistic integrity are long gone!

Eric that is exactly the problem. It has nothing to do with a philosophical position on any other issue it is solely about doing "Mortal Political Combat." If they did it then it's wrong regardless of who did it first. This is why the two party system is so screwed and Obama shouldn't bother trying to compromise because a % of people are just going to hate him because he is a Democrat, even if he shifted further right than the rightest of the GOP.

Congress does not have the authority to force a person to do business with a private company. If this is allowed to stand, what is next?!?! What will the next industry be that Congress needs to prop up that they are going to tell people they have to buy from!?!?

For those who try and equate this to car insurance, it is not the same thing. You do not have to own or drive a car. If you do you are not even technically required to have insurance. You have the option, instead of buying car insurance, of posting a financial responsibility bond with the state. You are in no way forced to buy car insurance. With the health insurance mandate, you would be forced to buy insurance simply because you are alive. This goes well beyond anything that was ever envisioned by the commerce clause of the Constitution.

Everyone should pay for their own health care. Any dissenters?

CotW, one of the basics that seems to escape a lot of folks, is, that when you fund war machines, you get people making and selling products, people earning salaries, spending money, and ultimately expanding the economy. But when you fund welfare, all you get is more welfare recipients.

I'm not a big fan of war machines, but I'm no fan of welfare recipients.

Where I live, the government says I have to buy auto insurance if I want to drive a car. I need to drive a car, so I pay for auto insurance.

Single payer health insurance would be the best thing we can do -- a federal program, we pay into it and we receive the benefits. Health care is much more basic to our lives than driving a car.

But since the Republicans and the corporations will have none of this, we seem to have to go the 'car insurance' route and find our own insurance if we want health care. It is something we all have to have.

(One of the greatest costs to insured people comes from uninsured people needing healthcare facilities without being able to pay. If everyone is insured, that won't happen. Again, single-payer is the best option here.)

Oh -- and Eric, one way or another we are all going to pay for our health care. HOWEVER, if I had not been insured when I got sick two years ago and had to be hospitalized for six weeks with intravenous antibiotics, either a) I would not be here now, b) I would be in debt for the rest of my life, or c) both -- and my family would be in debt for the rest of their lives.

Almost every developed country has at least an OPTION to obtain health insurance through the government. Not surprisingly, it works very well in some countries and not well in others, depending on how it's implemented.

The rest of the world isn't stupid. There is a good reason why every other developed country has federal health insurance programs. The purpose of government is to serve and protect the rights of the people. That being the case, I must ask: what basic right could be more fundamental than the right to protect your life? IMHO, people have a basic, inalienable right to medical care.

Has basic human compassion become so pathologically low in our society that we simply let the poor be without medical care until they are rushed to an emergency room?

I'd like to know where they came up with the idea the a health care mandate is going to "solve a national problem".

Because the act of not buying health insurance affects everyone else in American financially, Congress does have the power to compel us to buy health insurance.

The question of private company insurance is a real one. However, the defense department, for example, uses private companies all the time. By taxing me, you are compelling me to use such private companies.

As has been stated before, there is NO constitutional question about a single payer program. The Constitution says very plainly that Congress may tax as it wishes.

Bart Conner - Then Congress needs to pass it as a national health care tax.

@old gaffer

The military industrial complex gets more money than any 'welfare recipient'. More of your 'tax dollars' go toward making someone a millionaire than it does to someone whose on 'welfare' as you put it.

And another thing the economy is more dependent on welfare recipients, like yourself, than it is 'millionaires'. And you are a recipient whether or not you realize it. If you are retired you're on 'welfare'...

Rick,

RE: your post #1.1

I would beg-to-differ with you about MSNBC not mentioning the U.S. national debt, the U.S. budget, Medicare, Social Security, or any host of other topics in the public's view. This conversation just happens to be about the Supreme Court's rather historic hearing and probably future ruling on the individual compulsory healthcare mandate. If you think I am wrong just Google any of the topics and the call letters MSNBC to see how many 'hits' you get, and we will see who is correct. MSNBC will report on anything they deem newsworthy and/or can make them a buck. I grant you they are a political, but FIRST, they are capitalists, right?

@ JS in SD: The problem is that health care isn't like a pizza. If you don't want to buy a pizza you don't have to. End of story.

Health care isn't like that. EVERYONE needs health care at some point. One of the most basic realities of being a living thing is that your health ***WILL*** eventually fail. If you decide not to buy health insurance that doesn't mean that you're avoiding the health care market. It just means that everyone else will have to pay for your trip to the emergency room.

The point is that it's just dumb to argue that people can choose not to be part of commerce when it comes to health care. No you can't.

We are also "mandated" to pay into our Social Security. How many folks would end up old with nothing if we didn't have this mandate? And who would pay for all of those people who didn't save for their retirement?

Health care is the same, we ALL are mandated to pay for those young healthy Americans who choose not to buy health insurance because they know they won't get sick until they crash their motorcycle.....And we pick up the tab for them now.

Jessie-1513106 - Social Security is a tax collected by the government thereby making it legal. This is not the same situation.

So, Skup, you are right -- we need to pass it as a national health care tax.

Trouble was, they couldn't get it through Congress because of corporate influence. So they did what they could and came up with the Affordable Care Act.

If 'we the people' all voiced, loud and clear, that we want a single-payer system, and ousted those whose votes are based on corporatist campaign contributions, we would have that law.

(Boldface -- there are legislators who receive some corporate money but actually do vote in the interest of the American people. Many corporations like their money to butter both sides of the bread, just in case.)

Sadly, there are too many of us who think it is some kind of invasion of our freedoms and believe the nonsense that is spouted by right-wing pundits and media (again supported by the same corporatists...)

morrigan-1568233 - My objections aren't based on it being a invasion of freedom. My objection is simply that the federal government is not capable of implementing a program of that size efficiently. It's something that can be better handled at the state level.

