E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe U.S. Supreme Court will announce Thursday morning on the constitutionality of President Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act. NBC's Pete Williams reports.
The health care drama that began in the earliest days of the Obama presidency will reach its crescendo Thursday morning when the Supreme Court announces its decision on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
It has been a long, twisting road to this point: from pledges made by candidate Barack Obama when he ran for the presidency in 2008, to months of bargaining by congressional Democrats with interest groups such as the pharmaceutical and insurance industries, to 2010 campaign charges of "death panels," to legal challenges battled in lower federal courts.
“If ‘Obamacare’ is not deemed constitutional, then the first three and a half years of this president's term will have been wasted on something that has not helped the American people,” Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney said Tuesday as he campaigned in Virginia.
Evan Vucci / AP
The Supreme Court's verdict is likely to be a factor in the presidential campaign and help define John Roberts' legacy as chief justice.
Four legal issues are at stake:
- First, the justices must decide whether challenges to the law can be resolved now, or whether those who seek to overturn the law must wait until 2015 when the federal government begins collecting penalties from people who refuse to buy insurance, as required by the ACA. The consensus among legal observers is that the justices have decided to not wait and that the challenges to the law will be resolved with Thursday’s decision.
- Second, the court must decide whether the ACA’s individual mandate – the requirement that most uninsured people purchase health insurance – forces people into commerce and thus renders that part of the law unconstitutional. The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, but not the power to force a non-buyer to become a buyer.
- The third and perhaps most crucial question to be decided: If the justices do rule that the mandate is unconstitutional, can that part of the law be surgically removed while leaving the remainder intact, or will the justices decide the entire law must be struck down because Congress designed each of its parts to work together?
- Finally, the fourth issue: Is the ACA’s Medicaid provision, which adds nearly 30 million more people to the insurance program for low-income Americans, unconstitutionally coercive by forcing states to go along with the expansion, or is it a legitimate enlargement of an existing program?
Thursday’s ruling could be a deafening political thunderclap, but may be followed by a kind of lull as Congress tries to figure out what, if anything, it can do to respond to the ruling.
Senate Democrats may try to put some ideas to a vote, even though they know the Republican-controlled House is unlikely to act on their proposals.
But Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., a member of the Senate Finance Committee, which drafted much of the law, predicted that congressional Democrats wouldn’t spring into action immediately to offer bills replacing the ACA if the court strikes down parts of it. “You don’t get a decision like this and if there are changes in the law, jump right out and say, ‘We’ll now propose the following’ in the next 15 minutes.”
But Senate Health, Education Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman Tom Harkin, who is responsible for the ACA’s provisions on preventive health care, said he’ll be ready to respond. “It’s unfortunate that it’s going to be decided on the Thursday when we get out of here – because that leaves 10 days when we’re not in session – but depending on what the court does, we will be ready when we come back,” the Iowa Democrat said. Referring to the 10-day Senate hiatus following the decision, Harkin said, “I’m just wondering if that politically motivated Supreme Court didn’t plan it that way.”
He added, “If we were here, then we could move rapidly to get something on the agenda and in the hopper to respond to this in a way that the American people would understand that we’re going to move ahead on this.”
But the argument from some GOP leaders is that no matter what the court decides, the American people have already written off the law as a failure.
Missouri Republican Sen. Roy Blunt said Tuesday, “There really have always been three questions: Is it constitutional? Is it a good idea? Can we afford it? And if the answer to any of those is no, we shouldn’t do it. I think the American people have clearly decided that the more they found out about this bill, they believed that the answer to ‘is it a good idea?’ and ‘can we afford it?’ is ‘no’ and ‘no.’ The court will decide the third one, but there’s no question (that) we shouldn’t go forward with this.”
The possible damage to the ACA the Supreme Court might leave in its path is crucial, hence the importance of severability – severing one part of the law and leaving the rest intact.
Asked to hazard a prediction for what might happen Thursday, Republican Sen. Mike Lee, a freshman conservative from Utah and a former law clerk for Justice Samuel Alito, said Tuesday: “I tend to think that they strike down the mandate.” He also said, “It would not be an easy task” for the justices to declare the individual mandate invalid and yet leave the rest of the bill intact. “That would be a grueling task and I’m not sure how they would do it.” He said he “would not be surprised if we see a finding of non-severability.”
Patricia Millett, a former lawyer in the solicitor general’s office during the Clinton administration who has argued 31 cases before the high court, said the justices’ questions during the oral argument showed how difficult it would be to remove one section of the law without damaging the rest: “Do we then create a Frankenstein of a statute that functions in a way that Congress would have never wanted?”
Democrats who designed the ACA are divided on just how significant the individual mandate is and how well the rest of the law could work without it.
“Since the mandate is so central in terms of (insurance) premiums and putting everybody in a pool, we’d have to go back to the drawing board” if the Supreme Court declared the mandate unconstitutional, Harkin said.
He added, “This whole thing (the ACA) kind of holds together. If the court strikes down the individual mandate – which I hope they don’t, because I think there’s a lot of precedents to support it – but if they do, then we are going to have to think of some other approaches and I have been thinking about it and we have things ready to go.”
But Wyden had a different view, saying, “In one sense, the focus on the individual mandate is a little bit overblown,” suggesting it isn’t necessarily the heart and soul of the law. “I got into the bill section 1332, a requirement that states be allowed to obtain waivers (from the mandate) and they could go off and try any of a variety of approaches.”
He said that liberal states could enact single-payer health insurance and conservative states could enact more market-oriented approaches. That waiver takes effect in 2017, but Wyden wants to advance that date to 2014.
“For people who want in good faith to get this done and do it in line with their principles, section 1332 I think is going to get some discussion,” he said.
There’s one big catch with section 1332: Whatever alternative plans states might adopt would need to provide individuals insurance coverage at least as comprehensive as provided under the ACA.
Leave a Comment:
Dear Roy Blount: we couldn't afford two wars under bush, so why did we start these wars???? We couldn't afford to preemptorily strike and invade two countries, so why, roy, did we do so???? Since when do repuglicans decide whether war is justified based on affordability???? The repugs never met a war they didn't like, little little boys on the playground, always looking for a battle. Cost? What cost? Lives? Money?
Health care good. No health care bad. Simple.
Now the rest is hard, Congress, but you can do it, I have faith in you! Go figure it out! Our country is too rich for people to die because they can not afford insurance.
And the Democrats didn't vote to go to those wars either, right, Reddog? The President can't go to war without a majority approval moron. Quit blaming Bush already.
3 1/2 years and nothing accomplished except skyrocket unemployment, forcing people to buy health insurance when they don't have a damn job to begin with, Solyndra, foreclosures continuing to skyrocket out of control, our first ever credit rating decline....this jackass along with Pelosi can't get out of Washington fast enough.
ROMNEY 2012
If 0bamascare is shut down I predict a rapid economic turnaround as businesses no longer will have this burden crushing them.
Oh my god get over it already. Same argument from the left every day, every comment section. Guess what, we went to war and Republican & Democrats alike supported it. 82 Democratic members of the house and 29 Democratic members of Senate all voted to go to war w/ Iraq. Everyone complains about Bush and the Republicans, well the Democrats chance to do something about it, John Kerry, voted for the war. In the end though it didn't matter, Bush was still reelected by 51% of the vote.
Obama is shaking in his boots and rightfully so.
The public will not stand for a ObamaCare II fight so just forget it.
If they strike down this law, then they better take down Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. They're the same thing.
And the Republicans better take responsibility for every senior citizen that suffers and dies prematurely because of the lack of food and health care because of their decision.
Interesting how the people who cannot afford health care what others to suffer. I know a family of 8 that has never had health care. They pay all of their health care needs out of pocket with no issues. But because there are people without health care and the government wants to force feed them everyone else should suffer this penalty? This criminal penalty is against the law, and as the articled noted I cannot see that being acceptable. Because the law is closely intertwined with that need to force insurance on everyone it just does not make sense, the Simple call, is to strike down the whole ACA and move on.
@Reddog - I did not know this article was about the War in Iraq but because you mention it, and speak about lives, what about the 300,000 lives that the dictator of that country took just because? Is it only American lives that matter? What about the lives that were saved because of this war, does that matter? Sure war costs money, but it also adds a to the ecomony through the need for goods. No I think you are just a typical Democrat that trolls these vines trying to find some way to make every feel like the failed presidency of Obama is somehow former President Bush's fault. Wake up Obama made drastic changes from day one to remove the influences of President Bush and since then has failed to have a successful presidency. Get over it.
Finally the government cannot force commerce on the people. That is the bottom line and it is not a tough call. If the ACA forces, through the implementation of a fine, the requirement of purchasing health care than it is unconstitutional.
@dyermoe - Social Security is a tax there are no penalties for this forcing people to pay. Additionally there other ways to get around paying social security. For instance, I pay into a retirement plan therefore am exempt from paying social security taxes. You speak of which you do not know and expect everyone to just go along with you malice. Get over it, ObamaCare is the worst idea that has come out of Washington, and the American people have stood up and said "NO".
the rumor mill has it right down the aisle.
that's good news for Americans and bad for the socialist in the WH
JFK sent the first Americans to Vietnam. LBJ escalated the war. Both were Democrats. Over 58,000.00 dead. Many hundred thousands wounded, and for what? A Republican President brought us home. The Democratic Party has just as much war mongering and blood on their hands as well Reddog. When are you liberals going to move out of your glass houses?
Laker Steve
Our current POTUS did not vote for the wars
as Stockton, CA falls, Europe implodes and the democrat response is:
spend MORE.
spend until the end, the end is close at hand
many on govt welfare and food stamps can't afford healthcare but the rims on their cars cost more than my pick up truck.
time is running our for this Country
about that - Our current POTUS was still in the Illinois State House when those votes were cast. He didn't have a choice to vote or not.
"And the Democrats didn't vote to go to those wars either, right, Reddog? The President can't go to war without a majority approval moron. Quit blaming Bush already."
Timing is everything! You do remember 9/11. The problem was that Bush lied and we as a nation were still in shock and wanted some sort of revenge. Why we EVER went to Iraq I'll never get.
Exactly what lives were SAVED by these wars? Saddam was a toothless tiger, he had no WMDs, and everyone who had read the UN inspector's report knew that before we invaded Iraq.
Wars are good for the economy when scientists and engineers have to struggle hard to come up with better weapons. Often, the technology they learn is applicable for other purposes. This is how we got rockets and computers.
But both Iraq and Afghanistan are such poor countries that they represented absolutely no real struggle for the US. Yes, a bunch of defense contractors got rich, but they are a tiny fragment of the economy.
His argument is valid :- "we can't afford it" seems only to happen when it benefits Americans. When people want to go off and have wars, "we can't afford it" goes out the window. It was Dick Cheney who told us "deficits don't matter."
tell that to the 100K Kurds he gased
And all of you have forgotten those "weapons of mass destruction" that were used to fool EVERYONE (public included) that we absolutely had to go into Iraq
Memories are both selective and short it seems
Sorry Rick. If you had only paid attention in school you wouldn't sound like such a Moe Ron. My father served in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia during Eisenhower's presidency to fight off communism brought on by the right wing fear-mongering of Sen. McCarthy. Read a book sometime. You might learn something.
Republicans think health care is only for the rich.
If voted down there will be a backlash if Republicans don't move to replace it as they had promised.
Trust me.
Maybe to send Saddam to court for the millions of people he killed, BP?
Funny.....Bin Laden killed far less people than Saddam, he never got his day in court.......
We went to Iraq for the oil because of the instability of the Middle East and our need for bases outside of Saudi Arabia. We are in Afghanistan because of the vast mineral deposits, worth trillions, and because someday we may want to pipe oil through it. As if politicians from both sides of the isle haven't benefited. Period end of story.
Irish 23 said:
It wouldn't have mattered if he had a choice to vote, because he wouldn't have. Obama generally took the coward way out an voted "present"!
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." NP
It really is how demotards think.
About that, our current President wasn't an elected official when the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were declared. He had no vote on either of them.
about that,
Our current POTUS also warned while he was still a senator that raising the debt limit was extremely dangerous. How he voted back then seems rather irrelevant now.
I believe there was an overwhelming majority of Democrates who were onboard 100% to go to war after 9/11. Things started to go downhill politically, now they all claim it never happend.
When this Bill goes down, i expect to hear nothing but more anti republican sentiments from the left.
Blame the Republicans. Thats all Democrates can do.
@Eric - Republicans never promised to replace ACA they promised to repeal it. There is a difference.
On the flip side, if we couldn't afford the wars (according to Democrats) then how could we suddenly afford the Healthcare law? If the money isn't there it isn't there.
like what.
Rodney King Riots?
LA Championship?
elliot,
why is it a burden for business today, they do not have to supply health care as a benefit?
uhhh... well... nevermind
dyermoe military advisers and combat troops are two very different things. We have military advisers all over the world and no one considers them fighting in a war in every location. I served two tours in beautiful southeast Asia, so don't wave your silver spoon in my direction.
":
"3 1/2 years and nothing accomplished except skyrocket unemployment,"
Unemployment is down quit lying you sound like Mitt.
"forcing people to buy health insurance when they don't have a damn job to begin with"
Also not true but I guess its ok with you to pay for all the uninsured (you do know that cost is included in EVERY item you are billed for?) so if you don't mind I guess no one else should right? LOL
"foreclosures continuing to skyrocket out of control,"
They are the same forecloses. What do you want him to do ? Buy the homes??...but that would make him a socialist and then you would be posting that Obama was a socialist
"our first ever credit rating decline"
Don't let facts escape your lies, please tell us why it got lowered? I seem to remember the GOP had something to do with it.
"....this jackass along with Pelosi can't get out of Washington fast enough."
LOL Well that doesn't surprise since you don't know jack.
So what is Mitt going to do? Did he tell you because he hasn't told anyone else.
Does he have a magic wand?
how is he going to stop forecloses?
How is he going to create jobs (give the rich tax cuts?)
How is he going to stop paying for the wars?
How is he going to improve our credit rating?
Mitt has a Gold Member ship to the 1% club he isn't going to do anything for you (unless you're rich) and will hand the economy back to the very people that destroyed it to begin with.
NO THANKS!
Left wingers-you guys are making the wrong point! Let's face it, we all know health care sucks. But we shouldn't be pushing to make everyone buy healthcare, we should be trying to get the cost of healthcare lowered. That's the smart route to go. Then no one pays for other people's health insurance, and more people can get it. And the government can control prices; they do it all the time on gas, why not on healthcare?
The Chinese beat us to that, dude. The Bush 2 administration didn't want to go to Afghanistan to actually find Bin Laden, perhaps (I now just realized) because they were planning to do what the Chinese ultimately did, except they (the Chinese) raided (or bought) those resources while the U.S. paid for it going after Bin Laden, and that's probably why Bush wasn't "concerned about him". I don't think it ever occurred to then candidate Obama that the morally dishonest Bush/Cheney and the rest of their click were more interested in Afghanistan's hidden treasures than really finding Bin Laden.
Old Rick there is right, I spent 6 months in Iran (Shah days) training the Iranian Navy on weapons systems and Comms systems associated with the FRAM Destroyers we sold them.
JamesInSeattle
If Obama were truly a socialist he wouldn't have pushed this Heritage Foundation steaming pile of corporate welfare and called it health care reform.
Obama is a center-right corporate democrat despite what Fox "News" tells you
"Interesting how the people who cannot afford health care what others to suffer. I know a family of 8 that has never had health care. They pay all of their health care needs out of pocket with no issues"
Either you have been lied to or these people
1. Never go to the doctor
2. Don't pay the bill
3. Have never gotten seriously ill
4. Are very Rich
You get Insurance for when you are really ill Sure it looks like it helps for the everyday Health Care but in fact you generally pay in more per year than you use (or the Insurance company would be out of business). Its for the serious things that can run into the hundreds of thousands or even millions. Now I'm glad you think it OK for the uninsured to go to the hospital and get care when one of those serious health care issues arise (and then not pay the bill) but I don't want to pay for it DO YOU?
If the ACA is ruled down or Mitt repeals it your Insurance will go up (even more). And you'll be paying for all those uninsured people getting free health care. Count on it!
JamesInSeattle,
We know Saddam had wmd, they said Property of USofA Dept of Defense
Signed,
Donald Rumsfeld
That is how we knew they were Saddam's
We shall see what we shall see. It's all academic now. SCOTUS will rule and leave Congress to sort out the bodies. All this back and forth is wasted effort in my opinion. You don't know. Most of you don't even know what's actually in the HRA. Based on your foolish comments a lot of you are basing your opinions on FOX News and right wing radio commentators. So, in other words, you don't know what you're talking about. Just sit tight, all will be revealed in the morning.
I have heard two so-called knowledgeable people over the last two days say they think the Supremes will uphold the law in total. No, I don't remember their names, they are law professors and folks who had regular contact with the court over the past decade. They found the fact that Justice Roberts is writing the opinion to be significant. They believe the conservative justices (Scalia, Alito and Thomas) will be in the minority and the rest of the court, led by Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg and...sorry just had a senior moment, I'm drawing a blank, all the rest besides Kagan, who recused herself, will be in favor of upholding the law.
