LoL! A judge who actually has read the U.S. Constitution would have excused himself from this case because of the various conflictS of interest.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/30/henry-hudson-judge-in-hea_n_665240.html

This is no surprise to anyone who was following the story.

We needed this judge in Arizona last week!

It's amazing how judges are labeled as "activists" until they decide in your favor, isn't it reggie7777?

I believe that the healthcare reform legislation will be found to be unconstitutional. You cannot mandate that a citizen purchase health insurance. I don't care which side of the political spectrum you're on this is Un-American. If this legislation stands what is to stop the Federal Government from mandating anything it wants? Mandate that you can only have so many grams of fat in your diet. Mandate that you can only drive a certain sized car. Etc...

I wish we could do away with the commerce clause in the constitution or at least modify it so it couldn't be used as a "I can do anything I want" card by the government. They use it to justify everything.

I pose the age old question, if this is the land of the free, how can we be 'forced' to do so much?

Finally a judge that is ready to place limits on the INTENT of the commerce clause of the constitution....This should help to rein in our out of control administration and congress. AMEN

The judge has to allow anything that raises constitutional issues and isn't too flawed to go forward. He's just doing his job and not letting it go forward would have just raised appeals and would have ended up going forward anyway.

Most lawsuits challenging the commerce authorities of the Feds have failed and this one will most likely also fail. It may take appeals all the way to the SCOTUS, but the Federal government has the responsibility to look out for the well being of its citizens and these state challenges are just political posturing to get people riled up and will end up being denied in the long run.

You can't just take the 10th amendment and various passages out of the constitution by themselves without also considering them along with the articles on federal power, congress's rights to enact laws, and legal precedents over the history of of our legal system. The clock didn't stop in 1787, and even if it did, these challenges would probably still fail.

I agree FLYP. I wonder if America has the grounds to enact a class action law suit?

ron avery; you are on the right track; had a public option been included in the bill, it may have passed a constitutional challenge; however forcing a citizen to do business with a private company or person, on penalty of fine or forfeiture, is beyond anything in the Constitution!

ron avery,

unless that single payer or gov't option plan is the same as what all elected representatives get, then it is unconstitutional. period.

there is absolutely no reason that elected officials get preferential insurance for a rate below what most shell out for their own insurance.

available for one, available for all. or not at all.

A judge who has read the Constitution but not the Health Care Bill.

pose the age old question, if this is the land of the free, how can we be 'forced' to do so much?

Hate to break the news to you but this country is no longer the Land of the Free nor The Home of the Brave! Just a bunch of Wimps that let the Socialists take over the country and trash the constitution!

Just maybe one day everyone will get off their cell phones long enough to realize that they have lost control of their government!

So what, I cannot be forced to buy Auto Insurance?

"That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind"

Michael K. Sure you can....but you cannot be forced to buy a car.

Get with the program Michael. That declaration has been deemed ineffective as it is comparing apples to oranges. You have to get insurance for your car because you bought a car and operate it on public roads. The law for health insurance states that because you breath and exist... you will get health insurance or pay a penalty (exception to Native Americans, and people with religions that are against healthcare).

railsback

This is no surprise to anyone who was following the story.

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!

Ah yes, the good ole UNBIASED Huff-N-Puff Post. Now there's a reliable source of journalism. Railsback you may as well just wrap yourself in the New York Times and run around the house screaming if you think any of us will ever believe a word of Aryanna Huffington's Liberal Progressive propaganda.

I'm sure last week when Liberal judge Susan Bolton, who was appointed by Clinton, struck down key provisions of SB1070 you were going gaga. But NOW when a conservative judge dismisses the corruption our government is trying to force on us under the guise of this Health Care Redistribution hoax, he should just allow it or excuse himself. I wonder did the Huff-N-Puff post dig as deep into judge Boltons past as they did here? I doubt it. Remember the Associated Press had 11 journalists review Palin's "Going Rogue" for accuracy yet did NO review of "Audacity of Hope", "My Father's Dream" or AlGores "An Inconvenient Truth". Seems almost conspiratorial doesn't it?

None of us argue we need health care "reform", but we do argue that our government takes over 1/6th of our economy and doesn't read the 2,409 pages they slapped together behind closed doors using bribery, collusion, extortion and corruption to pass it against the majority of American citizens wishes. This is the corruption and lies that govern our current White House. Mandating ANYTHING against We The People is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. And now the administration is hiding the mandate as a TAX on all of us. If this Health Care Redistribution was so good why do we keep learning more and more things that are in it that no one wants or keeps increasing the original cost?

STOP reading the Huff-N-Puff Post, and READ THE BILL. I know it's 2,408 pages longer than most Liberal Progressives want to bother reading but it will let you understand the true purpose of this hoax.

That is a State requirement to drive a vehicle. It is not a Mandated requirment by the Federal Government because you are alive. I know the Liberal nutcases like to point to this as a reason it can be done, but it is different and patently false to use it.

Railsback

Are you for real?! Did you read what was written at the link you posted? By that account if a judge is invested in Wal-Mart and a lawyer shops there then there is a conflict of interest right? The judge has been invested with the company for 13 years. This was long before he was a judge and long before the healthcare debate. If you would read more than the headline and apply some thought you might learn rthe Huffington Post is garbage that adds nothing to the debate but I guess that’s the liberal way don’t think just speak.

All I wanted out of this was the public option and the law that bars companies from denying for a preexisting condition. But, noooooooo, instead we get mandated bills and penalties. Congress is corrupt, every last one of them.

You only have to buy car insurance if you want to drive. If you dont want to pay for car insurance, then dont drive and take public transportation. problem solved

Good for this judge and Virginia - now if we can get the rest of the states to follow with their own lawsuit and get similar results...

Oh and for the assumption that because we will all be forced to buy health insurance and ergo rates will go down because of all the new customers - just got my new quote and it went up 20%. The reform I want is for insurance companies to justify the rate hike - why so much in one year?

Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. That clause has been used so often and so widely since the New Deal to justify expansions of federal power over any economic activity that courts would have to backtrack to the early 1930s to find a doctrine that would interfere with the health care bill.

This judge does have conflict of interest issues and should have recused himself. It's also news in Richmond's local newspaper The Richmonder.

This lawsuit will get nowhere.

If the heathcare bill is so great. Why don't every member of congress go on it?

This lawsuit will get nowhere.

agreed, but for different reasons.

I find that most of the people railing against the bill and calling it unconstitutional are Republicans. I also find that the most pro-corporate Surpreme Court in decades (e.g., the Roberts court) was constructed by Republicans.

Do you really think the Roberts court is going to deny private health insurance corporations a free lunch at the taxpayers expense?!? Hell no, that's laughable.

There is no way the Roberts court strikes this law down as Unconstitutional if for no other reason than it's pro-corporate.

Have fun reaping what you've sown Republicans...

Federal prosecutors have argued that the relevant commercial activity is the purchase of health care services, not insurance.

What a BS argument by Holder. They are requiring you to buy insurance not healthcare. Not only that but in my case they are requiring me to buy upgraded insurance that includes prepaid doctor visits that I won't use. If I just had to pay for doctor visits like I do now I wouldn't be as pissed off about this BS law. This is one lie Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the rest of the dems won't get away with.

If the judges do their jobs and make their decision based on the constitutional laws, this health bill gets tossed out.

I believe dems and reps both want some form of heath care. Dems seem willing to except any swill there sycophants on the hill want to jam down their throats like baby chicks in the nest taking the barf their mothers feed them. Reps want something that will get the job done and be fiscally and constitutionally responsible.

The GOP fails to mention that when Bush pushed through the horribly designed Medicare Part D bill, it included a mandate that the instant you become eligible for Medicare, that you must sign up of you will be fined 1% of the premium a month for each month that you do not sign up. The fine is to be deducted from your Social Security just as the Part D payment is and there is no limit to the amount. It can exceed your Social Security payment in which case, the IRS is instructed to enforce the fine by confiscation of assets.

So, I guess that if Bush did it it is okay and if Obama does the same thing, it is bad.

Why not let people opt out --- permanently. If you opt out, you opt out of Medicare and Medicaid permanently. No freeloading and scamming the system by opting out until you are sick.

Yo Area 52! - SOCIALISM!!!!!!!!!! There's That word Again!!! This piece of legislation IS NOT an act of SOCIALISM!!!! EEEeekkkkk!!!! Ohhh MY God!! the commies are takin' over America!! People, Consider that other countries that DO have An EXCELLENT HEALTHCARE SYSTEM for THEIR Citizens like: France,Canada,England,Italy,Israel - Which American Taxpayers Pay For - Norway,Holland,Spain,Portugal,Thailand,"Communist"China,Germany and the list goes on and on, build those systems into their countries income tax systems. The above listed country's HealthCare Systems are For Real with excellent coverage that doesn't bankrupt the citizen. They just go into the clinic or hospital and EVERYTHING is covered. If I am NOT mistaken those countries are Capitalist!!! with HUMANE controls and laws. What we have HERE is "makin' a deal with the devil" Sure, you "buy" the initial policy, which is virtually worthless and then you can get "Optional" items added. "Buy" the time all's done and signed for, an American family of 5 is right back where they started - $900 to $1500 p/month AND then there are the INEVITABLE "policy cost increases" permitted by the states and federal insurance commissions which are the hand maidens for the big insurance companies anyway. Just look at the SHAMEFUL cost increases the california "health insurance" companies are pushing through

Face it Brother and Sister Americans, America IS The Seat of capitalism worldwide to attract investors and WE Americans are paying the for the rich and corporate class FREE RIDE. Just Look at the MESS America is in while the rich and corporate class are making money they never dreamed of!!! Socialism???? Please, if Anything that is the LAST word to describe America. AND our "National Healthcare system" is a corporate CASH COW, the laughing stock of the WORLD and An AMERICAN Disgrace.

mike-464493

" the Federal government has the responsibility to look out for the well being of its citizens and these state challenges are just political posturing to get people riled up and will end up being denied in the long run."

No, that is not the responsibility of the Federal Government. They are empowered by the Articles of Enumeration, they are not granted powers to "look out for the well being" outside of those listed powers.

Do yourself a favor and read Federalist Paper 41. Madison destroys your argument.

"So what, I cannot be forced to buy Auto Insurance?"

You only have to purchase auto insurance as a condition of driving your auto upon public roads, not as a condition of simply being in the country.

Those of you who are celebrating, are celebrating too early. The Judge did NOT agree with Cuccinelli that the law was unconstitutional- he has not ruled on the merits- he only agreed not to provide the summary dismissal requested by the Federal government. He has a hearing scheduled in October to hear arguments. He may yet rule against Cuccinelli.

RM -and can YOU wrap your little pea brain around the fact that many people can not AFFORD health insurance for their families if it is not employer-provided? The Democrats didn't worry about THAT little issue at all when they were shoving through this legislation that smells like cat piss. The so-called subsidies won't be available to the vast majority of middle income families in this country - and there was absolutely NO consideration whatsoever for all the people who live in high cost states.

And do you know WHY? Because they didn't CARE. All THEY cared about was all the fine money they are counting on rolling in when people have to pay for the crime of not being able to afford insurance - but will be forced to subsidize OTHER people - and I'm guessing you're one of the people counting on this theft, oops, I mean redistribution of other people's money.

Not only that, but, in NJ at least, and many others like MA, one of the biggest reasons WHY health insurance is so expensive is because of UNFUNDED mandates that Democrats kept shoving onto the backs of insurance companies.

So the Democrats are LARGELY responsible for making health care insurance so expensive in the FIRST place and then they told everybody that they were going to FIX things by forcing everybody to BUY that health care insurance they were so careful to make unaffordable for so many - and THEN they have the BIG F'ING BALLS to FINE people for the crime of being unable to afford their bloated BS.

"So what, I cannot be forced to buy Auto Insurance?"

Auto Insurance is mandated so if you crash into someone else, that person is "made whole". If you get sick, it affects nobody else.

Phantombeast, apparently, you missed the articles as recent as last week , that England is cutting back on benefits because THEY CANNOT AFFORD IT. They don't pay for the drugs to treat breast cancer. They have a "council" to determine what service you can receive and some of those decisions depend on age.

All these people using car insurance as a parallel are just plain nuts. You aren't mandated to buy auto insurance for your own personal use, you buy it to protect the people you might injure, or the lean holder. It is liability insurance that you are required to carry, and only if you own a car. Health Insurance is not liability insurance, it is a derivative product, and the cost of that product is derived from the cost of actual healthcare. It cannot be regulated by the federal government, rather the healthcare industry as a whole. Anyone that thinks our federal government has even the slightest control over healthcare costs, needs to have a serious reality check. You simply can't force people to purchase a derivative product, whose value will fluctuate based on market conditions, and then penalize them for not buying the product. If you actually try and read the bill, you find very little healthcare reform, if any, in it. Reform needed to be about cost reduction in the medical field, which stems from litigation, technology, bad debt, and bureacracy. The first thing the bill does is creates a larger bureaucracy, taxes technology, increases potential litigation, and covers bad debt with our own money. It will never work, and we should not be subjected to someone elses guess, or wishful thinking that it will work. They don't know if it will work. It is entirely speculative. Most of the politicians haven't even read the thing most likely, and of the ones that did, not even they understand the consequences. All we hear is the bullet points.

Robert, that is true. And it is ALSO true that you have a choice as to whether or not you will own a car in the first place.

There is NO choice with this healthcare coverage requirement and it's simply outrageous that anything thinks the gov't should be able to force people to buy this.

"It is meritorious and constitutionally correct. The requirement that all Americans must purchase health insurance or face a penalty is not permitted under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution,"

That's the ultimate test, isn't it?

Never in history has the government been authorized to REQUIRE its citizens to buy something from a private company. Where would it end - requiring people to buy a GM car?

I suspect the government will lose on this issue, but then their fallback will be to call it a tax, in spite of Obama's pledge of "no tax increase for anyone making under $200,000 per year."

All I can say is bravo!!! That bill was passed not because it was going to help but it was for LEGACY. When the speaker of the house says pass it and than we will find out what it says TELLS ALL!!!! All of us wanted health care reform but all we got was smoke and Mirrors. So far what I have heard that has come from that bill was reorganization of college loans and new hires for the IRS. When are you on the far left and far right show some commonsense I have not seen any for a long time. Wake up. Btw I have also said in previous post my company works with a variety of both medicine, government and private sector. My medicine customers have said over and over that they have never turned anyone away from Medical attention. They have even said they have had people who they knew were illegal immigrants and they still took care of them. Like everything else that is why health care has gone out the roof. Like everything else It has been the Middle Class to get stuck with the bill.

I love the argument pull our resources together! Yes let us all pull everything together, those who have more because they work harder and made better choices and those who have less, some because of bad luck, but others because of laziness and poor decisions. This sounds a lot like socialism to me. And as I see it, I work hard for my money so I should decide what I do with it, not the government. I worked my way through college and graduate school to have a good career. Just because other people did not do this and either took the easier road or made poor decisions does not mean I should have to take care of them. Yes that may be mean and sad, but our world is not one of a utopia and never will be.

Also social security and Medicare went bankrupt, what makes you think this won't too?

The democrats and their efforts to control the lives and wallets of American citizens is about to be stopped cold. Goodbye to the democrat controlled Congress. We've seen what you're about, and we can live without you. No to Obamacare!

Let's stop the semantics games and the political name-calling insults. The real issue is this: what makes our country strong is its diversity of beliefs and its ability for its citizens to choose. It is wrong to remove that ability. This law will fail because it removes one of our most basic rights: the ability to choose for ourselves what we need or want or even don't want.

Totally agree with you "right for a reason". I made some bad decisions in my life, and had some bad luck on top of it, but I get by just fine on my own. I would like to keep it that way personally, and I certainly don't have money to give to anyone else. No, life is not a utopia, it's what you make of it. Hence the word "YOU". I'm all for charity when it's warranted, and at my discretion, but beyond that, good luck to all.

RM-881320

To all you Dumb##$$s that think mandatory health insurance is a bad idea

Stopped reading right there and voted inflammatory. Learn some social skills if you want to debate.

PhantomBeast

Yo Area 52! - SOCIALISM!!!!!!!!!! There's That word Again!!! This piece of legislation IS NOT an act of SOCIALISM!!!!

Your fellow Democrats on newsvine disagree with you. They state that we already have socialism in the form of Social Security, etc and use that to argue how socialism isn't a dirty word.

Chris-749391

The GOP fails to mention that when Bush pushed through the horribly designed Medicare Part D bill, it included a mandate that the instant you become eligible for Medicare

The Democrats in office fail to mention this too. Could it be because they're doing the same thing? One arsonist doesn't run to the police to turn in someone setting fire to the building next door. You obviously get your news from liberal only outlets though if you didn't know the stance the conservatives have against that bill too.

fiscalconservative -

RM -and can YOU wrap your little pea brain around the fact that many people can not AFFORD health insurance for their families if it is not employer-provided? The Democrats didn't worry about THAT little issue at all when they were shoving through this legislation that smells like cat piss. The so-called subsidies won't be available to the vast majority of middle income families in this country - and there was absolutely NO consideration whatsoever for all the people who live in high cost states.

The bill provides exclusions for anyone that would suffer financial hardship.

Exemptions will be granted for financial hardship, those for whom the lowest-cost option exceeds 8 percent of an individual's income and those with incomes below the tax filing threshold (in 2009, the threshold for taxpayers under age 65 was $9,350 for singles and $18,700 for couples).

Keekalina..

"You only have to buy car insurance if you want to drive. If you dont want to pay for car insurance, then dont drive and take public transportation. problem solved"

You are alive and breathing, but at some point in your life you WILL get ill (may you have a long and healthy life) and you may require the services of a doctor, paramedics, hospital etc.. So if you don't want to pay for this out of your own pocket, then you must buy insurance, to protect you and others.

I don't get the argument of the mandate. Sooner or later any one of us are going to require health services. Are you guys willing to pay out of your own pocket? I don't think so...

I want to maintain the status quo, where I can get treated in a hospital and the taxpayer will have to pay because I'm poor. Why should I have to buy insurance when I'll get the treatment for free and the hospital won't turn me away?

