Hmmm...Pay for insurance or get hit with a penalty...sounds like something you need to do so the mob doesn't break your legs...

For one thing people have an odd definition of the word INSURANCE. You can't get life insurance after you are dead, car insurance after an accident, flood or fire insurance after a flood or fire. Health Insurance is an insurance. If you are already sick wouldn't that be considered a losing investment. Emotion and fantasy is not the way to run a company. It sounds cold, but that is the fact.

Now to get rid of mandatory auto insurances. The democrats should have held strong with their original public options package and never have dropped it and added the mandatory minimum the republicans had them add then refused to sign onto.

If that were true, then we didn't actually need a healthcare bill, they were all covered already!

You know what power the federal government will have if this law stays on the books. The government can tell you if you can smoke or drink. The government can regulate premiums based on diet intake. Force you to get a monthly or yearly physical and determine premiums on your condition. They can inact laws that will tell you how and what you can eat.

It's a can of worms and if you don't believe me look at the initial promises of social security, income taxes, and medicare. See how screwed up they are now and how they lied to us from the beginning.

Actually insurance is taking a bet. Your betting the insurance company that you will cost them more then you pay. That go's with any type of insurance. So if you as a person decide to put all your life's possessions on the line betting that you will not have a health issue that is your grown up adult decision you should live with.

Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he will eat for life. So common, so simple, and so true.

Welfare and entitlements do not teach anything constructive. Only a life that is taken for granted.

The government uses your tax dollars to buy stuff you don't want all the time. This issue shouldn't even be in court, yet. No one has suffered any concrete harm therefore the issue is not ripe for judgment. Doe v. Bush, Summers v. Earth Island Institute.

Why can't you see the truth? If you eliminate the lawyers making a living from ambulance/hearse chasing and force the doctors to eliminate the incompetent practitioners, the real cost of health care (the insurance) would come down. Insurance companies have driven this necessary function out of control, all for profit at our cost.

To mikela, and all of you who keep comparing this to the requirement to carry auto insurance:

Your state of residence requires that you carry auto insurance, not to protect you, but to protect the guy you do damage and injury to. That's totally different from the federal government requiring you to protect yourself.....the two are not comparable.

Health care is another bubble ready to pop. Your rates are going to go way up as less people are able to afford it. Way up.

The Public Option was the only way to make this work. People will scream for it when they need it or are bankrupt from an illness, insured or not.

sandtrich:

If you really believe what you say, why do more ligislation to force the same outcome?

It is no differant in any way. I carry it to protect myself period. Like health insurance, I pay for both but I pay to protect mine and my families health and welfare. Not the person in the other car nor the person that is negligent for their and their families health and welfare because they are to cheap or unable to pay.

Like the healthcare bill, it was contrived to pay for the millions that do not have coverage for whatever reasons. Not for us that were already paying before the laws were put in place.

@Spider: you are absolutely correct. u beat me to the punch! mandated auto insurance is primarily liability and property damage to protect others who you harm. You have the OPTION ot buy collision coverage for your own car (not required).

Right spider. The government has now business telling me that I have to protect myself. That is not a free society. Plus auto insurance is at the state level. Third my comment about insurance is that insurance is you paying a company for protection against something before it happens.

FYI - auto insurance is NOT mandated by the federal government as it regulated by each individual state as there is one state that I am aware of that does not require auto insurance which is New Hampshire.

joe,

If I get sick and go to a doctor but don't have insurance, I PAY FOR MYSELF. No one else pays for me so it is not commerce. I buy my house, my car, my food etc so I will pay my doctor bills myself.

Mikela, you're just plain old wrong, on multiple levels.

First of all, the requirement to carry car insurance is predicated on the prior act of OWNING A CAR. If you don't own a car ..... you are not required to buy auto insurance. And as of yet, the government can't force you to buy a car. An argument could be made that with our government currently heavily invested in two car companies, they COULD mandate car purchase - for the same reasons cited for mandating the purchase of health insurance.

Second, car insurance is a STATE level requirement, not Federal. There are two states that do NOT require car insurance, and in all states you can carry liability ONLY - which goes to spider's point about the purpose being to protect the other guy - not you. YOU may view it as protecting yourself, which is also true, but that is NOT the purpose of the requirement.

It is ridiculous that the government thinks that it can tell me what I have to spend my money on. There are 2 quotes that I want to respond to. Someone mentioned what about the ones who can't afford coverage, and the other was everyone is required to have auto insurance. First, it is not my responsibility to take care of my neighbor. I have a family of my own to take care of. If you can't afford insurance, but you need it get another job. It is a nobel idea that we are all in it together, but that's it. I work hard for the little money I do have, and do not want to give it away. That may be mean and selfish, so what I don't care. I got up every morning and went to school to get my trade. I got up everyday and went to work so I could afford what I have. No one was there to help me. I didn't get any scholarship, grants or any other kind of assistance. I made it to where I am off my own blood, sweat, and tears. My neighbor was not there to help me study or lend any kind of assistance. If they didn't take care of their business shame on them. This is the main reason socialism fails. Why will I get up and bust my hump if the government will provide me with everything I need? I might as well sit home with the bums and get what they think I deserve. They can take the money from everyone else and give it to me. Ok got off subject a little. Second everyone is not required to have insurance. There are states where it is not mandatory. You are only required in some states to have it if you want to drive. Will I have to have life insurance if I want to live. Driving is a privilege, living is a right.

That provision was borrowed from Massachusetts law (Mitt Romney) and is failing miserably in that state. Why did the Feds decide to pattern after Massachusetts? If Romney runs for President, he will have to defend the health care bill.

Plus remember the need for auto insurance and property & casualty insurance is predicated on the possession of the car to drive or the house. You can use taxi, bus or other public transportation for that. You can rent an apartment and live there. People in large cities don't have to own a car to get around and they rent. So the mandatory insurance part only comes into play if you own a car and/or a house.

The US Constitution Reads.. About the Commerce Clause,
1.) "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."
2.) "No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another."

The commerce clause was about free trade and that states couldn't act independently against other countries. This distorted position of the commerce clause justifying government mandated insurance is balogna. Not too mention insurance is normally state guided and does not have bearing on another state.

You mean the founding fathers didn't want U.S. citizens to pay fines simply for reaching adulthood? Where are all the sheep who defended Obamacare all summer, they seem awfully quiet today.

As for the comparison to auto insurance: You can always choose not to drive, choosing not to breathe is a little more difficult.

Joe,

You are correct, if the government gets into health insurance it would be a misnomer to call it "insurance". It should be called a communal health cost deferment plan. Where those of us who can pay more will pay more to provide a service to those less fortunate than ourselves. ( a good moral thing to do) As for your foreboding projection of government interference in our personal lives....show me a country that has government health care that is as overbearing as your rhetoric would indicate they should be. I also hope you are pro-choice, or your the government will tell you what you can andcan't do diatribe smells a little of hypocrisy. Welfare and entitlements are a bridge to solvency for many people. Welfare is a system that can be taken advantage of, but it does provide a need service to millions as it can serve as a bridge from a difficult life circumstance to a self supporting circumstance. Welfare is often short term and not life long. Entitlements are more problematic, the biggest two are Soc. Sec. and Medicare. I'm not sure that characterising the elderly as "taking life for granted" is the most popular move. Also, elderly females are America's largest voting block and have the most to lose if these entitlements go away. So politicians are not motivated to change soon either.

phantom, if you get treated in the ER and refuse to pay, taxpayers pick up the tab. the mandate protects taxpayers from having to foot the bill for the irresponsible.

The question before the court; MAY THE Commerce CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION ,give power to congress to mandate a PRIVATE issue; if yes, than congress may pass a law, only one child per family, all unborn who are found with a genetic defect must be aborted, no one may accumulate wealth above one million dollars, no home must use more than 5000 kilowatt of electricity per month, ECT.

The only question is may the commerce clause be used to mandate that the people do a certain thing or be penalized, not illegal things, but socially acceptable things; this is the most important question now facing the Republic; had congress included a public option, then it would be a different question, they did not; and have attempted to force a citizen to purchase a certain product only sold by a private corporation !

Joe Mota,

Not carrying insurance is a decision that says you will be responsible for the bill no matter how large, assuming you have any income at all. You can ask my uncle who is currently paying off a bill of more than $100k after my aunt was admitted to ICU for a couple of weeks after a heart attack. Unfortunately neither of their employers offered insurance and they didn't purchase any on their own.

So, no Joe, not buying insurance is not a guarantee that someone else will pay. And no, it is not participation in commerce so the judges order is right on the money.

Who pays for the uninsured when they get sick?

Answer: All of us good, working, insured, tax paying citizens.

The health care system is paid for through insurance. HAVING INSURANCE MEANS YOU PAY YOUR OWN BILL.

CONSERVATIVES SHOULD SUPPORT A SYSTEM THAT REQUIRES EVERYONE TO PAY THEIR OWN BILL.

If you don't agree with the insurance mandate, you're supporting the WELFARE FREE RIDE system where the uninsured don't pay their bills.

We have 3 choices:

1. Make sure everyone has insurance and pay the most efficient way possible (prevention).

2. Have 47 million uninsured Americans go untreated and then pay for it when they show up at the emergency room needing surgery.

3. Turn dying people away at the ER if they are uninsured.

#1 is the only option that makes sense. To want either of the other two means you are either uninformed, don't understand basic math, or inhumane.

I wonder, do you really get good treatment when you don't have health insurance or do they just let you die slowly (or quickly, whatever someone decides)? Getting sick without health insurance is enough to make you feel like dying. (And) too often, people don't know what their policy will cover or not cover until they get sick. Guess what? Too late!

We still need to reform the health care system (insurance, doctors, nurses, hospitals, nursing home, dental, etc) to serve all Americans/people. There is too much money and corruption driving the present system, that is failing the nation. What was passed did not go far enough.

It's nice to see here that a lot of folks do know what the Constitution is! Since the news media has been telling us for years, school kids don't know these things.