I don't know. I'm just telling you what I heard on the radio (NPR) over the last couple of days.
Take it for what it is worth.
@dmd-433801, for every example of families that have been able to "pay as they go" they are just as many who have been financial ruined because of catastrophic illnesses that they could not afford. Why should somebody have to be bound to an abusive employer or situation just to have some sort of health coverage? The ACA isn't perfect but it is a lot better and fairer then what currently exists.
Promoting social programmes does not make one a Socialist, it only proves you have a conscience. As for "no mandate to force commerce", then explain Social Security? Just because you aren't buying it from some corporation doesn't mean you aren't paying for something you may never use and not paying does have penalties.
Rick-3416939
Like was stated earlier, read a history book or 2. Ike sent in advisors, JFK sent in more advisers, advisers were being killed so more were sent. Eventually all the advisers became troops and more troops. LBJ increased the troops, Nixon increased the troops, Nixon withdrew the troops. BOTH parties are war mongers. Get over it.
I fail to see what this has to do with the HCA.
The Constitutional question that the court must decide; is the commerce clause of the Constitution broads enough to require a resident of the United States , including all citizens, to purchase a product from a private company ; that will be the decision that will shape our Nation for all future generations; if the mandate fails on Constitutional grounds, the entire health care bill is dead in it's tracks; if it is held Constitutional then we are no longer a Constitutional republic, since it will mean that the commerce clause may be invoked to make Americans do any thing in commerce that Congress decides what is best for you and your family(abort unwanted fetus, sterilize low IQ, or disabled persons, forced to take a job in a position that they may chose for you; once the one payer position was removed(the insurance and drug company's would not support it and would have prevented the bill from being passed), the entire law must fall.
Now once the court rules, let us get back to drafting a real health care law, not a insurance company's dream act.
skip Nicholson, Oklahoma City - You say we get too many opinions from Fox News and you tell us about what you heard on NPR? You can't remember names from your sources but you know that they are expert opinions. You should heed your own advice and just sit tight.
That's true. Of course he didn't vote for hardly anything other than "present" either.
Congress got the same intel that Bush got... and voted to go to war. We knew that they had WMDs because Saddam's son, "Chemical Ali" murdered thousands of Kurds in northern Iraq with them. And we've found caches of them (according to US Army officers), but because that doesn't fit the Liberal agenda, the MSM has not reported any of it. But keep on being delusional... it's entertaining...
Uh, Rick, actually, the first American troops sent to Vietnam were sent by Eisenhower when he deployed the Military Assistance Advisory Group in 1955.
dyermoe
Wrong answer, Kid. You are not even close. 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 fund 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 purchased or required savings program. Because Morganthau's suggestion was followed, there has never been a successful challenge to the Social Security, and I dare say never will.
Congress has the right under Article I Section 8 to Tax for damned near anything they want to (even if you or I don't like it ). The problem is that congress did not have the guts to do their job or the courage of their convictions to make it a TAX as FDR, Morganthau, and Johnson did. What they CANNOT do is require me to buy something from you or you buy something from me. They can REGULATE commerce that is already in existence but they cannot Force Commerce (new commerce that didn't exist before). Those are the issue that went before the court.
Our constitution is a document that restricts what the government can do. It says to all three branches of government the same thing that was said in Job 38:11
Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further
It tells them all, "This is as far as you may go. Period!" It's all about RESTRAINT of government and how far it can delve into your life. If we allow the Congress to violate those protections, we open up the same door to any abuse that they want to inflict upon us. The Constitution was written in a way to protect you and I from what government can become if left to its own devices and Machiavellian desires.
Nowhere in the constitution does it say that government has the power to REQUIRE me to purchase something from you or vice versa; no matter how laudable the reason might be. If the government is allowed to do that, where will they stop?
Because bureaucracy knows no bounds, if they can get away with this, can they require you to buy your next car only from GM because they own a piece of it? Can they require that you use only Merrill-Lynch for your 401(k), Pension Fund or IRA? Can they require you to only get your Home Mortgage only from Bank of America? Can they require you buy your home, car, and life Insurance only from AIG or your Groceries from Harris Teeter? Do you see where this can lead if allowed to continue? 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 with the ability to violate their restraints whenever they wished? I believe it was George Washington who supposedly said:
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 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 Al-Awlaki even if the miserable SOB really deserved to have a hellfire shoved up his butt (Mr. Holder says we can do that now)? Any time you ignore the rules, no matter how laudable the reason may be, you open the lid of Pandora's Box. Once the virginity is lost, the next time is not nearly as big a deal. Is that what you want?
When I lived in England, someone told me a rather amusing story about George Bernard Shaw. It went:
Our legal system is based on precedents. 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 to today's going rate. In Baseball, if you step off base and cannot get back in time, you are out. In legal precedents, if you step off base and get away with it, the next time they move the bases closer together. Then, the next time they step off base there is an even greater chance they will get away with something else. I fear that, once given, there will be nothing to stop more of the same from happening until we end up in the Orwellian World of 1984. Is that what you want?
Skip Nicholson,
Yeah, for someone who likes to tell those he disagrees with that they don't know much...you obviously don't know jack either. And as for the folks who listen to Fox not knowing what they're talking about...well you get your info from NPR, so you don't exactly have a lot of room to talk.
Both sides are full of talk, but not much in the way of intelligence.
As for the ACA, the Supreme Court WILL overturn the mandate if they have an ounce of integrity left in them anymore...which I'm beginning to doubt. In the end though, it's irrelevant.
This country is already doomed because mindless drones like you on BOTH SIDES of the political aisle are far more interested in exchanging insults and pointing fingers at each other instead of fixing the damned problem.
It's a real shame that the majority of the human race is terminally stupid.
The art of deflection by the leftists sucha fine art they have..leave it up to someone to talk about wars when the article is about healthcare
JamesinSeattle
Do you work? Do you know what a socialist is and what they stand for? Give us your understanding of a socialist? Why do you object to people having health care? You are so busy calling names. I think we should tax the Churches, they have a great deal of money, and they have lobbist that work for them, so they are a business.
Saxon, you are 100% correct this ruling decides the future of the US and our Government, if the mandate is allowed the Government no longer has limited powers the constitution granted it.
Simple as that.
raise taxes on all, double or triple the amount the ACA bill want to collect by taxing the purchase of a home...
the reason so many Americans do not like some of the bill is that so much of it was not made known (except the good parts) until after it was passed. What is not to like about keeping kids on until 26, pre-existing conditions not being a disqualify. but once the rest of the bill became know(you got to love how many of the more distasteful parts do not kick in until after the Nov 12 election, political strategy???).
do not know why torte reform was not considered (really I do, most in congress are lawyers), cost based on health cirteria were not included (nobody wants to be accountable)
I've always thought well of the supreme court, I no longer feel that way... This court is more political and far right than the do nothing congress...
The Roberts court will go down in history as politically corrupt...
I am woman - "Why do you object to people having health care?"
Really? No where did he say what you are accusing him of.
Most sane, rational humans are not against people having health care, they are against the Government forcing them to buy it from a private company.
Go ahead and tax the churches and while you are at it tax all non-profits pushing their political agenda.
If the ACA is struck down, the GOP/teahadists will go after Social Security and Medicare next.
They only know what their corporate masters tell them.
Atlas, honest question I don't know the answer to.
Lets say two children marry at age 20. are they still allowed to be on their parents health care?
Lets say these two children have a child, who covers that child if the parents don't have their own health care?
This is for BP and a few others - unemployment is NOT down. Not including myself, 20 percent of my friends and relatives don't have a job now, which we all did prior to BO. And four friends had to close their businesses, which left about 18 more people without work. But, with all this, Obamacare is NOT the answer to healthcare. Business can't afford it, individuals can't afford it, and the government can't afford it. The government is trying to do for people what it was never intended to do - take care of their every need. And that IS on both sides of the fence (democrats and republicans). People need to wake up and see the government cannot take care of every need we have.
Al - you are an idiot.
How do your correlate ACA with SS or Medicare?
One is a tax and one is a fine or forced consumption.
As a person who would nver vote for President Obama, I will agree that America needs a healthcare plan. That being said, America needs a healthcare plan that everyone can read and understand before the House and Senate vote on the bill.
I feel that this law could be contained in 20 pages.
The law should state
1. Insurance companies cannot deny benefits or coverage to anyone.
2. Health insurance will cover all Doctors, Dentists and Optomologists under one coverage plan.
3. Insurance should be affordable, Insurance companies will be non-profit and rates cannot exceed 10% of the yearly income of any one person on the plan.
4. Government should regulate the price insurance companies can charge.
5. No exemptions for any person or group.
Oh wait did I say 20 pages? how about 20 lines
Yes they do, because benefits and salary are what determines the employment choices for white collar and non union blue collar workers more than anything else. If my company took away health care, I would simply quit and work for another company that did. It is their main bargaining tool alongside salary or hourly rate to attract and retain employees. MANY people get jobs specifically for benefits too.
On top of that, labor is almost always the primary expense for a company, and it used to be fixed, but until this is all settled, it is anything but fixed and companies are avoiding hiring at all costs because accounting is all about knowing and projecting your expenses. Companies can do neither right now.
Would you really hire someone if you did not know how much it would cost? THAT is the problem.
benramz, you say in number three insurance companies will be non-profilt.
With the rules you state no company non-profit or not could make ends meet with those rules. The Government would have to be subsidizing at least 50% of the costs or bailing them out every few years.
First with those rules I would never buy insurance until I had to because if I could never be turned down, why would I buy it until I need it (Hence the mandate) 2nd if I only had to pay 10% of my income in one year and I needed hundreds of thousands of dollars for prostate cancer, that would be a sweet deal for me.
Finally, Where in the Constitution is the Government given the power to regulate the price of insurance?
I want The Obama to get me health insurance.
Buh-bye mandate, buh-bye Obamacare, buh-bye Obama...
Sco - "Would you really hire someone if you did not know how much it would cost? THAT is the problem."
50% of the populations is stupid and doesn't understand how a business is even run, let alone profit margins.
If the SCOTUS strikes down ObamaCare, it's not just the repudiation of an unconsitutional law....it's the invalidation of an entire political ideology. In short, the Democratic Party will have perpetrated the greatest affront to the liberties of the American citizen in the history of the nation. Never before has a political party violated the constitution to impose a condition upon being an American citizen in good standing requiring you to BUY something to be an American.
If ObamaCare is struck down, President Obama and those Democrats who crafted the legislation should be impeached/recalled/removed from office for deliberately f'ng over the American citizen to line their pockets with lobbyist gold.
Democrats....people with their head so far up their own asses that they think the "correct" thing to do is give illegal trespassers in the United States amnesty from our immigration laws yet make bona fide Americans by birth BUY something to keep their American citizenship in good health.
Reddog-739846 " The repugs never met a war they didn't like"
So why have 96% of all war deaths over the last 100 years occurred under Democratic Presidents?
As for the ACA, if the Supreme Court strikes the 'individual mandate', perhaps the Democrats will ask the Republicans for help in writing a replacement bill - instead of the 'Democrats only invited' when Pelosi and Reid were writing this monstrosity.
OK Libs., I agree something needs to be done with the health care system, but do You truly believe letting the government run it is the answer ? Don't You have the feeling it will be horribly inefficient, terribly expensive, and will eventually go broke ? I mean just look around at all the other programs that are run by them! Do You think that they will suddenly get something right ? Just curious ??
Sco,
Where is it written that your employer has to provide a health care plan for it's employees?
dyermoe "If they strike down this law, then they better take down Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. They're the same thing."
Nonsense. Social Security and Medicare are similar to an annuity, wherein you pay into them over your entire working career to provide the funds you need when you retire.
That is nothing like Obamacare.
Tom, in answer to your earlier question, I believe that once a person marries they are then considered independent and no longer qualify for their parents insurance plan.
There are specific requirements for the insurance businesses must offer in the plan, gradiated by company size. Some companies will have to lower their insurance standards or have their employees penalized, others will have to begin offering insurance or be penalized or expand what insurance they offer. This most certainly affects businesses, particularly smaller businesses. This is also why many small business owners have stated they are putting off hiring permenant full time employees until they know exactly what the effects of this bill will be on their bottom line. So, instead of working to get the unemployment level lower, they instead passed a bill that effectively caused a hiring freeze at many companies. Brilliant.
Well boyz, the difference is, I tell you my source so you can judge and I admit I don't remember the names. Frankly, I find NPR to be fair and reliable. They have both sides of every question and they don't make snide comments or attempt to skew the story themselves.
The reason I didn't remember the names was, I heard them in the car and had nothing to write them down with and the first time I heard that Roberts was writing the opinion and that the "expert" thought they would uphold the whole HCA, I didn't really think he knew what he was talking about and dismissed it. But then, today, I heard it again from a different individual so I began to wonder if there might be something to this theory.
I also said, I didn't know. I was just reporting what I heard someone else say.
THOSE ARE BIG DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ME AND THEE.
And, in the end, all this vitriol and pissing isn't doing us any good. It's wasted effort. As usual.
Why don't YOU try listening to NPR instead of FOX or RUSH before your brain rots.
Noryc-2802231 "Our current POTUS also warned while he was still a senator that raising the debt limit was extremely dangerous."
Actually, Obama called the need to raise the debt limit a "Failure of leadership" before voting against it under Bush. I guess for Obama it's "Do as I say, not as I do".
My, how things have 'changed'.
lol
skip Nicholson, Oklahoma City - I do listen to NPR, I also watch Fox News. I do not listen to Rush. I know one thing...you don't have a clue.
The mandate is unconstitutional there's no question about that. Health care in America is way too expensive and most people like myself can not afford it alone. The % of our GDP that is spent on health care is way too high. We need something but something that is affordable and clearly constitutional.
Possibly if we just add in a national sales tax to pay for it? (just a thought)
So we have three idiots that think they know their history, dyermoe, 51msg, and Da Noid. In September of 1950 then President Harry Truman, a Democrat, sent the first Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) to Vietnam to assist the French in the First Indochina War. Truman claimed they were not sent as combat troops, but to supervise the use of $10 million worth of US military equipment.
Like I said earlier when the Bush bashing began, there is more then enough war mongering from both sides of the isle, and plenty of American blood spilled as a result. But since most liberals ignore all history earlier then the Bush years, it comes as no surprise you all got it wrong.
This is so well said, and oh so true......
I really really hope the SCOTUS upholds the Constitution in this case. That is what really matters. (We need someone in the 3 branches of our govt. who upholds and follows the Constitution, [certainly isn't happening in Congress or the White House,] this is their time to shine!) Whether this is repealed tomorrow or when we get rid of Obama, we have to listen to the people who actually understand and can facilitate what needs to be reversed, not the pundits and their talking points. If this is done, the transition will be all the smoother. It is not hard to burn 4-5 thousand pages of crap. The only bad thing is trying to roll back the outrageous increases that happened in the small group market. It will be very difficult for that to happen. It absolutely needs to happen to help small business. Hiring has been curtailed due to the increases. Small businesses can't pull the extra money out of their proverbial butts to pay for this. It is time someone does something for Small Business beside crap on us! (You remember them? The largest employer in the United States after the Federal Govt....)
@ Rod_Father - In Obamacare it says Employers with over 100 employees have to offer insurance or pay a fine. Surely you knew that?
For Romney to say that this bill has not helped anyone in 3.5 years is ridiculous. For one thing, it has helped people with pre-existing conditions to obtain healthcare; it has helped college-age children living at home to be able to be covered until age 26; and it's helped individuals from being "dropped" from their insurance for whatever reason the insurance companies felt were good reasons (even if they were stupid). So, to say this hasn't been of any help to the U.S. citizens is blatantly ridiculous and a lie!
I wasn't all that thrilled with the healthcare act as it stood, but I ALWAYS thought that it was a good start. I felt that a lot of the problems could have been worked out as the bill came into effect. Sometimes, you have to see how things work before you can go in and change there...kind of find out where the kinks are and get them fixed. So, hopefully, if the SCOTUS throws this out, President Obama won't give up -- he'll get back on the horse and come up with an even BETTER plan. One way or the other, we need to have a healthcare plan that will keep the insurance companies and Big Pharm from screwing the American citizen for the god-awful dollar! Healthcare costs are skyrocketing and the only ones enjoying this are the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies who are making obscene profits off our backs!!
JohnGis: Yes, we could have a National Sales tax; however, if you remember, the Republicans signed a petition against raising taxes (thank you Mr. Norquist). Unfortunately, as long as they have the clout in the House and the Senate....no taxes will be raised and we'll continue to spiral down into this depression.
With corporate personhood. Now include this to unconstitutional. It will open some very bad doors.
Corporate America = Moderday Slavery
Now I am not a dem or rep
I am not a liberal or conservative
We are already owned now they can flaunt it.
Want to live? This is what you must do.