I agree Croaker. I'm a true blue and proud liberal democrat but I have a hard time with the concept of congress being able to force anyone to buy a product from a for-profit supplier. It is, however, incredibly hypocritical (surprise, surprise) of the republicans to bash the President for this mandate since the idea for the individual mandate was originally proposed and pushed heavily by the republicans as their preferred alternative to Hillary's "employer mandate" which was part of her defeated healthcare reform efforts early in Clinton's first term. The republicans widely embraced the individual mandate right up to the point that it became part of Obama's crowning achievement. Suddenly the idea is now socialist, tyrannical and unconstitutional.

Granted, the end result of this legislation was a watered down barely recognizable shadow of what Obama wanted which was a true universal, single-payor system. All republicans and a handful of blue dog democrats made sure that this wound up being nothing but another huge profit center for private insurance companies. The law has many great benefits and protections for the public but unfortunately the whole thing will fall apart without the mandate that everyone participates in the system.

1. You're not being forced to engage in commerce or buy anything, YOU ALREADY DO. Inevitably you will seek healthcare, ergo you're already engaging and not being forced to. And because healthcare crosses state lines, it is interstate commerce, and subject to regulation by the feds. This isn't about how they can regulate, it's about the effect on nationwide commerce.

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

@old gaffer....

As already stated, the military industrial complex is the most tax funded "employer" in our country!!! All those contracts and such are paid for by you and me and every other citizen. Seriously, I would rather have a decent universal health plan that keep people healthy and able to work than to continue to spend trillions (that's right TRILLIONS) on war, war that does nothing but destroy lives and create more enemies....that's a fact.

@old gaffer...what do you think people on welfare do with the money they receive? They certainly don't save or invest it. They spend every penny on goods and services. They might just be helping some others keep their jobs.

Congress controls the purse that funded a war that should have ended years ago. Thanks, Congress, for putting us in debt!!! You couldn't cut Bush off and tell him no money?! Whatever happened to Checks and Balances between Government Branches? Politicians vote too much on party lines. Sooo stupid.

Next thing you know we'll all be required to buy Chevy Volts and Dodge Ram pickups.

@Sarah....what the hell are you saying? The current for-profit health system is UNAFFORDABLE for well over 50 million people! This issue is NOT about "commerce."

kimposibl. Bush is no longer in office. You have to find a new whipping boy for the wars we are now in.

Citizen,

Legally it is. The commerce clause and how it's interprated is what will decide whether the mandate is upheld.

Sarah, you WILL buy clothing. It's inevitable. So Congress can tell us who to buy our clothes from, right?

Jack,

No, because the clothing market doesn't require 100% participation to keep us all from being screwed. There aren't 50 million people who can't afford clothing and raise the clothing costs for the rest of us. Clothing doesn't have skyrocketing costs that drain our coffers nationwide. We don't have a national clothing crises.

Straw. Man. Argument.

I don't mind being forced to buy a regulatory "product" from the government itself ( like a driver's or fishing license ), but having to buy insurance ( health or otherwise ) from a for-profit company is absolutely wrong. States should provide minimum cost PLPD auto insurance and the feds should tax us and/or charge monthly premiums based on income for a single payer health system...that's the only realistic solution. The rest of it is corporate BS maintained by constant anti-socialist propaganda for the consumer while simultaneously creating a socialistic corporate environment for themselves.

Look to Canada, we don't need insurance company middle men at all to provide a great universal health care system at half the cost.

Sarah - Your logic is flawed. Healthcare does not equal health insurance. Between your paragraph 1 and 2 you switched from talking about healthcare to talking about health insurance.

Culheath,

Dead on. Everyone knows a single payer system would be best, and I blame Fox News and the health care lobby for fu**ing it all up for us.

Brian,

They are inseparable, that's why this is Constitutional and necessary, and they both cross state lines. Everyone gets healthcare, not everyone has insurance. That's the crux of why we need the mandate.

Because EVERYONE gets HEALTHCARE, the feds can regulate that we ALL need HEALTH INSURANCE so we have a way to pay.

The insurance is the regulation in regards to the healthcare, and both aren't specific by state, but nationwide.

NO SOLUTION, you KNOW you WANT IT.

If everybody gets what they want, nobody will get health care. You will use the Bible and pray when you get sick. I would personally like to see this fulfilled, and anybody of any religion turned away from hospitals and healthcare when they become ill. They will be redirected to their church/temple/mosque. Further, all religious hospitals will be outlawed. This is what we need.

MOAR SANTORUM!

Sarah by your thinking then everyone should have to pay income tax regardless of income but a lot of people do not pay but get money back

Since when does Congress give a flying rancid burrito fart about the Constitution? (Granted some examples are state laws, and some laws were challenged multiple times before they even got a hearing). From Blacks being 3/5 of a person, laws keeping the ladies from voting, segregation laws, the prevalence of 'no problem' lynchings, laws preventing 'mixed race' marriage, Ladies not having ownership of themselves (enforced pregnancy-which has been creeping back in various states), stripping of equal rights (through US history-including today-from defined groups), The 'Patriot Act' as well as rampant kidnapping and torture of individuals (extraordinary rendition) as well as systematic torture and murder at Gitmo. In the last few weeks we've seen Congressional hearings about the terminal re-enslavement of ladies of child-bearing age with no ladies on the committee or as accepted speakers. The Constitution was eliminated from this as Theocracy was 'Pope'. The hearings were about 'Religious Freedoms'-which would be fine in a Theocracy. Guess those Republican Congressman never heard of the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights (Its not the Bill of Reich!). So much (as is common) for their 'Oath of Office'.