Thank you for having common sense! This is why this new law is so important and will lower the costs of health insurance! I don't understand why people refuse to see the big picture?!

There is no correlation to health insurance and car insurance. Why, because no one is REQUIRED to own a car. When you become a car owner, then you need to be responsible for your actions with a car. Likewise with home ownership. When we are able to buy our health, then we should be forced to buy "health insurance!"

"CONSERVATIVES SHOULD SUPPORT A SYSTEM THAT REQUIRES EVERYONE TO PAY THEIR OWN BILL."

Funny - aren't arguing the opposite when talking about extending the Bush tax cuts right now?

To say the poor do not have the option to obtain insurance is not completely true as most states have insurane programs for these individuals as I know several including one relative on such a program.

you really and actually believe that this will lower the cost of health insurance??? Gee, from what i am seeing, everyone is raising health care premiums right now because of what Obamacommunistcare is going to do to this country and the medical field. Actually, if you step back and see how well the government has run everything it has its hands in, how can a sane person ever want them to handle health care? Post office, social security, amtrack, medicare, etc etc, and now you want them to run healthcare??? Why, do you want to die?

Brandon,

While your righteous indignation about how you did it all on your own, is in large part a figment of your granduer. You had a helping hand from the community the whole way. Whether is was the public services that allowed you to attend school, protected you and your family, or private citizens that made good personal choices that then allowed you to make good desiscions as well, you most definity did not become who you are or have what you have becasue of your solo hard work ethic. Your work ethic is a testiment to those who came before you and your own personal habits. However the fact that you value your contribution to your success more that the contributions of others does not mean that their contribution is meaningless.

Reltykov, those plans with a mandate would probably have been found unconstitutional as well, based on this finding. And since those plans were never in any real position to actually pass and be made law, it's a moot point.

Shaggy, there are other choices, and the main one is one 85% of the people in this country were already making: to provide THEMSELVES with health insurance coverage, whether it be through their employer, privately or via one of the already existant government tit programs that are the root cause of the mess in health care.

And that's why so many people are pissed off about this law, it delivered a brand new entitlement to the Dems core constituency that had the effect of screwing everyone else by guaranteeing they'll continue to pay MORE for everything, including their premiums. It creates trickle up poverty in the middle incomes as well, by subsidizing at one income level the purchase of health insurance that at just a few dollars more must be paid for in full by the consumer. The effect is that people that earn LESS end up with MORE spending power via government subsidy than someone who earns more, but is forced by the government to spend more for the same exact thing.

There are better ways - and frankly, I'm beginning to think that a single-payer plan is the best way to go. But who runs it? The government? Then we're doomed for certain.

Dorfy,

Of the two public security (safety net) systems that you named, which is actually on good financial footing?

Answer: Neither.

Why?

Answer: Because they are controlled by government flunkies and politicians. On average it takes 18 months and a forrest of paper work to get on medicare. Think about the folks who are ill and can't work who sit and wait for years to get any help.

With very few exceptions there is nothing that the government does that can not be done better and more cost effectively by private companies. And if you think about it, most of the work that governements do better than anyone else (road construction) is actually done by private sub contractors.

joe mota

phantom, if you get treated in the ER and refuse to pay, taxpayers pick up the tab. the mandate protects taxpayers from having to foot the bill for the irresponsible.

Joe, you're just wong there. Tax payers do not pick up the tab. Other people paying for health care do. While that may include tax payers, it does not include all tax payers. That's like saying that when someone steals from a department store, tax payers pick up the tab. No, only the other people in the economy that puchase that good from that store will pick up the tab. I would agree with you if the federal goverment reimbursed hospitals when someone didn't pay their medical bills, but right now, its a loss to the hospital and it's passed onto the other patients of that hospital, not all U.S. tax payers.

Actually thrak I am more or less prolife. I do however believe abortion is necessary and justified in certain situations. I do not believe that abortion should be so easy or should be used as a method of birth control. I also think that at a certain point in a pregnancy an abortion shouldn't be allowed. Unless the health of the mother and baby are in question. I see no difference between a late term abortion and killing a baby after it has left the womb.

On healthcare. I'm not huge on political correctness. I believe everyone in this country is responsible for the choices they make. There are a few exceptions. Children should always be protected and taken care of. Disabled veterans who were willing to die for this country should be protected and taken care of.

The government should say that if you are in a group plan with your employer and you leave employment, that you can keep the same health coverage at the going rates. You shouldn't be allowed to be dropped or that your rates will skyrocket. That will allow coverage to be maintained for the elderly. What this country really needs though is tort reform. That will safegaurd doctors and allow them to charge lower premiums.

Around every corner there is a SOB story. It can range from obesity to bungee jumping. Seriously now. The amount of people that have died from life activities could cause the government to overtake every sector of the country. For example Child Social Services is more intrusive than good. Yes child abuse shouldn't be tolerated, but spanking or scolding or telling a child he has to go to bed hungry because he was bad is considered by some child abuse. The government wants to be the parent. Or another example is the excessive taxing of tobacco. Exploiting smokers to do activities that are perfectly legal. They are more or less in it for the revenue to continue their spending sprees. Government seems to have good intentions, but good intentions doesn't mean that they are the best idea or that they won't harm the country or other people.

As far as morality goes. I believe in charities and I believe in giving. I do not believe in stealing though. I give what I want and what I can. There should be limited government charity. Enough to get a person back on their feet.

I am a little confused here. The Federal Government can force hospitals to treat but not an individual to buy health insurance. I say the courts should overturn the requirement for hospitals to treat the uninsured. It wouldn't take long for those without health insurance to get the message - Buy health insurance or die!

I am sick of people without health insurance sucking tax dollars away. IMHO, if you want to be put back together after a car accident, have life saving treatment after a heart attack or even been seen in urgent care then you need to have health insurance. If you don't believe you need health insurance, and that's a risk you're willing to take then so be it but I don't want to see any news reports about how sad it is that someone without health insurance was refused treatment and died.

sandtrich, You are still trying to make it to first base in the argument, and you are way off premise. It is not the cost, it is the mandate to purchase.

The Government mandating all citizens to purchase anything simply for being a citizen is beyond the LIMITED powers set forth. To those that say Congress is to 'make laws providing for the welfare of the people', what benefit or welfare is it to make all citizens subject to government welfare? This group seriously misses the point of 1776.

joe mota,

IF I refuse to pay after going to ER then the hospital should send me to collections and attach my pay and do things that other businesses do. Also, I know that people don't pay but why have we as a society allowed this to happen? They should have to pay SOMETHING.

BTW, even though most states require a person to show fiscal respondsibility (that doesn't mean insurance like most people think), there are still many who drive without it, so how has that helped things? As for OBAMA care bill, the penalty would be enforced when a person files a tax return but what happens to someone who does not file or have a requirement to file? Do we change the tax law to say that everyone has to file no matter how little income they have? If so, then what happens to people who can't afford to pay the tax penalty? Do we just let them go so once again they pay nothing? Beside, it is still unconstitutional.

A private company ran the prison that 2 escapees ran from a few months ago here in Arizona, they killed an innocent couple in their camper, before they were caught.

How about the overpaid private security forces in Iraq who rape and plunder.

How much money has Dick Cheney's "Haliburton" saved us?

spider-737231

To mikela, and all of you who keep comparing this to the requirement to carry auto insurance:

Your state of residence requires that you carry auto insurance, not to protect you, but to protect the guy you do damage and injury to. That's totally different from the federal government requiring you to protect yourself.....the two are not comparable.

Totally unrelated. Not everyone owns a vehicle, therefore there is no requirement to "carry auto insurance", unless you actually own a vehicle and drive it on the road. Those that drive with no insurance is the reason those that do carry insurance pay for the "uninsured motorists fund".

mwooten, you miss the point. and you put words in someone else's post by claiming they worship insurance companies.

The real debate is, do we move away from our founding based on individualism and freedom, and make a big left turn to further government regulating of personal business?

Where did you ever get the idea that healthcare insurance is a "product"? It's a contract for services in more correct definitions. And, when you contract for services, you are held liable for the contents you agree to in any contract once it's signed. Therefore, healthcare insurance is a binding, though somewhat arbitrary contract to provide the service of insuring against liability.

Dorfy why are you against spending money on defense. If you we could not defend ourselves do you think we would still exist. We spend more so we can be at the cutting edge of defense so we give our men and women a better chance to come home (which we can't use because some politican thinks its a bad idea to use our bombs and attack our enimeis before they attack us). If you really want to cut some spending, stop the billions of dollars we just give away to other countries. I know what you will say they are less fortunate than us. It is a nobel idea to want to take care of others, but you can not do it at a sacrifice to yourself. Yes there are a lot of people out of a job and I feel sorry for them, but if you think I'm going to take food from my family to give it to them your sadly mistaken. There are jobs out there. They may not pay what you want or be in the field that you want, hell they may not even be in the country that you want (contract work overseas I'm doing it). I counldn't find the job I wanted so I left. I did what I had to do to take care of my family. You are not my responsibilty and neither is little Johnny down the street. My job is to take care of my family so others won't have to. Yes it sucks but I did what I had to do. I have seen my family 2 months out of the last 2 years, but that is my sacrifice. Don't cry to me and tell me how hard it is, I know. This medical plan is not going to make it any better. It will just drive up my already high cost to pay for those who WILL NOT work. I may sound selfish but believe me I'm not. I give to charity and give to the homeless, but that's my choice. When I am being told that I have more than my neighbor so I have to share thats when I have a problem with it. I have worked for everything I have and so should everyone else.

"Who pays for the uninsured when they get sick?

Answer: All of us good, working, insured, tax paying citizens.

The health care system is paid for through insurance. HAVING INSURANCE MEANS YOU PAY YOUR OWN BILL."

Actually, the bill also contains tax breaks and credits so a good portion of the population, while they may carry insurance will not actually be paying their own insurance premiums. Those will be paid on the backs of others. So your argument is moot and nullified. Please enjoy the rest of your better informed day.

This will have to go to the Supreme Court. Already there are massive waivers to corporations so that they don't have to suffer from the ramifications of the Healthcare Bill. Why is this?