So yeah, strike down the mandate, you guys are on the hook anyway. That's the kind of freedom I'm talking about.

You lose some and you some lose some. Pelosicare lost today, but the American people (as well as the Illegals since it will only further inflame opinions against them) lost last week.

A link which outlines possible confict of interest by the judge who ruled on this gets collapsed by the "communtity". Why? It's not important or you just don't want people to know about it?

The vast majority of the people who are complaining about being "forced" to buy insurance already have insurance. They just don't want you to have any.

Come on fpn1943. What don't you understand about a mandate? You made the point that we most likely will fall ill at one point in our lives so we should buy health insurance. So we can't get out of this one can we? The government is forcing us to buy something and fining us if we don't whether we use health care or not. Quite a bit different from car insurance.

Phantom,

To start with YOU ARE MISTAKEN!! France, Canada, Italy, England, Norway, Spain, and All those other Countries you listed ARE either Socialist or Communist. Socialism is an economic system, not a form of Government! If you weren’t such an ignorant, liberal, lemming, loon, you would know that. Socialism is an economic system where the Government controls, owns, and directs a major part of, if not all, of the economy. In Communism, the government owns/controls everything. Fascism, (i.e. Nazi’s) Private ownership of some business, but the government controls all business and takes all profits. Socialist countries can be dictatorships, representative republics, Constitutional Monarchies, Communist dictatorships (China, North Korea), Fundamentalist Theocracy (Iran), or any of several other forms of Government.

FYI, a lot of people in those countries you listed are NOT happy with their healthcare systems. Or haven’t you been reading your news anywhere but Huffington Post, NYT, WP, CNBC, Pravda, etc.? That is why anyone that has enough money in those countries, even Canada, travels to US for medical care for anything beyond a “cold”. Have you seen the TAX rates in your “Model” countries?? Income Taxes of 50%, 60% or 75% are not Uncommon. That’s right, 50 to 75 cents of every dollar you earn goes to income Taxes back to government to pay for all those “social programs”, then add on top of that VAT (Value Added Taxes) on everything you buy of 10% to 25%. Starting to get the picture?? I have been to a large number of the countries you listed and talked to people there. They don’t have the FIRST Amendment like we do, so they don’t like to openly criticize their governments, (good way to become a non-person), but get to know them and you learn things. I have seen Healthcare in those countries first hand, and I will tell you I will take the most rural facility in the US over the best of them any day of the week. Doctors drunk doing operations. 100 patient open wards with one nurse and a doctor might come by once a week. I would bet you’ve never traveled outside the state you were born in.

You complain about the “cost increases” the evil insurance companies in your state of California are “pushing through”. It would never occur to you to ask why, because to you they are just “evil, greedy, capitalistic, corporations”. Instead of the REAL reason they have to raise rates! To make up for the losses they will experience by being FORCED by the government to sell insurance to EVERYONE at rates set by the Government, even if those rates don’t cover the amount they have to pay out in claims for those formerly “uninsurable” people. So to “BREAK EVEN”, (i.e. not lose money and thus go bankrupt), those “evil, greedy” insurance companies have to raise the rates everyone else pays to cover that difference.

Hooray..... there is one vote for America and the Founder's.

The health care law aims to ensure coverage for all, requiring most U.S. residents to carry health insurance starting in 2014.

Notice they said MOST!

I have a feeling the ones who WON'T have to carry insurance are the ones who DON'T have to carry ID either!

Sometimes it just doesn't pay to be a citizen!

AND, it looks like the Virginia AG is going to allow the police to perform immigration status checks for those stopped or arrested by police!

Looks like the PEOPLE aren't going to let the neo-Socialists get away with hijacking the nation!

Jim-1129414

Again, comparing to car insurance.... You don't drive, you don't need to buy... You drive and you MUST buy or you get fined.

Health (your health) does not give you the option of being well or being sick. You will get sick someday. So you must buy health insurance (otherwise the cost of you getting well falls on the shoulders of others)

Thank you State of Virginia for getting the issue of Obamacare's constitutionality off to a good start ! Requiring people to buy something from a private company is unparalleled in our great country's history. It is wrong, and we know it is wrong !

Passing Obamacare was a great mistake because it is BAD LEGISLATION. This politically contrived bill DOES NOTHING TO REDUCE COSTS. This bill puts a massive Federal Barackracy in control of our healthcare............and we have clearly seen how the Barackracy has failed in the Gulf oil spill disaster. The bill contains provisions that would MANDATE working people MUST BUY or BE FINED...........while those who "cannot afford it" are SUBSIDIZED (welfare).

Any rational improvement to the delivery of health care in this country must START with a goal of cost reduction. Obamacare fails miserably.

You guys are missing the most important part with regard to the silly car insurance comparison.

They force you to by LIABILITY insurance to protect OTHER people, not you. They do not force you to buy collision insurance to cover your costs in an accident.

The health care bill requires you to buy coverage for yourself.

BIG difference.

Yeah. And we should stop the mandated taxes coming out of our paychecks for Social Security and unemployment.

If I get sick, I'll just go to the emergency room and wait with all of the poor people and illegal immigrants. Why should I care that my health care is paid by American taxpayers, and I am getting free health care? Just as long as I don't have to pay for it, myself, is all that matters.

If I can't work or can't find a job, I'll just depend on the charity of strangers to meet my minimum needs. No reason the American taxpayers should suffer, just because I can't find a job or can't work because of a disability.

If we are going to draw a line, in the sand, to balance the budget, let's do away with Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security and Unemployment Insurance. It's all just a drag on our society, anyway.

People need to learn how to take care of themselves or die trying. That's the American way.

If we are to become a nation of rich and powerful people and corporations, the poor must die and the middle class must become the new poor.

It also provides tax credits to help middle-class residents pay premiums.

This statement is more Oba-a-a-a-manure. The latest trick by the left is an increase in working American's taxes by adding any costs paid by the employer for health care to your W2s. This is one way they intend to pay for the illegals coming into America and dropping anchor babies in our emergency rooms. Bingo, two more undocumented democrats.

Svenolafson: They are already starting to dictate how much salt, sugar, etc. we can eat! Look at Michelle Obama and her agenda - tells you right there. Look at all the fast food restaurants switching to 0 trans fats - they have started to regulate every aspect of our lives!

Allen,

You said:

Chris-749391

The GOP fails to mention that when Bush pushed through the horribly designed Medicare Part D bill, it included a mandate that the instant you become eligible for Medicare

The Democrats in office fail to mention this too. Could it be because they're doing the same thing? One arsonist doesn't run to the police to turn in someone setting fire to the building next door. You obviously get your news from liberal only outlets though if you didn't know the stance the conservatives have against that bill too."

Actually the Democrats objected to it at the time and still object to it. They are, however, more concerned with the 15-25% across-the-board increases in drug prices that EVERYONE got because of the mandated move from UCR to MRSP for pricing. I am retired and got my information directly from Medicare. I have better insurance through my wife's work so I chose not to participate in Medicare Parts B or D. (You cannot choose to opt out of Part A without losing your Social Security entirely.) My fine is currently 24% representing the GOP punishment for not signing up with their crooked drug companies for 2 years. The fine goes up 1% every month and there is no limit. The drug companies jerked Bush's chain and he barked.

It is quite a different matter to not sign up because you have other insurance and not signing up because you plan to not pay for as long as you can with the intention of signing up if you become injured or really sick.

Personally, I am in favor of letting people opt out of the health insurance, but imposing a 5-year waiting period should they decide to enroll later. There would be no eligibility for Medicaid or Medicare or any form of public assistance except6 bankruptcy during the five-year-period. If you die during the waiting period, it would be by choice, just as drinking and driving is a choice. (This is strongly opposed by the for-profit insurance industry which benefits the most from this program.)

"unless that single payer or gov't option plan is the same as what all elected representatives get, then it is unconstitutional. period.

there is absolutely no reason that elected officials get preferential insurance for a rate below what most shell out for their own insurance."

All members of congress and other federal government employees, including the SCOTUS, POTUS, Pentagon, etc., are covered under the Federal Employee Program insurance plan.

I don't believe that Federal employees pay anything toward their insurance, but only for dependent coverage.

This is a single payer system, that is administered by private insurance companies, such as Blue Cross and Blue Shield of South Carolina.

If there had been a public option, the price tag would have been less (according to the CBO) and it would also be administered by private insurance companies.

Let's not prejudge what the outcome of the question on the limits of power are for the federal government.

This question will play out in the Federal courts and finally the Supreme court.

One thing is for sure. The outcome will determine future legislation passed by congress.

Again, scomata1964 - you are NOT REQUIRED OR MANDATED to purchase a car! Should you choose not to want to pay for car insurance, simply don't buy a car - use public transportation! Now, IF the progressives in government MANDATED that we ALL have to own a car, then MANDATED to insure it, this would be the same as the Obamacare mandate! What is not to understand here??

htdjpf....

"...I have seen Healthcare in those countries first hand, and I will tell you I will take the most rural facility in the US over the best of them any day of the week. Doctors drunk doing operations. 100 patient open wards with one nurse and a doctor might come by once a week..."

Please tell me what countries have you visited that fit your description... Certainly not Italy... Less so Canada... I am a Canadian of Italian descent.. I lived in Italy for 25 years before migrating to Canada. I am a cancer survival (Toronto Sunny Brook Hospital... The best there is!!). My brother leaves in Italy and at age 15 came through an almost deadly car accident (Three doctors gave him a 20% chance... He is 59 now). The service that we received were impeccable and neither of us had to be in a hundred patient ward or see a doctor once a week. Better still neither of us had to pay a cent for all the services.

Further more... Where do you get that Canada (or Italy for that matter) are socialist economies. I will grant you that the governments in both countries are arguably the largest employers but they one nothing of the GDP. That is still in private hands... Just about all of it.

We may pay a larger share of taxes (about 5% more compared to your tax on income).. But again our salaries are slightly higher.

And remember.. People goes to the USA for specialized health services the same way they go to other counties or come into ours.... You don't own all the latest discoveries in medicine.

I would have posted sooner, but I was busy writing a letter to the government - you know, THEY - telling those Socialist pigs what I will pay for and what I won't. The nerve of those people passing laws that I don't like.

I'm not paying for Air Force aircraft or Army soldiers any more. Too noisy! You should hear those nasty guns booming. No more medical care for them either. They can't be very good soldiers if they get shot, right? Why should I pay for second-rate defense? No more cops. Sirens are too loud! To hell with school taxes. I don't have any kids. In fact, I'm through paying for kids. Period. Health care? Horse manure. Let 'em die.

Just a second, there's someone at the door.

Sorry, for the delay. Damned firefighter. There was a grass fire almost got to the front steps. Why in the hell do I pay taxes for that kind of service? Probably set by one of them illegal aliens with an anchor baby or one of them damned Muslims.

Those people are the kind destroying my Medicare and Social Security. I want my country back.

"The vast majority of the people who are complaining about being "forced" to buy insurance already have insurance. They just don't want you to have any."

Why would anyone not want someone to have heath insurance? Typically the more people have it the less it costs for the rest of us. The question is, does the government have the right to require you to buy a product from a private company?

The same thing could have been done by the government saying the auto industry is in trouble so everyone needs to buy a car. Would you consider that right?

#1.59 - Mon Aug 2, 2010 1:12 PM CDT

sam-298381

The vast majority of the people who are complaining about being "forced" to buy insurance already have insurance. They just don't want you to have any.

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

That's right sam.... many of us that have insurance are the ones complaining. You know what.... if you want insurance got out get a job and pay for it yourself. There is no reason anyone (other than yourself) should have to pay to provide you insurance. Truthfully sam.... I could care less if you have health insurance. It's not my responsibility to provide it for you. In fact.... unless you are a relative of personal friend of mine I could care less if you live or die. Humans are nothing but highly evolved animals and looking out for ones self and family is in our nature.

With the government's track record, I don't see how ANYONE thinks Obamacare is a good idea.

For those who do, what specifically do you think will be the difference between all the other failing or failed programs, and this one?

Is it because this time it's a black president with a funny name, or is it because of all the experience with community organizing, and this crackerjack administration, that will make the difference?

Or am I missing something obvious, like "hope and change"?

This assinine healthcare bill only serves to divide the American people even further apart than they are already. Barack Obama is the great divider. Beyond healthcare, he has ignored the immigration crisis on our southern border only so that he can divide hispanics from non-hispanics and gain the votes of the former. Divide and conquer.

Medicare part B and D have penalties if you opt out of them, have a lapse in coverage, and then want to get back in. You are automatically enrolled in Part A and Part B effective the month you turn 65. If you opt out of Part B or don't enroll in Part D and don't have other credible coverage and then you want to go back on it you will play a premium penalty of 1% for every month you are without coverage. This was not snuck into the Medicare prescription drug bill. Part B has had this penalty for as long as its been around. This prevents people from not paying for Parts B and D and then getting sick and wanting to get back on the plan. It's the same kind of mentality where a person wants to get their car insured after they are in an accident, oh and please backdate the effective date of the coverage to before my accident. The complaints I hear on here are about nothing other than the lack of personal responsibility.

Agreed. Never liked the Medicare Prescription drug legislation. The only reason it was done was to buy the old folk's votes.

To RM-881320 "The simple fact is that if everyone had to pay SOMETHING for health care, it would cost less for all."

Why? We aren't paying for healthcare, we're paying for insurance to cover healthcare expenses. This is only a partial payment regardless, so the medical field will lose more money from more dead beat customers, passing that cost back to the consumer. What happens when something is free? Demand rises. Who's paying for that free healthcare for people who can't afford it? Exactly the opposite is going to happen with our healthcare, because insurance is a derivative product, and that cost is derived from the cost of healthcare. This wasn't a healthcare reform bill, it was an insurance and student loan program. That makes it even worse, considering 60% of the student loans stand in default of some sort, to the tune of about 3/4 of a trillion dollars. Now we're going to lend our tax money to the underprivelaged for medical school with a return of $0.40 on the $1.00. We're hosed! Wait for the next big financial meltdown to come from the student loan sector. Even worse, the so-called healthcare bill reduces the salary of doctors, making it even more difficult for new doctors to pay back the money they'll be borrowing. We are definitely hosed!

Exactly. Well put!!

Despite all the rabid haters lloking for any reason to dismantle Obama's presidency, these morons screaming about having to buy insurance is ridiculous.

So, lets get this straight......you would be bragging and cheering in the streets that you didnt have to have health insurance? Really?

So if you are saying it should be voluntary, please let me know the rationalae for NOT having health insurance. CAnt wait to hear it. I dont see how anyone would answer yes except those who could afford to pay 100% out of pocket.

It just doesnt make sense. Who among us would NOT get health insurance for themselves and their family? Sounds like you want to celebrate not having to get health insurance, which is putting financial risk on you and your familiy. Unless of course your rich and you will be paying in cash.

But if your not rich, we who do have insurance will pay more when you irresponsibly treat the emetrgency room as your health plan beacsue 'by gum , the govmint' aint tellin me what to do'. MORONS!

I would like to hear someopne say they would not buy health insurance for their family if it wasnt mandatory? Any takers?

How does the fine process gonna work? Does this moron in office really think gangsters and every other worthless person who doesnt pay taxes are gonna pay the fines. But they'll get covered.

You don't understand.... this is a slippery slope. When the government starts mandating, and telling us what we MUST do, where will it end? Not very prettily. And it will only be our own faults.

metoo....you can't mandate insurance (have to cancel my car insurance then).....class action lawsuit...you are against mandated health care insurance, but believe in suing people when you disagree. Since a significant portion of our national health care cost is from lawsuits, and defensive medicine practices I would think you might be against hidden mandates (lawyers and pharma/device costs, respectively)

Glad you aren't in power :)

Just bustin on ya....I actually wanted to get insurance for everyone, and was willing to pay more and get less to do so. But in the final analysis, we enacted a health care bill that hides the future cost, and did not attempt to reduce services (can't get more, and pay the same folks...get real...and for those that say take the profit out of health care...can we ask you to reimburse investors, and pay the additional billions in taxes once that tax base goes away)

The Obama Administration's stance on this is that the mandatory health insurance is actually a "tax" that they are imposing on the American people. They aren't are going to force anybody to "buy" insurance but they're going to "tax" you for it. Hence, the IRS' involvement in enforcing that everybody has coverage. While Obama preaches that he won't raise [existing] taxes on the arbitrarily determined non-weathly he apparently takes no exceptation to adding new taxes to the "non-weathly". Basically, this means that those who don't pay any income tax to begin with, those zero liability voters (some 47% of the work force), probably won't have to pay their Obamacare "taxes" either. Thus the tax payers will end up footing the bill for those that can't afford their own health insurance and if that isn't redistribution of wealth, with heavy undertones of socialism, then I don't know what is.

ron avery if your comment gets collapsed it just means a majority of viners clicked the exclamation point in the lower corner and hit "no value" . If enough do it, it goes bye bye.

You know, the most frustrating misconception I see on here is that our "entire country will finally have healthcare", which, they already had before this bill passed. Hospitals could not turn you away if you needed emergency work, period. They still can't. People were not dying in the streets, ever. This bill did not change that fact one bit. What this bill did do, was force everyone to buy insurance, and insurance, is not healthcare. Insurance is a product, and that product pays a portion of a healthcare bill. Insurance companies bet on people not using the healthcare system. It is a product. INSURANCE IS NOT HEALTHCARE.

This bill does NOT give everyone healthcare coverage, it forces ALMOST everyone to pay for at least partial health insurance coverage on specific procedures. The amount of coverage we obtain will vary, and could be as low as 60%. On a $200,000 procedure, most still can't afford the actual cost of healthcare. Sure, they might be able to swing the insurance premium, and will have to under the penalty of law, but the healthcare industry will lose more money. This is the main reason a pillow costs you a $1000 when you have an overnight at the hospital. The hospital knows the patient is not going to pay their share of the bill, or drag it out for years sometimes, so they try to gouge the insurance company as much as humanly possible at all times to get back to even.

puddleduck 69

Please tell me how mandatory health cover for all works - I've witness first hand for the last three years in Massachusetts mandatory healthcare and guess what the state is broke running in the red. The main cause for our financial problems health care for all. The state is broke paying for all the low income families who get health care for free while again the middle class picks up the cost. Also the lie about the emergency rooms being empty with everyone having health care is just that a lie. I had to use the emergency room entrance for an evening appointments at local hospital the Er was its normal chaos - it looked like a third world piss hole. I bet you can guess who was probably picking up the tab for most of those in the ER.