Emergency room care is the most expensive. Taking care of problem(s) when a minor procedure and/or medication(s) will fix it provides care for hundreds or thousands instead of one person with major major surgery.

Derek,

How dare we actually try to solve the problem!!! I love that they complain about paying for other people (what we have now) and than complain about people having mandated coverage.

Tell me folks, should everyone else be mandated to have insurance, but not you??? That way you won't have to pay or be told what to do.

Here's an idea, how about you stop buying the media propaganda about socialism and allow us to have a single payer system??? No? Than deal with the mandate and grow up. The biggest whiners with entitlement complexes seem to be the TP people. We all have to work together to solve this one, and you don't get to have your cake and eat it too.

I learned that by the time I was five. Sheesh.

Romney and Obama are bad for trying to come up with a solution. So's Ron Paul for no reason, other than he's too honest.

DON'T BE A RINO, GET IN LINE WITH THE STUPID. NO SOLUTIONS EQUALS FREEDUM. Romney is a Muslin. Ron Paul should show us his gift birth certificate. UMERICAN FUR SANTORUM! Don't make me lurn tu spel!

Dan,

No, that would make no sense and has nothing to do with interstate commerce or the healthcare industry. I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make.

We pay income taxes proportionately so that people aren't left swapping money back and forth with the government in terms of benefits and taxes. What's the point of charging people with limited to no income an income tax, when that would make them more dependant on public assistance and we'd just give them the money back. But don't worry, they pay plenty of other taxes. Taxes aren't unique to you, you know.

The tax code is screwy we all know this, but it has nothing to do with this issue.

Funny the public mandate was the idea of the Republicans in the 1990's, was put in place by a Republican in Massachussetts, and now that a Democrat supports it you want to rant and challenge just because you can't stand the thought of a political victory for this President?

So your mandatory car insurance, your requirement to wear a seatbelt, the muskets that were required by the founding fahers, none of these are OK? Social Security and Medicare should be reversed?

Are you the same people who say it's OK to require that a woman be subjected to vaginal probes AND BE FORCED TO PAY FOR IT? That cigarettes be banned from cities, that bikers wear helmets, that ships have life boats, that watercraft carry life vests, that mortgage lenders be licensed, and that I pay half of my taxes for a bloated military, that we must pay taxes ? That Governments are OK doing takeovers of cities and ousting their legally elected city officials in Michigan? That its OK to support wars and the tripling of our military while cutting off the elderly and poor? That you are OK with the vehicle registration we are forced to pay for each year?

Are you asserting that in certain specific circumstances we not act as a nation to beter the lives of the population? That we remain the only developed nation in the world without national healthcare? That we fall further behind?

This country has changed - and I for one am sad at the narrow-minded, self-centered and backward-looking direction we are facing. Prepare to be second-rate. No amount of anti-abortion, anti-tax, anti-government rhetoric will keep us propped up. The most successful countries in the world all have a strong central government, a semi-planned economy combined with free-market, high taxes and universal healthcare. I guess we aspire now to be the American Taliban with a "git yer own" philosophy.

Wow - I don't know if the hypocrisy or the cherry-picking based on politics is more offensive....

Dorfy,

Well said. I have no desire to live in a nation like Somalia, which is what basically some of these people are advocating for, either.

The Democrats rammed the flawed health care law down our throats and had to bribe members of their own party in order to get it through. I doubt that the mandate to buy insurance is the real issue bothering the Republicans, but it is a loophole that may be used to kill the screwed up health care plan. The plan was passed by using loopholes, why shouldn't it be squashed by using loopholes? Address the issues that make Health Insurance unaffordable, don't pass the unaffordable costs on to somebody else and call it affordable. The people who can afford insurance and don't purchase it now, aren't the problem. The problem is the people who can't afford the insurance. The lack of good paying jobs is an issue. If you watch TV, you will see ad after ad by lawyers offering to sue because of the side affects of drugs or medical devices or medical outcomes that didn't work out as hoped. If you don't think that's part of the problem, you're living in a dream world where Obamacare actually would reduce costs and bring health and happiness to everybody.

HELP! I'M BEING OPPRESSED BY POOR PEOPLE!

Thears to many laws protectun them. Vote Santorum for President! No college!

Sarah @1.34

They are inseparable, that's why this is Constitutional and necessary, and they both cross state lines. Everyone gets healthcare, not everyone has insurance. That's the crux of why we need the mandate.

That's a fallacy that the insurance companies would like you to believe.

This is all very interesting. Since members of the CBO have been ranking increases in health costs to be the greatest single threat to our ongoing economy, obviously, we need a solution.

Single payer would (and does) work best. Well, we're too stupid to have that. The mandate is a bandaid, and not a very good one at that, because it's a weak mandate at best, but it will broaden the pool paying into private insurance.

The only other solution is to stop medical professionals from treating the indigent. Before you hop on that band wagon, that means that if your kid gets hurt at school, and can't prove he has an insurance card, the ER will put him outside the front door to bleed to death, sending you the bill for the ride to the hospital.

Sure, that would lower costs, but is that really what we want for this country? I don't know. Maybe we should try that approach for awhile and see how the populace likes it. Think its bad if you forgot your wallet because it has your driver's license in it? What about when you get in a wreak and you don't have your insurance card. Chew that over for awhile. I know I've managed to get places without the right documentation, but my life never depended on it.

That's the two sides of the coin we have. Flip it and take your chances, because, as someone from a family of medical professionals, I can tell you that our health care complex runs on the ragged edge of financial ruin every minute of every day. Take away Medicare and Medicaid, and most hospitals would fail very quickly. The financial burden of caring for the uninsured is passed on to everyone else anyway, so we may as well figure out a way to spread the pain more equitably.