Get rid of liberals and conservatives they are the problem not you.
We have a constitution for a reason
Also the law is flawed all laws are flawed, it is the idea not the ideology.
Irish,
I fear it's too late for you. You have terminal brain rot. Not even direct infusion of NPR could save you now.
I'm so sorry for you and your family. I hope you have a will and sufficient insurance to cover your long-term care.
I'm so sorry. It's sad really, and so young only 23.
This is what I've trying to warn you about people. Look what FOX news did to Irish!
STOP WATCHING FOX NOW! Before you end up like Irish.
Sarah Palin said we would have DEATH PANELS.
As it turns out we do: The Supreme Court is the death panel.
How many people live or die based on tomorrow's decision? Millions, I am sure.
If the health care law is overturned, then employers go back to paying the full health care costs for their workers, and the rest of us get to pay for the uninsured through our taxes... the way it was before Obamacared.
If we had this court around in the 50s, 60s and 70s, schools would still be segregated, the civil rights bill, voting right bill and open housing bill would not be law, title 9 would not be around and women would still be 4th class citizens. The citizens united decision was the worst since Dred Scott in the 19th century.
Willowbrook
I have faith in SCOTUS in spite of the liberals Obama placed in thier midst, even one who worked on Obamacare but failed to recuse herself. I believe tomorrow we can all say, thank God for SCOTUS and remember in November who tries to destroy the protections of our Constitution.
Why is it that no one seems to remember or discuss one of the main reasons Health Care Reform was needed in the first place? In addition to the fact that too many people were not covered, the reason the President wanted to reform Health Care was that the cost of Health Care was rising so fast that it was causing a great strain on the economy. He regards the economy as a large interconnected reality that needs to be addressed in many areas at once. There is no magic bullet that once done will fix everything. It will take many changes in many areas all at once to reverse the damage our economy has suffered. I wish the entire country was willing to work together to accomplish the needed changes. United we Stand, Divided we Fall. Doesn't that mean if we work together we can accomplish almost anything, and if we work against each other we accomplish nothing?
The answer is reall simple. The states can regulate the insurance premiums just like they regulate the utility costs. Those can't be raised without permission from the state they are proposing the increase in. Same can be done with Health Insurance premiums. AND major change, make insurance companies provide insurance for everyone. No exceptions for pre-existing conditions. Reduce the stupid paperwork to reduce the costs to hospitals and doctors and you can easily reduce the cost of medical care. Make it illegal for anyone in the health care industry including insurance for medical care and prescriptions to lobby politicians state or federal. Make it illegal for anyone associated with the medical industry to contribute to a politician.
This 2,700 page monstrosity needs to be repealed in it's entirety. This wasn't a legitimate attempt to fix the healtcare problem in this country because there are items in the bill that have nothing to do with fixing healthcare. Since I know the government does pretty much nothing well; like food stamps, welfare, and medicare and all the fraud that goes along with these programs that they can't seem to get a handle on; and the post office is another example. I don't ever want our government in charge of my healthcare! There will be rationing. Canada and England ration healthcare. Doctors are leaving the medical profession in this country because of this bill. Who is going to be left to treat the millions of additional people that will now qualify to be covered? Of course there will be rationing and of course we will be waiting 6 months or more to have a life saving test, that is if some bureaucrat without a medical background sitting in a cubicle somewhere signs off on it.
Our current President was only a State Senator...he had no vote to cast!
Wow, nice try on spinning that one!
I keep reading from some of the conservatives on the board that the bill needs to be repealed but also agreeing that the cost of healthcare is too high. If that's the case then what is the conservative alternative? I mean I know you're going to say "tort reform" as if a doctor would all of a sudden stop charging so much for a procedure if they didn't have to pay for that pesky insurance against cutting off the wrong leg but I'm confused as to how a conservative would make healthcare for the masses affordable. The easiest answer I"ve been able to determine is that they really don't want/care if people have healthcare because its individual responsibility to take care of yourself but I can't imagine they'd argue that we should be letting people die if they can't "afford" to live? RIght????right????
60% of America says NO to Barrycare, the tribe has spoken!
Just say NO to this Socialist, Ponzi scheme joke!
The majority of Americans want Obamacare repealed, I hope they all are Republicans because it will be a landslide for them.
basedrum, when you make comments at least try to be an smart liberal. Medicare and other social programs are created to help the poor.
Republicans, independent and moderate Democrats are against Obamacare.
BP-2252891 #1.33,
"foreclosures continuing to skyrocket out of control"
You can trace this back to WJC's watch.
Remember 'derivatives'? Brooksley Born warned about them. She was shutdown.
Don't believe me __— fine, but take the time to watch Frontline's presentation.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/
@1.83 Sorry Charlie, Citizens United was only the worst decision since Kelo vs. City of New London, which was promulgated by the left-leaning end of the SCOTUS.
@basedrum..... what tort reform would mean is when someone presents with a common cold doctors would not feel the need to run every test known to medicine just to cover their a$$e$ from being sued. That is where the savings come with tort reform. Dr's malpractice insurance would be cheaper but the amount saved on policies would be minuscule compared to the money saved by not running all the needless tests. Your argument that poor people will die in greater numbers is a red herring. NO ONE IN THIS COUNTRY HAS TO GO WITHOUT RECEIVING HEALTH CARE! Every city and/or county of any size in the U.S. provides government funded health clinics and hospitals. There is also a vast number of charities and such that provide assistance to those less fortunate. Not to mention Medicaid.
The ACA (aka Obamacare) is not "health care" reform. It is health insurance reform. Destruction actually. Once you require companies to cover pre-existing conditions the product they sell is no longer "INSURANCE" by definition.
Laker Steve, Tom - Plymouth, you're each suspended for a day for violating #1 of the Code of Honor.
Comment above deleted, Kelly-Independent citing this Igor Volsky piece but not blockquoting or linking and copypasting it in its entirety. Mind #4:
I wish someone would tell me what the right is so mad about? There is not a human being that can go forever without health care! And we have to pay for those that don't have health insurance. What happened to INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY!!!
The right wingers don't want to have to buy health insurance - they want us responsible liberals to pay for them in the emergency rooms with high health care costs!!!
i think you answered your own question with the word mad. why is the right so mad
How are you supposed to buy health insurance when you don't have a job under Obama? Since now we're FORCED to get it.......
No, they want another solution as opposed to forcing people to purchase healthcare whether they want to or not.
Chatty, ypu are kidding right, repubs in the emergency rooms. Look at your urban areas in this country and tell me who is flooding the emergency rooms, they certainly aren't repubs.
If i cant afford heath insurance and 0bama fines me, how the hell am i going to be better off?
Catty, I ain't paying for someone else's health care.
Under the Affordable Health Care Act if you can't accord health care you get it free under Medicaid. Ok?
Mark Taft - every time an uninsured goes to the Emergency Room and can't afford to pay - everybody else who has insurance pays.
Why yes, Carl, they are Republicans. Republican/Red states take in far MORE federal benefits dollars than Democrat/Blue states. On average, Democrats have a higher educational and financial level than average Republicans--the so-called "silent majority" hooked by Reagan racism and held fast today by Koch money. P.S. to Laker Steve, duh, if you don't have income, you will get health care, that's the point.
The Republicans have a great answer for that. They want you to get off your backside and go get a job. Because, according to them, if you don't have a job, it's your own fault.
As far as reality is concerned, if you don't have a job and can't afford healthcare, you get a subsidy and waiver. This is a better deal for the taxpayer, since we are going to pay for your emergency room visit when your condition gets so bad you have to be taken there. It's far cheaper for us to give you a few aspirins to thin your blood than to give you a new heart because yours couldn't pump your blood any more.
Your comment is backwards. Conservatives are the stronger proponents of individual responsibility and self-reliance. Liberal policies tend toward larger government, which results in more government control, more dependence of individuals on government, lesser individual responsibility, and reduced liberty.
We're happy to help those in need (look up rates of charitable giving by conservatives vs. liberals) but we would rather do it because it's the right thing to do than because the government requires us to do so under threat of force.
I agree that the health care system in this country needs some serious work. But a clearly unconstitutional mandate wrapped within a legal framework whose ultimate purpose appears to be to drive insurance companies out of the health insurance business and lay the groundwork for single-payer federal government-funded health coverage is not the way to do it. We must recognize that health care is ultimately a series of goods and services and, like all such, is best served by a free market. Of course, I understand that health care does have certain special considerations, namely that people require it and some people, through no fault of their own, require more of it than others just to stay alive. Those people should be helped, and I'm for a framework to provide assistance, but it should be one that leverages the market as much as possible instead of one that essentially eliminates the market altogether.
Mark, as chatty pointed out, you're already paying. You're also already paying in your employer's pool for people who aren't as healthy as you.
Under Obamacare, you are NOT paying for someone else's care in any measure more than you already are--in fact, the measure should go down for at least a dozen different reasons. Obamacare will save the country a lot of money and boost our ability to compete in the world substantially.
I don't think anyone actually believes this law is constitutional, even democrats, but they are trying to find a solution to the problem. Personally I would rather have uninsured individuals receive no treatment than have our current system of emergency room bills being paid by the tax payer. The real problem is getting over the idea that everyone can be saved, life isn't that easy, people die. If we can eliminate this concept that no expense should be spared then the real cases of the uninsured can be handled with real dignity without the need for nationalized health care that simply doesn't work.
The individual mandate the right is so upset about and which the Supreme Court is ruling on was included in the bill in a futile attempt at bipartisanship. If the Supreme Court rules the mandate unconstitutional we need to enact a universal single payer system supported by taxes, similar to Canada's system, which we should have done in the first place. Think the right has it's underwear in a bunch now? You ain't seen nothing yet!
Chatty Kaye
Under the Affordable Health Care Act if you can't accord health care you get it free under Medicaid. Ok?
You mean the medicaid in Illinois that is crumbling so fast that cigarettes were raised to $8 a pack to help pay to fix it? Yeah, I sure want to rely on medicaid in IL!
first remember that every senator that is agai8nst health care has HEALTH care at taxpayers expense.. se brown )9( is actualoly using one of the provisions in the health care bill but he is against everyone else having healthy insurance..I find that very interesting...so how about asking all tyhose greedy suckers to give up their insurance and look for it like we have to.. the insurance rights pass on the all the staffs this country could do a lot for this country but again the 'I only think of myself greedy do nothings' will protect what they have and continue to give to themselvesn but nothing f0or the poor, the unemployed, the elder.
Let me put this in a way that even the right wing-nuts will even understand. I'll type slow so you can follow along:
The poor already get their health care for free, paid for by the middle class.
The rich can afford healthcare, period.
The middle class foots the bill for themselves, the poor and the uninsured. After the affordable health care act, the middle class would no longer be on the hook for the uninsured.
By striking down the law, the right wing-nuts are saying they're perfectly fine with footing the bill for the uninsured. Well I say fine. If you're a registered Republican, I believe that you should be the only ones footing the bill for the uninsured.
See? Now isn't that simple?
I will gladly answer, for me, if you will listen. Here is why I am against the Healthcare Bill.
#1 It was purchased by the Dems from an outside source. MOST congressmen had not even read it.
#2 Pelosi declared it should be passed immediately, without reading it. It was that important. National Emergency!!! Yet it doesn't go into effect until 2014.
#3 Not letting it go into effect until 2014 shows it is filled with political kickbacks. Designed to get another term for a Democratic President. I for one, am tired of this type of politics.
#4 Passing a national definition of Healthcare is crazy. I am for healthcare reform. But the idea that one group, writing a 2300 page bill will solve it is crazy. They should have passed a law stating EACH state must provide a healthcare plan. There would have been 50 different plans. Over the years plans (and states) would merge good ideas, drop bad ideas. In 15 years you would have at least 3 great, working plans that could then have been merged into a National Plan.
#5 If Healthcare Reform was the goal, why not just start with a simple bill that forbids an insurance company from dropping a person after a condition is diagnosed or prevents a company frm refusing a pre-existing condidtion.
#6 Why were there things in the bill that had nothing to do with healthcare, i.e. Student Loans?
#7 As you said, WHAT HAPPENED TO PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY? Why does a 26 year old have to be on his parents policy? A 26 year old should provide his own. Giving this for free just gets more young people to vote D. Just simple vote buying.
I coul don, but it boils down to this. If the GOP had designed this bill I would have expressed my dislike for it also. Let the states do it, the Constitution says they can.
About that...
Our current POTUS didn't vote for much of ANYTHING while he was in congress. I think most votes were "present", am I not correct?
Chatty...Come here! We can go to Detroit Receiving Hospital and sit in the ER. You take your shoes off and use one foot to count the republicans that you see. Actually you can count them with your ear......not even two of them.
Nevada Hamaker: very well said! Also, any comprehensive health care law needs to have, as one of it's most outstanding components, ways to identify and reduce the actual cost of health care. Heathcare in America is higher than anywhere else in the world and it's rising fast. If the "why?" and "how do we stop it?" aren't part of the "solution", then it is no solution at all.
I see some of you idiots think that only republicans are without insurance go to the ER..what a stupid statement. I see a so many black people in ER without ins, arent most of them democrat and what about the millions of illegal mexicans do have poltical asignment?
Forcing people to by healthcare was a republican idea, yet it is the one idea Republicans are truly against.
Have any of you read the health care bill? From the statements on here, it is obvious that you haven't. If you can not afford to pay for insurance, it will be paid for you. Nothing will change for the company sponsored health insurance. It will save people and companies money, especially small businesses. I suggest you read the bill, before you destroy it.
Do you buy auto and home insurance? Is it mandatory to have auto insurance in your state? Are you paid by the insurance companies? I would love to see universal health in America. Of course it would put insurance companies out of business. The real death panels are the insurance companies. We pay more for our health care, insurance and medicine than any other country. Doesn't that bother you. Or have you been so brainwashed by Fox all lies network, that you can't think for yourself anymore. Stop watching Fox all lies network for a month and then see how you feel.
Woman, you said "it will be paid for you"....how long before that pot of "we'll pay it for you" money is gone?
Rich people can afford health care
Poor people get it for free
The Middle Class gets screwed
This straw man again? How lame. What you describe is simply the result of the fact that the red states have more land and less people than the blue states. The majority of money the states receive is transportation dollars anyway, and red states to accommodate all you brilliant educated liberals as your goods and services use those disgusting red states roads, tunnels, airports, locks and dams etc. Then there is the support for farmers so you can eat, but that's not important is it?
Also, I thought the 1% was all republicans, wall street is all republicans, etc etc...so how can they also be what you describe too? You cant have it both ways! Your post is dripping in hypocrisy and bigotry to the point that you should be ashamed. How can a person hate half the people in the US and still be an American?.
Another completely ignorant straw man argument...
NO STATE REQUIRES DRIVERS TO BUY INSURANCE FOR THEIR CARS! NEVER HAVE, NEVER WILL!
States require LIABILITY INSURANCE so if you injure someone else or destroy property of another person THEY are covered. It has nothing to do with the owner of the vehicle or the driver.
You are free to drive in all 50 states without collision insurance, PERIOD. This is because as Jefferson once said, "your rights extend to the point at which they infringe in the rights of another". You losing your own car due to lack of insurance harms noone but yourself, so you are free to do so just like you are free to not carry health insurance because only you are at risk.
Elliot,
Maybe you will need to cancel your internet connection in order to pay your fine.
Chatty Kaye "There is not a human being that can go forever without health care"
That's true, but then nobody lives 'forever', do they?
But there are are plenty of people who live their entire lives without health insurance.
I am not rightwing or leftwing but i can tell you im mad that the government is considering taking away my liberty and making a Life tax. I guess anyone who cherishes their liberty would be upset at well. It would be the same as a law mandating payment to breathe air in the USA. It is fundamentally unconstitutional.
Mark Taft
Actually, we are all paying for health care for the poor. When an uninsured individual goes to a hospital, and has no insurance, they are billed but they rarely pay.
So, ask yourself: WHO pays for that?
Before Obamacare, the cost was passed on to all the other patients. This is part of the reason we all pay too much for inferior health care.
the Republicans opposed the Democratic solution, to simply have a single payer system, and said that the uninsured should be forced to buy insurance. This was a Republican requirement. But now that it has passed it is being used to attack our president for doing... what the Republicans requested.
So, Mark, what other right wing lies have you been deceived into believing?
THINK for YOURSELF!
@ Iamwoman - I suggest you start by reading the bill yourself, all employer plans will change to be what the govt. says it is supposed to be. Why do you think one of the first new terms were "Grandfathered" and "non-Grandfathered?" Because as soon as you made any change to your current plan, you lost the ability to have a pre-Obamacare plan. We lost our status in August 2010 at our first renewal. We now have lost most of the access we had in 2009 and pretty much have only catastrophic care, and preventative care.
I am Woman, I can tell You this with 100% confidence, If the government has anything to do with it, Health care will, take longer to get, cost more, be of poorer quality, full of waste and fraud, will have funds stolen, and will eventually bankrupt! Do any of You think of these things when Your wanting uncle sam to take over health care ? Wake TFU !