To Tim Seattle "So, lets get this straight......you would be bragging and cheering in the streets that you didnt have to have health insurance? Really?"

ABSOLUTELY!!! Although I wouldn't be bragging, I'd simply be relieved. The problem is Tim, everyone here really does want reform. What we got was a student loan program, and an insurance mandate. No savings there. The problem with healthcare is really simple Tim, it's expensive, and that simple little fact has absolutely nothing to do with health insurance. They are two very interwoven issues, but entirely separate issues.

Healthcare cost are a result of litigation, bad debt, new technology, and bureaucracy. The healthcare bill ironcially, taxed technology, added bureaucracy, increases litigation threats, and adds a student loan program with our tax dollars that's currently getting $0.40 back on the $1.00. this wasn't reform, this was B...S...!!!

Why then do we demand that everyone buy auto insurance?

As to Judge Bolton's decision here in AZ the people seem to forget that federal law takes precedence over state law. It is unfortunate that the congress i.e. republicans can't get together on immigration reform.

If they'd actually have had the huevos to push forward and pass a public option or single payer, everyone whining about the end result would be SOL. Because that would've definitely had been legal.

Instead, the Democrats decided to push forward with an idea that Republicans came up with in the first place, which the Republicans voted unanimously against anyway.

I wonder if the Republicans who come up with the fairly large numbers of proposals and amendments and add-ons who later have the entire party, including themselves, feel any shame, knowing that they're literally voting against themselves personally.

As it stands, who knows? If health care is going to be provided to everyone, it should be paid for with taxes, and money should be diverted from our massively bloated defense budget.

Sorry if I missed anyone's comment about the health insurance companies and the profits they make from sick people. Their CEO's make salaries that would make most people on this discussion drool.

Also, I am amazed at the mean spirited people in this country. We certainly wouldn't want to help anyone going through a tough time! So many say they are hard workers-that's a good thing but some folks don't have the brains, education or advantages that other people have had in their lives. I would imagine that many of you profess to be Christians but you certainly don't talk or act like one if I'm hearing correctly. I am a Humanist and have no fear of a god but I care for others in need and don't feel as though people are bums or do-nothings if they are out of work. I would have like universal health care and the scary stories about national care in other countries is just that--fear mongering. I guess you get my take so I'll stop.

"Despite all the rabid haters lloking for any reason to dismantle Obama's presidency, these morons screaming about having to buy insurance is ridiculous."

It's not really about insurance it's about the Constitution.

So, lets get this straight......you would be bragging and cheering in the streets that you didnt have to have health insurance? Really?

I personally have had insurance 95% of the time and will continue to do so if possible. However there were times where I was forced to choose between making the house payment & having insurance (guess which one I chose). The cost to insure my family is currently about $1500 per month, my house payment is only about $1000. Yes they made provisions for the destitute but I am far from that & if my current employer were not paying for my insurance I'm still not sure I could afford it, as is the case with many Americans. If you read the law you will notice there are also no limits to what the insurance companies could charge. Once you have no choice do you really think the insurance companies are going to start being reasonable? Most likely quite the opposite. Insurance companies are already making record profits & continue to raise our rates. I don't see how mandating insurance helps anyone but them.

"So if you are saying it should be voluntary, please let me know the rationalae for NOT having health insurance. CAnt wait to hear it. I dont see how anyone would answer yes except those who could afford to pay 100% out of pocket."

Well what is more important to you, a roof over your head & food for your family or health insurance?

Did the Repubs read the article? No body is forcing you to buy health care. You just won't get the tax deduction that others have if they do. No different than an IRA. Personally I had rather have this law and not have to pay for the people who abuse the system. However I understand that Repubs hate this law because we all know they love to abuse the system.

Read most of the comments. I think this quote is the most important part of the article:

Mainly whether Congress has the right under the Constitution's Commerce Clause to regulate and tax a person's decision not to participate in interstate commerce.

Think about that for a second. In today's world, nearly every economic decision we make (if not all of them) involves interstate commerce. Never has congress been able to regulate and/or tax a person's decision to not participate in an interstate economic activity. For example, buying a GM car involves interstate commerce. Potentially, a tax could be put on somebody who decides to not buy a car. It really is a slippery slope.

I am lost here. The republicans site personal responsibility on all social programs. This health bill built that in and yet you are still not happy. $42 billion a year it costs to give uninsured health care. That's $420 billion in 10 years, almost half of the cost of the bill alone. No one is forced to buy health insurance, but if you don't, you will pay a bit more in taxes to help cover this $420 billion price tag the insured has to pay. Sounds fair to me. Would also sound fair to me if the uninsured don't want to pony up a little in case they get hurt or sick, leave them out on the sidewalk. Why should I continue to pay for myself and them too? The members of the party of HELL NO! should either suggest something with teeth or get out of the way. They sat back for too many years doing nothing and now they claim they know how to fix it..well fix it then!

Howard, Jason

"Did the Repubs read the article? No body is forcing you to buy health care. You just won't get the tax deduction that others have if they do. No different than an IRA. Personally I had rather have this law and not have to pay for the people who abuse the system. However I understand that Repubs hate this law because we all know they love to abuse the system."

It's cute that you believe the leftist talking points, but that's not how the bill is written. It is written as a penalty, not a tax benefit. The funny thing about laws is you can't say after the fact "oh well, I meant this". The left messed up in calling it a penalty. Does it have the same effect? For sure, but that's not how it was written.

Deal with it.

If that was what the bill was, more would be fine with it rednawt, however there is a lot more than just the funding of uninsured. It basically taxes the young and healthy who may choose to go to a catastrophic care plan. People can no longer choose the plan that is best for them, and instead have to buy cookie cutter plans with certain set benefits. This means that once again the young and healthy will subsidize the old for healthcare. The average cost of those who used HCAs and catastrophic health care coverage are going to double to triple in costs. While it's a valid plan that the young/healthy may choose, they can no longer choose it. What happened to freedom of choice? Is it now "freedom of choice as long as you pay for others first"?

Howard, Jason

Did the Repubs read the article? No body is forcing you to buy health care. You just won't get the tax deduction that others have if they do. No different than an IRA. Personally I had rather have this law and not have to pay for the people who abuse the system. However I understand that Repubs hate this law because we all know they love to abuse the system.

Thank you Jessie. I am still a bit lost. Can this bill be fixed or changed? These questions come up and all I seem to hear is repeal, a lot of name calling (from both sides)or this bill is 100% and should never be improved on. Young people and old alike SHOULD be able to choose anything and the best plans for them. If they never use it, well, that is what helps pay for everyone else, but if they do need it..there you go. If what is allowed by government isn't enough, one should be allowed to buy supplemental too. What I think is needed here is civility in congress to work together in good faith and stop all the infighting. Can we agree on that?

Some one here mentioned all the things government runs that is 'broke', not to get off subject, but this is for that person..USPS going broke after 238 years, for one thing, it wasn't around all that time, but I would love to see UPS, FedX or any other private company collect, sort , transport and deliver a letter for 44 cents and make a profit or an insurance company operateon a 3% overhead. That could be slightly higher now, but 3% was last I heard. The USPS is 'broke' because most people now pay bills and even receive their bills via the Internet and also send emails where they used to send postcards for short messages.

Another person mentioned all the hard work they do so they can afford health insurance. Good for him. I work hard too. I have a pre-existing condition that limits my ability to work 16 hours a day, one not of my choosing or fault. It happens. I live at my job 24/7 in stretches of up to 100 days at a time. Good thing my insurance is paid for by my employer, an agreement we made together instead of them paying me more an hour. I am currently off work because of that condition and when I do go back, I will be limited to no more than 60 days stretches. Many people don't have it so lucky. Some work for far less money and benefits. There is also the problem of 1 job for ever 5 to 7 applicants that pay even a living wage. That could explain why medicare/aid is 'broke'

A federal judge, lets stop paying for his health care, lets stop paying for these liars war. Can we not pay taxes on something that everyone needs, if you don't want it cry

Would that be the U.S. Constitution or the NEWLY REVISED RUSH LIMBAUGH/FOX NEWS /GLEN BECK/SARAH PALIN/NEWT GINGRICH/ REPUBLICAN VERSION of the Constitution of the United States.

A couple of excelent points bybush and 60's veteran. I think I am understanding a bit more now. What we had wasn't working, costs were going too high and many people had problems even getting insurance, that alone what they could afford. But I am slowly understanding that the right can't drive, they can't have the keys back! The constitution is for all 300 million of us. It is good this judge will take up the case. It is the first step to the Supreme Court. This bill should be tried. Bad parts if any that fails in the court of law can be rewritten. Nothing but good can come out of it. The party of HELL NO! can even have a say in it. They sat back for too many years while the insurance industry raped the American people, even those on the right. I would like to see the uninsured who can afford coverage have to pay at least part of what they game from us HARD working tax payers, and yes, even us on the left work hard. President Obama, don't worry about this. It will take it's course and be stronger for it. Those on the right should actually read instead of taking Faux Fox as the gospel truth. They showed what their truth is yet again last week.

The constitution means little to SC judges. All we can hope for is their eyes seeing what the founders envisioned. To date, most Have no clue. The left wants the constitution to be variable. The right wants it to be constant. Real Americans want it to be constant. The rest want it to fail. Am kind of looking forward to the next civil war. Would like to die defending the founders thoughts and pissing on those who think otherfwise. Well that is me. Those that don't agree can suck me.

Get over it and be responsible and purchase insurance. If you do not have insurance and you get cancer, have to get stitches, set a cast for broken leg, get hit by a bus...you WILL be using your local emergency room and WE insured folks pay your bill. Now I have conservative friends and I know you guys take pride on taking ownership for yourself, paying your own way, and do not like hand outs. So, why you taking issue with something as practical and responsible as having to purchase insurance. If you don't have car insurance and you hit somebody, that raises premiums and hurts the reponsible people who do have insurance. FACT. Tell me why this is such a bad idea. Please explain my conservative friends out there.

Another political stunt to keep us fighting. Massachusetts has had MANDATORY health care buy in for years championed by mitt romney and scott brown. NO tea party has ever taken it to court. They let their own go but go after the President. Typical PHONEY politics.

Who wrote this piece of legislation--not the President--and this is MaCACA Virginia...

Interstate Commerce has been used by Congress for decades!

Eris, your point on the Commerce Clause is basically not logical as pointed out in the Virginia judge's decision yesterday. The Commerce Clause allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce. But the Commerce Clause does not apply for 2 reasons:

1) All health insurance is by nature intrastate and regulated by individual states. Health insurance companies are not interstate.

2) The individual mandate in the bill is attempting to regulate inaction not commerce. Does the government have the right to force someone who has taken no action or commerce to engage in commerce against their will.

As the judge stated this takes the Commerce Clause far beyond past limitations established by the Supreme Court. If the law is allowed to stand, there is very little in our lives which the federal government will not be allowed to regulate. This is the largest power grab in the history of our Republic. It would allow the trumping of such things as the right to privacy. Therefore, things such as "abortion" could be further regulated not under privacy or human reproductive rights but simply under the goverments right to regulate commerce if there is no limit on the governments right to regulate commerce.

grumpyjon,

"activist judge" has nothing to do with whether one agrees with the judge or not. it has to do with whether they rule solely based on the law and the US Constitution and not inject their personal feelings/opinions into the case, a la sotomayer.

Robert Cascadden wrote:

"Auto Insurance is mandated so if you crash into someone else, that person is "made whole". If you get sick, it affects nobody else."

What if your name is Typhoid Mary?

David Walker (#1.75) LMAO

I love how the republicans "think" they know what the constitution says. They must be right after all they are the republicans, so much more studied in the constitution. (sarcasm)

These challenges according to legal experts will fail. But go ahead spend all that tax payer money on them.

Thanks for the "okay" Eric!

BTW, I assume you have no problem with this administration SUING ARIZONA and spending a $HITLOAD more of the "tax payers money" fighting a FEDERAL LAW, that will UNDOUBTEDLY turn in to a lawsuit against another 40 STATES!!!

I guess that's what the democrats call "thinking" huh?

These challenges according to legal experts will fail

What legal experts? Dr. Fine, Dr. Howard, and Dr. Fine?

You may be right. However, when they are sick, suffering and in need, they get it ANYWAY. And mostly on the tax payer's dime. Apparently, that works for you.

survival of the fittest. if you can't afford to live guess you gotta die...

Were you paying attention? Apparently not. THEY GET TREATMENT. YOU PAY. Hello????????????

Steve:

Ever hear of the word, KARMA?

exactly Huey, so then why change anything. I am gonna be paying for it anyway, whether they have insurance or not. are you paying attention?

Make a new post when your wife or kids end up on that situation and let us all know if you still feel the same way

Nah .. you see i pay for my insurance, I work hard for what i have..

What steve doesn't get friends - or will not acknowledge- is that the care they get that HE PAYS FOR is generally inferior and COSTS MORE because it's uncontrolled spending. There are people who have the right to vote in this country who should not be allowed to chew gum alone. I am not suggesting that steve is one of them. I'll leave that to others.

Steve - if we all pooled our resources and established national health insurance, then nobody, including you, would have to work 16 hours a day for healthcare, or go bankrupt just because they got sick. Instead, because of your pride, you work way too hard and are standing in the way of increased prosperity for everyone else.

Yes, HOW dare the Obama Administration think that FAIRNESS of coverage and lack of coverage is an issue the American people care about.

If you want the best care, go out get a job and earn. This is nothing but another TAX on the Hard working american people so that the Govt can GIVE sub par healthcare to people that Refuse to go out and work hard..

and Dave, I like working 16 hours a day sometimes. you see i dont like to just go home and sit on my butt and watch TV and play Video games.. I like to stay busy.

We are still going to pay for the poor---they will get healthcare through Medicaid or subsidies. Either way, the 50% of us who pay taxes will have to pay for their healthcare.

MahaDavid---can you show me a link where the healthcare bills caused bankruptcy? What percentage? I want a direct link showing the bills caused the bankruptcy-----not the loss of wages due to losing work( which Obama's bill does not address---the need for people to purchase short term disability insurance)

Steve:

I understand exactly what you are saying, and agree with you. The libs you are dealing with here, however, will never get it. To them, personal responsibility is a foreign concept.

Thumbs up Spider, I dont care if they agree with me or not, I dont live my life to please them, as a matter of fact i live my life in such a way that pisses them off, someone that works hard and enjoys it.. Thats the part they dont understand..

Karen,

"MahaDavid---can you show me a link where the healthcare bills caused bankruptcy? What percentage? I want a direct link showing the bills caused the bankruptcy-----not the loss of wages due to losing work( which Obama's bill does not address---the need for people to purchase short term disability insurance)"

That is one of the biggest BS jobs out there. The statistic is 62% of bankrupties are caused by medical bills. Of these 62% 75% said they had health insurance. What's the problem with this? The problem is you probably have a lot of other financial issues other than medical bills. If the average deductible is $1000 and out of pocket is $1000 how does $2000 bankrupt a person? No, they probably have thousands of dollars in credit card bills. How stupid to they think we are?

Steve, there's a reason why its called insurance. The world could crumble out from underneath you tomorrrow, your job could disappear, your new job could not offer health insurance, your insurance company could find something wrong in your health history even you didn't know about and tag with a pre-existing condition which will either triple your premiums or make you un-insurable.

Crap happens, even if you wear a mullet.

And luckily for us "libs," the further we get into the future the less people are growing up with an attitude like this. God forbid a united country should actually take care of it's sick and poor. If all you're concerned about it looking out for number one then don't expect compassion or help in the future when you develope some sort of terminal cancer that your health care won't cover due to some pre-existing condition or considering the treatment "experimental." And, further, don't expect compassion when you have to sell your house to get the money to pay for treatment on your own and your family has to live in a one bedroom appartment until you, invariably, die. You don't understand, hard worker or not, the worst can happen to anybody. People should be able to count on their government for support.

There are two separate issues here. One is the constitutionality of ANY law or regulation requiring support or investment of resources by the citizens.

The second is that you want health care for all. Please recognize the importance of making sure that all legislation passes the constitutional muster or the next ox gored by the legislative process may be yours.

DrowningGrover

From your own link:

However, Peter Cunningham, Ph.D., a senior fellow at the Center for Studying Health System Change, a nonpartisan policy research organization in Washington, D.C., isn't completely convinced. He says it's often hard to tell in which cases medical bills add to the bleak financial picture without being directly responsible for the bankruptcies.

"I'm not sure that it is correct to say that medical problems were the direct cause of all of these bankruptcies," he says.

Additionally, the article mentions loss of wages contributing to the bankruptcies. Sorry--not buying this sob story.

Scrambolo:

I have a theory that libs have no ability to offer calm, rational arguments in a civilized discussion; so, they just hurl ignorant, juvenile insults at those with whom they disagree. Thank you so much for clearly illustrating my point.

scrambolo,

"We don't have to "get it", we already got it, the White House and both houses of Congress that is. Does that mean anything to you? It's called majority rule in a democracy! Get IT? If you "get it" than we will accept it and not act like a little crying girl who did not "get it", like you and your fear mongering compadres. See you at the polls; buy your map today so you don't get lost on the way!"

Is that what they're teaching out kids in school these days? That we have a majority rule democracy? No son, we aren't a democracy. Thank God! We're a Representative Democratic Republic. A true Democracy would not have lasted 20 years let a lone 234 years. You also left out the other branch of the governement. The judiciary. They are the ones that will have the final say. Checks and balances my boy, checks and balances.

scrambolo said "We don't have to "get it", we already got it, the White House and both houses of Congress that is. Does that mean anything to you? It's called majority rule in a democracy! Get IT? If you "get it" than we will accept it and not act like a little crying girl who did not "get it

now THATS rich... A liberal' who's side invented the idea of challenging legislation by lawsuit; actually saying THIS????? (Anyone remember Prop 187 in California, Arizona's current challenges to its decision to actually ENFORCE existing immigration laws, & oh yeah The 2000 Presidential Elections?????) .