Anyone going into a hospital without insurance is part of the problem. Republicans like to say health care is a responsibility. So is paying your debts. Right now we aren't. The mandate, flawed as it is, pushes us toward fulfilling our responsibilities as citizens of this country.

Brian,

Lol, really? So fee for service is affordable without insurance. Now there's a stretch. Yes, pricing issues stem from fee for service and monopolies, but since the GOP screamed socialism about single payer, the only way to deal with those huge prices, is with insurance.

Oh yes, and don't forget Citizen's United and Valeo that allowed entities like big pharma and insurance companies to buy our legislaters.

You wanna really fix the problem, great, LET'S F-ING DO IT, but until you get the GOP on board with getting money out of politics and a single payer system, this is what you get. And save the BS about healthcare being affordable without insurance for somebody who I don't know, is COMPLETELY FREAKING STUPID.

Sarah - Fee for service for normally healthy people is very affordable. Did you know that as late as the mid-sixties, 75% of medical payments were fee-for-service? You could probably track the explosion in healthcare costs to the rise of healthcare insurance. The real answer is to get rid of the parasitic middleman that is insurance, not further institutionalize it.

Dorfy

Funny the public mandate was the idea of the Republicans in the 1990's, was put in place by a Republican in Massachussetts, and now that a Democrat supports it you want to rant and challenge just because you can't stand the thought of a political victory for this President?

First, it is not Republicans but the states that are challenging the law. I am not a Republican, but I also challenge the law; not for what it does, but the precedent that it sets. You have COMPLETELY missed the point of the argument. It is NOT the individual Mandate, healthcare reform, or Republicans vs Democrats, but the fact that congress is trying to overstep it's bounds because our elected representatives lacked the intestinal fortitude to DO THEIR JOBS 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’s 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.

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 GM because they own a piece? 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 (or lack thereof) of our congresses over the past 35+ years, would you be willing to trust them with so much power? I believe it was George Washington that supposedly said:

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

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?

Social Security and Medicare should be reversed?

How about leaving the hyperbole at home because Social Security and Medicare/ Medicaid were done correctly.In 1934 when FDR wanted to create Social Security, he originally wanted it to be a "Mandated Savings Program." Henry Marganthau, Jr. ( Roosevelt's Secretary of the Treasury for his entire 12 years in office and the Architect of how to pay for Social Security) told him that it would never withstand a legal challenge as envisioned. Morganthau suggested that FDR have it funded by a Tax rather than mandate of either a purchase or required savings program. Because Morganthau's suggestion was followed, there has never been a successful challenge to the Social Security. Had congress made this a TAX there would be no legal challenge available. The problem is that congress was unwilling to do their job and did not have the courage of their convictions to make it a TAX as was done by FDR, Morganthau, and Johnson.

Are you asserting that in certain specific circumstances we not act as a nation to beter the lives of the population? That we remain the only developed nation in the world without national healthcare? That we fall further behind?

So, is it your belief that because you (and only you) hold the "Moral High Ground" youare justified in violating any existing rules, laws, or charters because you are, after all, "Morally Right"? First, what makes you "Right" and everyone else "wrong"? Did some deity (Allah, Buddha, God, Yahweh, or the Great Pumpkin) declare you to be the only source of "Right" in the world? I must have missed the memo. But, if you are so convinced that you are "Right", Reverend Dorfy, then you might want to 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.

But in conclusion, you say:

Prepare to be second-rate. No amount of anti-abortion, anti-tax, anti-government rhetoric will keep us propped up. The most successful countries in the world all have a strong central government, a semi-planned economy combined with free-market, high taxes and universal healthcare. I guess we aspire now to be the American Taliban with a "git yer own" philosophy.

I want a strong central government BUT one that plays by the rules set out in its Charter (The Constitution). It cannot violate one piece of that charter without opening the door to untold abuses and the country eventually degenerating into tyranny. 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 government 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 World. 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

Each state has their own constitution. If Romneycare passed the mustard in that state and the people were happy with the outcome then that was somewhat of a plus. I would argue that what is failing with Romneycare is that more than expected met the subsidy qualifications and thus Romneycare is costing more than the state can afford. The idea was to get that group of less than 10 percent as I recall to buy into a state run healthcare system so help lower risk and bring down costs. So it was thought that many young people that were healthy would be the ones mandated to buy this insurance.

I would argue that mandating at the federal level requiring people to buy a product whether they need it or want it in order to bring down risk is unconstitutional. It would be like asking a person without a care to buy insurance so that risk was reduced and the cost of that insurance reduced for car owners.

Insurance is a product that you hope you will never need. Health insurance is bought expressly to use it. So when my husband's company added dental insurance, everybody used it the first year. What do you think it did to their rates? Yup, it went up because spending outstripped the money collected. So for me the idea of health insurance is fundamentally wrong.

We are adding 35 million more people into the system with no caps now and no penalty for prior health issues. BTW, I am a cancer survivor. I think Obama like Romney has made a false determination that those currently uninsured are healthy and thus will reduce risk across the system. I think the opposite for the most part is true. I know people without health insurance that are older. They have lots of health issues which might take many visits, operations, to fix. They will not be reducing risk and lowering costs as Obama promised. We were originally told our premiums would do down by an average of 1500 to 2500 per family because people would stop using the ER as their primary doctor. What has happened is that many poor to somewhat poor areas are seeing charitable hospitals close their doors because they can't pay their bills because again the spending far exceeds the reimbursements. Also many trauma centers in high risk areas are closing as well.

While the commerce clause is very broad, I can't think of any private product we are forced to buy now that we don't have a current need for or some asset we are insuring. You are required to buy home insurance if you have a mortgage, but after that you can let it slide . You are required to buy car insurance but only if you have a car.