If Romney runs for President, he will have to defend the health care bill.

Yes and he'll make Obama look bad in the process by pointing out it was mandated at a STATE level & is constitutional.

Gee I hope your insurance gets dropped by the money grabbers from United Health Care just when you need it the most.

You definitely sound like a "bleeding heart" liberal. Wish death upon those who don't agree with you? Sheesh.

Worship the almighty health insurance companies if you must. Myself I do not!!!

Who's worshipping insurance companies? The ones guaranteeing them every citizen in the country as forced clients? I'd prefer they had just fixed what was wrong with free clinic, VA, family planning, medicare, medicaid, etc that were ALREADY IN PLACE to cover the uninsured and less fortunate. Those opposed to Obamacare wanted those fixed and TORT reform (most of them anyway). That's not "worshipping" insurance companies at all.

It's abundantly clear from comments like that that many who are in favor of the health care law were just told to think that with misinformation on the opposition's point of view.

I think those for and against have missed the forest for the trees......we were in a depression (ok for those few that are still obama fans we will call it a recession) and social issues with hefty price tags should have been the LAST thing on the agenda. As a hero to the left put it "it's the economy stupid." That should have been what was focused on during the last two years......fixing the economy and getting us back to work.....but instead the left decided to strike while the iron was hot and push all of the democrats agendas of the last 30 years at the expense of the average US citizen. Granted obama was a one and done as soon as people saw through him......but he could have at least looked at himself optimistically and worried about pushing his domestic agenda after he had started to accomplish something worthwhile. If he would have used some logic he may not be looking at changing his address in two years time......now the best we can hope for is that the republicans run somebody good or that the democrats put somebody worthwhile on the big ticket for 2012.

Pragmatic,

Shaggy, there are other choices, and the main one is one 85% of the people in this country were already making: to provide THEMSELVES with health insurance coverage, whether it be through their employer, privately or via one of the already existant government tit programs that are the root cause of the mess in health care.

So you are choosing #2. Don't provide uninsured people with care until their life is at risk, then blow hundreds of thousands of dollars they can't pay to try to save them, and then pay for it in increased insurance premiums.

Bottom line is, we pay for the uninsured sooner or later anyways, so we might as well do it the right way, the cheapest way, and the most humane way. It's pretty dang spiffy that preventative care is all three of those.

Plain and simple:

There are many Americans who do not go to doctors, and have never wanted health insurance in their entire lives..

How can the Government force this HCB amongst the rest of the citizens to pay for these so called "deadbeats" uncaring about their own health.

Paying for smokers, alcoholics, drug addicts; their health issues isn't fair. People who have no need for any kind of insurance. They live on the edge. How many "detest" going to doctors for any small reason.

If the HCB goes to the Supreme Court, that is not Constitutional either. It has to go through the Appeals Court first.

It's another race to push this unwanted Bill through, just like it got through the first time.

Obama, are you listening?

Madison,

What about Auto Insurance?

I would like to throw out one point in this discussion that the media seems to always neglect:

When the Bush administration wanted to curry favor with the pharmaceutical industry as a big-bucks donor, Cheney et al got together with the heads of the top five pharmaceutical companies and crafted the disastrous and crooked Medicare Part D (the prescription plan.)

This play had several huge flaws that caused it to be significantly less in value to seniors and much, much more profitable for the pharmaceutical giants. The Part D plan substituted MRSP for UCR as a means of determining price and forbade the government to use its bargaining power to bring down drug costs (as it has at the VA.) It created a large up-front annual deductible (which is much harder for retirees on a fixed income to afford and a "donut hole" that stops paying midway through the year for most seniors and doesn't resume until the out-of-pocket reaches a certain level (this feature alone is held responsible for tens of thousands of deaths a year.) The shift to MRSP for reimbursements cause EVERYONE's drug costs, not just those taking Part D, to rise by an estimated 15-20%.

But the pharmaceutical companies insisted on another feature --- a fine. The Part D includes a provision that you MUST sign up for Part D the moment you become eligible for Part A (which is free and cannot be declined.) The fine is based on the current premium when you finally DO sign up for Part D and is 1% per month cumulatively of that amount. There is no cap on the fine and when you sign up for Part D, it is automatically deducted from your Social Security check. If your social security check is inadequate to cover the fine, the IRS is to collect the difference as a "penalty" on your tax return.

I did not subscribe to Medicare Parts B or D because my wife has much better coverage at work. It is somewhat cheaper than Medicare because it is 1+1 coverage (a family play with no children.) The deductibles and co-pays are also significantly lower. My wife's plan also covers dental and vision care which are not covered by Medicare and the deductibles and co-pays can be covered with her HCSB. I have severe osteoarthritis and cholesterol and hypertension issues, so I take su8fficient drugs that I would have hit the donut hole in about early September or late August.

I did not decline Part A because it can only be declined by completely withdrawing from the Social Security Program. So my insurance gets a small free ride because they can subrogate some hospital costs (such as my knee replacement last year) to Medicare.

But I just turned 67 last week. I was eligible for Medicare Part A 24 months ago, so if I would to sign up today, there would be a fine of 26-27% of my Part D premium deducted from my Social Security check. And it goes up a percent every month (the extra couple of months are because it takes approximately two months for the coverage to start once you sign up, just as with Social Security itself.

But no complained about this fine when Bush signed it into law. It harmed the public at large and was as crooked a piece of legislation as has ever been written. And no one seems to be complaining about it now.

So, all I can take away from these discussions is that there is a serious double standard with Republicans --- everything they do is great and wonderful and anything the Democrats do is horrible and unconstitutional. Apparently this has nothing to do with the fine, but everything to do with blocking everything that this President tries to do. This sort of double standard does not wash well with me. It just tells me that the GOP knows how to control the ignorant and ill-informed and ill-educated like little puppets.

He's black and was fairly elected --- and its time to get over it!

STLMike and Phantom... the accounting on who pays how much when someone refuses to pay their ER bill is more complicated than worth going into. Hospitals write off losses when they give up on collecting from people. these write-offs lower their taxes, in effect increasing everyone else's. the rates hospitals negotiate with insurance companies are also affected by expenses hospitals incur treating the uninsured who then don't pay. The important issue is that these people who incur expenses and then don't pay are costing the rest of us money. That's just irresponsible. The mandate lowers costs for the rest of us by forcing people to pay into the health care pool. Everyone is at risk of requiring medical treatment therefore everyone should contribute or post a surety bond. Otherwise they're forcing others to pay their bills.

Joe,

I to am a pro-lifer, I however also do not believe it is the governments job to get between a woman and her doctor. So I must restate my proposition, if you are for government intervention in other women's helthcare than it should be ok for the government to intervene in peoples healthcare. I will agree that children should be covered. As for keeping coverage from your employer, I do not know of many people who could afford to pay out of their fixed income retirement pocket for healthcare. I will agree that we need to address frivolous lawsuits, however there is evidence that tort reform may not lower cost, I apologize that I do not remember the exact state (Kanas, Nebraska) one of them went through some good tort reform at the state level and has seen little effect in the lowering of cost. I think tort reform does more to lower the cost to providers and raise there bottom line. Remember insurance providers are there to make money by providing a service, not provide a cheap service. You are correct that sometimes the government seems to get overzealous with its powers. That's why we vote and change laws in our republic. However for every overreach in authority there are examples of under-reach (children left in deplorable conditions). I to give to charity, but I realize that there is greater need than any one charity can handle and government action is needed.

Marchant,

There are many Americans who do not go to doctors, and have never wanted health insurance in their entire lives..

Plain and simple:

Those people will get sick eventually too, and if they've not seen a doctor their whole life, chances are they'll have serious (expensive) issues when they do. So when they eventually show up, under the current system they get care at the emergency room. The most expensive, least effective, most reactive way possible. And since they are uninsured, we all pay for it.

Pay less now or pay more later. I'd rather choose the former.

It certainly is NOT up to the courts! This is a legislative issue, not something for the judiciary.

So does this apply to all of the other issues the court has ruled on, ruling that voter approved, or state and federal mandates are unconstitutional?

This bill was approved by back room deals for many of those that voted yes, and was approved against the desires of the MAJORITY the people of these UNITED STATES. The poll above just shows how one sided it is.

IT has to go and will help reduce the debt, so get rid of all it.

The HCL would establish a dangerous precedent that could open the door for the Fed mandating other commodities we must purchase. Hello 1984

========================

Hello. You are already told you have to have car insurance and wear a selt belt. Don't hear you blubbering about that. I get tired of higher costs from my doctor and hospital because of those who do not have insurance or cash. WAKE UP. Who do you think are paying for them? The doctors? What a laugh.

I've seen a lot of selfish posters on here making selfish arguments, ie. 'If I don't want to pay for insurance, I shouldn't be forced to buy it', or 'Everybody should be forced to have insurance so I don't have to pay for them when they get sick', or 'forcing hospitals to have to care for people without insurance should be stopped...let them die so I don't have to pay for it', etc. on and on.

What I haven't seen is any comments from people thinking of others than themselves, like parents for example. Kids, (under 18) can't enter into legal contracts, and insurance is a legal contract. The parents have to carry dependant health insurance to cover their kids. If the kids can't buy their own health insurance, aren't their parents morally obligated to see to it that if their kid suffers a devastating illness (there's quite a few out there) they will be taken care of? Don't the kids have a choice in whether they would like to live or die? The selfish commentors are essentially saying that they should have the choice to live or die, and I agree with them (go ahead and gamble with your OWN lives, that's entirely up to you). But do parents have the right to gamble their children's lives? I think parents should be forced to insure their kids when they choose to have them, just like the car owned is forced to insure his car if he chooses to have one. If you're single and responsible for no one, fine, choose to die if you want to, it seems obvious that nobody in your world will miss you anyhow. But I don't believe you should have the right to choose for your kids to die when they don't want to. If parents cannot pay for their kid's insurance, then this mandatory insurance section should be stricken from the bill and a simple program should be written into the healthcare bill to make sure the kids are covered.