It's called majority rule in a democracy!

Majority rule: two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for lunch. Great system.

steve the emergency rooms across the country are the health care for people without insurance,do you understand that, have you seen the cost of emerg room. its stagering a freind last week got bite by a spider stayed in the emergency room 5 hours had to have i v's the bill was 4200.00.the government right now picks up the tab.when insurance pays a bill like this it would 15% 630 dollars.are you with me just the cost of the emergency rooms across the nation will cover health care.don't buy into the repuds bull@!$%#.

Liberals, the same mantra over and over and over and over, Give me you owe me, its my Right, but Take it from them over there so that you can give it to me, i dont want to have to work for it

I imagine that the penalty for not having insurance would be money that goes into a pool to pay for those who don't have insurance if they need treatment. So in essence, someone who does not have coverage is still paying, just not to their own insurance choice.

For those of you who cannot or won't keep score, here is some FACTS (democrats RUN) for you.

__________________

• The U.S. Post Service was established in 1775 – they’ve had 234 years to get it right; it is broke, and even though heavily subsidized, it can’t compete with private sector FedEx and UPS services.
• Social Security was established in 1935 – they’ve had 74 years to get it right; it is broke.
• Fannie Mae was established in 1938 – they’ve had 71 years to get it right; it is broke.
• Freddie Mac was established in 1970 – they’ve had 39 years to get it right; it is broke.
• Together Fannie and Freddie have now led the entire world into the worst economic collapse in 80 years.
• The War on Poverty was started in 1964 – they’ve had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our hard earned money is confiscated each year and transferred to “the poor”; it hasn’t worked.
• Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965 – they’ve had 44 years to get it right; they are both broke; and now our government dares to mention them as models for all US health care.
• AMTRAK was established in 1970 – they’ve had 39 years to get it right; last year they bailed it out as it continues to run at a loss!

This year, a trillion dollars was committed in the massive political payoff called the Stimulus Bill of 2009; it shows NO sign of working; it’s been used to increase the size of governments across America, and raise government salaries while the rest of us suffer from economic hardships. It has yet to create a single new private sector job. Our national debt projections (approaching $10 trillion) have increased 400% in the last six months.

• “Cash for Clunkers” was established in 2009 and went broke in 2009 - after 80% of the cars purchased turned out to be produced by foreign companies, and dealers nationwide are buried under bureaucratic paperwork demanded by a government that is not yet paying them what was promised.
• Last year, the Senate decided to privatize its own government-run restaurant. After decades of subpar food and annual losses (despite having merely hundreds of customers), the Senate decided that it couldn’t competently operate a restaurant, so it outsourced the restaurant to the private sector.

Since our federal government has a perfect 100% failure rate and a record that proves that each and every “service” shoved down our throats by the imperial federal government turns into disaster, I’ve got a wonderful idea: How about we trust our government (who can’t even run a restaurant) to run or even set policies for America’s health care system, 1/7^th of our economy?

I mean, they’re bound to get one of these things right some time, right? Law of averages, or something?

_____________________

This was written last year. Things have gotten much worse since then.

(information provided above taken from http://crushliberalism.com/2009/09/08/the-federal-governments-100-failure-rate/)

Additionally, the article mentions loss of wages contributing to the bankruptcies. Sorry--not buying this sob story.

I'm not posting a sob story. You asked a question ("how many bankruptcies are caused by HC bills") and I posted a link to an article with an answer.

It turns out the answer is more nuanced and complex than originally imagined. This is my problem how?

That is one of the biggest BS jobs out there. The statistic is 62% of bankrupties are caused by medical bills. Of these 62% 75% said they had health insurance. What's the problem with this? The problem is you probably have a lot of other financial issues other than medical bills. If the average deductible is $1000 and out of pocket is $1000 how does $2000 bankrupt a person? No, they probably have thousands of dollars in credit card bills. How stupid to they think we are?

You fundamentally misunderstand how medical bills can bankrupt someone WHO HAS insurance. They don't go bankrupt because they can't afford the $1000 deductible (due to high credit card bills as you humorously suggest). They can't afford their medical bills because once the bills prove to be very large (i.e. the patient has cancer or needs surgery) insurance DROPS them and they're stuck paying bills out of pocket. It's called rescission, and it happens every day.

THAT is how people who have insurance go bankrupt. Because once they get really sick, they stop having insurance.

This was written last year. Things have gotten much worse since then.

(information provided above taken from http://crushliberalism.com/2009/09/08/the-federal-governments-100-failure-rate/)

ah yes, what an objective source (i.e. "Crush liberalism" blog). While what you post may have some ring of truth to it, couldn't you at least find an objective source?

Steve, to add to your post #2.29: The libs motto: "Do as I say, not as I do." Enter Tim "tax cheat" Geitner, Rangel, Tom Daschel, John Kerry, et al....

Jessica - you would be very wrong. The fact is that as people get older they generally get more and more conservative - BECAUSE THEY GROW UP and get sick and tired of being forced to fork over so much of their hard-earned money to the gov't who wastes, steals and "redistributes" so much d*mn money and STILL borrows us into a gigantic black hole of debt.

And way too many people who vote for democrats do so because of all the goodies the democrats bestow on them with other people's money. It's called "buying votes."

I am so tired of these stupid liberals hauling out the same tired / wrong arguments.

Poor people by in large have insurance - whether it is through the state welfare system or through social security.

Roughly 15% of emergency room patients are uninsured - just about the same number of citizens who are uninsured in general.

Reuters tells us that after reform is in place, emergency room visits will INCREASE.

So all you numbskulls who keep using this argument are not only wrong, you are completely wrong.

Lies, ignorance, stupidity - the new left.

Let me see if I understand, people who do not have health insurance will get treatment anyways, so we have to pay for it through our taxes. So is your argument that when everyone has forced health coverage my taxes will go down because everybody is covered?

Call me cynical - but I don't see that happening. If we have a public option - can we really trust the government to manage it properly. Hell they are already talking about the fraud that went on with cash for clunkers. When the government can get medicare fraud under control - then bring up the public option - until then - you gotta be crazy to trust the government with health care.

Let me see if I understand, people who do not have health insurance will get treatment anyways, so we have to pay for it through our taxes.

We don't pay for it through taxes, we pay for it through the price of care. Hospitals forced to treat those who will not or cannot pay for the service simply count that as overhead and base their prices on that cost.

We currently have no mechanism to fund that treatment publicly. The law forces hospitals to treat people but makes no provision to reimburse them for the service.

Name one program the Federal government has not borrowed from? Just 1.

The Healthcare bill is a scam it does not control cost of the care, it forces coverage on everyone which is against the constitution.

The Government has borrowed all of the SSI money since they could start using it as a piggy bank back in the 60's. The US dollar is not pegged to gold anymore, and the bonds for the 20 trillion dollars borrowed from SSI is worthless, especially if they just keep printing money to pay for it. Add in another 17 trillion or so for Medicare.

The US government is out of control and needs to be put to the curb. All of them need to go.

When has government ever done what it said it ws going to do with tax money ever?

All they do are form committees hire in friends and investigate each other at taxpayer expense and they take their sweet ass time racking those bills up with no convictions.

Or they bribe a Congressman or Senator to vote a certain way, then when they are voted out of office by the citizens they get appointed to that GS job that a civilian cannot be promoted to at 100k plus a year.

I am glad this Judge has some moral fiber left in him and he can read and understand the constitution as it was written and not read into it some BS philosophy of it being a growing document. It was written by a lot smarter men than any of us have seen in office regardless of your age.

As for the Commerce Law will if nothing has ever been reversed or all suits against it have failed maybe that is the heart of the problem or they are all bought off and the corruption is worse than any can imagine.

VOTE THEM ALL OUT (both sides)

Scrambolo:

We don't have to "get it", we already got it, the White House and both houses of Congress that is. Does that mean anything to you? It's called majority rule in a democracy! Get IT? If you "get it" than we will accept it and not act like a little crying girl who did not "get it", like you and your fear mongering compadres. See you at the polls; buy your map today so you don't get lost on the way!

Oh pah-leeze. That majority bickered and made back-door deals just to get this passed (and how many times was it voted on and failed with a majority?). All it took for Kusinich was a nice plane ride in Air Force One with the POTUS to change his mind. Maybe he got a shiny new tin-foil hat so he could talk to the aliens.

Jessica T:

And luckily for us "libs," the further we get into the future the less people are growing up with an attitude like this. God forbid a united country should actually take care of it's sick and poor.

I'm conservative and I don't mind HELPING others in need, I just don't believe in a constant free ride for those who are able to work. Should something happen to my job or your job, I don't mind having a government assistance program to help us get back on our feet...oh wait, we already have that - it's called Unemployment and Medicaid. If those programs aren't working because there's corruption and waste, then government should FIX that first. No, our government would rather start up a new program of corruption and waste.

Karen - some people cannot get health insurance for ANY price and/or couldn't possibly afford the price the insurance companies charge for insuring preexisting conditions. Understand - they CAN'T get it. In other cases, because health insurance is absurdly tied to employment, people who have lost jobs are uninsured. Insurance in the private market is itself too expensive to be a realistic option for many people. For the priveleged, who have professional jobs, myself included, things are better unless and until something unanticipated happens. In truth, we're all closer than we think to losing our homes, retirement and leisure to an illness. it doesn't have to be this way.

Okay stupid Steve unless you want to DENY medical care to the needy, its gotta be paid for somehow. Right now you may the MOST IT POSSIBLY CAN COST! Why not pay less? What's wrong with compelling everyone to contribute through mandatory insurance? You already have mandatory car insurance? What's the difference? Or have you not thought that far?

People like you make me wonder why we extended the franchise to the uneducated and uninformed, unthinking classes.

The society that you long for was around from 1870 - 1930 and it was a HARD life. Life expectancy was about 55 years for the working class. No health care for the poor or to those who could not afford it. The Vanderbilts, Carnagies and Fords got tired of tripping over TB infested chattle, the stench of raw sewage and tenaments - ever read Upton Sinclair? (stupid question, folks like you never read any classic works). That's how public sanitation and public health clinics got started.

I pray the world you long for never comes about, not for you but your children.

Mahadave - I'm very well aware of that - and there is very little in this so-called "reform" that will actually help many of those people. And as I posted up higher - my family is ONE of those families that will not be able to afford insurance if my husband's employer drops coverage - but we make too much money to qualify for ANY gov't assistance. SO we will be forced to pay a fine for the crime of not being able to afford insurance - and MY family's money will be taken from us and given to someone else who didn't earn it so THEY can buy coverage.

And you expect me to support this BS? Please.

The U.S. is NOT a democracy. It is a REPUBLIC. As such, there is no such thing as "majority rule" here, never has been. If this were the case, the Civil Rights of 1964 would never have been passed.

You yo-yos that trumpet this nonsense about "majorty rule" represent EXACTLY what the Founders were concerned about --- Mob Rule. The Articles of Confederation, Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights were drafted to prevent Mob Rule.

Got an idea. How about all you "hard working" malcontents just split from the US? Take your neo-con "Me, Myself an I" attitude and move to a third world country and take over? Start your own utopia since you are such gifted leaders and thinkers.

This has been quite a joy to read on this Vine. I will say it appears much of you have never lived in a country that has "social" or as often referred to "national" healthcare. Living in Europe for 3 years has really firmed my opinion of social care. If you think the USA has poor healthcare, long line, and latest procedures available you need to think again. Government control of such programs actually makes life worse for people. Here are some a bomb to read:

Kidney cancer patients denied
life-saving drugs by NHS rationing body NICE

Thousands of kidney cancer patients are likely to lose out on life-prolonging drugs.
The NHS rationing body, NICE, has confirmed a ban on three out of four new treatments.

It has reversed its position on just one, Sutent, which will now be allowed for patients with advanced cancer. But campaigners who fought NICE's original blanket ban said this was not enough. They said some patients with heart problems cannot tolerate Sutent.

Kate Spall, head of the Pamela Northcott Fund campaign group, said the ruling meant that fewer than half of newly diagnosed patients would be eligible for therapy.

She added: 'Families will be denied time together and doctors will be unable to give patients the best treatment.'

Campaigners are angry that NICE appears to have ignored new official guidelines widening access to life-prolonging drugs.

Sutent, also known as sunitinib, can double the life expectancy of patients, to 28 months, compared with standard interferon treatment. It costs around £24,000 a year.

The rejected drugs - bevacizumab (Avastin), sorafenib (Nexavar) and temsirolimus (Torisel) - have similar costs and are used in other countries.

Nicole Farmer, of Bayer Schering Pharma Oncology, which makes Nexavar, said: 'This shows why the UK sits 16 out of 18 EU countries with regard to cancer outcomes'.

Dr Thomas Powles, Clinical Senior Lecturer, at Barts and The London NHS Trust, said the 'one size fits all' policy would disadvantage many of the 7,000 patients diagnosed each year with kidney cancer.

He said: 'This one dimensional approach will leave some patients without potentially beneficial treatments, indeed some patients will not be eligible for any effective treatments whatsoever.'

Stella Pendleton, executive director of the Rarer Cancers Forum, said: 'This decision contradicts the spirit of the recommendations made by Professor Mike Richards on improving access to medicines for NHS patients, and highlights flaws in the current system for appraising drugs.

'We call on Nice to reverse this decision.'

Girl, 3, has heart operation cancelled
three times because of bed shortage

A three-year-old girl awaiting heart surgery has had her operation cancelled three times this month because of a shortage of beds.

Ella Cotterell was due to have aorta-widening surgery on Monday at the Children's Hospital, Bristol. But 48 hours beforehand, the operation was cancelled for the third time as all 15 beds in the intensive care unit were occupied, her parents said.

A hospital spokesman said that procedures would be reviewed, but the case highlights a growing problem of cancelled operations in the NHS.

More than 57,000 surgeries were postponed for non-clinical reasons, including a lack of beds, last year – 10 per cent more than the previous year.

Latest figures show that the problem persists. At least 43,000 operations were cancelled in the first nine months of 2008-09, with nearly 1,800 patients not being treated within 28 days of their original scheduled date.

Among the excuses for cancellation the previous year were a hospital running out of shavers to prepare patients for surgery, a surgeon going missing following a fire alarm, and a patient's translator failing to turn up.

Ella needed open heart surgery when she was nine days old to repair her aorta, the body's main artery, which had not formed properly in the womb.

At 18 months old she suffered a stroke after falling down the stairs at her home and banging her head, temporarily paralysing the left side of her body.

Her parents, Ian Cotterell and Rachel Davis, were told last October that she would need an operation within 12 to 18 months.

Doctors carried out two angioplasties, where small balloons are inserted and inflated to clear a blocked blood vessel, but neither was successful.

Further surgery was initially planned for April 2 but was cancelled because of emergency cases and rearranged for four days later, the couple said. However, the operation was cancelled again for the same reason.

A third date was arranged for April 20 and last Thursday Ella went to the hospital for tests. On Saturday her parents received another call explaining her operation would have to be cancelled.

Ms Davis, who works part-time as an accident and emergency nurse at the Frenchay Hospital in Bristol, said that she was devastated when she was told there were not enough beds.

"My husband and I were in tears," she said. "When our six-year-old son Liam asked what was wrong we told him Ella's operation had been cancelled again and he said we should tell Gordon Brown."

The family are waiting for another surgery date. In the meantime, Ella is having to take adult doses of medication to control her blood pressure.

"We have asked the doctors if she really needs the surgery as she is so happy at the moment and is running around like a normal little girl, but she could drop down dead at any moment," Ms Davis said.

"Twice I have been told that she may not make it through the night and there have been times when I have gone into her room in the morning and wondered whether she'd still be breathing.

She called on the Government to put more money into the NHS before a child died on the waiting list.

"I have worked in the NHS for 22 years so I know what happens in hospitals," she said. "I cannot fault the doctors and nurses for all they have done for Ella – she would not be alive today without them.

"I believe Ella is the tip of the iceberg and that there are many other families out there that have had their operations cancelled many more times but have not spoken out about it.

"This is a national problem, there are not enough resources in the NHS and it is about prioritising.

"It is a matter of time before a child dies on the waiting list and I don't want it to be Ella. If that does happen the Government will have blood on their hands."

Michele Narey, of the University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, said that she could not discuss individual cases.

She added: "The decision to cancel any patient for any procedure is taken extremely seriously but is sometimes unavoidable because of the need to effectively manage emergency patients requiring beds on a day-to-day basis.

"We know that cancelling procedures can cause additional stress for patients so we will always seek to avoid this wherever possible."

Cancer survivor confronts the
health secretary on 62-day wait

WAITING times for cancer treatment need to be cut, the Scottish Government was told yesterday.

The Scotland Against Cancer conference in Glasgow heard Nicola Sturgeon, the health secretary, setting out what was being done to improve cancer care for Scottish patients.

But one cancer survivor, who spoke at the Cancer Research UK event, challenged ministers to be more ambitious in reducing the time patients have to wait before starting treatment.

Cancer experts later said that patients elsewhere in Europe would be "outraged" by having to wait two months to start treatment, with most being seen within two weeks.

The current target of 62 days from urgent referral by a doctor to starting treatment has still not been met in Scotland, despite that originally being the target figure for 2005.

Ms Sturgeon stressed that the 62-day target was a maximum wait and many patients would start treatment much sooner.

Heather Goodare, who was diagnosed with breast cancer in 1986 when living in West Sussex, thanked Ms Sturgeon for the initiatives she had put in place to improve cancer care. But she challenged her over the "very unambitious" 62-day target.

"For some slow-growing cancers 31 days is perfectly OK, but for others it is just not acceptable at all," she told the health secretary.

Mrs Goodare, who now lives in Edinburgh, said when she was diagnosed over 22 years ago, she had to wait only two weeks before having surgery to remove the lump from her breast.

"I don't understand why things have gone backwards," she said.

Ms Sturgeon said everyone in the NHS had worked together to reduce waiting times and they were now very close to hitting the 62-day mark.