I still argue that health insurance is a flawed concept and will always result in higher costs and loss of efficiencies.

Some thoughts:

1) Medicare Part D was enacted by Republicans (though written by insurance and drug lobbyists.) It requires you to buy private prescription drug coverage with no choice of provider. If you do not enroll, it requires you to pay an extremely high fine and also increases the amount of the premiums by 1% a month forever with no cap if you decide that you wish to enroll eventually. No one seemed to object to this mandate.

2) States and localities are not allowed to do anything that the US Constitition does not allow. But states, as just one example, can require you to buy car insurance in order to own a car. Even mortgage companies can force you to buy mortgage insurance that benefits only themselves. Localities and states can require business licenses and permits out the kazoo. Now some of this is clearly in regulation of commerce, but others, such as car insurance have nothing to do with "commerce" which strictly means "the activity of buying and selling, especially on a large scale."

3) The idea of the individual health insurance mandate is considered to have originated in 1989 at the conservative Heritage Foundation. It was published as "Heritage Lecture #218", entitled, "Assuring Affordable Health Care For All Americans." In 1993, Republicans twice introduced health care bills that contained an individual health insurance mandate. Advocates for those bills included prominent Republicans who today oppose the mandate including Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Charles Grassley (R-IA), Robert Bennett (R-UT), and Christopher Bond (R-MO).

4) Obama opposed the individual mandate. For exampleon the Ellen Degeneris Show, he argued (against Hilary Clinton), "Both of us want to provide health care to all Americans. There’s a slight difference, and her plan is a good one. But, she mandates that everybody buy health care. She’d have the government force every individual to buy insurance and I don’t have such a mandate because I don’t think the problem is that people don’t want health insurance, it’s that they can’t afford it. So, I focus more on lowering costs. This is a modest difference. But, it’s one that she’s tried to elevate, arguing that because I don’t force people to buy health care that I’m not insuring everybody. Well, if things were that easy, I could mandate everybody to buy a house, and that would solve the problem of homelessness. It doesn’t."

5) It was the Republicans, not the Democrats who forced the individual mandate into the Clinton Health Care Proposal, Romney's health care plan in Massacheusetts, Bush's Medicare Part D, and into AHCA. The same four Republicans in #3 above were the ones who led to charge to include the Heritage Foundation recommendation, "exactly as written" into every draft of every health care proposal.

6) The Republicans well know that if the Supreme Court overturns the individual mandate that it will immediately kill not only the AHCA, but also "Romneycare" and Medicare Part D, both of which are huge embarrassments to the far right wing of the GOP. Not only would millions of seniors be left without needed, though deeply flawed, prescription coverage, but the state government in Massacheusetts would be left without the means to continue Romneycare beyond 2014. While they don't talk about it at all, the GOP will do anything they can to spite or discredit the Democratic-leaning Massacheutts government or to kill off a major piece of Medicare. This includes actually cutting the current piss-poor health care available to political opponents and the elderly.

I have watched as the Republicans have controlled their ill-informed and non-thinking minions thought processes to have them believe a huge amounts of mythilogy: a) that countries with national health plans all hate their plans and would swap or come to the US in preference. b) that somehow requiring you to buy private insurance from a for-profit company is somehow "socialism." c) that this was an idea proposed by and pushed by Democrats, and d) that this would somehow mess with the insurance for people who currently have it through their employer. All these things are knowing and bald-faced lies. Only people without the logical skills to check snopes.com believe them. But one thing the GOP has gotten right is that a flat plurality does not like the ACHA. But the majority of its opponents do not like it because of its lack of a public option. That lack of a public option means that 1 of every 6 health care dollars goes, not to physicians or hospitals or medications, but to for-profit paper shufflers who contribute only to the mnortality rate, but never a positive medical outcome.

For those who REALLY would like to know what people think of their health care systems in other countries and they thionk of ours, I would suggest shutting off Rush and Glen. Instead, sign up for any one of scores of online pen pal sites that will hook you up with someone in France or Germany or Canada, usually someone who wants to polish their English skills. And ask them. Or go to the oped sections of Canadian newspapers or the English version of European newspapers and see what people are saying. Canadians especially are really pissed at how the Tea Baggers mis-represent their health care system.

Or we can continue as is: a slow slide that has seen us drop from 37th place to 42nd place in health care delivery between 2000 and 2010. The lowest percentage of citizens with comprehensive health care access in the industrialized world. The highest medical malpractice rate in the world (it is the 5th leading cause of death in this country and not even in the top ten in any other country in the world.) We pay as much as 10 times in the US for the same drug, made by the same company, in the same Chinese factory, as someone in France would pay.

I know the right wingers will disagree, but I truly believe that we can have a better health care system than Cuba. An extremely poor country because of a combination of bad leadership and our embarrassed sanctions, they have the 5th best health care system in the world. And every single person in Cuba, even American tourists, are covered. But instead we pay twice per capita what people pay in France and cover less than half out citizens, with only a handful getting comparable benefits. If you look at the numbers you will see that France (#1 in health care, #2 in costs) pays approximately 20% of what the US pays per person. If I were a rightie, I would think that we could do better than France. But somehow they think this is the best we can do.

Great post Chris

Chris-749391,

The best comment so far. Well done.

Brian,

Really, normally healthy people? Unfortunately, on any given day, we all have the capability of no longer being normally healthy people. That's the problem. Add to that big pharma's price fixing for everything from essential life saving treatments to basic anti-biotics, and you win the naive award for the day.

And, like I said, I'm all for getting rid of the middle man, just let me know when you convince the GOP to go for the single payer system. Until than, we work with what we have.

And, like I said, I'm all for getting rid of the middle man, just let me know when you convince the GOP to go for the single payer system. Until than, we work with what we have.