Why do people keep mistaking the fact that going to the ER is NOT FREE. My son who has no insurance, and NO healthcare ended up in the ER, because of a huge Blood Clot, which turned septic.......... None of this has been free in fact his 3 weeks in CCU and a week in ICU has now cost him OVER 100k in medical bills. How does he pay for that when he had a minimum wage job which barely covered his rent?
Going to the ER is NOT FREE. People go and then are surprised with thousands of dollars worth of medical bills that they can NEVER hope to pay........Ever. We need single payer in this Country.... The insurance industry NEEDS COMPETITION, so that they will lower their rates. Now, they can charge pretty much what ever they want for insurance. Insurance IS NOT health care! And going to the ER is NOT FREE. STop with the BS people.........Real, hard working people in this country are being wiped out, by one medical crisis and they have no other options in this Country.
I wish someone would tell me what the right is so mad about? There is not a human being that can go forever without health care! And we have to pay for those that don't have health insurance. What happened to INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY!!!
Chatty you are aware of the fact if you put the 300 plus dollars a month in a savings account and don't spend it you will have more than enough money to pay for your medical care. Also having worked for an insurance company I can tell you that I did enjoy the One Thousand or above gain-sharing check that the employees got yearly and the job paid darn good also plus my insurance was free and I loved the 6 weeks paid vacation I got, the pension not bad either. Makes the path to retirement easier, and you would not believe the petty things that we would send claims back to the doctors for. When you are going to the doctor once or twice a year it does not pay to carry health insurance and many people I know that have insurance say that with the high deductibles and co pays they will be bankrupt if they end up in the hospital. Make it mandatory and just like car insurance, health insurance will go higher than it already is.
In 1993 repubs put forth this health plan to OPPOSE H. Clinton health care plan. This was the only plan repubs wanted...then Dems and Pres Obama.....gave in and gave it to them. The very plan the republicans asked for. Gingrich, McCain, and Boehner all wanted this plan...until...it was passed. Now when confronted that this was their plan, all three said they did not know enough about it when they planned it. Now that they read it they don't like their own plan. Videos on U tube saying this.
So repubs want to repeal all of health care. What is their plan? None, Just DIE!
Oh come on, I'm for letting the Supreme court do their job.Everybodys been screaming for what seams like for ever about health care. The real issue here is not the health care plan but MONEY, do I hear an, "Aman?" We are going to have to change the way that we do business. Americans don't like to do that unless we are putting money in our pockets. "Aman"
Have any of you ever looked around to what other countries (Like ours) have? In Germany they pay a high income tax and their Health Care is Free. Everybody carries the load. There is no Unemployment Benifits There. When things slow down companies go to a Half Day Work status til things pick up. The rich pay their share and still get richer only more slowly. They don't seam to have the greed that we have here.
We as a Nation are going to have to change somewhere and people with piss azz attitudes will just have to suck it up. The only problem that we are really going to have here is the Republican Procrastinating Senate. One point I want to make very clear here I as a Democrat PAY FOR THEIR SORRY BUTTS! I do expect to see progress for my money. If you don't want to do the job, hit the road. This also goes for the Democrat side.
Many dems want a healthcare system like Medicare. If you were on Medicare you would quickly realize it doesn't pay for a lot of the needs of seniors. Thus the reason AARP sells supplemental insurance. However, most seniors are ONLY covered by FFS. That means many are very uninsured. BTW, the avg SS check is 1100.00/mo. Many are living on that and thus buying extra insurance is out of the question. So please stop with this notion that Medicare is like a universal plan. Plus Medicare is paying out way more than it takes it now.
If you have a note on your car, you must carry proof of insurance which protects the car as well. If no debt people often carry just what is required by law in that state. Even so many drive without insurance.
I agree that everybody will need health insurance at some point. People that smoke, drink, are obese should pay considerably more for coverage. They need to be punished for their bad lifestyle. We do that now with car insurance.
The bottomline to me is that each person should be able to carry their own portable insurance plan regardless of where they are employed or not. It is up to them.
Recently a family member had an operation that went very badly during recovery. He was at a well known hospital system. What I realized during this fiasco is that nobody understood insurance at all. Not a soul. Not any doctor, nurse, etc. Their decisions about the flow of how to help the patient while keeping costs down were totally ignored and never considered. I am telling you that hospital staff know absolutely nothing about insurance plans and how to coordinate patient care.
When you take your car in for repairs, they call you with the diagnosis and expected bill. There is a conference of what path to take based on finances of that owner. This is NOT the case with healthcare. Nobody in that hospital cared a darn about the bill. It was as if that surgery and post op was free.
Obamacare was ONLY an extension of insurance not curbing costs and trying to figure out how to have a sound healthcare system that operated smoothly and efficiently.
Over 60% of Americans say NO to Barrycare, the tribe has spoken!
Just say no to this Socialist, Ponzi scheme.
@ chattie K you have it backwards the left wants all the freebies, but that is not the point the point is that Obama care is wrong and we need the right policy in place not one that will fail in the course of a few years and make matters worse, its constitutionally illegal and will not bring down the cost it isn't even in effect yet and most peoples insurance took a 20 to 30% hike, what we need to do is put a dent in the profits that the insurance Co's are getting its out of control they inflated the cost of health care lets lower the cost, its more then health care its malpractice insurance that is driving up cost the whole system has gone out of control and we need to get it back under control without giving the insurance Co's a excuse to rip us off, that's what Obama care will do,rip us off. this is a verybad thing. and if you cant afford insurance today what makes you think that you will be able to afford it when you are forced to buy it? in short the industry is taking advantage of us, why don't we get a grip on that first, lets get the fraud out of the system and lower the cost before we force compliance on the citizens. this is all about money for the rich.
The government can't be trusted with money, they have been taping into every retirement and social security account they have been entrusted to and using the money for everything except what it was intended for why do you think social security is going broke, look at what they did to RR retirement how about the example the post office set for us, they have all your attention on health care while the rest of the nation is falling apart, VA benefit's are being tightened up the government can't run what they have and you want them in control of everything the term mismanagement was invented to explain government manipulation, we are heading the way of the Greeks. the fact is we can't afford it. I suggest if you cant afford insurance then you bank as much as you can at least it might be there when you need it, give it to the government and it will find its way to some special interest project that will serve you no interest, possibly be spent in some third world toilet where the rulers will pocket the money like Afghanistan.
a note on the 1% more money in Democrats then in Republicans wealth is not owned by just Republicans, look at the money they have to throw away for Obama. these people are not out there working for you they are stuffing their money sacks and laughing at you. why did Pelosie tell Bush everything was going well when it wasn't, could it be that it was going well for her and she wanted it to go a little longer. you folks have to stop this red versus blue and start thinking like WE The PEOPLE. red and blue we are all being conned. you people should try standing together something this country hasn't done for about 4 decades. pick a spot in the middle and forget these far right and far left wing nuts. just for the hell of it don't vote for either one come election vote for Ron Paul as a wright in and see what happens. Id like to see how the electorate would handle that one.
The funniest thing about this is that had the mandate been called a tax and everything else remained the same, it would unquestionably be considered constitutional.
This law did nothing to address what was actually broken with the system to begin with. Insurance companies have a million legal yet dishonest ways of garnering money from their customers while doing everything they can to not provide their customers with the service that they promised, and that is to make health care costs affordable for individuals.
Even if they don't deny you coverage for preexisting conditions they will look at those preexisting conditions and tell you that if you take their health insurance it has to be with a deductible that's so high you'll never be able to meet it. In that way you pay them money, but they don't help you at all.
as sboon398 stated:
"I don't think anyone actually believes this law is constitutional, even democrats, but they are trying to find a solution to the problem"
I think you are right in the first part of your statement, but instead of demos trying to find a solution, I think they are simply backing it because it comes from their leader, and they are acting as loyal fans. GET OVER IT, it is not a solution to the problem.
Missouri Republican Sen. Roy Blunt said Tuesday, “There really have always been three questions: Is it constitutional? Is it a good idea? Can we afford it? And if the answer to any of those is no, we shouldn’t do it. I think the American people have clearly decided that the more they found out about this bill, they believed that the answer to ‘is it a good idea?’ and ‘can we afford it?’ is ‘no’ and ‘no.’ The court will decide the third one, but there’s no question (that) we shouldn’t go forward with this.”
well said Senator, right on the money
starsailing, you really really need to grow up. your mom should take your computer away as well. starsailing's mom, if you are listening, he is being bad, please punish him.
I work for healthcare software company, and I just happen to be working in Canada this week. Wanna know what I see here? I see the elderly on stretchers for hours on end in the hallways waiting for an Xray procedure, I see a hundred people in the fracture clinic waiting for hours in the waiting room for a broken limb to be casted, I see and hear people in the cafeteria complaining about how their doctor almost killed them because even though its in their records they are allergic to "X drug" it was given to them anyway, because the doctor didnt' take the time to read their paperwork, and even the patient told the doc "I am allergic to X drug" it was given to them anyway cause the doc was to busy to listen. This is great healthcare???? You want free healthcare (and it is NOT, they have money taken out every payday) MOVE to Canada.
Under the new ideas about health care and the changes that have already taken place, I pay a higher cost every paycheck than all the prior years increases combined! This is not 'affordable'! This health care deal is fraud and a pack of lies.
The main problem we have is too many bleeding heart people wanted a system that didn't turn anyone away in the ER if they couldn't pay. People given the option to obtain free services and or money, will certainly do so with wild abandon. We are already seeing this and paying for it as well.
Why do I pay a lot for my health insurance when I don't have to? I can just get it for free!
@theboys.... "People that smoke, drink, are obese should pay considerably more for coverage." Why? Both of my mothers parents lived well into their 90's and even though they both smoked since they were teenagers neither died of (or ever had) cancer, emphysema or any other "smoking related" problems. Meanwhile an aunt, through marriage, died of throat cancer when she was 37 and she had never smoked a single cigarette (her parents never smoked cigarettes either). You do realize that unless a smoker dies through some accidental trauma their death is considered to have been caused by smoking. Only thing is I have never seen a death certificate list cigarette smoking as the cause of a persons death. Nor have I ever seen "a lack of health insurance" listed as the cause of someones death.
Maybe Obama should have had that 'laser like focus' on the economy rather than healthcare...
Because health care, my dear moron, is the cause of the vast majority of personal bankruptcies in this country.
If you get sick, even if you have insurance and then it runs out, you are on your own and lose your house, your car, your family and finally your life.
That's why, Obama hater. The economy is greatly affected by the costs of health insurance in this country, where profit, and not health, is the driving force. You don't count unless you make money for the health care industry, and that cannot be accomplished if you are inconsiderate enough to get sick.
Clinton tried to pass it in 1992 with Dems controlling both the house and Senate. In the mid term elections of '94 the Dems lost both houses and Clinton shifted towards the center and ended up working with the other side. The economy took off. The voters didn't want universal HC and the big shot Dan Rostenkowsky who said "the American people will get HC wheather they like it or not" ended up in jail over the post office scandal. HC will wreck the economy and the People know it.
Gosh! I sure hope all of those poor insurance companies and banks will be okay after this ruling...
A big part of Clinton's mistake was putting Hillary in charge of it and her attitude was," this is what we're going to do. Deal with it." That attitude antigonized everyone and that guaranteed her failure. She pretty mush viewed herself and Bill as being co-presidents, I think. But no one else did. Her arrogance was nearly tangible back then.
I beg to differ. I wold think that unemployment is the leading cause of bankruptcies.
Just a hunch...
Your hunch is wrong. Medical expenses are the top cause of bankruptcy in the United States. Medical bills cause a whopping 62% of of U.S. bankruptcies. Mostly Cancer treatment.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/05/1051848/-Medical-bills-cause-62-percent-of-nbsp-bankruptcies
http://www.giveforward.com/blog/medical-expenses-top-cause-of-bankruptcy-in-the-united-states
"According to Duke University Medical Center, the average out-of-pocket cost for cancer patients is currently $1,266 per month. Medical bills for these patients can quickly wipe out retirement accounts, college savings funds, and home equity. Once a patient’s savings have been exhausted bankruptcy may be their only refuge."
Obama never focused on healthcare, he partied, flew around the globe, played golf, held concerts, and vacationed. Obama handed Reid and Pelosi the task of a new healthcare entitlement, and they took it behind closed doors in secret locations. Even Obama had to sign it to find out what was in it. The lack of leadership from Obama is why the country had such a bad bill rammed down its throat. Now we are all about to learn how bad the whole process was, and that it should never happen again.
And guess where Hillary is now ... can anyone tell me? Is she in the white house again? And guess what the law is going to fail just like the last one. There are laws in 18 states forbidding the government from requiring citizens to purchase health care. It is unconstitutional for the federal government for force people into commerce and on top of that this law is not liberal, this law is socialistic. We are not and never will be a socialistic nation.
Has anybody been watching the replays of Obama in his last campaign? He said about Romney: Why would you make anybody without health insurance buy health insurance? Are you going to then force the homeless to buy a house?
sounds like a real flip-flopper to me
Rick, and you know Obama did this, how exactly? Were you partying with him? Are you an eyewitness?
Obama did have a "laser focus" on jobs, but Republicans obstructed his attempts each and every time. Like they had planned to prior to his being sworn in.
Alternatively, Republicans in 2010 ran on jobs, jobs, jobs, and did nothing.
@ Thomas Blue,
There was a time when I THOUGHT Hillary would have made a good President. I see her and Obama now, and I know I WAS WRONG.
Shovel-ready was not as ... uh .. shovel-ready as we expected." The Council, led by GE's Jeffrey Immelt, erupted in laughter.
Would the second round have been as "shovel" ready as the first?
CoCo, Obama does NOT flip-flop ... he EVOLVES! Those are TOTALLY different concepts; read the program!
It was quickly learned that the only shovel ready jobs were in graveyards. The rest required planning, permits, contracts, regulatory clearance, environmental reviews etc.
@Eric-913730
During the President's first 2 years in office the Republicans didn't have enough votes to obstruct traffic much less any bill the president wanted. Filibuster proof Senate means just that. The rRepublicans couldn'ty filibuster or obstruct a single bill. It wasn't until Ted Kennedy's death and the election of Scott Brown that the Democrats lost their 60 vote super majority in the Senate. It wasn't until the beginning of LAST year that the Republicans took control of the House.
Blame the last year and a half on the "do nothing" Republicans if you want to. President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) Nev. and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D) Cal. OWN the first two years of the administration and Harry Reid STILL hasn't put a budget to a vote since 2009.
Best line in the GOP debate from I believe it was Johnson "My dog has made more shovel ready jobs".
Skyrocketing medical costs are a huge concern, but jobs really needed to be the first priority. Instead, Obama chose to focus on the healthcare plan, which many republicans were not willing to address at the time, and rammed it through not caring what the repubs thought. If I recall, he did the same with the stimulus plans. This then came back to bite him when the repubs turned that attitude back on him after winning the majority in 2010. It's immature on both sides, and immediately set the stage for grand scale failure for all parties with the American public being the ultimate loser in Obama's presidency. I do not believe Obama did things this way to be malicious, I blame it on simple inexperience.
Rick...guess you need to be reminded on what the repubs are focussed on....
One thing is for sure, the republican pledge to take the economy down, just to win the next election in 2012.
14-15 republicans secretly met the day after President Obama was elected to pledge to vote against every bill that would help the economy recover. They pledged this saying they wanted him to be a one term president. They pledged to take the economy down just to destroy the presidents plans for recovery. Bin Laden wrote down the same plan and executed 911 to take the economy down to destroy the nation. These repubs, Ryan, Cantor, DeMint, and Gingrich pledged to act like the Taliban, to act like the insurgents do,(their own actual words) to prevent President Obama from a second term. Acting like the supreme terrorist of all time Bin Laden. Traitors. Deliberately sabotaging the recovery. Ref Richard draper new book. If you vote for repubs you vote for traitors.
95% of all repub politicians took the pledge to their office they ran for, then like traitors they took the Norquist pledge putting the king Norquist above the American people, putting Norquist above the Constitution. Like traitors to our country. Pledge to King Norquist.
I've tried to explain to my conservative parents over and over again that we are already paying for healthcare for the uninsured. Every time you go to the hospital you and your insurance company are overcharged in order for the hospital to recoup their losses from the "free" care they give to the uninsured. Ultimately, this results in you having to pay higher premiums.
starsailing - what you posted is your interpretation of what went on at that meeting. The republicans have never said that they were going to take the economy down in order to destroy Obama. The agreement they reached was to challenge every proposal he made, and do anything they could to prevent his agenda from going forward. There is an argument to be made that they did that for philisophical reasons. They could argue that they believed that his agenda would actually do more harm to the economy, and therefore were doing their jobs by stopping him.
If Romney were to win the election, would you have a probem with the democrats stopping his agenda from moving forward? After all, if you believe like most liberals; that George Bush is responsible for the state of the economy and Romney wants to go back to those policies - wouldn't you want the democrats to stop him any way they could?