In a nutshell, I believe that it is wrong for the government to try to legislate stupidity (an adult fool gambling with their own life) but they SHOULD legislate to protect those who are unable to protect themselves (children who have no power).

Several have posted about car insurance, one problem with that example, you don't have to own a car, millions of Americans don't and are not required to own car insurance. The seat belt issue is an other, all cars have seat belts and the older one that don't have them are exempt from those laws.

Also part of the cost of medical treatment is to cover illegals in this country, and you can bet that they won't be required to buy health insurance.

Insurance should be a choice.

However, if you show up at the emergency room without insurance, do not expect the hospital (which is a business) to treat you like a charity. If you choose not to spend your money on insurance, do not expect much more than an ice pack and a couple of Tylenols when you arrive at the ER with no insurance.

The uninsured are one of the factors responsible for runaway health care costs.

I have heard too many stories from nurses about people showing up to the emergency room with no insurance but a really nice cell phone. I have also heard stories from nurses about the uninsured receiving a higher standard of care than people with insurance.

Mom - I liked the quote from Dr. Rogers. What did he do for a living?

Insurance rates have gone up across the board. Insurance companies are foaming at the bit for the new health care law to kick into effect. Reason: They get the benefit. They get new customers... their revenues will increase.

Thank you Mr. Obama for making rich companies eve richer. Obama caters to the insurance industry... he's their best friend.

So much for liberals against capitalism.. Obama is helping large corporations make even bigger bucks. Liberals have been duped again.

all cars have seat belts and the older one that don't have them are exempt from those laws.

Are there any of these still on the road? I don't think there are any more. The seatbelt law was enacted when I was a kid and I'm 50 now.

To rebut a few arguments here:

1. Auto Insurance is not mandatory. If you live where it exist take public transit. Probably better for the environment anyway. Better yet, with the obesity epidemic we have in this country, ride a bicycle. I have plenty of urbanite friends that don’t own a car, and they get around fine.

2. I don’t think it’s constitutional for the government to force hospitals to take care of people that can’t pay. Just none of our politicians have the balls to take on this issue. Didn’t get health coverage? That falls into my life lessons category. Couldn’t get it due to the system being rigged. That’s what calls for legislation. Just forcing all the sheep into the fold is not the answer, and it’s illegal.

3. Home Owners Insurance is also not mandatory. Before I chose to buy a house, I rented. I declined renters insurance. No biggie. When I was that young, I could replace everything I owned with a paycheck or two. You have to carry home owners insurance to protect the lean holder, same with full coverage auto. Legally required insurance covers the other guy if you screw up.

Basically, the way I understand this law everyone that’s an adult in the United States would be forced to buy insurance. Personally, when I was younger I didn’t want to waste the money on it. Granted, now that I am older with more responsibilities, I can’t imagine not buying it. The point is the government is basically charging a fee for being an American adult. You could have your wages garnished, leans on property, or in a worse case have your physical freedom revoked. Can you imagine having your credit rating trash, just because you don’t want to go to the doctor? Talk about a nanny state out of control! With the stringent immigration laws Mexico has, it’d be hard to opt out of being an American. Just a total overreach of government authority, it amazes me that people can’t see it. There are plenty of problems with the American healthcare system, but raping individual freedoms is not the answer. In my opinion if you’re one of those that is clamoring for the government to save you on this, or any other, issue maybe it’s time for a long look in the mirror.

But do parents have the right to gamble their children's lives? I think parents should be forced to insure their kids when they choose to have them, just like the car owned is forced to insure his car if he chooses to have one.

Guess what? CHILDREN ALREADY RECEIVE HEALTH INSURANCE FROM OUR GOVERNMENT.

If a family meets certain financial criteria, ALL STATES have a health insurance program for kids.

My 23 year old niece graduated from college. If she had a baby, she would be eligible for health insurance SUBSIDIZED by the government.

3. Home Owners Insurance is also not mandatory.

Maybe not per the government but a bank will require it if the bank provides a loan for the home. The bank is protecting their collateral.

healthcare insurance is a "product"?

To the person who said that health insurance is not a product - IT IS A PRODUCT.

The product is a promise that for certain claims, the insured will be reimbursed, per the terms of the CONTRACT issued for SAID PRODUCT.

At the end of the day, this was a brilliant tactical move by republicans - demanding that this be part of the bill as the only way they'd support it, and by "they" they meant the 2 women senators who keep crossing the lines to get these deals done so that republicans can rip the democrats on them.

It's brilliant in that, republicans knew they'd have this fight on the constitutionality, and whether they won or lost that fight didnt matter, the point is being raised - that evil govt is forcing you to do things you dont want to do! Wait, um, who doesnt want to have health insurance?

I mean, no one wants to pay for it...clearly, but is there anyone who really dont want it period?

Ok, well...cool for you I guess, but for the rest of us, none of us what to roll the dice and lose. With 1/3 people getting cancer, thats a huge gamble to take...you've got 33% chance of being wiped out by a disease that may or may not cure you, but will definitely bankrupt you.

Come on lucky 7's! Mama needs to stay cancer free!

At the end of the day, this was a brilliant tactical move by republicans - demanding that this be part of the bill as the only way they'd support it, and by "they" they meant the 2 women senators who keep crossing the lines to get these deals done so that republicans can rip the democrats on them.

You must mean Senators Snowe and Collins from Maine. I agree that they are brilliant.

They were brilliant to get the damn bill off the floor so that Congress could focus on more important issues.

I'm pretty certain they were also aware that this health insurance requirement was not constitutional. The problem was THE DEMOCRATS who shoved this bill down everyone's throats.

If you want to blame anyone - BLAME OBAMA - AND HIS DUMB ADMINISTRATION.

The unemployment rate keeps going up. WE WANT JOBS.

Tad S "Talk about a nanny state out of control! With the stringent immigration laws Mexico has, it’d be hard to opt out of being an American. Just a total overreach of government authority, it amazes me that people can’t see it. There are plenty of problems with the American healthcare system, but raping individual freedoms is not the answer. In my opinion if you’re one of those that is clamoring for the government to save you on this, or any other, issue maybe it’s time for a long look in the mirror."

I am not clamoring for them to save anything, the system is broken and it needs to be fixed. I think the health care that was crafted, was horrible...I prefer the public option. It would remove the burden from employers of having to provide costly healthcare, it would remove the burden from employees of feeling trapped at a bad job because of fear of losing or switching insurance, and remove the fear from individuals after losing a job and their health insurance, because they really need and want it - but cant afford it anymore. For-profit model of any type of insurance feels like it defeats the point, but especially when it comes to health insurance...when a CEO and shareholders payouts become more improtant than making sure every paying premium holder gets the coverage they paid for, we've got a problem that needs fixing.

I suspect, you arent likely to see it this way until you've lost your job and your health insurance at a moment in time when you least could afford it.

Im dealing with breast health issues right now and my partner is about to lose her job, and our health insurance. My partner has Multiple Sclerosis, this is all too real and close to home right now, and im terrified. Kudos to you that you arent having to deal with reality yet, and therefore...have hardly any compassion around why we all should be invested in each other and our collective health.

(and ending the corn subsidizing would go a long way to improving our nations health, no more cheap eats resulting in fat seats!)

Good decision from a court finally

This just proves that the checks and balances that we have in place work. This also prove that all the doom criers on both side saying that "It's the end of America as we know it" are full of it. This applies to the Right worrying about Obama and the Left worrying about the last election results.

Maybe now when people hear a pundit on one side of the aisle or the other screaming that someone's destroying America more people will just laugh at them and change the channel, but unfortunately I doubt it.

Our system works, and will never allow a governmental overthrow of the people, no matter what the fear mongers say.

AGREED, and you would think when the hospitals claimed services that they did not perform on you, but charged you for it, it is insurance fraud.

Insurance fraud is against the law, yet they let them get away with it, but you and I go to jail. This is our justice system.

Yes, Jessica, as hard as it is for you to believe, there are people who do not want to purchase health insurance.

Whether that's a smart choice or not isn't for you or the government to decide and the person making that choice should pay the consequences. Freedom is a supposed to be a double edged sword.

You people do know that doctors' offices and hospitals take cash, right? You do not have to have insurance in order to pay for your services. Good old American dollars will get the job done. AND...most doctors will give you a discount for paying cash... they don't want to deal with the insurance companies anymore than you or I do. Makes sense why some people would rather not have to buy insurance when they can just pay as they go and save a bunch of money in the long run.

How much of a discount do you need to afford meds for life or a bypass? You must be very fortunate to be able to pay medical bills out of pocket.

This is an issue with no good way out. To insure effectivley, we must be covered while healthy so sick times can be paid. That's how insurance works.

Could 'you' live with denying someone medical treatment? Why ask doctors to do that? All our taxes support the medical industry in one way or another. Either through research or regulation. Why should my taxes go to high tech innovations that I cannot afford to be saved by? What did that one post say ?

What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

Well, I'm working for medical advances by paying taxes. The wealthy afford tax lawyers so they pay far less than I do but they can access way more medical care than I.

Now, how do we suppose I receive what I have worked for?

Karen, that's a laugh. I have only found one doctor in my whole life that was willing to accept payment out of pocket for services. Most won't even touch you unless you can show them an insurance card.

This sounds mean, but everyone who wants to repeal health care because of some poppycock about "Freedom" should go bankrupt from having a medical condition and being uninsured and then talk to me about freedom.

Jessica, I think you missed my point. My goal was not to laud our current system, just to point out that forcing everyone in is wrong. The system we have is flawed, in fact I pointed that out in my post. I agree 100 percent with doing away with other subsidies also. In fact I have had to deal with plenty of "reality", which required a career change, and the guys at the insurance company to pay out to the tune of a half million, but this isn't a whiners contest. It's about the freedom of choice, nothing more. Yes, the healthcare system is flawed, but the bill that was passed isn't the answer.