Study that proves the folly of NHS Alzheimer's drug ban

New medical research dramatically reinforces the case for treating Alzheimer's patients early in the onset of the condition.
It reveals that patients 'may have an excellent response to treatment' after just five months.

A third of those on medication regained normal levels of brain activity in areas that had functioned less well on scans, the researchers found.

The results offer further compelling evidence in support of the Daily Mail's campaign to overturn an NHS ban on the use of drugs in the early stages of the disease.

The researchers also cast doubt on the methods used by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, the Government's rationing body, to assess the positive impact of the drugs.

Nice has ruled that three drugs - Aricept, Exelon and Reminyl - can only be prescribed for those with moderate Alzheimer's symptoms and not those in the early stages of the disease.

It says the drugs work but, at £2.50 a day for each patient, are not cost-effective.

It is thought as many as 100,000 newly diagnosed patients are being denied treatment each year, while others are paying privately.

The bestselling author Terry Pratchett, who revealed in 2007 that he is suffering from the disease, is paying for Aricept because his symptoms are not severe enough to warrant NHS treatment.

The Hull University study looked at 26 patients with early stage Alzheimer's attending its memory clinic. Each was prescribed Aricept and Reminyl for five months and their brain activity assessed at the beginning and end of treatment.

They were then tested to see if their linguistic skills, and recent and working memories had deteriorated - typical signs of early Alzheimer's, says a report in the journal Current Alzheimer Research.

At the same time, the patients were monitored using a functional MRI scan, which showed a detailed map of their brain activity when certain tasks were undertaken.

The tests were specially devised by Professor Annalena Venneri and two colleagues at the Clinical Neuroscience Centre.

Professor Venneri said: 'We tested the patients' semantic association by giving them a word and then a choice of two other words; they had to decide which ones were linked.

'In order to test their working memory, we showed them letters running across a screen and they had to press a button when the same letter was shown twice.

Sir Terry Pratchett is paying for Alzheimer's drug Aricept because his symptoms are not severe enough to warrant NHS treatment

'These are simple tests, but they are a good indicator of the early stages of the disease.'

Nine out of the 26 patients responded well to treatment and regained normal levels of activity in those brain areas used by healthy people when performing the tasks.

This suggests the Nice guidelines may not be the most appropriate way to identify those who have the best chance of responding to treatment, the researchers concluded.

These patients who could potentially benefit were 'currently missed' in scoring system used by Nice for eligibility for the drugs, she added.

Last October, a judicial review ruled that the guidance was 'procedurally unfair' because the computer model used to restrict access to the drugs was not available to all parties, including the Alzheimer's Society.

It came after the charity's long-running campaign, partly funded by Daily Mail readers, who raised £230,000.

Neil Hunt, chief executive of the Alzheimer's Society, said: 'As more evidence emerges of the drugs' effectiveness, it is immoral to deny them to people who could benefit.

'This study suggests that certain tasks may help predict who will respond best to treatment.

'More research is needed to help us understand why some respond better to the drugs than others.'

A spokesman for Nice said: 'We will consult on our review plans for this guidance in September 2009.'

Disabled children wait up to two years for wheelchairs

The NHS was told today to stop relying on charities to fill funding gaps after figures revealed many trusts would not pay the full cost of electric wheelchairs for disabled children.
Freedom of information figures obtained by the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign found children were subject to a postcode lottery in terms of equipment.

Statistics from 54% of NHS trusts in England and Scotland revealed that disabled children in England are forced to wait five months on average for a wheelchair.

The worst performing primary care trust (PCT), East Lancashire, in the north-west of England, had an average wait of two years for an electric wheelchair.

The survey showed 58% of children in England had to wait at least three months for an electric wheelchair and 14% waited more than six months.

In the case of Westminster and Islington PCTs in London, children living just four miles apart could have a difference of 11 months in waiting time.

Overall, 50% of the PCTs that responded said they did not fund the full cost of a powered wheelchair for a disabled child.

Westminster PCT made an average contribution of only £700 towards the cost of a child's powered wheelchair, it said.

Almost all PCTs contacted by the charity said the cost of a wheelchair was around £2,000 but in fact the true cost of a basic electric wheelchair would be around £3,000.

A separate patient survey of 237 children found one in three did not receive any funding at all for their wheelchair.

Philip Butcher, chief executive of the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign, said: "Today's figures are nothing short of a national scandal.

"It is a damning indictment of the NHS that so many families across the UK are forced to rely on charities or be driven into financial hardship just to receive vital, life-improving equipment for their disabled children.

"It's time the NHS stopped relying on charities to fill the gaps left by its inadequate funding."

Two PCTs in the West Midlands – Birmingham East and North, and South Birmingham – have waiting times for a powered wheelchair of 18 months compared to a national average of just under five months, the report said.

Lung patients 'condemned to death as NHS withdraws
their too expensive drugs'

Hundreds of patients with a rare lung disease will be sentenced to death by plans to stop doctors prescribing a range of drugs on the NHS, it was claimed last night.

Campaigners have condemned proposals by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence to withdraw the drugs because they are too expensive.

The condition, pulmonary hypertension, affects an estimated 4,000 people in the UK.

Only a quarter of these need the most expensive level of treatment.

Yet the plans by NICE, the Government's drug rationing body, mean no life-extending therapies will be available to new patients because the cost of the most expensive exceeds its threshold of £30,000 per head.

Only the cheapest drug used to combat the condition will remain available for patients.

The impotence drug Viagra is valuable in combating pulmonary hypertension's symptoms of breathlessness but sufferers say it will not prevent the heart failure the disease can induce.

Lung specialists currently combine it with inhaled or infused drugs such as prostacyclins for the most seriously affected, which can add £40,000 a year to the £12,000 cost.

Another group of drugs, endothelin receptor antagonists, are also under threat.

The cost of the most expensive treatments is on a par with approved HIV treatments or keeping one criminal in prison for a year.

The final decision, to be taken in July, will apply to England but doctors believe Scotland will follow suit.

Patients with pulmonary hypertension are usually diagnosed in their 40s and 50s and the time from diagnosis to death is only 30 months without effective treatment.

The disease causes blood pressure in the pulmonary artery to rise. Those who go downhill need hospital care - with a lung transplant the only other option.

Professor Andrew Peacock, one of the world's leading experts on the condition at the Western Infirmary, Glasgow, said: "One of the drugs we routinely use for the very sickest of the sick patients, prostacyclin, we're not going to be able to use at all.

"We're going to have to say to people, 'Sorry, no treatment. You're just going to have to have palliative care and you're going to die basically'."

Anna Baker, 25, a mother, from Ashby de la Zouch in Leicestershire, was diagnosed with pulmonary hypertension just over a year ago.

"This medication has given me my life back," she said. "I have to take the drug via a small pump 24 hours a day. I still get tired and have to limit what I do, but I have the confidence to do normal everyday things that just weren't possible last year."

As an existing patient, Mrs Baker will continue to get the expensive drugs prescribed on the NHS.

But she said: "I think it's outrageous that people with pulmonary hypertension in future might be denied the treatment."

NICE said its appraisal recommendations are preliminary and "may change after consultation".

It is really hard to explain to those who do not understand what the system is really going to do and how bad it is. I really this monster gets struck down. This is America, you work for your rewards.

RM-

The Articles of Condedration, the Declaration of Indepenence, the Bill of Rights were all drafted to keep the VERY thing that is happening in this country right now to prevent the Govt from having as much power as they do. They were Written in reponse to the Socialist Rule that was England, they were drafted because the People that founded this country were tried of the HIGH Tax rates the QUEEN were trying to impose on people that wanted to be free of all the Government intrusion into their lives...

Please if you want all the things that England has to offer you. Move there.. if you want what all the European Countrys have to offer you move there. They have it already and its Failing, as for me i will continue to fight that type of obtrusiveniss in this country..

I was for health care REFORM. This bill is not reform in any way at all. It's like forcing everyone in the country to buy a bottle of aspirin every month, making the middle class pay for the bottom 50%'s bottles who don't pay taxes anyway, and declaring you cured headaches.

I was for health care REFORM. This bill is not reform in any way at all. It's like forcing everyone in the country to buy a bottle of aspirin every month, making the middle class pay for the bottom 50%'s bottles who don't pay taxes anyway, and declaring you cured headaches.

^this to some extent.

I hate the HC bill mostly because it sucks and is a giveaway to private insurance. It's basically Romneycare, which the R's were cool with up until the point that the D's tried to propose the same bill. Then it became "socialism" and "unconstitutional."

Anyway, I would have preferred real healthcare reform, and this bill doesn't cut it. There are however some good things in it, like rescission restrictions and pre-existing condition clauses that will help a bit, but it doesn't address cost control.

Finally, far more than 50% of the population pays taxes. I hate this talking point because it's very very misleading. approx. 50% pay no income taxes. Everyone who collects a paycheck pays taxes. Hell, even a homeless person pays sales tax at the liquor store. Just a little clarification

if you want what all the European Countrys have to offer you move there.

dumbest talking point ever. I hate this crap...

Filing a lawsuit that questions the constitutionality of a radical government takeover of one sixth of our economy, according to the far left, is nonsensical, bigoted, "party of no", Teabagging propaganda.

However, according to those same people, filing a FEDERAL suit against a STATE for trying to enforce a FEDERAL law, makes perfect sense.

And you wonder why the entire country is chomping at the bit in anticipation of November.

Finally, far more than 50% of the population pays taxes. I hate this talking point because it's very very misleading. approx. 50% pay no income taxes.

I agree. It's what I meant anyway and most people I know understand that in that way. Some people just take words too literally like "drugs are bad" and there's always some smart-alec who chimes in that aspirin and caffein are drugs. But thanks for clarifying.

there is a Difference between Taxes and INCOME taxes. parse words however you want. but over 50 percent of people dont pay income tax.

Huey 1908 states: "You may be right. However, when they are sick, suffering and in need, they get it ANYWAY. And mostly on the tax payer's dime. Apparently, that works for you." Well, helllllooooo yourself - sounds just like Obamacare! Those who can't afford it will get it free while we taxpayers pay for it! The only difference is, is that WE aren't MANDATED to carry health insurance on our dime as well!

This just in on MSNBC:

In Canada, money may matter for cancer survival

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Despite Canada's universal healthcare system, poorer Canadians with cancer are more likely to die early than their wealthier peers, suggests a new study of almost 100,000 patients from Ontario.

See the following link for the rest:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38525464/ns/health-cancer/

yea this judge bought and paig for campaignm solution.this guy collected fifteen thousand from this company lastyear a repud company him and the attorney general of va just another repud bought off the graf goes deep

there is a Difference between Taxes and INCOME taxes. parse words however you want. but over 50 percent of people dont pay income tax.

um... yeah... i know. That's pretty much what I said.

I was correcting the poster who said 50% pay no taxes, which isn't true at all.

Steve, what are the Articles of Condredation? You right-wing people never have read a history book, have you. You, Alan..none of you.

Articles of Confederation, not condredation
throes, not throws
FDR died in office, which is why he didn't serve 16 full years - remember Harry Truman? His VP who took over? Dropped an atomic bond?

RM-881320

What's wrong with compelling everyone to contribute through mandatory insurance? You already have mandatory car insurance? What's the difference? Or have you not thought that far?

Geez, hasn't this talking point been beaten to death? What's the difference you ask? For starters, it's only required if you're driving an auto. Riding the bus; riding with a buddy; taking the train? Nope, don't need it at all. It's a matter of choice. Since when should there be a tax for existing? Second, auto insurance isn't FEDERALLY mandated. It's up to each state (you know, the 10th amendment about states rights). Third, it's required for the reason if you are at fault in an accident with another vehicle, you have a way to pay for damages to the other person without being able to skip out on it. Fourth, I'm not sure about all states, but I think if you can prove you have enough assets to pay the minimum liability, you are allowed to waive insurance - so, it may or may not be even mandatory.

The U.S. is NOT a democracy. It is a REPUBLIC. As such, there is no such thing as "majority rule" here, never has been. If this were the case, the Civil Rights of 1964 would never have been passed.

You yo-yos that trumpet this nonsense about "majorty rule" represent EXACTLY what the Founders were concerned about --- Mob Rule. The Articles of Confederation, Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights were drafted to prevent Mob Rule.

Got an idea. How about all you "hard working" malcontents just split from the US? Take your neo-con "Me, Myself an I" attitude and move to a third world country and take over? Start your own utopia since you are such gifted leaders and thinkers.

Rotflmbo! Boy are you ever confused! Um, who has been cheering that "we have the majority in the house & senate"? Democrats. Who on this vine has pretty much acted like a child "na-na na-na boo-boo we won, you lost - deal with it"? Liberals/Progressives. Who, at the health care summit, said that "We are in charge now"? Obama (remember McCain said he was reminded of it every day). How could this bill even pass without a majority? Speaking of our founding fathers, what about taxation without representation? These senators represent us and the majority of We the People said we don't want it. Seems like our government currently is, as you put it, under "Mob Rule". And you and others who want this health [insurance] care bill that were told this was a "fee" and not a tax are not angry to find out this is indeed a tax? He promised NOT to tax the middle class and he is. Does that not make you fuming mad?

I want true health care reform, not just health insurance reform.

To the original post... "The Govt should not be able to force people to buy healthcare"

This is the entire problem our country is having, comprehension. The government is not forcing us to buy "healthcare." The government is forcing us to buy health insurance, which does not guarantee anyone will actually pay for services rendered in healthcare. Here's what's going to happen.

People who can't afford insurance, will be subsidzed by people who can afford insurance. When the people that can't afford coverage goes in for treatment, they will be presented with a bill from the healthcare provider. The insurance will have paid their portion. Let's say the bill was $1000, and the insurance company picks up 60%, or $600. That leaves a bill of $400 to the patient, or consumer. If the person that was receving the subsidy couldn't afford the premium, they certainly aren't going to be able to afford $400, or their portion of the bill. It's not a hard choice really, rent and food, or a doctor bill. What do you think will get paid first? So, that $400 will move into the bad debt category, and the cost of health services will rise to cover increasingly bad debt. This in turn, will force greater limits on procedures, and so the rationing will begin. Premiums will also rise, and deductables will also rise. Then lets add litigation to the mix. We're going to add about 30 million dead beat customers to the health system, and reduce the pay of doctors, putting them on some convoluted bonus scheme. So, we are going to overwork our doctors, and underpay them, which sets up a recipe for mistakes. Mistakes lead to malpractice lawsuits, which will be driven by an influx of lawyers encouraging the new subsidized patients to sue the hospitals. This is going to drive up malpractice insurance, leading to higher rates. Once again, driving premiums up, deductables up, and the amount of coverage down.

Why stop with the recent law? Why not also eliminate all government meddling?

Do away with the tax exemption granted employees when health-care is provided by their employer. This would reduce the deficit. People who don't want insurance can refuse coverage.

Remove all laws that require treatment be given without regard to ability to pay when the condition is life threatening. People who don't have insurance don't deserve treatment.

Stop regulation of the health care industry, free markets work so well in bringing efficiency to incomprehensible topics. Just look what they did for home building and whatever equity I once had in my home.

Let people buy medication from other countries. Do away with the prescription requirement. If I enjoy taking a "perc" now and then, why should it be anyone's business why I make that choice.

Stop requiring certification for hospitals, Doctors, and other medical practitioners. "Let the buyer beware."

And finally, I don't want my tax providing subsidized public roads for people to travel to and from hospitals, doctors, and the like. Any person on the road for that purpose should have to pay for use. The same goes for emergency response. Someone who gets in an accident shouldn't be given unequal preference over the poor sot dying quietly in private.

Yes, by all means review this law. It is a long way from solving so many problems and it has that nasty purchase requirement attached. But I don't see this day as cause for celebration. People become angry when the federal government doesn't stop broken oil wells from polluting the Gulf. If a hurricane hits and rescue and repair aren't instantly underway we blame the federal government. If a major flu epidemic kills a large part of the nation, we blame the federal government. Don't have a job? Even Rush Limbaugh blames that on the federal government. But wait, why should angry people concern the federal government?

Our health care system is destroying itself without any assistance from the federal government. First the premiums are prohibitive then the maze of deductibles and co-pays makes using health care too expensive even with insurance. Can't this be ignored by everyone - not just conservatives? It is such a hoot when someone learns they owe 20,000 or 30,000 dollars after receiving medical care and they still have to pay the premium.

Yes, by all means neccessary let's continue doing nothing. It works so well.

It's time to play "you bet your life" and that too should be perfectly legal.

Mitt romney and scott brown FORCED Massachusetts residents to buy health insurance. Your point?

it's good to see niteowlett hasn't changed - still wants everything for nothing on somebody else's dime.

millie - this isn't about prosperity it's about control. tune in to some european or asian newscasts via web or shortwave. they called it correctly - it's about limiting the liberty of Americans.

cmmon, formulate your opinion based on the facts of the issue, not from your partisan prejudice.

Hey Huey -

Guess what, here in VA our new republican governor just delivered a budget SURPLUS! Virginia is rated #1 state for business by Forbes magazine, our schools and roads are among the best in the nation. And somehow, despite a low tax burden and minimal government intervention, we've managed to balance our budget, build and maintain our great infrastructure, all while protecting the environment and our quality of life in a business state.

Care to reassess who is having a hard time with reality?

When will libs finally get it that the best way to increase tax revenues is to encourage the success of your citizens and businesses, not punish them with oppressive tax rates that only serve to shrink the tax base?

VAGuy,

They will never get it, they are entitled to what you have and what you have worked hard for, the very fact that you have something they dont somehow seems unfair to them.

Being from VA also, let me tell you that the surplus came from cuts made BOTH by the previous democratic governor and this republican governor, and mostly to state agencies and services, the effects of which will be felt for years. And not in a good way. My institution alone took 30% total in cuts over 2 years, with staff stretched to the max, jobs unfilled, services not provided. That is not sustainable over the long run.

Guess my reality is a little different from your reality.

Is that a Govt institution DrDrgimmethenews? a Private institution? Tax payer supported?