We are going to see tomorrow , who is putting himself and his party above the Constitution , signing an unconstitutional Law. King Barak and his Court has to obey the rule of the SCOTUS, like it or not to the radicals of his party and the kool-aid drinkers.
Actually I don't believe the SCOTUS can rule correctly anymore, they are as corrupt as any of the polititions, I lost faith when corporations became people. If they rule against the healthcare bill, I sure hope no one losses there healthcare. Healthcare Insurance companies, might have a field day.
To the idiots who keep saying "Fillibuster proof senate for 2 years" you're wrong.
58 democrats, 2 independents. 1 democrat out due to illness the majority of the time.
There was only a 2 month period where the democrats held a fillibuster proof majority and that is only IF you count the independents.
I'm not sure that the health insurance companies are actively pulling against the mandatory health insurance. Why should they be against it when this law requires everyone to buy health insurance from these same health insurance companies. I know that this plan has restrictions that they might not like but it gives them clients that they would not have normally had. This is not a bust for insurance companies rather it is a boom for them.
The real victim of this law is the person who cannot afford to pay for the insurance but is now required to do so. I know that the government will subsidize those below a certain income level but that does not mean that there are those with higher incomes that still cannot afford to pay for the insurance. If you are making $85000 and have bills that exceed your present income what do you suggest that you give up. Remember there are many out there having trouble making their home payments. When you add this bill to the equation what do you suggest that they give up? Shelter or food?
Mr. Obama, frankly, said one smart thing about healthcare and then didn't demand it be included in the bill. Eliminating the tax preference for employers to provide a plan would be a major step towards solving our healthcare mess if for no other reason than it was tax preferences that helped create the mess we now have. And there was always a private sector solution to the problem, but because Mr. Obama and people who think like him see private markets as evil, and the government as omniscient, they would never go that direction.
If you want portability, universality, and to reduce the cost curve, then you should not want Obamacare because while it will solve the first two problems it makes the third far worse. A better solution exists. Eliminate the tax preference by block-granting to states the money required for a refundable tax credit to equal the current tax preference and/or cost of care (for those who are presently uninsurable). The idea is to get people to own their own policy which would, by definition, be portable. And because the tax credit would be refundable and actuarially based, everyone could own their own plan. Eliminate the ability of individual states to ban interstate commerce--for pete's sake, this was the exact reason for the commerce clause in the first place. These two acts alone create total portability and universality.
To reduce the cost curve make part of the tax credit payable in cash, so that if your credit is not exhausted because you were able to purchase coverage for yourself for a price less than the credit, you get to share in a part of that savings. In other words, use the power of consumers looking for the best deal to our advantage. Young people might go for a major medical plan because that is all they need. Old people might want a complete plan. And anyone who wants a plan that costs more than an actuarially based amount would not be a criminal for buying more insurance. Then do one more thing...eliminate the requirement that anyone without insurance be treated by a community hospital. If someone could have bought insurance regardless of income, or preexisting conditions, and for their own reasons decided not to, then it's on them, not us, unless someone wants to be charitable towards them.
Private. Portable. Universal. Reduces costs radically. Makes individuals responsible and part of the solution. Removes the causes of our present fiasco. No wonder the democrats will never accept it.
And Democrats had to pay off delegates from Louisiana and Kansas. Still not enough votes to pass so they had to use a simple majority. A vote reserved for budget votes.
If ACA is such a great law why are there so many Unions exempt, and any other organizations that helped get Barry elected? Also why are the elected officials afforded the so called Cadillac plans not part of ACA? Lastly why does AARP stand to make over a Billion dollars from this legislation in the first ten years.
This law wreaks of corruption. Padding the pockets of Democrat supporters on the backs of everyone.
Rich281285...you don't care about taxes. You just want to see people who have worked and planned, using their employee health insurance as a basis for their retirement, to lose it. All I hear from liberals is how angry they are that they don't have what we have worked and scrimped and saved for. We've been told now that if we own a home, even if we're still paying on it...we're rich. Liberals would rather we lived in the streets as old people and had nothing, unless we hand it all over to them.
Employers gave insurance to valuable employees who didn't move every 6 months, or go to school for years and then live off their mummy and daddy. They actually looked for and hired people who work. Perhaps they did get a tax break, and it's fair, because they created the jobs that your mummy and daddy are supporting you with. I can't tell you how many of my friends kids have moved back home and put their noses right in their parent's checkbooks. We're too old to manage our own dollars now, and they want it.
I have five grown children and 13 grandchildren, and I've just recently changed my will. They need to go work and earn their own way. My home and my pensions and savings, if I have any left when my husband and I die, will go to our church. Never mind greedy liberal children. Shame on the schools that taught them to look for freebies.
Bottom line is this...........whether you believe in the mandatory crap or not............ it's unconstitutional! They passed the mandatory insurance on automobile owners, yet we pay for uninsured motorists! If they pass this law, which I pray hard they don't, all you folks screaming about paying for the uninsured, will STILL pay for the uninsured! Stop and think about the effects on those folks who are already making the decision of whether to purchase their medicine for the month, or their food! Think about those families who have to decide how to budget their meals to make sure their children don't go hungry. How about all those folks who have already given up much of what they used to own because all the jobs have shut down in their areas? I oppose this law 100%. I believe, with all my heart, that the Supreme Court will uphold the Constitution and set this administration in it's place! In 2008, people voted to make history............I pray that this time they'll vote to make sense!!
Single payer system would have prevented all of this - but of course the republicans threatened a filibuster.
Bottom line. If you have ANY condition AND the law is overthrown, expect to be dropped by your insurance company and plan to pay for all of your expenses out of pocket.
Insurance companies WILL drop you or raise your premiums so quickly it will force you out. They are waiting for the ruling.
Pre-existing conditions such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol, etc.. will disqualify you from getting insurance.
Unwittingly you've made the perfect argument why something MUST be done with the healthcare situation.
First let me point out to you that you pay the insurance premium. The only way your insurance premium would exceed 85K is if there was no law in place to regulate them. I think we've tried that, and much like trickle down economics we've got loud and clear that it doesn't work.
We need something to break this cycle of unaffordable healthcare. I don't approve of the Obama mandate simply because I see it as a gift to big insurance. It does nothing to control the costs. I actually want something tougher that allows the government to negotiate for healthcare on behalf of all citizens. I don't want to have to work 4 months of the year for the gov and another 4 for big insurance which, let's face it, is much like the banks and gives very little back while keeping an eye to the profits for the next quarter.
Lastly, if the Supremes (because they have about as much credibility and gravitas as a singing group) block this, it is just the opening volley in this battle. If they block it there is a chance something correct might actually get done.
Sometimes you have to offer people a whole lot of bad options to get them to choose a good one.
@ Startsailing -
Absolute and utter bull@!$%#. Honestly, I can't believe you fall for this crap.
One Independent voted with the GOP, Joe Lieberman. The idea that the democrats ever had a filibuster proof senate under O'bama is a GOP lie.
Breaking news John Roberts votes to support O'bama care along with four other justices. The Supreme Court AFFIRMS the constitutionality of O'bama care. I said "YES, YES, YES." when I heard the ruling. TAKE THAT TEA PARTY.
Rasputin-2589057, you're suspended for a day for violating #1 of the Code of Honor.
Please can someone explain the rational behind so many being opposed to the mandatory insurance while at the same time huge majorities like the other provisions of the HCR law? Pssss...it's because even conservatives don't want to pay for their healthcare, they just dont want to pay for anyone elses either...lmao
I'll give you a hint. It's called the Constitution, give it a read and you may see why so many are opposed to the mandate.
it has a lot to do with the negative messaging of some. if you say a lie enough people will start to believe it - e.g., death panels. irony if you think about it.
the gop does believe however, that healthcare, like money and the things that go with having money is a priviledge and not a right. but most importantly, as mcconnell said - their goal is to have Obama be a one term president no matter the cost.
let's hope it costs the gop in november.
The "majority" like the provisions that appear to benefit them. How many people know how the bill plans to pay for these "benefits"? Do they like those provisions also?
There must have been a helluva lot of reading by Republicans in recent months for they were the first to propose the "mandate" and only lodged objection when a Democrat shepherded that provision in healthcare reform. While the argument can easily be couched using the Commerce Clause as a basis, the logic and stated rationale framing the argument is bogus on its face. Perhaps the Court will use Scalia logic as offered in the Arizona immigration case ~ ignore the Constitution and frame a decision on "the greater good."
It may be called affordable healthcare, but it should be called another unsustainable government program. Why has the cost of heath care gone up 400% since 1980 when inflation has gone up 160%?
When they were trying to get the bill passed they said it would pay for itself, and then after it passed they told us how much it would actually cost. What a big lie!!!
I pay over $7,000.00 per year to cover my family and my employer picks up part of the tab. My annual deductible is $5,000.00 per family member. What part of this is affordable?
I have never gone without coverage and I've also had very little health care claims. So I'm the insurance company's best client.
We currently have so many unsustainable programs running and no way to pay for it.
I am a member of the GOP and so are many of my friends. None of us are rich, yet I haven't met anyone who wants folks to go without health care. We simply need to find a way to make it affordable.
I hope it is struck down.
I don't see any massive uprising to stop the MANDATE of paying for SOCIAL SECURITY - I just see a massive inconsistancy!!!
Which of the following would the right wing nuts want to get rid of?
26 year olds covered by parent healthcare
Kids cannot be denied for pre-existing conditions
No one can be denied for pre-existing conditions
No more putting off preventive care because you can't afford the co-pay
Diamond60, What did the GOP do about healthcare between 94 and 06?
If we agree that you can't please all of the people all of the time, then the question becomes: Do you prefer a less than ideal solution or no solution at all?
How about a 2.3% tax on medical devices, increase from 7.5% to 10% of AGI for medical deductions, and limits on FSAs?
Explain why the "majority" like the provisions of the bill yet these are included. Do they like these too?
DIamond, the ACA has nothing to do with the cost of healthcare coverage going up. If the law is struck down watch what will happen to rates. Everything will go back to the insurance companies and they can charge what ever they feel like. Have to compensate those CEO's.
@cs1701a
Hmmm...so if you don't like the individual mandate, how do you feel about paying for everyone's ER visits yourself through increased insurnace rates. Does that sound better?
I agree with you in part, Diamond60. But huge increases in health care can't all be tied to the government. The vast numbers of uninsured are contributing to that cost. When someone can't afford to pay the hospital bill and the collection process goes nowhere, that loss becomes part of the cost of doing business. In other words, it gets folded into the prices of other goods and services. A handful of people, not a big deal. But where I live at least 1/4 of the (citizen and legal resident) population is uninsured. The rest of us have to pay for that.
And no, those folks aren't all lazy so-and-so's. A lot of them are people just getting by on low-wage jobs. A wellness visit to the doctor would put a big crimp in their budget, so they wait until they're really sick to get seen. Hey, the lazy so-and-so's (and the not lazy ones) on welfare are also on Medicaid. They're covered. There's a huge coverage gap for low-middle income people, and it needs to be addressed.
So what happens?
.
Wouldn't be the first time we have been lied to, Diamond60. We were also told that Iraqi oil would pay for that eight year war. To quote you, "what a big lie!!!" Seems truth is not the foundation for political promises by either party.
There must have been a helluva lot of reading by Republicans in recent months for they were the first to propose the "mandate" And they were wrong to do so then. Seems this is another case of someone trying to justify a bad decision by citing another one. Sorry it doesn't work that way. Rep or Dem doesn't matter, a bad idea is a bad idea.
What do people not understand about the difference between Obamacare and Social Security and Medicare? Social Security and Medicare have NOTHING to do with Obamacare or entitlements! You HAVE TO PAY into Social Security about 50 years for benefits. You PAY INTO medicare about 30 years (those on it now) before benefits. What other health insurance policy do you pay into between 30-50 before you can use the policy?
Yes, anyone not paying into Medicare before benefits (such as non-working spouses) SHOULD pay at least double the premium because for them it is an entitlement. Yes, anyone collecting Social Security benefits they did not pay into should have their benefits frozen and no increases (such as a non-working spouse). This part of the program shoud be phased out within 10 years.
es1701a
Have you read the constitution? I do not believe you have. Do you have auto insurance? Or you irresponsible enough to drive without it?
Just the "facts", maybe before you state that insurers can charge what they want, you may want to ask the Department of Insurance in your state whether or not that is true...even before PPACA.
There are millions of people in this country who do not have auto insurance, The reason is because they do not have cars,There are also millions that do dry but do not have car insurance because they are driving someone elses vehicle. There are millions that have only Liability insurance that covers the other driver and not themselves, trying to compare auto insurance with mandated health care insurance simply shows how ilogical you think.
FYI, I have 2 vehicles that I drive on the public roadways, I have insurance on them, I also have 2 farm vehicles that are used only off road and these do not have insurance and are not required by any law to be insured.
Paying for insurance for the privilege to legally drive $150. Paying for health insurance to for the right to legally live unconstitutional. For everything else there's MasterCard.
It's hysterically amusing to see all the teapubs get all up in arms and scream SS and Medicare is just not the same. Sorry folks it is EXACTLY the same. It is a MANDATE. I don't have a choice, you don't have a choice and no one else does either. I am now firmly in favor of striking down SS and Medicare if the ACA is sruck down. Watch all the teapubs whine and cry then.
We have what is supposedly a constitutional scholar in the White House, but by the way Obama conducts business it would appear doubtful he has ever read the document. Obama looks at the constitution as an outdated document, that is only a set of guidelines. Obama certainly doesn't ever consider the constitution for its intent. Obama feels free to do whatever he wants, and so far it has been a disaster for the country.
Part of why healthcare and health insurance is so high is that people love to sue. Free money go after the doctor even if you lied to them. Also when you go in for a doctor visit how many of you have been asked do you have insurance and kind of funny tell them yes and they order more tests than if you tell them no. The insurance industry screws the people with insurance with high rates and the doctor makes more off of the insured by more tests.
@Thinkstraight you are right, would you prefer they don't do all the test, and possibly miss what you went in for, or would you prefer them to be more thorough?
There is a distinct difference between SS and Medicare versus the ACA, though I will agree with Shellie-657180 that all of the above are mandated and that's not right.
SS and Medicare are substituted by the government via taxation. That is, taxes are collected and the money is supposed to go into an account to be paid out later as benefits to those who have paid in. Of course, it doesn't work that way, but that's how they were designed.
Neither SS nor Medicare/Medicaid require citizens to purchase a private commodity. The ACA requires citizens to purchase health insurance - a privately owned and operated commodity. We're being forced to support an industry that has been as greedy and corrupt as the banking industry over the years. I used to work for an insurance company and I had to leave because I couldn't stomach the way the company blatantly screwed the consumer. And we're forced to give them more money.
Having said all of that, I'll repeat that I agree with Shellie...all of these "programs" are mandating that we participate financially in something we may not want to participate in. It's why I have long supported at least partial privatization of SS. Yes, a person may lose their entire retirement, but that's possible even under SS the way things are going.
I'm not entirely against government sponsored healthcare. I'm against government mandated healthcare. For those that would like to opt in, pay a tax and receive government heathcare, fantastic. For those that don't...don't.
As for those comparing it to vehicle insurance, stop. Motor vehicle insurance is mandated by states and not every state mandates it. New Hampshire (to my knowledge) still does not mandate that every citizen choosing to operate a motor vehicle be insured. Either way, that was largely left up to the states. Big difference (though they were all strong-armed into complying, so I suppose it's not so different in the end).
Pretty simple really. Everybody wants the goodies, nobody wants to pay. But somebody has to pay. The trouble with socialism is you eventually run out of other peoples money.
Lost in all this is what should be the real argument. Is providing health care a legitimate function of government. Or should you take care of yourself.
I see that you are "intellectually challenged" so I will try to make this as simple as possible:
Soc Sec and Medicare are government programs so they can make you participate. The ACA makes you buy a consumer product from private, for-profit corporations...so it is NOT a government program...so they can NOT make you participate.
I'm absolutely certain that these facts are absolutely meaningless to you...you are obviously a liberal lemming spoon fed on Daily Kos and Democratic Underground nonsense. If you choose to try to use that brain you have, I'd suggest small steps at first....you can't just jump in the deep end of the pool without learning to swim first. Maybe...just maybe....someday the atrophe of your brain may actually be reversed but you have to start using it first...slowly
I believe the "United States Supreme Court" ruling will uphold the "Affordable Care Act" by a vote of 6 to 3.
I believe the majority will judge the mandate to be more of a push for individuals to act more responsibly than a mandate.
I think you're wrong. I think by excusing the unions, Obama played partisan politics. But that was just one step. Eventually what will happen is that those who are covered by their union's medical will be made to be on Medicare and they will lose the benefits theyve worked so hard to earn. It's already happening.