Didn't need the GOP. He had two years of majority in both house and senate and had no reason to pursue something the magnitude of AHA. The public option iis already in place. All Obama needed to do was increase the budget of Health Resources and Services Administration enough to turn it into a viable national healthcare option instead of the safety net it currently is and make it available to everyone on a sliding scale for payments. This program would have grown as insurance companies and private healthcare priced themselves out of existence.

Brian,

Yes, because politically, it was just that easy. What world do you live in, that getting things through congress with Valeo and Citizen's United in place, as well as bipartisanship at an all time high, even with a super majority is easy, and fee for service is affordable?

I already mentioned that above...

Oh yes, and don't forget Citizen's United and Valeo that allowed entities like big pharma and insurance companies to buy our legislaters.

You wanna really fix the problem, great, LET'S F-ING DO IT, but until you get the GOP on board with getting money out of politics and a single payer system, this is what you get.

I want to live in your world.

Sarah -

I live in a world that seeks real, long term solutions without regard to politics. Fantasy world? Maybe, but your partisanship is showing.

Brian,

I think you've confused partisanship with realism. If I was partisan, why would I say, yes, we need to get money out of politics and go for a single payer system. Which is what I said. I also, just happen to believe in working with what we have. Until that happens, the mandate it is.

That's realism.

Reality adds nothing to what might be and "working with what we have" is a giant anchor.

Congress does not have the authority to force a person to do business with a private
company. If this is allowed to stand, what is next?!?! What will the next industry be
that Congress needs to prop up that they are going to tell people they have to buy
from!?!?

In one way or another you are forced to buy a multitude of items from a private company. Any item that is mandated or regulated is forcing you to do business with a private company. Childrens vaccines to medical latex gloves, yield signs on Amish buggies to automobiles, bedding to space heaters, not to mention the environmental laws to have clean air and water to food safety. All of this is passed on to the
consumer.

In this case care is mandated in the emergency rooms whether you have money or not. If you are unconscious you don't even have the choice to refuse the care. So if care is mandatory then everyone should pay for that care, one way or another.

Personally, I would prefer a single payer system. It is the only way to keep costs down and still provide basic care for every citizen. If you want more care than what the govt is offering, you can still buy an insurance plan to cover it, say like a heart transplant when you're in your 70's.

Health care is a national problem. Republicans have no plans to replace ACA.

If it weren't such a national problem, why are conservatives so up in arms about it?

It's called a leading question. Notice the difference in tone between the Yes and No questions. The Yes question is meant to garner sympathy while the No question is stated simply as a principle.

This is why polls can be so untrustworthy. The results don't matter nearly as much as how the questions was phrased.

Most of the jacka$$es voting against it don't understand it will actually end up helping them and the country. If Congress can't do stuff like this what frickin good are they??????????????

They've done it in the past and this is no different. Look for this to be ruled CONSTITUTIONAL!!!

We once had a healthcare system funded by the government and churches...community and religious hospitals and clinics...it was felt a civic and faith duty to help the sick and needy...private, for profit entities have taken over the health care space...the insurance companies, the HMO's, the drug companies...and the American Medical Association who thinks only about the welfare of doctors...as a result, whereas 96% of every dollar went to actually providing services now only 80% of every dollar goes to services. We have the most expensive healthcare system in the world with a public health equivalent to that of a third world country. The healthcare industry is so powerful in Washington they managed to pass a law making it a crime for our senior citizens to go to Canada to buy cheaper drugs. The problem with this bill is that it protects the profits of these powerful entities at the expense of a healthcare system that won't bankrupt us over time. That was the only way it could get passed and Obama should have vetoed it. Now these powerful entities are opening a door where they can force American citizens to buy their products. The road to hell is paved with good intentions...This is just the first of many such efforts by these powers that control our government.

@Ron,

When you say that only 80% of every health care dollar goes to health care, you are a little off. This counts only direct health care spending. If you factor in the health careinsurance industry, that figure drops below 70%.

Absolutely, because government has proven time and time again how efficiently and effectively they can run a program. With oversight like that of Fannie and Freddie who would think otherwise? With cost controls like those keeping Medicare solvent the government has this sort of thing down pat. Lets all hold hands and sing Kumbaya.

The majority of other major industrialized nations have universal health care that operates much cheaper and better than we do.

It's fine for you not to trust the government, but everyone need affordable and available health care.

everyone need affordable and available health care.

Eric-913730 - Agreed, however, our government as it operates today is not capable of providing that.

Eric-913730

THANK YOU for the voice of reason instead of IGNORANCE..

Other governments in the world do it, are you saying the US is incapable of providing universal health care. What happened to American exceptionalism.

You cannot compare heathcare to the post office.

The post office is an institution whose entire business plan came under attack by private enterprise which skimmed off all the gravy packaging business.

Healthcare is something that every single American needs and cannot do without.

.

@Allen...you're absolutely right. A single-payor system is the only thing that will work. Take the greedy insurance bastards out of the picture. Furthermore the entire healthcare industry in this country should be NON-PROFIT. It is immoral to profit on the illness and suffering of people

Rick-3416939Absolutely, because government has proven time and time again how efficiently and effectively they can run a program.

It's ironic you should point that out, because it's true. The government does run manage many programs that work very well. I know your point was the opposite, but unfortunately for you, you used a hackneyed right wing trope that has never held water.

Rather than handing you a list of programs like the Veterans Affairs, I suggest you research the info at the GAO and lose your bias.

http://www.gao.gov/

The government does run manage many programs that work very well.

And for every one they have managed well they have screwed up five. You want to take a chance on them managing your health care decisions? If you really think they have YOUR best interests at heart, you better think again.

And for every one they have managed well they have screwed up five

I wonder how that ranks with private business failures..can we say Enron or .................(fill in blank). Don't they say that over 90% of business fail within five years of starting up?