I was worried when this bill was introduced because is was not structured as a tax, and so it may be vulnerable. If it had been made a tax, it would have been bullet-proof. I don't think something that could have been structured as a tax should be ruled unconstitutional, so I think the law is constitutional. I preferred something a bit different - something that keeps costs in check - something more like the programs in Canada and Western Europe.

i simply can't understand why people don't understand the need for this mandate. we all pay for those that don't have insurance and walk into the govt mandated ER. do you think the hostipal, insurance company or doctors eat the cost of that. it gets passed to you moron who are against mandate. you morons like mandates that are imposed by private companies. mandate home insurance, mandate seat belts by state govt. there are a million mandate by the private section, sucking your money from you. you have a choice here, either get insurance or pay some fine.

i think everyone that works into an ER, need to pay for that visit going forward.

What I have a real problem understanding is how MOST OF YOU don't realize that this mandate IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

An appeal will not change the decision.

I do not want a socialist country. If I did, I would live in Canada.

Gr04 - My doctor takes cash. In fact, it's cheaper if you pay cash.

Karen in Los Angeles

Maybe not per the government but a bank will require it if the bank provides a loan for the home. The bank is protecting their collateral.

Right, but no one is making anyone buy a home. You can always rent.

Steve makes a point about a bunch of selfish people making posts that include the words "I" and "let them die". Steve let me be clear:

I don't care if some jackasses decide not to cover their kids. It's the parents choice and their responsibility to explain to their kids why they are going to die of cancer (assuming that someone challenges the must treat mandate using the same logic). I can already hear the conversation going viral on YouTube:

"You see little Johnny; daddy and mommy are tightwads and didn't want to fork over the money to ensure that if you were stricken by a terrible disease you would be covered."

Maybe they will just buy life insurance as it's cheaper but I don't care if they buy that either. I believe that you cannot save the stupid from their own stupid choices. While it would be sad for those who, through no fault of their own (i.e. kids) were doomed by the stupid choices of others (i.e. their parents) I cannot worry or afford to pay for others stupid choices.

The government has no business mandating that hospitals treat without mandating people have health insurance and vice versa. After all those without health insurance currently have government mandated health insurance that they don't have to pay for. Call me selfish if it makes you feel better but I did the selfish thing and got health insurance for my family and I. Why cant others be just as selfish as I?

Those of us who work for a living will be paying HUGE premiums, to pay for people who dont want to work, or dont want to work very much. The premiums will be on a sliding scale, and it will be taken out of our paychecks, just like taxes. The fed govt can decide to take whatever they want and the premiums will go up and up and up. Ya everyone will have to pay, but some will pay like, ten dollars a month and those who work hard, will pay like a thousand dollars a month, We dont want this, it allows the long arm of the fed gove to reach ever farther into our paychecks. It is just another way to redistribute income, taking money from people who earn it, and giving it to people who dont earn it.

It should be known the new health care reform does provide government subsidies for those who can't afford to buy health insurance.
In other words, no one is going to jail because eveyone will be able to get insurance one way or another.
Another thing to keep in mind is that there's a precendent to a government order for citizens to purchase an item: That happened when George Washinton was president and he made a decreed ordering every citizen of the United States to buy a musket rifle.
The effort to repeal the health care reform is going to fail miserably at the Supreme Court.
When people get to try out the new reforms and see how they're helped by it, it'll get a snowball effect going and it'll only get bigger with people asking for additional help and congress obligated to set aside the needed funds if they want people to vote for them.
There's nothing like your having your health being looked after from birth to death. It brings a country together and it also creates a lot of jobs.
Nothing here to be upset about.
Come on, people, let's enjoy taking care of everyone's health from birth to death!
And that way create millions of jobs by having more doctors and more nurses and more people to take care of the paperwork, and more transportation, and more translators, and producing more medicine, and manufacturing more medical equipment and construction of more and more clinics and hospitals.
Let's do it and have a party while at it!!!

Off topic. Why do people keep screwing up I and me all the time.... "I" is the subjective form "me" is objective form.

Olias of sunhillow, yea , there will be subsidies for those who cant afford ins. for health. BUT they will pay like ten dollars a month and those who work , like a two income family will have to pay like a thousand a month to make up for those who make poor decisions, or who choose not to work very hard or very much. I have a huge problem with this. Think about how many hours someone has to work to make a thousand dollars, and then some one who could work or work more gets healthcare practically free. What is wrong with this picture???!!

You all do realize that this judge has quite a few ties with the efforts to repeal the health care law as such he was legally required to recluse himself from the case. He refused and Willfully judged a case where he had clear conflicts of interest. Not Only is this case likely to be thrown out because of such abuse but this judge might be in serious trouble.

The healthcare bill NEEDS to be repealed!!

Karen in Los Angeles

Maybe not per the government but a bank will require it if the bank provides a loan for the home. The bank is protecting their collateral.

Right, but no one is making anyone buy a home. You can always rent.

And people can stay fat instead of getting liposuction at the taxpayer's expense.

Or people can die from cancer instead of prolonging their agony with treatment after treatment that will not cure the cancer.

We NEVER had national healthcare in this country and I definitely am not interested in paying the bill for national healthcare.

Yippeee!!!!! The court has ruled what I've said all along.

I was quite amused at the comment which said the judge should recuse himself. You know who should have recused himself? Judge Walker - the gay judge who overturned Prop 8.

This judge made the right call. While I do agree that the Administration was creative in its arguments, THE ARGUMENTS WERE NOT LEGAL. That is why the Administration LOST.

Karen Great comments!!

I think what the Obama administration is thinking is that by declaring Health insurance to be a right and that the federal exchange would be interstate commerce, they could then regulate health care under the commerce clause. The problem is that they were requiring the individual states to set up their own exchanges too. The federal exchange would be the catch-all for those that slipped through the cracks. Regardless the whole thing is a FAIL.

The whole thing is like a power grab!!!

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d103:SN01770:@@@L&summ2=m&

The 103rd Congress of 1993-94 though this was a good idea. If you read the bill, pay close attention to Sections 1003 & 1004 and Subtitle F: " Universal Coverage" Take a look at the 20 cosponsors of the bill, you will see some familiar names which now oppose the law, Is this opposition hypocrisy or politics? I say it's "both"

Good for the judge. If healthcare were truly good quality and affordable you wouldn't have to force people to buy it.

I'm for Single Payer national healthcare. That is not what Obama gave us. He certainly didn't try to have the government take over healthcare as some people on here are saying. Obama care is still private companies that you would be forced to buy a policy from.

The healthcare industry would make a killing, probably literally as well as figuratively

They would offer either quality healthcare plans that very few could afford or cut rate inadequate plans with huge deductibles for everyone else.

Unless you have lots of $$$$ they don't give a @!$%# whether you live or die and neither does Obama.

Perhaps you all need a refresher on how Insurance works in the US. Insurance is regulated on a state level- this is why minimum requirements differ state by state. There are national entities (such as NAIC) that make recommendations, but rates and policy terms and conditions are regulated on a state level. Now Obama is suggesting that this should be nationalized per the Commerce Clause...alright fine. This however, speaking to most republicans or any intelligent person with an insurance background, is roughly the alternative that people were already talking about. If you lift state barriers, Insurance companies can better diversify their pools of Insureds (because there are what we can refer to as Aggregation issues- say women who live on Long Island have incredibly high rates of breast cancer)- by allowing for diversification the overall loss ratios will go down, which will allow rates to go down. Also, by allowing insurers who are currently not allowed to sell in certain states because of state regulators to sell nationwide- competition will increase which will also drive rates down. No need to socialize or nationalize- let the market do what it will do.

Now, this also brings up issues that go far beyond what Obama probably intended. If youre arguing that this should become a national thing- what happens to non health care insurances? Does it get lifted for all Life or Property & Casualty Insurances? What about the non admitted market?What about state flood pools? What about individual state insolvency funds? Whos going to take all that over- all the things that protect policyholders rights??

Lastly, as someone who lives overseas where healthcare is nationalized- and who was Insured when I still lived at home in the states- there is a marked difference in care. and while I hate to blow up all your perfect world socialized medicine works for everyone dreams- the situation here is not by any means better. Granted, in the states I was insured so I had a certain level of security- but people don't get turned away from hospitals (when I was in college in DC, I saw plenty of homeless people in the same waiting room with myself- I have a cronic autoimmune issue). Here on the other hand, its "free" (in the sense that I pay a huge percentage of my salary in tax), but at the same time, hospitals are over crowded, and to see the public doctors (again for free) sometimes you have to wait 3-4 months (average). Now, if I have a cronic problem, there is a special certificate that helps me skip parts of the line, but that still means I can be waiting for months. OR- I can go to the emergency room where you don't always find specialists who are equiped to handle your problem and so you get looked at then put on line for a specialist. The alternative, is going to see someone privately-as we do in the states which is covered by insurance- only here it isnt covered and it will cost on average 150 euro per visit ($200 just to be seen). Healthcare supplement insurance plans are selling like hotcakes here now...because people see the system failing.

Its nice to live in an ideal world- but I think people should get the whole - non -Michael Moore- view before they make decisions...

Insurance fraud is against the law, yet they let them get away with it, but you and I go to jail. This is our justice system.

One even is the governor elect of Florida.

So it's ok to have clear financial conflicts of interest if you rule in favor of the right ok got ya.

Another in along line of cases where the right doesn't really give two @!$%#s about truth and Justice so long as they get there way.

Or people can die from cancer instead of prolonging their agony with treatment after treatment that will not cure the cancer.

Karen That you can even compare cancer treatment to liposuction is disturbing enough. But you call on people who have cancer to just give up is just Evil. Many people live much longer lives or are even cured due to such treatments, And while some may die despite treatment they can get years they would not of had.

Get help Karen just get some @!$%#ing help.

neotag

Are you able to refrain from name calling? Do you actually believe that name calling is a point in an argument? Let me assure you. It is not and one's credibility is shot when one resorts to juvenile name calling.

Frankly, your opinion is just that, an opinion.

Sometimes, no matter how much treatment you apply to cancer, it does not go away. Case in point - Elizabeth Edwards. Some people refuse treatment for cancer and some do not. It costs a lot of money.