There will be long waiting lists, especially for the poor who can't afford to buy their way up the lists. Mom and grandma will only hold onto their homes and their savings until he can figure out a way to steal that too. In a socialist/communist country, the government owns everything, including the people. Look at the committee that seniors have to go in front of to allow them to determine whether or not our lives are valuable enough to spend the money to help us live. Instead, we'll be kept comfortable until we die. I prefer to make that decision for myself. Perhaps you don't agree. But then you think it will change for you. I have news for you. Once you give your freedoms to the government, you NEVER get them back without bloodshed.
only a fool, a CEO or a constitutional lawyer would make this argument. this is not a constitutional issue this is a moral issue. this is an issue of people being able to pursue the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is an issue if health care is a basic human right.
Forget what the idiot talking heads say. They are shills for Corporate America. Corporate America is trying to kill labor unions and kill health care all so they don't pay a dime. if they have their way, you'll have nothing. Can't you see that? Don't you get what is happening right now?
When will you average Joes wake up and smell the coffee? When will you look at government and realize when they are giving you something and when they are giving corporate america something?
You're rushing to your demise and you don't even get that you're doing it. Never has anyone been so complicit in their own downfall as are the American people. You are all fiddling while Rome is burning down around your ears and all the while you think it's a hot dog roast to salute you.
Obama probably already has both alternate 3x5 notecards ready in response to the Court's decision.
I'm betting both sides are ready and waiting with the proper spin for any decision.
Every politician has prepared for every possible outcome. It is so sad that everyone seems too busy thinking about the politics to consider the millions of people who might die, based on tomorrow's outcome. For many, this isn't theoretical; it's literally life or death.
Obamacare decision and a contempt vote on Holder in the same day..., what a country!
Clotho, you are a liberal shrill. This entire bill was about politics, not helping people. It was a power grab. Trust me I am not happy with either side.....but to blindly follow a politician is insane.
Perhaps blindly following a politician, or a even perhaps a single party, is simply..., simple...
Obama's nefarious plan revealed. Watch at your own risk! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZ9e3Dy7obA
I think Obama had the decision months ago. What do you think that pronouncement that declaring his precious law unconstitutional would be "judicial activism" was about. Why do you think Patrick Leahy was opening his yap?
After they had that super-secret poll in the little room at the supreme court, I think you can bet Elena Kagan was on the phone to the white house, saying "things aren't looking very good. you can read between the lines if you want to.". That's what all that was about & the same meaning attaches to the absolute silence from the WH now. They've lost & they know it. No way to spin it, or they would be.
Here's a newsflash for you, Clotho...everyone is going to die. What you're debating is not keeping people from dying but delaying them from dying.
With close to 7 billion people on the planet now, we absolutely don't need to be wasting resources keeping that guy who got cancer from smoking for 20 years alive for another 2 at the cost of a million dollars. That's just insane.
For a bunch of people who claim to be progressive, liberals sure are stupid. We live in a finite environment....we don't need to be keeping people alive for years and years and years past their expiration dates simply because we can.
Browenstein:
Yes, as you told Clotho, everyone is going to die. You are of course as entitled to your opinion as any of us here on the Vine, but I find it hard-hearted. You used the example of dying by cancer--not everyone who gets cancer is a "20-year-smoker". What about the person who has never smoked in her life and has always tried to live a healthy life, but ends up suffering through FOUR different types of cancer, supposed to do? Just lie down and quietly die because she is not worth using up the precious "resources" that evidently you think are deserved by someone else? Thank God she did have insurances--not to buy a "cure" for her, but to help her be more comfortable as she died. I am talking about my Mother. What about children who are sick and whose parents, perhaps through no fault of their own, cannot provide them with insurance that they need in order to obtain medical care? Shall we just throw them away, too, because it might cost us a few dollars more in order to help them? I am not naive enough to think that there is a perfect solution to the healthcare problem, or that there is plenty of money to go around for all needs. But we cannot go on like we are. As an article I just read pointed out, most people are just a "downsize" or a "layoff" away from losing their insurance--and then they would join the pool of "uninsureds"--and it sure would look different from that viewpoint!
It is not the responsibility of society to make sure that every single person gets health insurance....just like it's not the responsiblity of society to make sure that everyone gets a new car.
Health insurance is a consumer product...a COMMODITY...a product brought to the market by for-profit, private corporations.
Obama and the Democrats have confused their liberal lemmings that health insurance and health care are synonymous....WHICH THEY ARE NOT. They did this so that their fairly easily duped stable of entitlement minded voters would deliberately equate the two so that the Democratic Party leadership could enjoy the benefits of the bribe money from the insurance industry while looking magnanimous and "progressive". The truth is that they've done almost NOTHING to ensure that every American has "health care"...they've crafted it so that their target voting blocs get "health care".
The ACA isn't about "doing the right thing for America"...it's about wresting and solidifying political power so that the plundering of the Treasury can be continued. If you think otherwise, you are a fool.
J R,
at what age do we get to toss you onto an ice flow as a lost cause, medically? 75? 65? Maybe when.if you get any kind of cancer? It is easy to dehumanize death when you are talking about people you do not know. If someone you knew personally was going to die, yourself or a friend or a family member, unless they had health insurance but could not afford it you might be singing a different tune.
As for the whole mandate thing, the SC should strike it down but leave the rest intact where not unconstitutional. I agree that the Republican-originated Public Mandate is unconstitutional however we need to do something about the cost of healthcare. Healthcare should not be a business first, it should be about the patients first.
Here is a personal story for you to digest about how sleazy pharmaceutical companies are. My mother has been dealing with kidney failure for about half a year now and has been going into dialysis three times a week since her hospitalization. The original medical implant they used for this procedure is a main line connected to the heart that pulls the blood out of the body and though the machine to clean out the toxins and such that the kidneys are unable to process.
Normally after the first few months they switch to what is called a fistula, an in-body connection (usually in the arm) of a vein and an artery which allows for a safer outflow for the dialysis machine as with the main line tube there is a serious risk of an air embolism (air bubble that can block blood flow) or infect of the heart (pretty much guaranteed death sentence).
Well my mom went in to have a fistula created and a few days later she lost all feeling in her arm up to the elbow. They got her in as soon as they could (about a week later) and found that the fistula had cause her blood to clot off from the fistula to her elbow. After several more failed attempts they deduced that her veins are just too small to support a fistula.
That was all some background information for clarity. Today she went in to have what is known as a graft put in. I guess it is different from a fistula because they cut the veins and arteries to a certain length then insert a piece of medical tubing and attack the ends of the blood vessels to that to prevent the outflow site from collapsing.
The problem gets extremely complicated at this step. Because of this procedure she has to be on anticoagulants to prevent blood clots however they do not make them in a liquid or gel-cap form. The reason this is necessary is because my mother is allergic to, at least, synthetic stearates. Stearates are used in virtually all pill form medications as a stabilizing agent that evenly distributes the medication evenly throughout the pill. The doctors that she is seeing about dealing with this allergy think that this is the reason for her kidney failure in the first place, from prolonged and extensive exposure to stearates.
Anyway, that got a bit off track. She goes to a special pharmacy that actually formulates special medications for weird issues like what my Mother has. I think the drug she was prescribed was Phenindione, I know it started with a 'p'.
Anyway my Dad went to the place and asked them to create a version of the pill that she could take. He waited for a bit while they were checking if they had the right compounds to make it and they told him that since the drug had just been authorized for generics that the soonest they could get the company to release the powdered form required to make the pills was in six months.
So basically she is SOL and has to rely on Aspirin and hope she does not form a clot because the pharm. company will not release the powdered form for resale.
This is exactly what is wrong with our health system. It is privatized. I know most Conservatives get tingly legs when they hear that word but this is not one of those times it should happen. There are people half way around the world in Africa dying because American companies refuse to send adequate amounts of medication, for diseases we have all but eradicated, to Africa. We have people right here in the US, like my Mother, who are at risk of having life threatening medical issues because some board of directors says they have to make their money first.
The loss of even one life because of greed should not be tolerated; the most sacred rule of the health industry is the rule to provide healthcare to those that need it regardless of financial situation. It is at the very fabric of all medical practices; you never turn away patients for any reason. Making healthcare about money instead of that rule is going to destroy it.
The fact that we all die eventually is no excuse for covering our eyes and ears to the truth.
If Obamacare goes then so does Romneycare. After all, Romneycare is the blueprint for Obamacare. But Mittens won't admit that nor with the GOP.
Please go take a basic civics class that covers the Bill of Rights. Romney's plan is on a state level not a federal level. Big difference.
Karen they don't explain this in the Rachel MadCOW school of sound bites.
Not true at all. States can pass laws forcing someone to buy a product that they do not wish to buy. The fed cannot - and should not have that power.
Can I stop
buyingpaying into Social Security, then?Earn, you need to learn.
I'm all for that. If you're under 50, chances are you're never going to see a dime of the money you already paid in anyway. The baby boomers are sucking it all up as we speak.
Originally, the courts held that the Bill of Rights applies to states through the 14th amendment. However, the Supreme Court later held in the incorporation doctrine that the Bill of Rights directly applies to all states.
Romney care may very well have to go, since states can't take away rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. A state can't force people to buy insurance if it violates the Constitution. I haven't taken your basic civics class, although I have been an attorney for 11 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights
julie..
SS is and always has been defined as a TAX, that is something the Federal Gvmnt has the powers to do.
But if you do not want to pay into SS.. Do what I did, specific jobs do not give into SS. Teachers, Local City Gvmnts for example.. I do not pay any into SS, then again I will not be able to claim SS when I get older either.
There is a long history of the FedGov requiring purchases from private parties from soldiers buying their own gear and weapons to modern contracts where the contractor is required for insurance
Not true at all. States can pass laws forcing someone to buy a product that they do not wish to buy. The fed cannot - and should not have that power.
So if I'm in a Federal park I don't need to have auto insurance or indeed a drivers license?
Actually, George W.-4258589...
Soldiers do not have to buy their own gear or weapons. They are issued to them. Soldiers receive an annual clothing allowance to replace worn out uniforms and boots. Field gear is issued to them in what is called CTA-50, or more commonly TA50...they only have to purchase it if they lose it. Damaged field gear can be DX'd at the Central Issue Facility for free (direct exchange...DX). Further, weapons and specialty gear, such as Night Vision Devices, radios, etc., are issued at the company level.
I'm not sure which army you served in, but it wasn't the U.S. Army.
Patrick, I did not imply that the current military requires soldiers to buy their own kit. I certainly didn't when I was in the Army. In the same time frame that officers bought their commissions soldiers were required to buy their uniforms, weapons and kit. I.e., a historical precedent exists.
But then again, the ability to raise an army is enumerated in the constitution. So this example is at best a stretch. At worst, it's totally irrelevant. That's why it wasn't argued before the supreme court. When they tried that argument at the federal appeals level, they got destroyed. Wisely, they gave that argument a decent burial.
I thought this was a very good article. It clearly described the points of law that are being contested, and the significance of each.
Kudos.
"Wasted days and wasted nights"..... ohhh the sounds of Freddy Fender. Should be Obama's campaign theme song cuase these last four years have been a waste. BTW isn't Gitmo still open? and where exactly is that plan Obama promised for fixing the economy especially since he had control of the WH, Senate, AND House for a solid two years!
richard, yes Gitmo is still open. And only because Congress was too afraid of bringing the prisoner to the States to be tried or put in our jails. It is not Obama fault. How can he close it when there is nothing to do with the prisoners? Did you ever think of that?? But just keep spinning.
I know right! Everyone knows that after the 1929 crash we were back at full steam by 1933! World economies were a lot more interconnected then too!
If only Mccain had been elected...we'd all have diamonds on the souls of our shoes
The economy will never be "fixed" until we fix healthcare in this country. The prevailing model is unsustainable and rapidly floundering. The ACA was at least a start in the process.
Obama had a two full years of COMPLETE control of Congress. He choose not to do it because it was a BAD thing to do. He made yet another empty promise and you my dear bought it hook, line, and sinker.
Europe "fixed" healthcare for all---how is their economy working out for them?
Richard,
Are you contending that the economy is not in better shape today than it was Jan 2009?
2008 Q4 GDP? DJIA? Which direction was unemployment headed Jan 09?
Richard- put down the kooliaid. Are you so silly and misinformed that you believe these horse-droppings you just posted or do you just like to act like a top. Just curious...what's your deal-? Are you a liar or just stupid?
@Karen... As an European, I would suggest you read on the causes of what's going on in Europe. None of the problems we are having is caused by our belief that health care is not a privilege, but a human right. Instead, look for our governments and how they invested in U.S. mortgage-backed securities peddled by the likes of Morgan Stanley. When governments started investing in these at the height of the real estate market in the U.S., it seemed like a good deal. Now that this 'house of cards' (pun intended) has come crashing down, these are worth nothing and governments are having to deal with huge shortfalls. Add to that the fact that some nations have endemic problems with tax evasion and you have the perfect recipe for Greece, among others.
However, again, health care - which we Europeans believe to be a human right - is not the issue. I am from the country that consistently ranks as the second best health care system in the world. I never had to wait for an appointment - in fact, the doctor makes home visits. No one is forced to go without surgery due to age or disability. My father, who has bladder cancer, receives a stipend of over 2000 Euros a month for his condition. An elderly relative received in-home care 24 hours a day and even free transportation to the hospital for check-ups. I can go to the local pharmacy and do routine tests for blood or urine. I can go online and make appointments for MRIs, breast exams, ob/gyn, etc. All this is not free, like so many think. But it's paid for by the taxes we all pay.
Are you better off than you were four years ago?
Of course not.
Neither party (and no president) has "complete control" over congress unless the party has 60 or more votes in the Senate. That hasn't happened in over four decades. Please try to catch up, Richard ~ ~ ~ we'll wait for you.
Yeah. The last 4 years have been tough but the 8 before that were catastrophic. And Romney has surrounded himself with the people who gave us the 8 previous years before Obama. Hmmm... Who do I like better,: bush or Obama?
Gitmo is open and being updated and made more comfortable for the prisoners. More than a million$ more just put in after the $800,000.00 soccer field for the prisoners...that do not play soccer. Maybe if they took the computers away they could not contact their counterparts in Yemen. Oh yes, obama is taking care of Gitmo.
@Jim in Texas
It is you who are mistaken.
The 2009 Senate started off with 57 Democrats, 1 Independent (Bernie Sanders, VT) and 1 Independent Democrat (Joe Lieberman, CT), effectively making the margin 59-41. In April 2009, Arlen Specter (R-PA) knew he was going to lose his seat so he switched parties.
At that point Democrats had a 60-40 filibuster-proof majority in the Senate—which is how Obamacare came into being—the Republicans couldn’t stop it if they tried. (not to mention the fact that the final iteration of ACA came under the guise of "budget reconciliation" which cannot be filibustered and only requires a simple majority to pass. )
The Democrats did not lose the filibuster-proof majority until the death of Ted Kennedy in August of 2009 and his replacement with Scott Brown.
Karen,
'Europe "fixed" healthcare for all---how is their economy working out for them?'
By Europe you mean the EU? Since you brought it up, the EU is failing because they chose to move to a single currency without a single government. The UK has had universal healthcare for decades and they are doing just fine. Germany, the strongest economy in the EU, has universal health care. Your association is false and your argument is flawed.
Diogenes22... I call BS... By your own statements 2 of the senators were independents. And Joe Lieberman is no democrat. He supported McCain during the election. There was NEVER a filibuster proof lock on the Senate!
@Ninja
I'm calling double BS. Both Leiberman and Sanders CAUCUS with the Democrats and both voted for cloture to end debate (i.e. prevent the filibuster) that allowed the original ACA to pass.
You're playing with semantics.
I hope they over turn the ENTIRE mess. Premiums are already up over 15% and the vast majority of Doctors oppose it. There is nothing "affordable" about this scam. Where are all the Doctors going to come from when millions more are dumped on to the system? Doctor patient relationships will cease to exist ...you will become another number.
Dio,
just because they voted Democrat (yea) does not mean they are Democrats. Lieberman plays both sides of the field. Independents are just that, independents; they have no favorites and they look at both sides objectively most of the time.
All that matters is what their registered party label is; not how they vote. If we go by how they vote for their party the Democrats, in the Senate, have three or four "blue dogs" that almost consistently vote with Republicans. So by your categorization system they should really be considered Republicans.
Democrats had a filibuster proof senate for two months of the fabled 3-year time span.
Reconciliation was not used in the final passage of A.C.A. Reconciliation is only an option involving financial issues.
Scott? Brown won the senate seat vacated by the Late Ted Kennedy. The balance the senate went from 40 GOP 60 Democrats/Independents in the senate to 41R-59DI. He vowed to filibuster the passage with all the other GOP senators.
The Democrats in the Senate decided instead to return the bill to the house without making any changes. Then the democratically controlled house voted Obamacare into law. No reconciliation was needed.
Clinton tried to pass HC in 1992 with Dems controlling both the house and Senate. In the mid term elections of '94 the Dems lost both houses and Clinton shifted towards the center and ended up working with the other side. The economy took off. The voters didn't want universal HC and the big shot Dan Rostenkowsky who said "the American people will get HC wheather they like it or not" ended up in jail over the post office scandal. HC will wreck the economy and the People know it.