It would be ever so nice if that were the whole answer. It is not. You need to wake up and question the constitutionality of all legislation. When it brings up legal questions, these should be solved before voting into law. Yes-most of the DA's are Republicans-but that is because the Dem's must show support for usurping YOUR constitutional rights.

O'Bama promised to change downwards the cost of health care. HE did not do this and in fact raised the cost. This current program will have us even more broke in a very short period of time. Then who wins-only the very wealthy will have health care.

How about you wake up and try to solve these complex issues rather than just sitting in the cheap seats and hurling rocks?

http://dpb.virginia.gov/budget/faq.cfm#howadopted

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors_of_Virginia

http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Virginia_state_budget

DrDrGimme, I'll agree that the previous democratic governor deserves some of the credit, and one of the recent years VA was ranked #1 for business was under a Democratic governor. I apologize for not pointing that out. Point well taken.

But I would point out that the recent budget cutbacks, while painful, have positioned VA for growth and success. We got out in front of the issue, and took steps to address it proactively. And the fact that we aren't saddled with unsustainable debt means that it is possible for our government to right the ship.

Many other states, with chronic deficits and large unfundable pension obligations, do not have this luxury. A government can easily overextend itself with these sorts of obligations in good times and leave no safety margin for a large downturn. Thank goodness that didn't happen here.

NITE OWLETT---------- Obama can think about forcing a quasi socialistic health care bill on all of us he wats to, it is when the inept liar trys to do it he gets his butt in a sling.

Considering that the GOP agenda is to retake congress and then start issuing subpoena after subpoena, this is no surprise. That's all we need from the "Party of NO". Forget working on any pertinent issues and bring back Ken Starr to waste money investigating nothing! Freaking idiots!

steve what do you do for a living you may not have that health care for long

VAGuy- Thanks for the correction. Neither party should take the full credit or blame for the successes or failures we experience.

You said, "But I would point out that the recent budget cutbacks, while painful, have positioned VA for growth and success. " I am not so sure about this. I think some of the cuts will have long term cascading effects that we cannot see at this point, and that concerns me, particularly around educational, health, and social issues.

Thanks for the civil discourse!

I think that not racking up a debt or defecit allows for more flexibility and options in solving the problems you think may... but may not actually happen in the future DrDrGimmetheNews. Regardless of the uncertain future... having a balanced budget - which was achieved by decreasing the government's spending... is paramount to running anything from a household, to a business, to the government. My hope for VA is to now hold onto the surplus and not spend it... let the reserves build up to accomodate future issues to be tackled rather than spend it just to spend it.

Oh, and Warner... he was a good governor. Tim Kaine... he was an absolute moron that was able to float in on Warner's coat tails (didn't really have to do anything but hold the line anyway). If Warner had been up for the Presidency - I would have gone for him as he stands as close to center as Democrat can be on the conservative side. And I like leaders that lead from the middle.

All republicans. And there you have it.

If by "it", you mean people who understand what is legal and what isn't, yeah you're correct. This insurance scam that allows politicians to dip their hands into a multi-trillion dollar pot of $$ is the Democrats Haliburton.

The fact that they're spending MY tax $$ on that new commercial with Andy Griffith talking about how great this law is makes me sick.

The fact that they're spending MY tax $$ on that new commercial with Andy Griffith makes me sick Andy may have done it for free, at least he could have. He does believe it's great,right?? I mean since he's a wealthy loyal liberal you don't think he'd make a profit for pushing the cause,do you?

Huey - Your right no Dems going to go against this bill. He or she would be be biting the hand that feeds them - free loading, give me mine for free, dem voters. Let's not forget about the Earn Income Credit that most freeloaders qualify for who don't pay income taxes. Another welfare check bought by Dems for their voters.

You dont have to buy a car. Never in our history have you had to buy something because you are a US citizen.

you don't have to get sick either....same rule of law applies in both cases.

Driving is a privilege and living is a right, if don't want to drive you don't have to buy auto-insurance. Weak argument for the hand-out party.

Way to not understand basic reasoning Millie.

I think Millie's point is that everyone is going to get sick sooner or later. You don't have a choice. Whereas you could go your whole life without driving a car. They're not the same thing so the comparison falls flat.

Healthcare is a basic human right. It shouldn't be restricted to those who can afford it. In our prosperous society we can afford to provide healthcare for everyone, cradle to grave. Obama's healthcare plan didn't go nearly far enough for some of us.

The pursuit of happiness is also a basic right and the damd "progressives" will not be happy until they have all your money.

Health care is not a basic human right.

The last time we said that the fruits of an indiviaduals labor was determined to be the right of another individual - well that was called slavery.

Maha -

But I thought you libs say that choice is an even more basic human right? Remember, you guys are "pro-choice". But I guess that's only when we're talking about people choosing to agree with you.

When it comes to my choice to NOT have a medical treatment and NOT pay for it, when it comes to my choice purchase what I want in an insurance plan or not to purchase one at all, so much for choice.

What happened to "Keep your laws off my body"? Funny how that goes out the window, how the liberal concept of choice is restricted to only reproductive health. As soon as we talk about another area of healthcare, so much for your faux "choice".

I agree that we need to have a safety net, but Obamacare is NOT a safety net. It does nothing to control costs. And it still leaves millions outside with no coverage.

Take a look at the OMB's deficit projections - after 10 years the Obamacare-induced deficits are mind-numbing.

Excellent point VAGuy.

Steve000000 /qualityoflifeaz where did you get your law degrees? It has nothing to do with driving, Einsteins. A state forcing some to carry insurance so others don't have to accept the risk, is exactly the same legal principle.

I'm a 3rd generation Illinois Conservative, note I don't say Republican anymore. How do you feel about the handouts Bush/Cheney have been giving Haliburton, BP, and US wealthy over the past 8 years? Would much rather see my Fed tax dollars go to health-care and reduce over all system costs. So when you get laid off you better hope you don't get sick. Republicans party and leadership is a joke right now.

You have to buy liability insurance to protect others for what you might do driving. You are required to buy comp and collision by your lender to protect them not you . You can buy C&C IF YOU WHAT BUT NOT REQUIRED IF YOU OWN YOUR CAR FREE AND CLEAR!.

VAGuy - my guess is that when the time comes you are not going to refuse healthcare, whether you've paid for it or not. Nobody is going to waive the ambulance service and say, 'You know, I can't afford this, so just let me sit here in the street and bleed to death.' Nobody is going to say, 'Well, I'd like the chemo, but since I haven't paid for it, I'll just go with the vitamins.'

We all use healthcare and it would be cheaper for everyone if we pooled our resources.

I don't get a choice to keep my tax money out of useless 'wars' or subsidies for oil and mining companies. What makes you think you should have a choice of keeping yours out of healthcare?

MahaDave:

Health care is not a basic human right!

Maybe because of your empathy you'd like it to be but that doesn't make it so. Health care is a service you buy. It's a vital service for most of us but a service none-the-less. It costs money to provide that service...lots of money but probably not nearly as much as our present system makes us pay.

If people don't realize this, they're likely not to plan for it. Consequently, when they get sick and need medical attention, they don't have the financial resources to pay for it. That's when the rest of us have to make a decision about whether we pay for it, how we'll do that, or decide not to pay for it and let the individual either find resources through friends, family, local organization, or just suffer through it even if it means they die.

For those of you who want to pull out the old, "But if it was you or a family member suffering from lack of medical care, you'd think differently" the observation is probably accurate but the argument is not valid. The majority of us want to survive and to do so with some comfort and convenience free from suffering. When that condition is threatened, we'd like to regain it. If we can't do so for ourselves, the we'd like for someone to come to our aid. However, that doesn't mean that we're in any way entitled to that aid.

It is our right to decide if our money is to be allocated to extend medical care to the indigent, either as individuals, as communities, cities, counties, or states. Obamacare takes that right away!

Obamacare does NOT address health care. It's aimed at reorganizing the health insurance industry. Medical care and insurance are related but two very different species.

If we really want to cut costs associated with medical care, we will cut out the middleman: The insurance companies. There is no reason I can think of why medical care facilities can't start up their own "medical care clubs" or whatever you want to call them. You pay the clinic, hospital or medical group a premium directly. In return, you get the level of medical care for which you paid when you need it. The "club" membership can decide if it wants to extend care to the indigent and to what extent it will do that. Local "clubs" can reciprocate with each other so that if you're away from your "club" you can still receive care at another reciprocating "club."

Why couldn't Obamanation do something like that? After all, he might not have been qualified to be President when he took the job (who is?), but he was a community organizer! Maybe he could have put those skills to use to get the medical community organized. Or maybe he, like so many of our politicians, is in the hip pocket of the medical insurance industry.

Wake up Millie-your arguement is between apples and oranges.

1. Car insurance is required if you DRIVE the car. This is completely optional. If you walk, bike, train, bus or stay home, you are not required to nor do you have anything (car) to insure.

2. Health insurance (required) is a fee or tax required for being alive on everyone. There is no option here and that is the crux of the arguement before the court.

Take your emotions out of this and let us all solve the issues that congress tried to bullrush us all into.

MahaDave

"Healthcare is a basic human right. It shouldn't be restricted to those who can afford it. In our prosperous society we can afford to provide healthcare for everyone, cradle to grave. Obama's healthcare plan didn't go nearly far enough for some of us."

I agree Maha but who isn't getting healthcare now? It's not legal for hospitals to turn away someone because they can't pay. Now if you change up your sentence to say "Health Insurance" is a basic human right then you're flat out wrong.

Whe you are born breathing and oxygen are free,

Everything else, some one has to pay for.

You want to pass laws that make me pay for your healthcare sc#ew you.

All of you folks yelling, you pay for it anyway, are the same ones that got laws passed, requiring hospitals to provide free healh care, in emergency rooms.

This bill from what I read seems to be about health insurance, not health care. Having health insurance does not guarantee heath care. I don't think anyone should be required to purchase something.

You want to pass laws that make me pay for your healthcare sc#ew you.

newsflash, you pay for it anyway. It would actually cheaper if they had insurance, not only because they don't end up in the ER as often but also because they might contribute to premiums (even if they are a fraction of the medical bill cost).

If your argument is selfish in nature, as your's is (e.g., "screw you") you should WANT them to have insurance because it SAVES you money.

All of you folks yelling, you pay for it anyway, are the same ones that got laws passed, requiring hospitals to provide free healh care, in emergency rooms.

I suppose you've never heard of the hippocratic oath?

It would be cheaper if they had insurance? Wasn't the whole basis of the bill having to cost less than a trillion based on the notion that we currently pay a trillion dollars for healthcare in the US (thus trading one scheme for another). But in reality what were realizing and seeing are that costs are going up as a result of the insurance bill.

I know Obama wants you to believe it isn't the bill driving the costs of insurance up... and it's corporate greed, but even if you ignore that... cost estimates on just the government's side of managing this monstrosity are well beyond the trillion dollars they originally sold you on.

It would be cheaper if they had insurance?

yes. When people have insurance they go to the doctor more frequently, and thus find things like cancer and heart disease sooner reducing the overall healthcare expense throughout their lifetimes. This is fairly well documented although I don't have to the time to find a link right now (I will try and look later).

Since you pay for their medical bills anyway (through higher medical bills yourself) personally I'd rather see that bill be as low as possible...

Millie,

I think part of the issue is that the individual states can compel you to buy auto insurance or even health insurance, but the federal government cannot.

Maybe I have misunderstood the issue, though.

Millie-473556

you don't have to get sick either....same rule of law applies in both cases.

You don't have to run a business where you need to be bonded to cover damages accidentally done while you're doing business with someone either. Perhaps you'd like to pay into that insurance too? Maybe all those New Yorkers who take the bus every day should help pay all the liability insurance for the drivers. Car insurance is mandated at a state level, not federal. So are speed limits, seatbelt laws, etc.

Millie I understood your comparison it was just a bad one. The problem with Obamacare is it's not fixing anything. If they want to do a nationalized healthcare then scrap the current system. I mean gut it and provide the entire country with one style of helthcare. Although I don't think the government needs to be administering healthcare IMO.

Drowning Grover - your full of bs I live in MA where everyone is required to have healthcare and guess what the ER is still full of uninsured - illegals and individuals who decided to pay the fine because it's cheaper and they still get free healthcare at the ER. MA is broke due to rising healthcare cost for all the poor my tax dollars now pay for that are now cover under so called free healthcare. Premiums have not gone down they keep increasing. MA is Obamacare on a small scale wait and see. How fair is it for the taxpayers in MA to have to pay higher state taxes for our freeloaders and then get tax at the federal level to pay for the rest of the freeloaders in the country. America is great!!

hmdicowii - You're right - it's my compassion that makes me want healthcare to be a human right. We don't have it now, but we can and should. You have a good argument.

But we can also decide as a nation what to do about those who can't afford healthcare. And it is not just the indigent. You and I, with good educations and professional jobs (I assume) are just 6 months of unemployment away from disaster. One illness can destroy your financial life forever. You can plan all you want but in our country it might not help you. By setting up a safety net for others we are insuring our own safety. And whether health insurance is a right or not, if you take it away you don't have healthcare because nobody can afford healthcare out of pocket in this country, except maybe Bill Gates. Don't fool yourself - the people who go to the ER for care don't get it for free. They are ruining their financial futures. So if we're going to provide healthcare for anyone, we need a sound, fair, accessible insurance system. Private enterprise has failed miserably at providing it.

So, A+ on your argument for logic and civics, but D- for common sense and practicality.

DrowningGrover,

Unfortunately, preventive medicine, as a whole does not seem to reduce overall health care costs according to a New England Journal of Medicine article published in Feb. 2008. Basically, they find that some measures do reduce costs, while others do not.

The government will have to do an actuarial analysis (if they haven't already) on preventive care measures and see which ones save money and which ones do not. However, it will probably be politically impossible to reduce access to the particular preventive care services that cost more then they save (in monetary terms). Remember the outcry when Kathleen Sebiluis and the HHS recommended for women to have breast cancer screenings at age 50?

Also, at least in Massachussets, ER use is increasing faster then the national average in spite of the fact they have near universal care. It seems this is at least partially due to a shortage of primary care physicians, something the health reform bill did little to nothing to address. Rommneycare is the closest thing to the health care reform congress passed, so I do not think it is outlandish to believe that will happen nationwide.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMp0708558 (sorry, kind of hard to read in this format)

http://www.rwjf.org/files/research/48929.pdf

MahaDave:

Thanks for the civil discourse; a commodity that is sometimes scarce in this environment.

The point I make, and for which you assigned a nearly failing grade, is probably a point on which we'll disagree. We don't need INSURANCE for everyone. In my opinion, it's the insurance industry that is inflating the costs for care. They add no value but act solely as care brokers. They do not answer to their subscribers or to the medical professionals or to medical facilities. They answer to their stock holders. They are profit driven. The only reason they even have created an avenue for recourse, in my opinion, is because of competition...weak competition at that.

What we need is QUALITY MEDICAL CARE at REASONABLE COSTS for as many as can afford it and for those for whom we CHOSE to provide it if they can't provide it themselves. Once the insurance companies are out of the loop, I suspect medical costs will plummet and the goal of universal or nearly universal coverage will not only be attainable but palatable to a majority of USAians.

DrowningGrover,

Unfortunately, preventive medicine, as a whole does not seem to reduce overall health care costs according to a New England Journal of Medicine article published in Feb. 2008. Basically, they find that some measures do reduce costs, while others do not

...

http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMp0708558 (sorry, kind of hard to read in this format)

http://www.rwjf.org/files/research/48929.pdf

Thanks Business for the info. I kinda figured the money saved by preventive medicine works on a case-by-case basis and depend on the disease in question, but I always kinda presumed that going to the doctor regularly will save money in the long run. It's certainly not a black and white issue.

Good post, thx!

DrowningGrover,

No problem, glad to help.

For those of you that live in big cities, it must be nice to have the option for public transportation. For the rest of us, we have to drive to get to work. There are no bikepaths to ride on, the streets are for cars and we don't want to get run over. Unemployment being as high as it is, we can't be choosy about which jobs we take. We NEED cars. We NEED to drive to work and the store and the doctor's office. So if we NEED to drive, do we NEED insurance? The law says we do. So I ask again, what's the difference with requiring us to buy health insurance? In both examples, it's just another congressional ploy to get us to give money to big business. And for Pete's sake (you may not know Pete, but he's a good guy), stop putting this ridiculous health care plan strictly on Obama. Obama called for a public option and universal health care, not this cruddy plan. Congress screwed this one up.

millie,

please tell me you really aren't capable of understanding the difference between the health insurance mandate and auto insurance requirements.

one is to protect others from you and your car, the other is purely about control of the individual. furthermore, the US Constitution limits the feds to 22 functions; most state constitutions are not as limited.

It is actually some decent reading...some of you should try it. I have...Someone on a thread posted that we should require Congress with every Bill they pass to attach the specific section of the Constitution that allows them to pass it. When the HCR debate was ongoing there were quite a few Democrats that were asked that...one said it was the "Good and Plenty" Clause.

Still waiting for someone in the media to ask Obama... Pres Obama, During the HCR debate you said that the mandate was NOT a tax. Your justice dept is arguing that it IS a tax...why did you lie on National TV?

Here is a question for the Libs...If Obama can mandate you buy Health Care policy...Can he also mandate everyone buy a GM Vehicle? If you think so, then you better start reading the Constitution.

Newsvine: The home of the liberals who take a story about constitutional experts stating it may in fact be unconstitutional then blames the readers who dont' vote like they do.

You said it! Homemade Constitutional Expert! Great point.

Fact is that most of the people that argue the "constitutionality" of any government action here, have not read and/or do not understand the Constitution of the United States as well as the cumulative impact of ALL its amendments.

For those that decry the Commerce Clause, realise that it is just that clause that made the the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts possible.

Conservatives just love regulations that impose restrictions on others. They just love to tell others not just how to live their lives, but want to officially sanction them if they don't measure up. The Patriot Act "sneak and peek" warrants were used only 3 of 703 cases in 2008 for terrorism investigations, yet the conservatives just love that law. The other 700 warrants were "fishing expeditions."