If people want to take part in this treatment, they can buy health insurance or get it through their job.

I had ZERO problems reforming our health insurance and Medicare systems. I HAVE LOTS OF PROBLEMS WITH THE GOVERNMENT REQUIRING I BUY HEALTH INSURANCE. That is not a solution with which I agree, and a court just found it unconstitutional because it is unconstitutional.

And before anyone goes off on the media mantra that two other courts have found it constitutional, I read the judge's decisions in those two cases and there are slight differences between this instant case and the previous two decisions.

And just remember too neotag - you are NOT God so your opinion means squat to me.

Karen - You never cease to amaze me. So I guess you want those death panels after all. Should I also tell my wife tonight that she is wasting money by continuing treatments?

And just remember too neotag - you are NOT God so your opinion means squat to me.

Do you have the inside track on God's opinion? Is it God's opinion that we should let those without insurance suffer and/or die? All opinions are acceptable except those that you don't agree with?

Get help Karen just get some @!$%#ing help.

I agree. Even if taxpayers have to foot the bill.

Obama is so clueless it would be funny if his policies weren't so terrible. The idea that this law will cover 30 million that don't currently have insurance is a joke. He added mandates to cover more and expects the premiums to be less? What planet is he living on? Premiums are already going up due to the few provisions that have already kicked in. Employers are outright dropping group health plans due to costs and tax ramifications. Prepare for 100 million uninsured in a few years.

RanRan

Health care is another bubble ready to pop. Your rates are going to go way up as less people are able to afford it. Way up.

The Public Option was the only way to make this work. People will scream for it when they need it or are bankrupt from an illness, insured or not.

I've asked this many times and have yet to get a response.....will someone please explain to me why they think this "public option" is the magic bullet that's going to make insurance affordable?

Average medical usage per insured last year was around $4-4.5k. So $300-350/month in premiums per person just to break even. That is about what the average premium is currently. The only thing that can be done is to find a way to lower the COST OF CARE! This isn't an insurance issue, it's an issue of overtesting, overbilling, exorbinant drug costs, exorbinant hospital/testing costs ----none of which the clown in the white house addressed...in fact, this law will increase these costs thereby increasing the cost of the insurance.

Karen in LA, you turely are daft aren't you? So, by your own standards, every judge that is hetero dealing with hetero criminals should recuse himsel. Bet your an off shade of discount store peroxide aren't you?

Joe-755363

Average medical usage per insured last year was around $4-4.5k. So $300-350/month in premiums per person just to break even. That is about what the average premium is currently. The only thing that can be done is to find a way to lower the COST OF CARE! This isn't an insurance issue, it's an issue of over testing, over billing, exorbitant drug costs, exorbitant hospital/testing costs ----none of which the clown in the white house addressed...in fact, this law will increase these costs thereby increasing the cost of the insurance.

At least some people understand the problem. If the cost keep going up, premiums will to. This is totally not addressed in the bill. I mean I see what my insurance gets billed for a 10 minute consultation. It's insane. No one's time is worth that kind of money. Maybe a specialist surgeon, but a general practitioner costing hundreds for 10 minutes? I can stand on my toes at home, and cough a few times for free. I don't know if this is a malpractice insurance issue, or just companies getting greedy, but that's nuts. I know enough doctors to know that their salaries are not out of line, so it's got to be some kind of other issue.

Going back to the waivers. Why are McDonalds, caterpillar, SEIU, and a host of other companies and organizations getting waivers from the government so that they don't have to participate in Obamacare if it is so great?

Additionally, why are student loans involved in healthcare? Why is the IRS the new healthcare police?

There are too many loopholes and gimmes in the bill as well as a 'health czar' overseeing the program with no oversight and no one he has to answer to. There are way too many ways for the government to reach into the taxpayers wallets already and to threaten individuals with prison if they don't buy into the program opens up some very ugly doors as regards personal freedom.

To those posting that the non-paying uninsured patients get a free ride at the taxpayers expense, that's not really true. There are hospital districts that are partially funded with property tax monies. These hospitals are set up to handle the indigent and the taxes go to this. Also, hospitals will pass cost along to uninsured patients at a greatly inflated price to attempt to re-coup monies for procedures that insurance companies set caps on.

Hospitals are for-profit for the most part. Ditto doctors. Additionally, much of the charges for services rendered are seriously overpriced, ditto drugs. Most of us know about the $20.00 aspirin or the $4.00 Qtip.

Why are doctors saddled with hundreds of thousands of dollars of student loans as a cost of getting a medical degree? Doctors going into private practice have to recoup enough to pay off the loans, add to that the cost of malpractice insurance and staff fees and the two or three people that are hired to handles the massive amounts of paperwork that medicare requires and its a wonder doctors agree to take medicare patients at all.

Then there's the issue of medicare fraud which raises the cost to medicare by millions, much of which is not caught or accounted for. Just cracking down on fraud would save a massive amount of money.

Then there is the issue of the insurance companies and the millions of patients that they will insure under the government plan. This is great gravy for the insurance companies until you realize how many more people will have to be hired to handle the paperwork, and, those folks will probably be in India.

Rather than tossing money to banks and Wall Street with the massive bailouts, a portion of that money could have gone to create a public option via existing medicare programs and the uninsured could have gone under medicare with a pay-what-you-can-afford program. Those with a salary of $20,000 per annum could afford say $200 a month. Hospitals are the main cause of the enourmous health care costs, never do you see a price list for services, like say, $100. dollars for IV drip, instead what happens is a patient is hit with this massive bill and no itemizations or explantations as to why such service cost so much.

I have had lab requests that had to be done for procedures and the hospital charged $660. for the blood work. I shopped around and found a commercial lab who did the same work for $230.00. Patients on insurance or medicare don't generally question the bills, those paying out of their own pockets do.

I realize in serious life and death instances one doesn't exactly have presence of mind to ask about these things and hospitals and some doctors will take advantage of this.

There are no easy answers to the issue, but some common sense applied to a problem often provides some answers that are viable. The healthcare bill as it stands now only obfuscates and doesn't address the real causes of the healthcare cost crisis. And it is the high cost of healthcare that is the really relevant issue here.

You all do realize that this judge has quite a few ties with the efforts to repeal the health care law as such he was legally required to recluse himself from the case. He refused and Willfully judged a case where he had clear conflicts of interest. Not Only is this case likely to be thrown out because of such abuse but this judge might be in serious trouble.

This judge won't be in any trouble as long as the right controls congress and the Supreme Court.

Agreed and that is what makes the whole issue a sad case of justice... It's not about what you know, but who you know....

Karen,

I had ZERO problems reforming our health insurance and Medicare systems. I HAVE LOTS OF PROBLEMS WITH THE GOVERNMENT REQUIRING I BUY HEALTH INSURANCE. That is not a solution with which I agree, and a court just found it unconstitutional because it is unconstitutional.

I think that you should know that the part of the health care law that you disagree with was written in by Republicans, if you don't believe me check it out.

Mikela

#2.3- Employers require employees to pay into health coverage benefits, it's not a free handout... Sure they can drop coverage all together as you stated but you incorrectly stated it is free... Nothing is free but the air you breathe, if you need air for your tire, depending on where you go, you have to pay for it...

Some good points mygirl1.

I do see some cost solutions. Unfortunately our short-sighted, lobbyist bought government and socialist president didn't address anything that would actually stop the enormous increases in the cost of care.

1. Get rid of provider networks and negotiated discounts. The fee is the fee. One person should not be charged more than another for the same procedure based on his/her insurance.

2. Work to lower the cost of medical testing equipment. Why is an MRI machine $1.5 million dollars and a new car $20,000? They both require the same amount of precision in manufacturing, the car has many more moving parts, and both manufacturers have to put money into R&D.

3. Adopt a settlement procedure for medical malpractice akin to workers compensation. Cap the punitive damages. If you lose your arm at work, you are awarded a settlement based on lost income, lost ability, additional medical costs and loss of quality of life. It is based on what you were making, your responsibilities and the amount that you actually lose. If a doctor misses a bloodclot and you lose your arm, you can sue for tens of millions and get it. Also, make any lawyer that files a frivolous lawsuit responsible for paying both parties legal fees.

4. Lower the FDA testing requirements on a pharmaceutical company for new drugs. I've seen figures that show that it costs $1 billion in research, development and testing to get approval. That billion is made up during the period the company has exclusive rights and can charge whatever it wants.

5. Instead of a single payer system, adopt a single biller system. If you go to a hospital, only that hospital bills you (and your insurance). The anethesiologist, pathologist, surgeon, radiologist, etc are all paid by the hospital. No more getting bills from random companies that the patient wasn't even aware of. This will develop some competition in the industry and lower rates.

6. Take some control over what college tuitions are. These costs are going up almost as fast as the cost of medical care and it is unnecessary and making it unaffordable for many to go to school.

Six steps. See how it effects the system and lowers costs. As opposed to Obamacare, all these would lower the cost of care, which is the root of the problem and what is raising the cost of insurance.

I agree. Even if taxpayers have to foot the bill.I agree. Even if taxpayers have to foot the bill.

I third that motion.

3. Adopt a settlement procedure for medical malpractice akin to workers compensation. Cap the punitive damages. If you lose your arm at work, you are awarded a settlement based on lost income, lost ability, additional medical costs and loss of quality of life. It is based on what you were making, your responsibilities and the amount that you actually lose. If a doctor misses a bloodclot and you lose your arm, you can sue for tens of millions and get it. Also, make any lawyer that files a frivolous lawsuit responsible for paying both parties legal fees.

I don't agree with the entirety of this proposal. I think there should be a punitive portion that is dependent on the severity of the error and past errors. It is a mechanism to eliminate incompetent doctors and institutions. This applies more to institutions whose policies create a culture of endangering patients for profit.

I think the lawyers should pay more than legal costs for frivolous cases. There should be an incremental fine and a points system similar to driving records. Enough points and your license is suspended. Suspended enough times and it is revoked.