In case you haven't noticed, people are pretty stupid and reactionary.
if the Justice state that the Health Care law is unconstitutional due to the personal mandate. I could argue then that Social Security Tax is unconstitutional because it forces me to buy health insurance in my old age. So whatever happens tomorrow it will have a lot of fallouts.
Democrat FDR started Social Security.
And your point is, Richard?
I think Richard's point is on top of his head...
I'm perfectly fine getting the money back paid to SS that I likely won't even be able to use and investing it myself.
FDR started SS but it was Eisenhower who kick started it when no one paid attention to implementing it.
So it's potentially unconstitutional to have the individual mandate, but it's okay for the insured to pay for healthcare for the uninsured?
I'd like to declare it unconstitutional that I pay for my insurance AND care for the uninsured.
If the issue of illegal immigration was ever seriously addressed the number of people using the ER for healthcare declines dramatically. Old joke here in Calfornia is that if you want eliminate your waiting time for emergency room care, dress up as a border patrol agent.
True that! In CA it's called
MediMexi-Care..Actually, the last time I looked, it seemed that the uninsured help pay for the insured. If I get a medical service that is covered by my medical insurance, the provider receives only a fraction of the amount charged. This is because the insurance company has negotiated (aka strong armed) a discount for itself. If an uninsured person gets the same medical service, they pay full price. So in the long run, the uninsured subsidize the insured.
The uninsured pay? That's news to mbe isn't the reason they go to the ER is so they cut bait and run. What fantasy land do you live in.
If the individual mandate falls, this could get extremely ugly.
In case you haven't noticed - it's already ugly and ignorant.
I can't believe that lack of knowledge about the laws.
I have a very good understanding of the ACA law, actually. I have done a thorough study of it for a health policy program. If you have any questions about it, I could answer them for you. Did you want me to explain the projected ramifications that removal of the individual mandate in the context of upholding the rest of the law will have on the next 5 years of health care and economy in this country?
In a phrase (and I repeat) extremely ugly. But I'm sure you understand the provisions and context of the law very well, too, given how sure of yourself you seem to be.
sadmoronsvote...I, too, spent many, many days studying this Obamacare bill. The healthcare sections in it are not as scarey as all the other mandates that do not even apply to health care and also the pork.
I'm more than a bit anxious about tomorrow's ruling on healthcare. Should SCOTUS let all parts of the Act stand, conservative teeth gnashing could rise to the level of 7 or 8 on the Richter scale. The consequent damage could be far greater than the Act could ever impose. I have no clue as to how the court will rule ~ but don't lose sight of the fact that one of the most respected federal appellate judges with a conservative bent found the Act to be constitutional. No doubt that court's exhaustive research will be considered by the Nine Robed Wizards in reaching their decision.
What could bite some people unexpectedly is that 2 provisions have been very popular with the public: no more exclusions due to pre-existing conditions and keeping your kids on your policy until age 26. If the ACA goes down, so do these provisions. The GOP may get some blowback on this. It is tragic that some many Americans are so ignorant of the workings of their government.
Popularity is irrelevant as to whether or not a law violates the Constitution (thank goodness, or we wouldn't have civil rights.) Personally, I don't see how the Supremes can read the appellate arguments upholding the entire law and then find the opposite, without being purely political.
After reading Scalia's bizarre rant of a dissenting opinion in the Arizona case, I think it may be time for him to spend more time fishing with the grandkids.
Personally I think keeping kids who are not full time students on your medical insurance until they are 26 is absolutely ridiculous. I've never gone along with that.
As for the pre-existing conditions, yes I can agree with that. That is a good provision in certain circumstances, but I have questions about that as well.
People have been commenting for ages now about how people who are overweight should pay more insurance. People who smoke should pay more insurance.
I'm curious as to how many of those with pre-existing conditions (I'm talking adults here, not children) have those conditions due to the above mentioned lifestyles.
So based on the comments people have been making all along targeting the overweight and smokers, shouldn't those people being paying more insurance, which is what they've been whining about. That they have to pay higher prices for pre-existing conditions.
Impeach Scailia!
"Popularity is irrelevant as to whether or not a law violates the Constitution (thank goodness, or we wouldn't have civil rights.)"
Some people don't need a law to respect others... Maybe the author of the above statement is a closet racist who is 'good' only because the law tells them to be...
Janine, the problem with requiring people to pay more based on lifestyle habits has no legitimate end. For example there was an article on Yahoo today about how many women are becoming addicted to Adderall to keep up with balancing work and family and are having to undergo rehab. Abusing this drug can cause a heart attack. Did the meds cause the heart attack? What if there's a family predisposition to addiction or heart attacks already? A woman develops severe arthritis in her knees and needs a replacement. She was a skydiver for 15 years. Did that cause it, or was it the family history of RA that she was diagnosed with? What if she was a paratrooper in the military in that time? While not many, there are a few legitimate medical issues that can cause a person to be obese. Should they be penalized for that, when it's out of their control? Where do you draw the line, and more importantly, who makes that decision?
This is very true
Actually smokers do pay more for health insurance. Janie have you never seen the forms that ask those specific questions? Not only do my husband I pay a higher premium (for not only our health insurance but for our life, car and home insurance as well) we pay an additional 40.00 per person per month towards our health insurance because of company policy. Please do try and keep up.
Monkey mo/Why would we be penalizing for medical conditions? The Government would,rightly,require all citizens to pay for a national health care scheme. The young and probably healthy,would be considered pre-paying for when they ,as they were older and having health care needs. The older citizens would discontinue their present insurance payments and be covered immediately,just like in other countries that have this program.
@Diamond60 I don't know why you pay so much for your health insurance - but the main parts of the Affordable Health Care Act don't kick in until 2014. That is when you can go into the pool and have your costs lowered.
You must watch Fox Non-News - most people know this.
And just how ae they going to be lowered, by executive proclomation?
Wow. His cost has ALREADY gone down, doesn't he even know it? If he has a $5000 deductible, then he USED to have to pay for well visits and screenings. NOW HE DOES NOT. Not to mention, insurance companies will no longer be able to gouge self-payers and payers with high deductibles. Example: Off the street, a colonoscopy will cost you between $2500 and $4000. But hospitals/doctors only charge most insurance companies around $1500.
So the uninsured and self-insured have been PAYING FOR THE INSURED all along. Now, that's not right. And Obamacare goes a long way to fixing it.
Frankly, I'm tired of subsidizing all you employer-insured people out there. I've been paying for you forever. It's time to stop, you should be paying more but guess what? Under Obamacare, you won't be.
Anyway, the ONE part of the law, requireing insurance cos to pay for well visits and screenings, this ONE part, which meant that my family FINALLY got something back for all the $thousands we've paid into catastrophic policies, this ONE part of the law has ALREADY save my life.
Maybe I'm not worth much. But I'm sure there are thousands more like me who are.
So forget about arguing over whether healthcare is a privilege or a right. We would be economic do-do's to NOT cover everyone in the country. There is NO WAY the US could continue to compete on the world stage without it. We're already far behind in education, infant mortality, even on the brink of losing a technological edge. Having better health has been a pillar of our democracy, it's time to make it universal the same way we made education universal and for the same obvious reasons.
One little known fact about the ACA is the requirement for 85% of all monies must go to health care costs! This alone will have huge ramifications for premiums. Oh, and also about 30,000,000 more people paying into a system that they use or will use for the rest of their lives increases the amount of money coming in, this allows for the PRIVATE ins. companies to have the $$ to pay for no limit lifetime benefits, and no prior health conditions affecting the ability to have coverage. It also allows women to pay the same rates as men. ACA rocks! I pray it is upheld. We should have single payor though....if you want to save $$. Take the profit out of a fundamental RIGHT of Americans.
Unfortunately most people haven't read the law, they just listen to the right wingers call it socialisim, death panels, unconsitutional, even though the GOP has not given one idea on a healthcare plan of their own, they simply decided that anything this President passed they would set out to destroy. Funny according to the GOP we can invade entire countries, costing thousands of deaths and sucking our economy dry, but we cannot cover the people in this country, the only industrialized country on the planet that doesn't take care of it's citizens when it comes to healthcare, and if Ryan gets his way and the morons in this country vote Romney in the seniors will get a coupon for healthcare and maybe a can of tuna to go with it. Don't kid yourself, the righties on the court like Roberts and Thomas and Scalia have already decided, it will be 5 to 4 and prove even further that not only is the WH for sale now (citizens united) but the justices also.
I am, selfishly I admit, worried as to what will happen to seniors on Medicare, both as to costs and as to coverage. Will we revert to pre-ACA if it is totally shot down? Or will there be something in between?
Congress didn't read it either...
hey it needs reform Sifilutze, but the government running it ?? Do You really think that is going to fix it ? Will be like going to the DMV for health care, please form one single line and take a number when You get inside ? It's not that I'm against Obama that makes Me against the bill, and I can't stand Him. It's just the government can't get anything right, and if people can't agree with that they are crazy. All one has to do is look at every other program they run, they are robbed, pillaged, inefficient, and ultimately bankrupt. Is that how We want to fix Our Health care ?
Reporter of this article:
"The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, but not the power to force a non-buyer to become a buyer"
Gee, we don't need the supreme Court, you have made the decion for them.
So... if the government can't require citizens to purchase health insurance because it pushes them into buying into commerce, then how come there are plenty of laws around requiring us to purchase home/renters' insruance, car insurance. Oh right, I don't 'have to' have a home or a car?
And what about all those other things I pay for through government that I don't want to pay for? Like the Iraq war? Where so much of that money was channeled into the hands of corrupt private business like Haliburton? Isn't it also unconstitutional to make me pay for that if I don't want it? Or for that matter, the portions of the Pentagon budget that go into private military contractor hands to build planes that continue to have problems? Isn't the whole taxation thing unconstitutional because it makes us 'pay for things we may not want?'
Car ins is by state not federal. Home ins is not required by law, tho if you have a mortgage the lender usually requires it, neither is renters, tho this may differ depending on your state or local laws, but again not a federal requirement.
As for the rest yes they can. It is allowed by the constitution. Income tax was set up under the 16th amendment
You really should read the constitution before make these kinds of posts.
We're all forced to pay into social security. George Washington even had a law requiring every person to own a gun. But remember, even if this is the furthest Congress has ever extended the Commerce Clause (which is debatable), that doesn't make it per se unconstitutional.
This very closely mirrors the social security and medicare laws passed under the New Deal. They were similarly confusing, unpopular and unprecedented. But try and take away someone's social security and medicare now. Saying "it hasn't been done before" is not a legal argument. There is a very strong argument that your refusal to have insurance because you're young and healthy, directly affects my insurance premiums. Hence, affecting commerce.
Reading the Constitution is a complete waste of time. You can only learn by taking classes that analyze the actual case law. If you're just sitting with your little reading circle, highlighting the good parts, you might as well be watching Spongebob Squarepants, for all the use it would do.
it's because those requirements are state requirements, not federal
Wow, you just can't argue with stupid....stupid should hurt.
Aside from the above mentioned state, rather than federal, comments, your aren't required to drive a car or own a house - if you choose to do that, then you have to meet some requirements. Again, that big word - CHOICE.
Then the federal government should lift the requirement that hospitals have to treat the un-insured and those that can't pay upfront. by doing so they are MANDATING the rest of us pick up the costs. Not having health insurance is a CHOICE. Choose not to have insurance or cold hard cash, get no care. That should take care of the tea party! lol
I hope you right wingers know they have free health care in Iraq.
So move to Iraq.
Then move to Iraq. We do still have our freedom over here.
Good for them Chatty.....why don't you get on the next plane over there then?
I think Chatty's point was to show that even in countries where the U.S. has 'intervened' lately, there is a certain expectation that health care is not a privilege, but should be a right. Don't forget that the constitutions of many European countries which include the right to health care were written post-WWII with the aid of U.S. lawyers and legislators.
richard-5811375
Unless ,of course, you're a woman or latino. Your vagina/womb belongs to the reich wing and if you're latino, you need to do something about that skin color. It offends the teabaggers.
They dont have free health care in Iraq you moron. The cost is so low because their wages are so low. the entire economy is destroyed just like their country. When was the last time you were there?
Ever get the impression that right wingers don't have the foggiest clue as to what "Freedom" means?
Iraq has health care and we are paying for it. Why not pay for our own people to have health care.
It's cheaper to ship you to Iraq..., you know..., where you can get health care...
Before you go rushing over there however, you may want to look at the quality of that healthcare your so interested in.
Chatty
most of the popular parts of the law you mentioned earlier are already in play in the private sector, so a expensive federal bureaucratic health care act is not needed.
many insurance companies allow children up to 26 to stay on parents policy as the industry has determined that people up to 26 stay healthy and don't have problems.
For the very few that have problems,the cost is very minimal.
the medical profession has argued that the biggest cost of health care is from frivolous law suits filed by biased and liberal lawyers with no conscience. Just look at the excessive lawsuit advertisement always on television.
stricter enforcement against these greedy trial lawyers who only care about money and not sound, and just principles is one step to keeping health care costs down.
health care costs recently jumped 30% as direct result of Obama care so the repeal of this government intrusion should drop costs accordingly.
Obama sees nothing wrong with the mandate dictating that Catholic organizations pay for abortions which they morally oppose and is deeply against their religion while any other religion he doesn't dare offend. Pretty bad.
There is no mandate that dictates that Catholic organizations pay for abortions. Quit making stuff up.
Yikes! Let's back up. Catholic organizations aren't required to *pay* for abortions, they are required to provide abortion services because they accept federal money.
If you take money from the government, you have to follow the government's laws. Catholic hospitals are free to reject public funding if they feel so strongly about abortion.
actually, I think the law would simply require catholic organizations to allow insurance plans that cover abortions. Saying they have to provide "abortion services" sounds like they the catholic org. will perform the actual abortion.
An interesting little free market wrinkle is that, as I understand it, many catholic orgs. are insured by the catholic church, hence the exclusion of coverage for abortions. Our employment-tied insurance system prevents employees from shopping around for plans that offer the coverage theymight want.
actually, I think the law would simply require catholic organizations to allow insurance plans that cover abortions. Saying they have to provide "abortion services" sounds like they the catholic org. will perform the actual abortion.
An interesting little free market wrinkle is that, as I understand it, many catholic orgs. are insured by the catholic church, hence the exclusion of coverage for abortions. Our employment-tied insurance system prevents employees from shopping around for plans that offer the coverage theymight want.
Richard, isn't it amazing that no one who has been the subject of an abortion ever objects! Oh, they're murdered ... that's right. BTW Catholics and other Christian denominations denounce abortion; how killing the baby is paid for is not the issue.
Yeah, the debate was over allowing employees to get insurance coverage for procedures like abortion, not performing the actual procedure itself. I don't think the government can (and certainly should not be able) to force a medical provider to provide an ELECTIVE operation, of which an abortion would be one. This is unless the mother's life is in danger, in which case it should be done post haste given the ER nature to the whole situation. But short of a life saving procedure, forcing people to provide a service would also be forcing someone to take on a customer, which again doctors aren't REQUIRED to take on new patients at a given time....
The law wrt not turning away ER patients, and having to stabalize their condition also wouldn't apply with this anymore then it would with cosmetic surgery, laser eye surgery, or the like.... A person might desire a nose job, or might like to dispense with glasses, but it isn't necessary to their own health and ability to survive...
This said, this self same government has already gone to pass that line, of trying to force people to become customers with that individual mandate of theirs, it wouldn't surprise me if the same minds who thought that up, might not also dream of trying to force providers to take patients, hence giving them no say in the matter. As things stand now, entities from a doctor's office, to a lawyer, to a local store has the right to ask individuals to leave their premesis (and enforce their property rights), or refuse to do business with them. The reasons could range from someone who doesn't pay their bills tries to come back for future service, a defence attorney dropping a client because they believe the person is guilty and can't in good conscience defend them, to a public nuisance who harasses other customers, or makes other customers uncomfortable to remain in the same store with them, etc...
Of course, if people really don't want certain clientel, and they're forced to take them on (which would not be consistent with a free market), there are plenty of ways business owners could "encourage" them to "go elsewhere", such as deliberately providing bad customer service and making them feel unwelcome.... One deli around these parts also has a sign up that tells customers essentially "Final Price Dependent on Customer Attitude" /rofl Now, whereas an employee shoudln't do this (given it can cost the employer business, and they're not in a position to make that decision for a company", the manager or owner is within his power there...
Stan, actually whether it's payed for by those who oppose it on moral grounds, is the issue... It's going to occur yes, but those who don't approve don't want to open their wallets, and be left with the bill...