And can you honestly say that privately run health care is the US is presently well managed?

@TNRebel...and you think our healthcare system is not screwed-up already? The government certainly is not to blame for that. The free market system is great in most things but NOT healthcare

PS...the post office is not a government institution. It would be doing fine if it were not for the republican congress in 2006 which required them to spend billions each year to fund in advance the retirement benefits for people who haven't even been born yet.

Other governments in the world do it, are you saying the US is incapable of providing universal health care. What happened to American exceptionalism

It got pounded down to the lowest common denominator.

Obama did stick to his guns, he doesn't write the legislation, congress does.

Those not covered by health insurance and those unable to afford health care still require and obtain health care, therefore this becomes a matter of commerce. It has been calculate there exists 45-50 billion dollars per year in unpaid medical charges. Much, if not most of these charges are incurred by the uninsured. The result is those that have health insurance and those who have the ability to pay for their health care, in one way or another, end up paying for those with no health insurance and unpaid medical bills. This is accomplished by increases in insurance premiums and increases in charges for medical care and other charges or fees. All of us who pay for our health care are affected by those who have no health care insurance. All of us pay for those who have no insurance, therefore this is a matter of commerce.

The court should rule that the uninsured can be required to obtain health insurance because of the affect their lack of health insurance has on those of us who pay for health care and health insurance.

@Eric.....your wrong...the health insurance industry wrote the final law....Congress merely rubber stamped it...as they do with most laws. If you have ever watched or study Congressional processes, they rarely "read" or "write" laws. Most of the legislation comes to congress via lawyers of corporations (including entities such as insurance...). Those in congress who are lawyers may look it over, but most of congress already know, in advance, how they will vote because these are the same corporations who finance their election and re-election campaigns! That's how our government works...if you want to call it that.

Everyone needs health care at some time in their life. Not everyone needs a car.

You can't drive a car off the lot and expect others to pay for it.

In short, your car argument is invalid.

Pretty soon the Democrats will be telling parents what they can pack their children for lunch. Wait, they are already doing that, sorry.

But that is a pretty funny comment, "benefiting the American people as a whole." Since when has that ever been a consideration? Our government is all about crony capitalism like Solyndra. So they would certainly mandate we all buy from GM, but only because the unions supported those we elected thinking they would work for us. After all the unions made out like bandits in the bailout of GM.

Rick--your fears are bordering on paranoia. Congress is going to make us buy school lunch, cars, broccoli, solyndra, blah, blah, blah.

My refusing to buy any of those does not affect you financially in any way. I could never go to a car company and demand they give me a free car. People without insurance go to a hospital and demand free care. We're all paying for that free care.

So Rick, what's your answer. I hear a lot of criticism and not a lot of ideas.

How would you cover all Americans for insurance.

Arent we already required to BUY liability insurance (auto insurance). Why did no one go to SCOTUS to fight that?

The insurance is not sold for "to live" or "not to live". a tad more complicated that driving or not. Your decision of not driving doesnt cost me anything... your decision not to have health insurance and then expecting full access to it does cost me something...actually, quite a lot.

Yet, republicans have no plans to replace ACA if they repeal it.

States are already set to start their own mandates if this fails.

ACA gives subsidies to the poor and exchanges so that they can buy insurance. The way things are the only people that get good health care are the rich (example: Dick Cheney).

Four time cancer survivors in Europe have no bills at all because they have single payer systems there.

And, yes, their cancer survivorship is comparable or better there.

The single payer system sounds, to my no-degree-in-politics-or-economics ear, the most reasonable solution. I object, primarily, to forcing everyone to find a way to pay for insurance from the very industry that is designed to make money off of us through premiums. No dis on them, every industry has to survive. But the single payer system, for such a basic human need, seems so much better.

Eric-913730

Good point. many of these good folks against Obamacare don't realize this will be implemented statewide if Obamacare is ruled unconstitutional. Healthcare in this country is that broken.

However, I trust the federal government (Obamacare) to implement this more fairly than the states (Romneycare)which has a pretty spotty history implementing similar things... (although Massachusetts is loving their system now!!)

TNrebel, what's you answer so that all Americans have affordable and accessible health care?

That's why I think we need to solve this, but with a better bill. I was behind the idea, but honestly shocked at some of the details. My deductible more than doubled because of the impending changes, and is now close to half of my annual take home pay. And I have friends and relatives already making the choice between buying gas or milk, without health coverage. I'm not sure how increasing the amount out of pocket by such a large margin helps anyone, or how forcing people (who grow their own herbs to stay as healthy as possible -- and pay the doctor out of pocket when the have to go) to find a way to pay for insurance is the answer. Extra money doesn't magically materialize for any of us, and working more than one full time job to pay for it is not always physically possible, even if jobs were available.

It's unrealistic to the real-world folks that I know, and that I am.

Brendan, there is not another issue like this. In your car example, its not the case that you can simply go to a dealership and drive a car off the lot and expect others to pay for it, like happens at the emergency room.

Furthermore, there would be court cases about that, and they would be found unconstitutional.

Eric,

I don't expect anyone to take care of me. I take care of myself. I cannot speak for millions of others in the US, but I think you hit the nail on the head, the problem is people expect others to pay for it.

The mandate still doesn't solve the problem Eric, insurance is just insurance, its not healthcare, nor does having everyone participate in the market lower cost. If anything ( from my experience of working in insurance for the past 20 years) having more participation will drive costs skyward. People will have access to "preventative" care, but hey guess what, that "preventative" care still costs money and someone pays for it.

I don't like lowering the quality of my life or my healthcare to help someone else out, you might call me selfish but when push comes to shove in this world, its every man for themself.

brendan, what you do specifically is irrelevant. What the vast majority people of do is relevant and what a decent subset of the population that does is relevant.