Also, regarding the car-health insurance comparison. Having a car is a necessity in much of this country because public transit is all but non-existant in rural areas. Don't tell me its a choice for those folks to get to work. Fact is that car insurance insures the bank and others against the carelessness/fault of the driver. Health insurance insures society against the irresponsibility of those who would consume their youthful good health and have others pay for their illnesses when they get old.

I thougt conservatives dont like to regulate? hense thier platfoirm of deregulation. Is that not the claim liberals make with regard to just about everything that has gone wrong, DE regulation. You cant have it both ways.

It is the liberals and their enviromental lobbies that want to tell people how to live.

You have the car insurance thing wrong too. State only require liability to protect other drivers and their passengers. You are not required to cover yourself with collision insurance by the state, but by the bank to protect their assets. If the car is paid for, only the liability insurance is required.

ScoMata1964

I thougt conservatives dont like to regulate? hense thier platfoirm of deregulation.

Who told you to think that? Pay attention. Glass-Steagall is regulation and the conservatives were in FAVOR of that bill not being repealed. You can't just lump all regulatory decisions made by the lawyers in office together. Some are good decisions, but MANY are bad.

RM881320: You state: "Conservatives just love regulations that impose restrictions on others" - I'm sorry? If a conservative doesn't like meat he doesn't eat it; if a liberal doesn't like meat they don't want anyone to have meat (etc. - there's a whole section on this). Methinks it is liberals who want to impose restrictions on everyone as long as it is in their interest.

ckaster - i believe it was ron paul of texas who suggested that idea.

The majority of the people who abuse the ER is Medicade recipiants.

Both wrong. When you go to the emergency room without insurance they hound you with collections until your credit is ruined and/or you go bankrupt. They charge exorbitant, unrealistic fees to uninsured patients. Try $80 for a $2 bag of saline and $1400/hour for a physician's time. It's neither cheap nor easy. It's a last resort that destroys your life.

Yella - can you provide some facts to support that? My understanding was that the majority of folks who abuse the ER are illegal aliens.

bostonbc123

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba709

See the picture from the CDC---more Medicaid patients utilize the ER than uninsured. A 1999 study showed that 48% of Medicaid visits to the ER were non urgent. http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=102184917.html

Why are people on Medicaid(who have access to health care) prefering to use the ER instead? Maybe because they don't have to foot the bill---let the taxpayers pay seems to be the attitude.

MaHaDave,

You think that only happens to people without insurance? Ha ha ha. Come look at my personal books one day. I have insurance - good insurance that paid a majority of the bills. The total bill reached over 50,000.00 and I have to pay 20% after the deductible. Sorry I didn't have that extra $15,000.00 + under my mattress, so I make monthly payments and will be doing so for several years.

This bill does NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING to address the COST of healthcare and that is the real issue. IF the costs were not through the roof, insurance would be cheaper and more people could afford it.

This is what needed to be addressed - NOT forced health insurance.

The only thing this legislation achieves is lots of money for the insurance and big pharma industries.

define little and tell me where the cap is on the little and I may be willing to listen to your arguement. Until I see these in writing, I want my rights and everyone elses rights protected.

Just wondering---if medical bills cause bankruptcies, then why did they raise the deductions for medical expenses from 7.5% to 10% of income? Doesn't this hurt people who have medical bills--possibly pushing them further into debt? Why is this in the healthcare bill then since these additional expenses will hurt the middle class?

ACtually Karen, Medicaid is nearly useless for a couple of reasons, well, 1 actually but they directly affect each other :)

The doctor reimbursements under Medicaid are way below minimal. For example, IF a doctor actually accepts a Medicaid patient, they may only get reimbursed some low amount like $25.00 for a legitimate $100 procedure. Physicians on private practice can't afford these rates so many of them simply so not accept Medicaid patients. Even clinics with numerous doctors will hesitate.

My parents are both on Medicaid and I've seen this first hand when helping to pay their medical bills. (My mother has lung issues while my dad is just going for normal physicals). Because of such poor access, my parents both have supplemental plans that pay the bulk of the charges and allows Medicaid just to pick up what the other plan won't. Obviously the co-pays apply.

This bill does NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING to address the COST of healthcare and that is the real issue

Just my thoughts absolutely agree with this statement. But there lies the biggest problem. the government can force you to buy insurance, the government can't force medical providers to charge what is reasonable and customary.

And as Lynn stated if a doctor does accept a medicare/medicaid patient they arent even reimbursed the amount that the services actually cost. So they inflate their charges to other people.

The bottom line here is the entire system is flawed and broken and requiring someone to have insurance is not going to fix the basics that are wrong.

Freedom Writer -

Correct, but what the government CAN do it limit liability claims settlements. This is one area they completely ignored. The costs of malpractice insurance is taken into account when the rates are set and those cost are astronomical.

Very conservative example - if one doctor's malpractice insurance if $25,000.00 and he charges $125.00 for an office visit - he would have to see 200 patients just to cover that one cost. That doesn't include rent, phones, utilities, staff, etc.

So if you are really intested in reducing costs, go after the BIGGEST cost to the doctors and hospitals - malpractice insurance.

If I remeber, working on the malpractice issues was one of the reasons the American public, the ones that opposed the bill anyway, wanted congress to simply step back a little and actually read what was in the bill or at least go over it again to cover the loose ends. This is what ticked me off so badly about the final passage. All we asked was that congress take a second look but they couldn't be bothered because they wanted to hold up that sign, "see, we passed healthcare reform."

but what the government CAN do it limit liability claims settlements.

See that I agree and disagree with. I agree that malpractice insurance is insanely high, but if a doctor really is grossly negligent then the victims deserve compensation. Where the problem imo lies is many doctors choose to settle claims of malpractice instead of going to court because it is cheaper than having to take the time, money for attorneys and lost business that is necessary to fight a malpractice claim.

Many states have already implemented caps on malpractice damage awards. It lowers malpractice insurance rates for doctors but does not lower fees charged to patients. These suits are filed in state courts and do not need federal intervention.

Yes, I'm proud of my state!

As I'm proud of my State! Thank you Virginia, now lets enact a Immigration Law like Arizona!

Thank you scram. A large per cent of the intellectually challenged here would vote against Heaven if Obama was for it. They would sooner burn in Hades itself, than to admit an intelligent, educated black man did something they and their republican conservative pals couldn't.

The problem with Obama is, he's too nice. Better he should channel the ghosts of Lyndon Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover, and start dragging the conservative political skeletons out of their closets. Or at least threaten to. It WORKS! They understand threats.

Huey,thanks I was getting worried that someone wouldn't bring race into the topic. You can always count on someone for the inevitable race card.

Impeach Heaven!

LOL

Joe. Reality is scary, I know. But race is the 400 pound elephant in the room. You CAN NOT deny it. On another Newsvine board on a story on the First Lady, there are numerous comments, clearly from conservative types denigrating her based solely on her race. When did you ever see anyone refer to Nancy Reagan or Laura Bush as "gorilla butt" in public. I know others may have cast aspersions on them, but never in this sort of racial "code."

Race IS a factor. Let's stop dancing. We're all grown ups (I think). We can handle it, even if you can't.

I'm surprisingly alright with this lawsuit, considering I'm for the health care changes. I think it would, once and for all, shut up the naysayers and I also think this is a fine example of checks and balances.

I'm happy to see that a state's representative (even if the people he's representing disagree, I'm from VA btw) can take a national law to court if they feel it's not right.

But race is the 400 pound elephant in the room. You CAN NOT deny it.

Condi Rice and Colin Powell: Both referred to as "plantation black" by the LIBERALS

Huey,so race is a factor in everything that is connected to this admin? Every decision or legislation revolves around race according to you. Any dissent against Obama is automatically racist? It's very sad if that's what you really believe.

Ah, Huey, collecting your stimulus check brought to you by the taxpayers of this country I see. How many of you people the democrats got on these websites defending the current administration at our expense?

No Huey, health care is not a basic human right. If people who have individual rights can't lead healthier lives, then they shouldn't be allowed to have health insurance - until they loose their fat - laziness - over-indulgence in alcohol, drugs, smoking, eating. Until then, let them pay for their medical care out of their pockets, but don't make me pay for their avarice.

Scram - have you read the judge's bio? If so, why are you attempting to use your pathetic slam of "radical right wing-nut activist judge"? What a waste of a human mind if that's all you can come up with.

Huey - Meech does have a large arse..... What is racist about that?

One of the things I've noticed in the news and here is that liberals are usually the first ones to bring up race. they are the ones who cry "RACE!" when in fact race has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. In doing this, they show they are only concerned with muddying an issue rather than prove thier point and make it harder where ever discrimination is an actual problem.

The only reason race is the 400 pound elephant in the room is because you keep feeding it.

fstwarrior..if I said what I really wanted to I'd be booted for life.

Two of my cousins died, both within the same family. The one cousin died of ALS..Lou Gehrig's disease. That disease had nothing to do with how he lived his life...after he died, a research hospital did a genetic study and found out that the gene that causes ALS was present in every other generation of my uncle's family.

His brother, my other cousin, died two years earlier of heart arythmia. Again, a sports nut, healhy, fit, no indication of any type of heart trouble or contributing factors before he died.

Not everyone lives the way you say. Illnesses or issues can be brought on with no warning and no indication. Fortunately, the cousin that had ALS was covered by insurance but if he hadn't been, would you have said the same thing about getting public coverage?

My parents, both seniors, had their rates doubled a couple of months after this "landmark" bill became law. Fortunately, I am under TRICARE which wasn't affected and my other plan through my employer didn't change.

It's not an issue about race. It is an issue about BAD LEGISLATION and the liberal mentality simply cannot accept that fact. If it was good legislation, there would have been no need for the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, the lies to get Bart Stupid's vote, etc, etc, ad infinitum !

If it was truly good legislation, then 60% of U.S. citizens would not have been opposed to it. If it had actually reduced costs, Obama would have been a hero ! This legislation is nothing more than GROWING GOVERNMENT at TAXPAYER EXPENSE to provide free health care for those who do not have it .....including "undocumented immigrants" . Welfare in disguise !!!

Lynn - I'm aware that there are some instances where illness/disease strike folks from "out-of-nowhere". My comment was addressed to all the folks who go to Dr.s offices or emergency rooms who are terribly out-of-shape, obese, fat, alcoholism, smokers or whatever as a result of their lifestyle. I am tired of paying for their insurance bills because of their choice(s) of living beyond their body's capacity.

I'm sorry for your loss - seriously.

Agreed

Anyone please show me 1 part of the legislation (the healthcare law) where it controls cost? Just 1 part.

It doesn't, all it did was force everyone to get insurance. It handed 15 million new people as client to what THE INSURANCE COMPANIES. At a cost of a trillion dollars.

1,000,000,000,000 divided by 15,000,000 = 66,666.66 per person of those 15 million for a life time. It does not control the cost of a case of bandages being charged to you by the Hospital that gave you 1 bandage and charged you for the case.

It does not control cost at all, it will definitely raise the burden on the nation. There is no way around it.

And to promise Nebraska for its vote to pass this POS bill, that it would never again have a rise in Medicare premiums while the rest of the country would is flat out against the law. They call it horse trading on the Hill, they were called on the carpet for it and it was removed from the bill, that being the case they vote should have been rescinded as well and it would have never passed.

VOTE THEM ALL OUT..

Actually, from what I've read only about 1/3rd of the uninsured people are going to be able to get insurance under this bill. Add to the fact that the CBO keeps revising the cost of the bill upwards, and the cost per person is even greater then you think. Also, considering that the intent was to get everyone in the country on some kind of insurance plan, it failed miserably from the start.

The fact that our esteemed president and congress had to lie, cheat, and threaten to get votes on it should tell you right from the start that this bill is a POS.

You want insurance pay for it, or do without, the wealthiest nation on the planet owes you nothing

Good point and as a Republican, I aggree that if the government can make insurance affordable for everyone, then by all means mandate it. HOWEVER, history tells us, and whether you a Liberal or Conservative, that everything the government does cost more, runs out of money or just plain ole does not work. Right now it is not affordable and I have not seen, read or heard anything that tells me it will be affordable for the middle class of America and have not seen, read or heard anything on what the true cost of this bill will be or how and who will be paying for it.

Except in this case that's blatantly untrue. And it's blatantly untrue for quite a lot of other things, as well. Even with all it's bloat Medicare is still hands down the most efficient and cost effective form of insurance in the country. It just is.

Every other westernized industrial nation in the world engages in heavy government regulation or outright ownership of the health system, and they are all doing it better than we are, and much, much cheaper.

One of the consequences of spending 30 years embracing an ideology that centers around a philosophy that government is bad and shouldn't be involved in anything is that you end up with a government that can't do the things you need it to do effectively. It's pretty disingenuous to say that because American government is so terrible at performing a lot of its duties that "government" as a social institution isn't suited for it. Government is the only body capable of effectively overseeing a public institution like the health system. There isn't any other option. Private enterprise will always make decisions that focus on short term profit at the expense of running the best system for the country as a whole.

We don't need an NHS. But at the very least we need a Bismarckian governmental intervention into the industry. Germany and several other countries are doing just fine with private health industries that operate efficiently and effectively because they're heavily regulated. We should be doing the same, and because that is the only option on the face of this planet that has a proven track record of providing efficient care it also means we need to stop telling ghost stories around the campfire about how bad government is and actually start demanding a government that performs its duties well.

Folks, please note that you will be taxed for the portion your employers pay for your healthcare insurance. This starts in the very near future (if it hasn't already.), so you might want to adjust your W-4s so you won't get in too deep. This is how the government is going to pay for those who don't have healthcare insurance. It is coming directly from your pocket via the tax code. This is now law in the new healthcare insurance legislation and IRS code.

Stephen, do us a favor and move to another country that will take care of you. I know you wont ever get it, so give up your US citizenship and find some place they will tell you what to do every day.

For me, I want none of it. If my kids are sick, i will beg, borrow or steal to make them well. But that is my problem, not the governments. But when they grow up, i definitely dont want them to be a 'WIMP' like you.

Shawn-1673478:

I apologize for being this blunt but, for health overhaul you should have been paying attention for the last year and a half! As for government efficiency, well they sure could do a LOT better. Then again some things are GREAT. U.S. Military, NASA, Interstate Highways, Social Security, Medicare, Higher education (college and grad schools), Communications, sanitary conditions, disease control, Natonal Parks and etc. Yes, not perfect, but MUCH, MUCH, better than ANYONE'S in the world, to date. As for being Republican, well 23% of people identify with the the GOP! Good Luck!

Yes, government doesn't work if you try to underfund everything and make programs fail so you can privatize more and charge an extra 30% on top of that.

Yes Stephen, but Medicade is billions of dollars in dept and we are borrowing money every day to pay for it, just like social security. We tack on another big ticket item like this with no idea or means to pay for it and I just don't think this country will handle it. I do not agree with you that government can affectively oversee the healthcare industry. They have not done it up to this point and their is no evidence they can do it now. Also, once you pull the blanket back on these other countries that have a government run system or option, you see alot of bad ideas, decisions, etc... It ain't all roses when you expose the real system of government back healthcare and is usually 50/50 at best with people for and against it.

If you believe "they are all doing it better than we are, and much, much cheaper", you are misinformed or just don't want to recognize the truth. The EU is a perfect example of this fallacy. UK is in the throws of changing the way they provide healthcare because they can't afford it any more. They are in the midst of actually shifting the focus AWAY from centralized bureaucracy to doctors at the local level. According to news reports, it also would abolish many current government-set targets, such as limits on how long patients have to wait for treatment. In other words, they are starting to move away from the very model liberals wish to move towards!

We're all subject to the same stats. It's hard to agree with the idea that those other countries are secretly doing it as bad as we are when we continue to rank alongside third world countries in most of the stats having to do with efficiency and effectiveness of healthcare. Nobody's saying there's a perfect system out there. But there are dozens of countries whose systems are hands down without a doubt working better than ours, and they all center around heavy government involvement in the health industry.

Medicaid and Medicare are two different stories, but I will say that Medicare has never been insolvent, isn't projected to be insolvent anytime soon, and that's with all sorts of aggressive defunding of government over the last 30 years whose entire point was to make it function poorly so that people would come to hate it. Even with all that this wholly government run insurance system is still beating the snot out of all the private providers in our country.

Like I said we don't necessarily need to extend Medicare to everybody. But heavy regulation in some form is the only solution. Another solution does not exist.

Stephen,

Tell that to France and the U.K. Their system is bankrupt. This bill is a shortsighted sham of what needed to be done. It is not the governments place to tell its citizens that they must purchase health insurance.

Stephen, do us a favor and move to another country that will take care of you. I know you wont ever get it, so give up your US citizenship and find some place they will tell you what to do every day.

For me, I want none of it. If my kids are sick, i will beg, borrow or steal to make them well. But that is my problem, not the governments. But when they grow up, i definitely dont want them to be a 'WIMP' like you.

Thank you for providing a valuable example of exactly how we've come to the point we have. The mere fact that you consider it some sort of privilege to have to resort to extreme measures just to provide a basic social service to your family says it all. Between the two of us I'm not the one with a wimpy outlook about what this country means, and what it should guarantee its citizens.

The UK NHS isn't bankrupt. Neither is France's system. They are instituting cost control measures due to the recession, sure. But they're in no danger of going bankrupt. It's simply not true.

Countries like Germany who have chosen to heavily regulate their private industries as an alternative to running a government-owned health industry are doing even better. Them's just the facts. The point is nobody is doing it well by allowing private industry to control it all. Nobody.

It wouldn't matter if the government would offer a gold plated insurance plan for $300 a month. There would be a segment of society would wouldn't buy it, and still go to the hospital and except someone else to pay for it, and that would be middle class America. Obama said " we will cut your insurance cost by 30% if we pass this bill" I'm still waiting....

It is true. You can argue all you want it doesnt change the facts.

It is true.

It really isn't. But just for @!$%#s and giggles why don't you link a few sources from those governments saying their systems are bankrupt. Let's see what's given you that idea.