4. Lower the FDA testing requirements on a pharmaceutical company for new drugs. I've seen figures that show that it costs $1 billion in research, development and testing to get approval. That billion is made up during the period the company has exclusive rights and can charge whatever it wants.

Having worked in the pharmaceutical industry I can verify this number with a caveat. This figure includes all the investigatory new drugs, INDs, associated with the R&D associated with one of them actually reaching the market. It is easy for $100 million to be spent on one IND that fails before even reaching clinical testing. Some of the testing performed at this level is to see if the compound even has the desired activity in the first place. That alone can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. I would love to see some of the testing requirements reduced. Unfortunately, the industry has demonstrated the inability to competently decide on how much is adequate. These requirements where added as a result of shoddy business practices that resulted in hundreds of thousands to millions of people being injured over the life time of the FDA. It is also in the financial interest of pharmaceutical companies to concentrate on lifetime treatments instead of cures. This, IMO, is a major drawback to our current system. I would like to see incentives created to push for cures over life long treatments.

Another big push toward communism by the Oba-a-a-munists.

Yes we must protect the right of the few to profit off the misery of the many at all costs, lest we become communist as opposed to compassionate. /sarc.

bluecollarblogger #1.126...I take every opportunity I get to show Obama as a communist at heart. See the pictures in this article.

Obama's intentions in Obamacare are suspect to me.

Wolf said,

Obama's intentions in Obamacare are suspect to me.

I wonder how you would feel to learn that the parts of the law in "Obamacare" that are suspect to you were put in there by the Republicans.

gmross #1.129 I would feel just like I do. I suspect Obamacare may be part of a communist plot by a communist supporter; Obama.

I thought Obama was a Democrat. Wow, who knew, I thought I voted for a Democrat for president and all this time he is a Republican! Who knew?? LOL

We need more Americans that stand up for the principles of this country of Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness and against tyranny and oppression even if they are friendly to our companies raping their natural resources. How many times must we suffer the loss and animosity of friends do to the abuse of those abusing our name and power for self enrichment.

Do we really need another Shah or Chaing Kai-shek?

• "22%"

"Yes, it is well within the right of Congress to do so, as other judges have ruled.
13,219 votes"

• "72.9%"

"No, as the Virginia judge ruled, the mandate is unconstitutional.
43,750 votes"

Should we just roll over like a dog, and let the 22% have their way?

"I thought Obama was a Democrat. Wow, who knew, I thought I voted for a Democrat for president and all this time he is a Republican! Who knew?? LOL"

Republican, Democrat, or Communist; if Obama is for the Obamacare mandate, 72.9% of the people in this article voted against him.

Wolf, It was the Republicans that put the mandate into the bill, not Obama. It is the American people, not just the viners that have said, by a 64% margin that they want the Health Care Law kept and revisions made to the law as time goes on.

It is the Republicans in the House that want to repeal the law and then at "some time in the future", Boehners words, they will look at maybe getting the Health Care Law reinstated.

The mandate is in the bill. 72.9% of the people who voted in this article are against the mandate.

The House voted 289-145 today to repeal Obamacare.

It is possible to remove some more Democrats in 2012, which will strengthen chances of a repeal.

The mandate is in the bill. 72.9% of the people who voted in this article are against the mandate.

The House voted 289-145 today to repeal Obamacare.

It is possible to remove some more Democrats in 2012, which will strengthen chances of a repeal.

Then Wolf shouldn't you be angry with the Republicans who DEMANDED that the mandate be put into the bill, instead of President Obama?

gmross,

maybe that is why so many RINO's lost this year. If the Republicans acted like Republicans and not Dem lite maybe more people would have voted for them in 2006 and 2008. The 2010 election was not a Republican victory it was a conservative victory. If the current Repubs act like RINO's again then they will be destroyed in 2012 as conservatives stay home or create a 3rd party which will remove the Republican party as a major force for a long time, maybe forever. Kind of like the Whigs.

Phantom;

I hope you are right, I hope the Republicans do just what you are saying, but I also hope that they act the same way they did just before Clinton won his second term, if the Republicans shut down the government the way they did then and they do it now then we might see a super majority of Democrats in both houses and President Obama for a second term. Sweet dreams.

The poll is meaningless, it is for the Supreme Court to decide issues of Constitutionality. That is their role in the Constitution to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

gmross #1.137...The mandate is in the bill. 72.9% of the people who voted in this article are against the mandate.

How it got there, anger, etc. have no value.

The people in this article are against the mandate. They vote. Their votes have value.

Our votes in this "poll" do not carry legal authority, nor do they count on the question of Constitutionality.

Tim S.-560036 #1.142...Votes did count in November 2010, and they will count in November 2012. The mandate helped people decide and will help people decide.

Did they count in 2008?

As for the Constitutionality of the mandate, no they didn't. There are only 9 votes that count on that question and they haven't been cast yet. Sorry.

Tim S.-560036 #1.144...My theory is that the vote in 2008 was irrational exuberance. Further, the vote in 2010 was rational.

While the "9" sit in the Supreme Court, the House has been taken over by Republicans. They can legislate anything constitutional, which includes non funding of Obamacare. The House controls all spending; right?

The Senate has 6 more Republican senators I believe.

The number of Republican governors has increased, and I believe an additional 600 Republican state legislators have been elected.

Irrational exuberance during the largest economic meltdown in 80 years? Not the terminology I would have used. And just because a vote goes your way does not make it rational. Personally, I think both of the last 2 elections had quite a bit of irrational motivation behind them. That tends to be the case in times of strife. Emotion takes over and people look for quick painless solutions to major problems. That kind of defines irrational in my opinion.

The 9 decide Constitutionality, not the House. We will see how effectively they can defund the HC law. There are many complications to this process.

Tim,

The 9 decide Constitutionality, not the House. We will see how effectively they can defund the HC law. There are many complications to this process.

The two problems I can see with defunding the HCR are the Senate and the president.

gmross,

From what I have heard it is more complex than that. There are ties to other areas of government that would have to be unfunded. It has to do with the funding of HCR being tied to other funding. For instance, the IRS budget could be cut by the amount needed for HCR, but the IRS would still be required to enforce it by reallocating the funds it is allocated. That is an example of how it is difficult to unfund the particulars of a given piece of legislation.

Yes Tim, but the president won't sign a bill that defunds the HCR and the Senate as long as there is even a slight Democratic majority in charge won't let the bill go any farther than some shelf in Harry Reids office.

gmross #1.149...I'm hoping that the behavior of the Senate and the President will bring about a duplication of the election results of November 2010.

Something like 23 Democrats in the Senate are retiring, but only 10 Republicans are retiring.

Currently the president has a 53% job approval rating among the voters, I'm sure that beats out the Republicans 46% approval rating, or their 23% approval rating, maybe you better get used to another Democratic run congress and White House after 2012.

Wolf, they aren't retiring, they are up for reelection. And all of the House is up for reelection. Don't be too surprised if the Dem carry most of these elections on the ticket with the President.

Tim #1.152...You're right. 23 Senate Democrats are up for election.

That is what happens when you win big 6 years ago. Wait for those running to win reelection and the 10 republican seats that are up for reelection. That would make 60 plus. Except one has to subtract republicans like Ben Nelson.

Tim S.-560036

Irrational exuberance during the largest economic meltdown in 80 years? Not the terminology I would have used. ~ #1.146

LOL...at least (under Bush) we didn't face the (double-digit) 13.5% inflation rate coupled with an (obscenly high) 21.5% interest rate we received under Carter's (Democrat) administration. Even the 7% unemployment figure isn't far from what we have today (over two years now [over halfway already] into Obama's term). In retrospect, one can easily argue even Carter's done better than Obama. [...Which isn't saying one-heck-of-a-lot, now is it?]
; )

I just love how the fallacy that the stagflation period was Carter's fault. You do remember that Ford ran on the slogan WIN (Whip Inflation Now). Right? That Nixon instituted price controls. Yet the resulting economy was Carter's fault. That the economy that was developing over the 6+ years prior to Carter's administration ended 6 years after Darter took office.

Nice selective memory.

Tim S.-560036

I just love how the fallacy that the stagflation period was Carter's fault. You do remember that Ford ran on the slogan WIN (Whip Inflation Now). Right? That Nixon instituted price controls. Yet the resulting economy was Carter's fault. That the economy that was developing over the 6+ years prior to Carter's administration ended 6 years after Darter Carter took office.

Nice selective memory. - #1.156

Historical facts speak for themselves; the recorded figures of the times represent the facts of the matter!

While Tim s. chooses to use a misrepresentation of the facts combined with misleading rhetorical innuendo in an attempt to justify his utterly false accusation of my having employed "selective memory", whereby he begins misstating both events and circumstance that drove those figures into the record books.

I quoted historical the historical record, the facts of which (if anyone cares to dispute them) can easily Google the official figures for themselves.

In defense against such an farcical accusation and obvious misrepresentation (using mean and unsubstantiated rhetoric combined with some rather static innuendo.... for the record....(to indicate how totally ludicrous Tim S's false accusation [in comment #1.156] actually is, and also because Tim S. [in his grandiose dreams) envisions blaming Carter's complete lack of competence in the area of American economic policy [see the figures in the above comment (#1.155)] on Ford's administration.

This [which, BTW] is the same way Democrats continue to try to foist our current economic predicament off on Bush, this despite having less than half a term left for the Obama administration and (knowing full-well that [once again] history repeated itself before our very eyes [Democrats were again in control of both House and Senate of the Congress under Gerald Ford same as they did under Bush].

Well... despite the fact that Tim S. doesn't care for or appreciate the historical record (LOL), here are a few more rather significant figures; figures recorded under President Ford's tenure in office:

~~~

November 5, 1974

In off-year elections, Democrats gain 43 House seats and 3 Senate seats, giving them a majority in both Houses of Congress.

~~~

March 29, 1975

Ford (in an attempt to compromise with a Democratic controlled Congress, reluctantly signs the Tax Reduction Act of 1975, which calls for a $22.8 billion tax cut.

~~~

April 4, 1975

Unemployment rises to 8.7%.