This too would come down to a matter of voting with one's wallet. Sure, they oppose abortion in general, but that is also the reason they don't want to provide the money, to help make it happen.... Would you, I, or anyone else tend to donate to charities who are involved in activities we don't agree with? Or do we do our homework, and select our charities more carefully. AKA, someone who makes their money off the oil industry might not chose to give to certain environmental groups who are lobbying Congress for cap and trade, or other programs to try to "reduce greenhouse gases", or a member of PETA might not donate to to a charity that is involved in medical research that uses animals. It'd be the same principle. Yes they might oppose whatever, but that is also reason they don't want to support it with their dollars....
And actually, in this Ryan does have a point. Because no one is requiring them to accept federal dollars... Now with donations down, I'm not sure how much in the way of service they could provide otherwise, but there might be ways out of that, if for instance they had no maternity ward at all (change their business model) and hence didn't take money for any related services, or if they encouraged those who feel as they do to donate more to them. Many of the for profit options however I think would remain closed to them, if they would retain their non-profit status however, unless they could maneage to de-couple the hospital from the church itself for IRS purposes (aka the hospital but not the church would then be taxed)...
@peachesncream
No one is making the catholic church pay for abortions seriously this is a rediculous arguement. The governement, the church or any man shouldnt contol what a women does with her body. Most republicans claim that they want small government but they want the government controling women reproductive choices. There was a senate roads bill up for a vote and a republican senator tried to put anti abortion legislation in a roads bill serious!!!! Women have the right to choose. The bill will get struct down because of that see losing jobs becuase of right wing republicans spreading there moral agend instead of creating job...
Again, the Catholic Church is not paying for abortions, the insurance company is. The Catholic Church is receiving federal funds. That obligates them to allow employees to sign up for insurance on abortion services.
If the Catholic Church doesn't want to allow their employees the FREEDOM to seek the services mandated by the federal funds, then don't accept federal funds.
If the original health care act was voted in and not screwed over by the right, this whole thing would be done. All medicare, medicade, va, and the rest of us would be covered and it would be paid for by a tax. You would not pay the insurance company, or have money deducted from your pay, and the increase in your over all pay would be yaxed and poof, every body would be covered. No prexisting, no limits. The catch would be if you are not a tax payer, or at least a legal resident of the US, your out of luck.
The plan got twisted and the GOP turned it to forced buying in the free market.
Why is the federal government offering money to religious hospitals? Isnt there a thing called the separation of church and state? The first amendment was specifically intended to prevent the government from using religion as a carrot to cajole or coerce the citizenry to fall in line. If the government allocates funds to religious institutions, there should be absolutely NO strings attatched. Hell, I'm an atheist and even I understand that...
easy fix. Let people opt out. Then if they need health care they pay up front or are refused service even if its life or death. Problem fixed. Live with your chocies.
The only problem is that, ethically (and often legally depending on the state), doctors and hospitals are required to care for sick people regardless of their ability to pay. So do we put the states on the hook? What?
It wont get funded without the individual mandate. You, I, all of us, have to fund it. The government doesn't have its own money. They spend "our" money.
So true. We pay for these people anyway when they wait until they have no choice but to go to the ER. Logically the way we should go with this, and I am SURE the Republicans will agree, is that if you cannot afford the care and have no insurance, you die. It is the perfect Republican business model. It takes into account cost and expense and ensures no businesses or tax payers are hurt by having to pay for someone else's foolhardiness for not having insurance.
When they can come up with a reasonable health care program that everyone has to be under, and I mean EVERYONE. From the Whitehouse on down, then I might consider it. But why would I want be covered under a program that the President won't put his own family under?
Actually, Obama,personally, has exempted 1200+unions and organizations and businesses to his signature health care bill for all.
Erieite, I know you're writing tongue in cheek, but sadly most Teapublicans won't. The problem with the "business model," of course, is that NOT providing health care COSTS MORE than providing it, regardless of whether we leave people to die or not. In fact, it COSTS MORE to leave people to die than to save them. Healthier populations are more competitive, period. A sound business model would account for that and vote in favor of Obamacare.
The only reasons not to are ignorance and stubborn racism feeding willful ignorance.
tbh, and as far as I'm concerned the individual mandate IS unconstitutional. The only way they could really mandate this, would be with a national health care program, which is payed for by taxes. This was their supposed "compromise", which for the reason of having the government force people to buy a product is MORE intrusive, not less, then a non-public insurance program... But these politicians, serving the interests of the lobbyists first, and everyone else second, perhaps willingly, overlook that... The reason this would be more intrusive is that hitherto the gov't can force people to pay taxes, but not force private business relationships among unwilling parties (aka stick their nose into what is deemed private)...
But, and on the other hand, what business would really turn down a proposal for a mass influx of new customers, that now have no choice but to fork over their cash? You don't see the electric companies complain about their status as legal monopolies either, when in exchange for the tax payer having payed to put up all those telephone polls, they were made a legal monopoly, gaurenteed to not have to contend with competition. There's a reason for this, it's in their self interest, even if such a monopoly isn't in the customer's interest. Yeah, you can bet the insurance lobby is in favor of this, because they walk away with increased profits from the whole thing.... Same with that utility company who doesn't experience price pressure from those who might try to drive prices down, and also got the tax payer foot the bill for building their own infastructure.... Even if legal monopolies, and this form of (and to borrow a term from Antony Sutton, corporate socialism) isn't consistent with the nature of a free market they wouldn't complain, because they profit from the setup....
Also, at issue here is an elective procedure (in most cases). The requirement to take critical care patients wouldn't cover an elective abortion, nor would it cover things like cosmetic surgery, or procedures for which one's health isn't in jeapordy. And if someone's health was in jeapordy, then even the Catholic church would have a hard time arguing against that, on grounds of being pro-life, given the mother's life would in that situation be in jeapordy...
Has anyone actually see what the fine amount is on your taxes its like about a 100.00 for the year really if you opt out of insurance its a hundred dollar fine on you taxes. If you cant afford the health care you don't pay the fine not a real big deal. It will help millions including the ones arguing against it.
The amount is not the issue... That it exists is, and that they'd impose a penalty for not buying a private product is. Even 1 cent would be too much, because the issue is with the principle and not the $ amount....
Of course, we're also in a country, where the mayor of New York feels that it's his perogative to control people's purchases of large size sodas... So it really shouldn't come of a surprise that the gov't would chose to butt into such matters, and yet still call it "private enterprise" :o And tbh, someone from Jersey doesn't want to hear "but it's a small fine" or what have you. We get so many of them as it is, as we all get bucked to death here.
Oh, and those tolls people agreed on the Garden State Parkway, until the road was payed off (which was payed off several decades ago), no big surprise they're still there, and the state chose to raise them again... The whole mess of it, is also why many have chosen to move out of Jersey also...
Opting out hasn't worked in the past, why do you think it will work in the future? Are you willing for babies and children to die outside of a hospital that could save them?
Heartless.
Timber!!!!!!!!!!!
There goes the Obama presidency.
LOL
So..., are you suggesting that the sucking sound that America has been hearing for the last 3+ years has actually been the Obama presidency?
No the morons are the ones who want to let 20 million law breakers/ILLEGALs stay here and collect this benefit for free. Just to win a couple more liberal/democrat voters.
We (the US) CAN NOT take care of the whole world, when will you people understand that. Let them kill each other all over the world if they want, to hell w/them.
Close all borders NOW.
See how good we have it.
And please don't tell me we are too global now. We have everything we need right here. Just get the damn government out of our way
How quaint.
eww...that thar hurts ma hed. Jus knoodling about dem feriners make my blood boil. We don need no one but urselves. Cum ta think bout it, there's a whole bunch of wrong colored folks that I figure should leave MY country.
Dont git me even start to think bout science! I know my guzinta's. 2 guzinta 4 2 times.....ow my hed justa poundin now..
Commonsensedude...Closing the borders, deporting illegals, recinding laws that are choking small businesses would result in less government expense and more income taxes and more employees who are under health insurance. We would also have more tax $ to take care of the uninsured if we made DEEP CUTS in the foreign aid we pay to 120+ countries.
A few months after I became a mom I learned one of the most valuable lessons in my life, and it applies to much more than my personal situation at the time. If you don't take care of yourself, you can't take care of anyone else. You may be able to fake it for a while, but it's simply not sustainable. Same is true for our country. Until we can take care of ourselves - which clearly we cannot do at this time, we can not sustainably continue to take care of anyone else, whether that be illegal aliens or other countries.
Commensense....What did Romney do with his illegals?
ROMNEY CAUGHT with HIRING ILLEGALS!
When Romney was caught hiring Illegal aliens to work on his landscaping, did he just fire them or did he call ICE and have them deported?....We all know the answer to that one don't we! He did nothing! He kept hiring the same firm and did it all over again.......Good ol turn em loose Romney. Repubs say illegals are criminals, so Romney is a criminal for hiring them. Christ he is a multimillionaire and he couldn't hire Americans to do the jobs. Had to get a few more pennies from American workers......GREED GREED GREED at your expense
starsailing - like a good lib you only told part of the story. Governor Romeny hired a landscapting service who hired illegals. So I guess when you hire a landscaping service you better make sure the owner of the company isn't hiring illegals. I'm sure not of you libs every hired a landscaping service or contractor and had a minorities working at your hourse. I'm sure you made sure they were all Americans. Hypocrite.
Remember Nancy Kerrigan crying, "WHY?!?" when she was attacked before the Olympics. That's what I'm hearing - why is the Supreme Court voting on ANYTHING concerned with forcing US citizens to sign up for something, unless they're ruling that YOU CAN'T FORCE YOUR WILL ON US. Even God gives men free will - not Obama.
I don't have any kids... why should my property taxes pay for schools? I don't read books in print anymore... why should my taxes pay for libraries? I don't drive anywhere... why should my taxes pay for roads? I don't burn stuff... why should my taxes pay for firefighters? I don't commit crimes... why should my taxes pay for a police force?
You see... we all pay for things we don't use or need. That's what happens when we live in a community. There is something beyond our own selves - that's called the burden of society. We don't live in our own little world - therefore, we must accept that we must do things to benefit the common good. The common good of 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' should include the ability to collectively care for one another (I think some Jesus guy once spoke about what you do for the least of your brothers, you do in His name) and that includes ensuring that we are all healthy and productive.
Because, you may at some time need police of fire protection or to drive on a road. I think schools and libraries fall in the category of betterment of knowledge. Health care has nothing to do with the common good - it is a business and is a crooked as any out there. Jesus also said that HE would take sickness from us (and demonstrated that ) and also said that we have that power inside ourselves. He didn't once say to turn to the government for healing.
Get the impression that right wingers are sociopaths who don't understand what a society is all about?
Health care has nothing to do with the common good -
Healthcare has a lot to do with the common good because it keeps Americans healthy. If more people had health insurance, they would go to the doctor more. It can stop the spread of STDs, colds, etc. Under the ACA is the preventative care. It can help Americans prevent or catch a health issue before it becomes serious.
Regardless of the decision..., you can still buy health insurance..., even without a mandate.
first off this is a tax on you being alive not buying something. Secondly even if it somehow passes I dont think people will go along with it.
Wow, it'sme,too, you are very good at repeating what you have been told to repeat. Or, are you that ignorant? I'll let you figure out the glaring clues in your post.
Itsme..........turn to jesus..huh?....JESUS H. CHRIST....your plan is faith healing huh?...........When I was a kid mom bought an Oral Roberts faith healer record to listen to. The guy who claimed to heal everyone on TV show. We could not play the record...it came without a hole in it. Everytime we put a hole in it to play on the record player...the hole healed up!
What one's tax dollars goes to pay is somewhat irrelavent here, because that's not buying a private product from a private company... No, the gov't should not have the power to tell people they have to buy a product from, in this case the health insurannce company... If they want to do it through use of public taxes (aka a public healthcare program), then this argument could hold; but otherwise, the taxing authority is irrelavent. It should not even enter into it, when something other then a program funded by tax dollars is being proposed or suggested.
The basis of a free market, is the principle of consumer sovergnty, and in this, if someone doesn't need something, no they shouln't necessarily buy it, on arguments that it "might make things cheaper for others", or and more to the point, allow the insurance companies make bigger profits. If each party isn't able to come to the table of their own accord, and negotiate a deal they can both live with Without consumer sovergty, there is no free market anymore, and calling it as such would then become a sham. Without the customer having the ability to make their own decision, and negotiate things in their own favor, this really does begin to look like something else....
Now, if they want to try to argue this on the argument of "but we all have to pay taxes", then drop the individual mandate, and talk about a public health insurance program payed for by taxes. Until they do that, they're not even comparable.... I hate to have to say this, but allowing the government to force people to engage in economic activity they might chose not to engage in otherwise IS more invasive and is more troublesome then the public option ever would have been. Not only for what it is, but for the precident it would help establish....
"“If ‘Obamacare’ is not deemed constitutional, then the first three and a half years of this president's term will have been wasted on something that has not helped the American people,” Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney said Tuesday as he campaigned in Virginia."
This quote left off the part where Mitt said he would get ride of it DAy one.
Well isn't hat wonderful!? Now we can look forward to every time the party in Washington chances that they will undo everything the previous administration does! He should be moving forward any day now. NOT!
I also find it odd Mitt uses it to say the President will have done nothing and then goes on to say he will get ride of it!
So has Mitt told anyone how he plans on creating all these jobs he claims he will produce? will he make those giant corps that are hoarding their record profits spend them on hiring or are they just waiting for their team to be back in power so they can run crazy again?
According to the latest polls 22% of those polled want the Supreme court to uphold all of Obamacare.
My question is, how many of that 22% actually pay for their own health care?
Mitt won't propose anything until the voters make him. Predictably, he wants to make Obama's entire Presidency about health care and disregard everything else. Forget that whole bin Laden thing, for example.
@Janine, my guess would be every single one of those 22% want the Supreme Court to uphold the law. You see, the poor already get their health care for free, and the ones who don't have health insurance and who can afford it are now going to be forced to purchase it.
Presumeably the Supreme Court is supposed to judged based on the Law. Polls and feelings and politics shouldn't be a basis for decision. I'm looking forward to how much garbage and faulty logic each of the justices opinion contains regardless of which way it goes. The deification of the SC is ending.
There's 2 things wrt this:
- Mitt Romney was govenor in MA when something similar to this passed on a state level there. He can say what he will, but when words given in a political campaign are contrary to a candidate's own past actions, in this case as govenor, I find it hard to believe the words given today. This especially holds when the person in question has been known to flip flop, and change his positions continually. So, is Romney pro-abortion or pro-life today? And for how many days will he remain as such until he changes his position again?
Evolution of thought is one thing, but this really appears to be less of that, and more akin to being insincere in his own statements. To put it bluntly, it can come to sound like a lie...
- On the other hand, given the fact that one of the first things Obama did when he came to office, was issue executive orders over-turning many of Bush's policies, much can not be said about over-turning things done by the prior administration. As I remember, Obama didn't just over-turn 1 or 2 executive orders either....
When it's all said and done, fair is fair.... If it's fair for one party, it shouldn't become unfair for the other, or vice versa....
My wife and I are looking at moving to British Columbia if the Health legislation is struck down. I am sick and tired of of paying for all the freebies including free health care.
My mom and dad moved when they were in their 80's and got better health care and at far less cost then here in the States. They save over $1200 a month on their prescriptions alone.
My sister had breast cancer two years ago and she likewise said that she got the best care one could want. Also I have heard many that say what when they hear the horror told here in the states they shake their heads and think we as a whole are being feed a bunch of BS.
Ya & gas is $10/gallon
BYE...
Well, bunch of BS though it may be - I've read dozens of "horror stories" from people in Britain and Canada about the miserable quality of treatment. If you search, you can find comparisons that show the mortality rate from different diseases, and the US has the lowest in all the categories I looked at. Also, it is said from actual citizens, that public health care won't pay for certain treatments that US healthcare now covers, which may have something to do with the lower mortality rates here.
Take your long johns with you - it's cold up there.
Moviong right along ED
it'sme,too -- exactly. my friend had to wait 18 months to get to a back specialist in Canada, that may be an isolated case, however she did everything she could to get in sooner and was unable to speed up the process.
I just wish they made the individual mandate a public choice, then I would have no problem with it.
Why is malpractice insurance so expensive in the US. Must be because the doctors and hospitals are so good. Seems like a lot of urban legends regarding foreign medicine. I got far better care in Germany than I ever got here at a small fraction of the US cost.
Have fun in BC! Please send a post card!
If health care in foreign countries is soooooooooooo good, then why do foreigners keep coming to the U.S. to get good healthcare that they say is unavailable in their country?
What foreigners are coming to the U.S. for healthcare? Saudi princesses, dictators of third world countries, multimillionaires from wherever. NO average Joes from any foreign country are coming to the U.S. for health care. They get there health care inIf you are a foreigner, you'd better have some deep pockets if you want health care in the U.S. Canadians that travel to the U.S. buy short term health care policies, the responsible ones, anyway. Quite passing your right wing bs. It won't fly here.
Don't let the door hit you on the ass....
i just want to know why everyone always blames obama for the country's mess and defecit... bush burned the american people for eight years and left obama with the mess and left the people jobless, homeless, etc