Zapper - You will NOT be taxed on the portion your employer pays for your health insurance. That is a myth. The amount will be listed on your W-2 for information purposes only. See this: http://www.factcheck.org/2010/05/health-care-law-and-w-2-forms/

Sorry Stephen there are NO Guarantees! And the government should definitely NOT be guaranteeing anything. Quit trying to have somebody else responsible for what you should be responsible for. Don't be a WIMP.

I think I'll keep my replies to the people who can hold a conversation above the level of an elementary school playground from this point on. Thank you for your valuable contribution jb.

I wont do your homework for you. But there have been numerous articles about it even here on MSNBC. Perhaps you could look back in the archives.

cuprace:

You CANNOT back up your statement with CREDIBLE sources! (U.K. or French government statements will do). Both countries' healthcare rank much higer than the United States; we rank number 17 in the top 20 industrialized nations (G-20 nations). We rank number 37 in the world, out of 119 countries, according to the World Health Organization. France ranks Number Uno (1). In a survey taken in 2009 only 40% of Americans were satisfied with their health care. In France that number was 65%. Governments CAN and DO tell people what they can do and must do to be lawful. Try driving a car without auto insurance, or without a drivers liscense or plate! Try not to pay your property taxes or federal income taxes. This country spends 17% of its GDP on healthcare, the highest percent of GDP, in the world. The French spend 10%. Check out the FACTS!

this is terrible, Stephen. You really cant stand it without having someone take care of you. No wonder this country is in a mess.

Scram,

Shallow arguement about car insurance and plates. It is not close to being the same thing as making health insurance mandatory. Are you saying that MSNBC isnt a credible source?

Lets see??? Who was it that said, "Ask not what your country can do for you". Are you telling us that this country should guarantee its citizens health care? At what cost? Paid for by who? The Chinese?

SCRAMBOLO------------ The French pay 68% in income tax and Vat and still must purchase private insurance to be 100% covered.

The French System ran a 12 billion deficit in 2008 and the the government announced in July of 2009, it would be reducing services as an economy measure.

Tyhe french are in the middle of a greek style resistance now, trying to get that decision reversed.

Another group of people who do understand that some one has to pay, for everything.

What do you even think you're proving? Surprise, it's impossible to accurately predict what your revenue and costs are going to be decades in advance. Your (unsourced) information doesn't say a thing about France's system being in danger of bankruptcy or insolvency. It says that during the worst global recession in the last 50 years France suddenly found itself taking in less tax revenue than it anticipated as individual incomes decreased and have decided to make up for the lost revenue by cutting services.

If you're seriously trying to suggest that anybody is supposed to be able to create a healthcare system and set all the terms for services and income for the next 50 years and predict it all accurately you're insane. Those things will need adjusting when events dictate. It doesn't change the fact that France has and will continue to have an active government involvement in their healthcare.

Drdrgimmeethenews:

see: http://www.irs.gov/publications/p15b/ar02.html#en_US_publink1000193627
"Are Fringe Benefits Taxable?"

Stephen - The European Union countries don't have 18M uninsured illegal aliens running around, either. Their impact alone makes the cost of healthcare much more for the legal citizens. Think about it. We have more illegals then many countries' total population...........

Jerry-352313:

I have not claimed the French pay a LOW tax rate! My statement was, in a survey of the French Healthcare system in 2009, 65%, of the French, stated that they LIKED their health benefits. In a 2009 survey of American Healthcare System, only 40% of Americans liked their health plans. Also claimed, truthfully, we rank 37th in healthcare out of 119 countries ranked and we rank 17th in the G-20 nations in healthcare. In other words, not real good rankings for the wealthiest country in the world. I believe we can do much better, and will!

The french are in the middle of a greek style resistance now, trying to get that decision reversed.

Another group of people who do understand that some one has to pay, for everything.

Oh, I think the French people and the Greek people understand all to well that "someone has to pay for everything."

The difference between them and the American middle class is that they also realize it is THEY who end up paying for everything regardless of who spent the money or took it home. THAT'S why they protest the decision of the cuts.

Hopefully we'll see similar resistance in this country when they try and cut SS benefits (as we all know they will). Gotta rob that last piggy bank...

Zapper- If you read the link you provided you will note what is EXCLUDED. To wit:

"2. Fringe Benefit Exclusion Rules

This section discusses the exclusion rules that apply to fringe benefits. These rules exclude all or part of the value of certain benefits from the recipient's pay.

The excluded benefits are not subject to federal income tax withholding. Also, in most cases, they are not subject to social security, Medicare, or federal unemployment (FUTA) tax and are not reported on Form W-2.

This section discusses the exclusion rules for the following fringe benefits.

• Accident and health benefits."

Stephen is right on the money. Medicare is exceptionally well-run, yet our mostly private system ranks right up there with the best of the third world countries, but usually not quite as good as Cuba, in all of the measures of the well-being of a people. We are in the 38th-40th range in lifespan, infant mortality, chronic diseases, etc., and we keep falling. If your favorite football team were in 38th out of 38 developed countries you would be calling for the coach's firing. But if it's healthcare, we're fine with the abysmal care we've been receiving.

The system we have had for the past 100 years no longer works. It's time for something else and the new healthcare system is a step in the right direction. Granted, it doesn't go as far as it should, but it's a step. Those people talking about Medicare have no idea what they are talking about. It is more efficient, with lower administrative costs and higher patient satisfaction than any private insurance company.

And, yes, I do feel it is constitutional to force people to be insured. If a person is uninsured they tend to use the ER as a primary care doctor - which I am then forced to pay for through higher taxes and increased costs when I go to that hospital. There are several reasons people on Medicaid use the ER for primary care. One important reason is a lack of primary care doctors, even beyond that, a lack of primary care doctors who will take Medicaid patients. There are several other reasons, such as proximity - many Medicaid pts. live in inner cities where major ERs are located, lack of education regarding clinics and primary care doctors, etc.

And, KJ - it's throes...not throws - that's what you do with a ball.

Steven B:

Oh, don't worry about that he has AT LEAST six years plus to handle all your delaying and destroying tactics. We will see in November just how smart, or stupid, the american electors are, won't we? My bet, that you and yours will be more than disappointed!

People are so short sighted. 10-20 years from now we will look back and realize that healtcare was the right thing to do. Just like when FDR passed the new deal, everyone screamed socialism. But now we look back and realize that it was the best thing that could have been done.

Health care passed, its gaining acceptance and it was the right thing to do.

the 'new deal' by FDR was bad and it was socialism. The only thing that saved FDR was WWII.

The healtchcare should not have been passed

SCRAMBOLO----------- You libs had beetter pray every that we are disappointed.

You libs went to far, this time.

Conservatives have finally come to understand that the libs won't stop, no matter what they get, they will want more..

It's my belief that many of the accomplices of Mr. Obama will bite the dust in November of this year.

Mr. Obam to follow in 2012.

I'll tell you one thing you can believe you will not like what happens the insurance farce and and an awful lot of the leech bills that libs have passed over the years.

I would reccomend y'all lookfor "relearn to work" classes, or it's going to very hungry for the ones living off of the taxpayers.

.

Obama is a one-term wonder. He's going to have his Congressional majority evaporate in less than 100 days.

And then, he's going to be side-lined, and can focus on vacations and "The View".

I've written down your name, and I will call on you again Nov 3.

We'll see how you spin it, won't we?

the 'new deal' by FDR was bad and it was socialism. The only thing that saved FDR was WWII

Ah, rightwing revisionist history at it's finest. The New Deal was so bad in fact that FDR was elected four times because of it!

Speaking of revisionist history. March 4, 1933 – April 12, 1945 = 12 yrs. Did they have 3 yr terms back then or something?

Roosevelt campaigned on the Democratic platform advocating "immediate and drastic reductions of all public expenditures," "abolishing useless commissions and offices, consolidating bureaus and eliminating extravagances reductions in bureaucracy,".

Does that sound like a modern Republican OR Democrat to you??? This administration is the polar opposite.

Speaking of revisionist history. March 4, 1933 – April 12, 1945 = 12 yrs. Did they have 3 yr terms back then or something?

/palmface

elected in '32, '36, '40', and '44. That's FOUR TIMES. He left the White House caused he died.

I'm not arguing with someone who doesn't even know basic American history...

Jerry & Steven B:

That's the American Way - ELECTIONS! Whoever wins will govern, I most heartily agree with you on this. Take a CLOSE look at the MOST RECENT POLLS. Scare tactics are starting to slip along with the scare rational candidates. And Jerry, as far as going "too far" this time: We are always going to go FORWARD, never BACKWARDS! Get used to this FACT. One suggestion, please, for YOUR own sake, look up the etymology of the word Liberal (from the Latin word Libris)

mdsj, short sighted? I believe you are blind. Do you realize the following? The democrats want to tax you healthcare benefits, almost $4,000 or more per year in new taxes. They are forcing you in to something and being fined by this. The dems said it was not a tax and when it was brought up that the IRS would be levying the fines and hiring new people to handle this, they still stated it was not a tax. Pre-existing conditions? You know what is going to happen. People will pay the low penalty, and when they get a catastrophic illness that will take hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in treatments, they will walk in and get the best insurance. After cured, they will drop it again. Illegal immigrants can also be covered under this. Penalize businesses for not having insurance to their employees? If you are running a business and you have a choice in being fined $4,000 or paying $10,000 in insurance, the business will pay the penalty and let the employee get their own insurance. The bottom line is that over half of the people without insurance chose to do this. They had the money, but wanted to have more money in their pockets. Sooner or later, the government will decide what treatment you get and if you get it. There is no torte reform in the bill for frivolous lawsuits. The unions got exempted from luxury healthcare plan penalties. How long do we go on? This is the worst legislation we have ever had. People did not even read the whole thing before it was voted on. Is this what your President promised? No. He stated that we would get a chance to read every piece of legislation before it was voted on. Even the CBO stated that the bill will not be cost neutral or reduce costs. The CBO only graded what was given to them by the democrats. The CBO stated that the dems were double counting the Medicare cuts. $500 billion saved was being counted as $1 billion. The dems did not include the cost of the reimbursement to hospitals, doctors, and healthcare providers for a tune of $250 billion. They added the savings from taking over the student loan business in to the bill. Do you honestly think that the dems will take $500 billion out of Medicare? Heck no!!! They will either not do it and thus the bill now costs money and does not save or they will have to cut Medicare coverage to the seniors and/or increase premiums/taxes.

he has a LEAST 6 years.....

Last time I checked, a president can only be elected twice. 22nd Amendment, ratified in 1951, after FDR was elected 4 times (they were worried about a president getting elected over and over again and possibly serving for life, like a king). Are you expecting Obama to declare himself king?

At the rate he is going, I would be surprised to see him elected again in 2012(Carter all over again). But then again he might be because the republicans don't have a candidate worth anything either.

/palmface

elected in '32, '36, '40', and '44. That's FOUR TIMES. He left the White House caused he died.

I'm not arguing with someone who doesn't even know basic American history...

I can admit when I'm wrong. It's not like I said he won in 57 states. But if you thought this was an argument rather than a debate, it explains alot of your comments in here.

Alan, you "idgit" - Roosevelt died shortly after starting his 4th term. Read a textbook occasionally, please.

I can admit when I'm wrong. It's not like I said he won in 57 states.

Glad to see it. I wish others on this vine would as well. But why with the "57 state" nonsense, that talking point is overused. As if Obama is the first president to ever misspeak about anything...

But if you thought this was an argument rather than a debate, it explains alot of your comments in here.

"To argue" vs. "to debate" is essentially the same thing, poor choice of words perhaps on my part but the intent is the same.

And as far as the bulk of my comments, I think they're fair.

If you say something stupid, you'll get a snarky quip of a response from me. If you say something astute, i'll listen even if I disagree.

For example, "Pragmatic to a Fault" and I have had plenty of good discussions on this vine with each of us ceding points to the other. I disagree with him/her on much politically, but generally his/her posts are well-written and don't contain obvious factual inaccuracies. I'll always listen to people like that.

But if you post BS, expect BS back. Garbage in, garbage out as they say...

Jerry-352313, No, it's the right wing fanatics that went too far. They brought a perfectly fine nation to her knees and almost destroyed a healthy economy with incompetence, warmongering and greed. Since then, they have been throwing childish tantrums and doing their best to wreck all attempts to reverse the damage. Now, they wring their hands in glee. They foolishly believe that all of the actions above will prompt the American electorate to return them to power. No way! The American people are not nearly as stupid as they think them to be. They will gain far fewer seats than normal for a minority party in midterm elections. If they continue with this strategy, the spanking they received in recent years will pale in comparison to 2012. The party of no threatens to go the way of the dinosaur.

As noted above:

Folks, please note that you will be taxed for the portion your employers pay for your healthcare insurance. This starts in the very near future (if it hasn't already.), so you might want to adjust your W-4s so you won't get in too deep. This is how the government is going to pay for those who don't have healthcare insurance. It is coming directly from your pocket via the tax code. This is now law in the new healthcare insurance legislation and IRS code.

Well, since there is no Government Public Option (option being the definative word) they really can't do that can they?

Zapper - False - see http://www.factcheck.org/2010/05/health-care-law-and-w-2-forms/

Too Late, Obama's Justice Dept is already arguing in court that it IS a tax ...NO ONE of the media has called Obama on his bald-faced lies in Interview after Interview during the HCR debates, when he said it was "definately NOT a tax"

DrDrGimmetheNews...Seems to me that Zapper is a typical regressive...they keep telling the same lies over and over again hoping that it becomes the truth...

To those in denial:

see: http://www.irs.gov/publications/p15b/ar02.html#en_US_publink1000193627
"Are Fringe Benefits Taxable?"

In part, it says: "If the recipient of a taxable fringe benefit is your employee, the benefit is subject to employment taxes and must be reported on Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement."

This is from the IRS, not me. The paragraph included healthcare as a taxable fringe benefit.

Sorry, the section, not the direct paragraph.

Zapper,

Using the link you provided....Section 2, fringe benefit exclusion rules - health care benefits are excluded from income. See also table 2.1.

If you're going to spread misinfomation, you should generally not provide the link that refutes your information.

Becca-2109034:

Are you suggesting that because you "planned" first, you won't have to pay for this lawsuit? Who will pay the lawyers, and their legal army, you hired? What about court costs, in terms of money and time? I'll grant you that you elected your governor and Lt. Governor based on fighting healthcare (no further comment on those reasons needed), but to state it will not cost any money is RIDICULOUS! Votes do have consequences, The Dems will hold the White House, for at least 6 more years, and both Houses of the U.S. Congress, at this time. Yes indeed, votes have serious consequences, and I'm glad we agree on this principle! We will soon (November 2010) see if you can win back the Congress. Good Luck!

If Obama can state he "saved 3 million jobs" (an unprovable fact) and you don't jump on him for that, I have no problem with a state saying it won't cost anything to pay thousands in legal fees to stop a $10 TRILLION cost on American taxpayers.

Allen-968499:

I think you picked the 3 million figure right out of thin air!. Cite your source please. The figures coming out of the White House, for quite some time now, has been around 1 million jobs saved. I do agree it is an arbitrary figure, at best. However, that being said, the Stimulus plan, not Obama, has saved a considerable number of jobs and has actually created some, but a small number, jobs. The stimulus plan and bail-out of banks DID SAVE, litterly, our economic system and probably, to a great degree, the world economic system. That was a VERY GOOD thing for everyone, including you and I.

scrambolo, you're right. I misspoke. He said 3.5 million, not 3. http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Jobs.htm

Obama continued his recent habit of asserting projections as fact. Obama said, "This plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs. More than 90 percent of these jobs will be in the private sector, jobs rebuilding our roads and bridges, constructing wind turbines and solar panels, laying broadband and expanding mass transit."

We are not going to buy your insurance, pay for it, or do without.

Try the sarcasm slash if that's what you're doing - if not, what kind of cheese do you want?

JerryF should have thought of that when the Dems were voting NO on all of the REFORM laws since the 80s. This is just a repeat in history.

Poor citizens: "We can't afford cake. It's too expensive.".
Obama: "Let them eat cake! *whispers to colleagues* "quick, go buy stock in the bakery."

of course it will be ruled unconstitutional, but here's the great news parasites... wait for it... CONGRESS WILL DEFUND THIS SCAM. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAA!!!!!!!

I'm with you!

I just can't understand how anyone would think that it's a "right" to have health care? I guess the same people think that it's just fine to sit around while everyone else works for a living. I suppose you think that it's ok to just waltz right into this country and break the law also.

We have a constitution...we have laws that need to be obeyed.

Obamacare is wrong.....and I can't wait for him to go down!

Nicole:

Well Nicole, just cross your legs and hold your breath. He is going to be here for, at least, six plus more years. Thats just his first term! I hate to tell you this FACT but you'll have to wait, Sorry! Also, just because YOU can't understand doesn't mean it's not the proper thing to have healthcare for all citizens, regardless of wealth status. Do you understand 'string theory'? I suspect that there will be other things in life you don't understand.

So what you are saying then is that Obama plans to repeal the 22nd amendment of the constitution? All Hail King Obama?

<sigh>

It is not a frivolous law suit when you are defending the constitution, right or wrong, if you believe your rights are being violated, you have to defend them. The NAACP does it everyday over frivolous claims. I don't believe the vast majority of NAACP members are Repulicans.

IMO, no one in their right mind should question the integrity of Virginians, they consider themselves to be Virginians 1st and foremost even before being an American. Other than Texas, no other state cares this much about so much. They were and always will be the sounding board for the rest of the nation.

Um, dipstick, the judge in ARIZONA was a democrat, her ruling will be reversed. Interesting that you think the decision in Virginia was political, but not in Arizona?

How do you pay for a public option? How does private industry compete with government backed health care? If you have a sensible answer and a sensible solution, I would support it. However, there is no answer, no solution. It is just like what Obama has now, pass it and we will figure it out later.

The idea of maintaining the system we have of private health insurance companies is obsolete. It's the equivalent of legally protecting the buggy whip manufacturers. It's a concept whose time has come. And long gone. The system has changed. The rest of the world has moved on.

IF the government did not protect insurance companies, in the name of protecting consumers, they would fail in 36 months, maybe sooner. The population is aging. There aren't enough well people to support the system any longer. It's over. Reality, is never easy for americans.