Right now a decent subset who is uninsured is forcing everyone else to pay for it. Its time for those people to pay their own way.

@Nav

But thats just it, what gives the majority the right to infringe on the rights of the minority? Isn't that the whole point of our government being framed on being a republic and not a democracy?

Contrary to popular belief, we are not a democracy.

So Brendan your answer is to do nothing? I haven't read a solution from you that makes health care affordable for everyone.

@ Eric

Ok,

Get the government out of our healthcare. Stop the government from subsidizing our healthcare which only drives costs up. Allow me to purchase my health insurance from across the country, hell, allow me to purchase my insurance from japan if i so please.

By allowing free markets to work only drives down cost, increases care, and increases competition. The consumer always wins.

Liberals refuse to see this, because they believe they know whats best for you. Freedom is an amazing concept.

Also, its not the job of the government to make healthcare affordable for everyone. Healthcare is not a right, yet you talk like it is.

psst ...brendan...there is no free market...anywhere.

And as a far as freedom goes, you're only as free as you help the next guy to be.

Hmm The Health Care industry truly sucks and I pay through the nose for what I have.

I sure hope something changes or we are screwed.

As for allowing the free market to take of the problem yeah right let greedy capatilists determine how any market is run and then we will truly be screwed.

Capatalism is a great idea except people are greedy and selfish. Just like trickle down economics worked right? LMAO.

Well, it's obvious you and Rick do. :)

or "the people"...don't forget the people.

There's is a big difference between state government and federal government. Not sure why the majority of you don't seem to comprehend this. States can do whatever they want so long as it's not impinging on any of your federally mandated rights and so long as it's not enroaching on powers reserved for the federal power. Thus, while a state can mandate you have auto insurance to drive the federal government cannot. That's how the constitution is set up.

The federal government is tasked with regulating commerce, not creating it. Case upon case in constitutional law is based on the exercise of the power to regulate commerce. In this instance, federal mandates to purchase are not regulating. They are creating. That's beyond the scope of power given to the federal government--that's reserved for the states.

Lilbear, Go back to school and learn the difference. This time try and pay attention...

I am sorry. That was a duplicate comment and I thought I had deleted it. I guess not. Apologies.

You are obviously very ignorant of the facts. The only way the Obama administration can justify this abomination of a health care act is by "regulating commerce;" in this case Congress in not regulating commerce, it is creating commerce and mandating that Americans buy something from a private company. We are certainly our brother's keepers, and if we give that right to the federal government, then America is lost.

djj, the Affordable Care Act s a compromise. For some people it's outrageous and an affront to their civil liberties, and for other people it represents caving to the corporate lobbies. It was probably the best we could get under the circumstances. Maybe circumstances will improve after 2012.

You are absloutely right. We are our brothers' and sisters' keepers. I like the saying "Everybody does better when everybody does better." It's true -- although the 1% don't want to take a chance on it.

Ideally, we should have single-payer coverage, "Medicare for everyone." The corporatists won't have it, and they are the ones who hold the power right now. More than half of the rest of us support single-payer; those of us who do not have largely fallen prey to lies perpetrated by the powerful forces who stand to benefit from keeping us sick and desperate.

Medicare is going bankrupt just like all government programs, costing ten times what it was projected. Now 76 million boomers will be collecting. Medicare works? Not for long.

Why are you blaming Medicare for the fact that the price of healthcare is going up. It's not Medicare's fault.

You can't blame a program. I blame the federal government for sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. It all started with the New Deal which made a bad situation worse.

How can you possibly say the New Deal mad a bad situation worse? How many people needed to starve to death to convince the government that relief was NOT just around the corner? Have you ever even done a minute of independent study of the Great Depression or do you insist on letting Beck, Hannity, Drudge etc do all of your thinking for you?

BTW, that's the way it is with any government project, the waste, abuse, inefficiencies. If the government tells you it costs $1 million to build a bridge, it will end up costing $10 million.

So glad you could educate me on government programs Road. Why don't you look at how long that has been the case and figure out why. The no bid days of crony economics are behind us. It will take time to clean up the mess that was left in the wake.

Clarksville,

Time you don't have. 224 days left of Hope and Change.

BTW, the Great Depression lasted 12 years. Are you kidding me? 12 YEARS. And you're telling me the New Deal was a success? I bet you think the Obama stimulus is working, too. LOL

I bet you think the Obama stimulus is working, too. LOL

Actually it is. If it had been twice as big as it was we would be in an even better recovery position.

@Road Warrior....

The fact of history is this: The Great Depression left 25% unemployed in this country. Up to 50% in the inner cities.

The question then (as now) is this: When private industry fails or collapses (as it did in 1929), who or what steps in to keep people from starving to death???

Guessing from your historical bias, people should die by the millions while "the free market" (a misnomer if ever there was one) works its way through the crisis.

In spite of your bias, Private Industry did NOT help America during the 1930's. Know why? They had no capital do do so. Pretty simple.

So again, you seems to want to privatize profit while socializing debt. Of course, that is what "supply side" depends on when the private industry fails. And that is exactly what happened this time around in 2008. Greed drove (as it did in the 1920's) the private industry to exploit the market. That is what they do best. But greed has its limits RW. History (in any fair minded reading) proves that! Our Corporate Government will find that out one day.

In the mean time, keep drinking that "fair market" cool-aid.

The states cannot you buy car insurance unless you drive a vehicle on public roads; this abomination of a so-called "health care bill" forces you to buy something just because you exist. It is a no brainer to you.

Certain powers are reserved for the states and a few powers are granted to the Federal Government. I agree with the States, in this case the Feds overstepped their authority and I think it's a horrible idea to let them get away with it.