~~~

June 6, 1975

Unemployment reaches 9.2%! [Gee-whillakers, Mr T., doesn't this number sound vaguely familiar?]

~~~

February 7, 1976

Unemployment continues to drop from December through January, from 8.3% to 7.8%.

~~~

April 20, 1976

1st quarter of 1976, GNP rises to 7.5%.

Inflation is at 3.7%.

~~~

July 21, 1976

Inflation drops from 12.2% in the latter months of 1974 to 4.6% in the first six months of 1976.

~~~

December 31, 1976

Inflation holds steady at a low 4.8 percent, the best in four years, but high unemployment persists.

~~~

January 20, 1977

Jimmy Carter is inaugurated the thirty-ninth President of the United States.

~~~

That is the record, not the rhetoric!

Yes and FDR was responsible for the Great Depression. And every president enters office with a magic wand that undoes any of the economic factors that have been occurring for throughout history or at least the last administration that they want to undo. Policies that have been having their effect for 4, 8, 10, 12, or more years can be instantaneously undone with the waving of this wand at the conclusion of the Inauguration. Everyone should understand this power of the Presidency.

Your simplistic analysis of reality does not make mine grandiose.

December 31, 1976

Inflation holds steady at a low 4.8 percent, the best in four years, but high unemployment persists.

Who was president before Ford? Wasn't it "Tricky Dick" also known as Richard Milhouse Nixon a Republican? So, if the 4.8% was the lowest in four years, then who had the highest in the four year period, Nixon or Carter? It had to be Nixon, but I understand, you have to blame it on Carter because he's a Democrat, it can't be a Republicans fault, no, we can't have that at all.

gmross,

Inflation did go back up during Carter's administration and unemployment grew too. Both were do to a second oil embargo and the appointment of Volcker who tightened the money supply drastically to get both under control. About six years later these actions had their desired effects and the stagflaton ended. That happened to be during Regan's first term. So, being the simple minded people the average American is, Reagan got credit for fixing an economy that was screwed up stating back with the Vietnam involvement and oil embargoes. I don't need to go back to the reports. I lived it. I had the same arguments with the simpleminded that wrote the reports then to.

I know that Carter didn't do things that were that popular and it was a tough time for him, we as a country weren't too popular at the time. It just chafes me a little bit when people come on here and blame everything that happened years before a president took office on that president.

Me too. I have my issues with Carter and every president. I oppose putting blame on any of them for things they did not do or that were beyond any humans ability to control. There is realistic and there is fantasy. Lets try to stick to reality.

Just wait for the first steps of the new health care program to take effect in 2011 and then watch what your employer does..... They will start being charged double per dollar above the federally decided minimum or they'll cut your coverage down to that federal minimum. Will your company be mean if they decide not to cover beyond what the government tells them to, no, they'll be complying with the law. You'll be just fine, even if the federal government decides that mammograms aren't really necessary, that some tests are expensive, and some treatments aren't proven enough to spend the effort on your family.

Don't worry, you can go out and buy all of the supplemental insurance you want to get the tests, screenings, and treatments that aren't covered under the nationalized plan. The AARP, along with others, are standing by to take your calls for gap insurance.

The new nationalized healthcare slogan, "Nationalized Healthcare: You are in good hands. Just look at our success with federal spending and budgeting."

No, it means they will have time to appeal this to the Supreme Court and get a final opinion before this provision gets implemented.

Your employer can simply drop their plan period. Nothing says they have to mandatorily offer you free handouts. Maybe had they never started then we wouldn't be paying the ridiculous premiums we are now and people would have fought back a little harder when the pharmacy and health care industries started raping them.

This time, I agree with you, mikela. If we had simply stayed with the pre-1960s custom of "pay as you go" for medical treatment/insurance, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Employer covered insurance is a benefit plan that you took into consideration when you accepted the job. Just like the # of vacation days, etc. They could drop it on you, but it would not look good on their part as it is a contract that you agreed to when you accepted the job.

A company provided benefit package is not a free handout, it is figured into your pay. In other words it is a form of pay that you are working for.

Henry Hudson is perhaps the most conservative Federal Judge in the nation! To understand him, you need only to look at his background.
I can't think of any other judge that I am aware of that has risen to the top as Judge Hudson has. My first memory of him is as a quiet deputy sheriff in Arlington County, Virginia.

I have never heard a bad word about him. I believe he is a honest hard working man, who has a particularly far right viewpoint, that has earned every appointment he's ever had, While we have dramatically different political, & legal perspectives, I respect his abilities.

His advancement through the system has, of course, been championed by the Republican ultra conservative wing of the party.

I have not yet read the whole opinion, but am willing to gambol, that the legal scholarship is well founded. This will be extremely interesting to watch ...

Let's also consider the changing expectations that are totally and completely unreasonable for health insurance, versus any other form of insurance.

Do you expect your auto policy to cover oil changes, break pads, tires, etc? Do you expect to be able to buy life insurance - after you're dead? Should you be able to buy home insurance and expect it to pay AFTER your house burned down? No to all of those, right?

Then WHY on earth has the expectation become that health "insurance" be AT LEAST a break-even proposition? People expect to get check-ups and exams under their policies - equal to brake pads and oil changes - AND expect to be covered for catastrophy, ie a broken leg or cancer.

And then they wonder why premiums have gone through the roof. When health insurance was actual INSURANCE against catastrophy and not a catch all with the expectation that no other costs would be incurred if you had insurance, premiums were reasonable and people paid for maintanence and low-cost sickness (ie, strep throat) out of pocket. Of course premiums skyrocketed, AND deductibles and copays, when everything from a runny nose to viagra to heart failure had to be covered.

It's basic four function math.

moonbeam - Just ask yourself one question: was a big deal made out of the judges that have sided with the administration on this as far as who appointed them, or what their political leanings might be? Nope. But this judge rules against the HOLY POTUS and his minions, and enough CANNOT be made about him being a Bush appointee and a Republican. It's partisan hackery on the part of the media, as per usual.

pragmatic, I agree with you comment on the political affiliation of the judge. It seems the comment's only purpose is to de-legitimize his opinion. My opinion is that deciding not to purchase health coverage is to dedice to let taxpayers assume the risk you'll end up in an ER. Since there's money involved, I'd say that decision has commercial ramifications. The legal issue that interests me is whether deciding to let taxpayers foot the bill for ER services is a commercial activity that comes under the commerce clause, as it's been interpreted by SCOTUS over the years.

I think the mandate is just, as it merely punishes the irresponsible who choose to let the public cover the risk that they'll require treatment.

I am one of the "stupid" people in this country and if im stupid for not wanting the government to tell me what my kids have to eat, tell me i have to buy health insurance from them, tell me i cant open a fast food restaurant, then I guess I am just plain stupid. I dont want the government to run anything and to stay the hell out of my private life. If i want health insurance, i will buy my own, i dont want the governments health insurance. How the heck do you liberal democrats think that the government can run anything without going broke and adding yet thousands of more government workers to the payrolls??? Its all about the democrats taking control of a hugh chunk of our economy to keep them in power. They could give a s h i t about your healthcare, and its about time you admit it and give up on this b u l l s h i t about how wonderful government run healthcare would be..

reltykov - stop spamming the same post over and over. Aside from being annoying, your missing the bigger point: those Republican plans were never made law, and if they had been probably would have been found unconsitutional as well. As such, they're a moot point.

joe - The taxpayer will always be on the hook for medical care that is given to people who do not have insurance, or who do not pay their share of the deductibles/copays - even if this law stands, since about 15 million people will still not have coverage. As opposed to forcing people to enter a contract against their will, how about we force them to pay their bills when they accept medical treatment? Now you'll say, they can't pay their bills. Well, there are methods for dealing with that that do not give the Congress the power to force OTHER people into a contract.

Consider an extension of this power to force commerce for the "greater good". The American taxpayer currently owns a large stake in two car companies. It is arguably in the taxpayers best interest to see those companies become more profitable, thereby able to pay back the taxpayer. Should the government therefore, under the Commerce Clause, be able to force people to buy cars, or more specifically, GM's and Chrylsers, instead of say Fords or Volkswagens because it serves the "greater good" of returning taxpayers their money?

Where does it end, joe? If given the power to force people to enter a contract, can the government next decide what people CANNOT do because it does NOT serve the greater good, ie buy guns, buy more than one house, have more than one child?

I can agree with you that it serves a greater good for more people to be insured. I simply cannot agree to giving the power to the government to force purchase of anything on those grounds.

Jeff,

Inferring that one side of this argument is "stupid" is not a great way to influence others. You are only required to pay a fine not get health insurance. If you do not want your children to eat government provide lunch send food, then they can eat what ever you want. You can still open a fast food restaurant, that commentary is misplaced. Ultimately if this country is headed in a direction you cannot handle (to much government oversight) there are plenty of options you could, exercise to live in we'll say a more "free" nation, convince more people to vote for candidates whom espouse your ideas, and run for government yourself to insure your ideas are at least given a voice in our nations capital. As for who cares more about the constituents, I believe their is plenty of evidence that says both parties are very flexible on their ability to stand and defend the voters.

Pragmatic, Sounds like a Glenn Beck argument.....those who choose not to enter a contract are perfectly free to contribute to the risk pool by paying a tax (aka fine) on their tax return. The government is not coercing anyone into a contract, since anyone can opt out by paying a fine.

Or do you prefer forcing taxpayers to cover those slackers who refuse to provide their own coverage, then end up in an ER and refuse to pay?

EVERYONE -- !! When anyone who is uninsured, either car or health, gets in a car accident or goes to the ER for treatment, who in the world do you think pays for it? You and I, that's who. Why would you not be in favor of reforming our system so that at least some of that burden of cost could be eliminated, or re-distributed to each person a lot more equitably? I once got broadsided hard while driving my daughter's VW beetle. The car that hit me was a huge old 70s style tank. It was driven by an illegal immigrant who had no insurance, no driver's license and the car did not have legal tags. Who do you think paid for totaling my car and my medical costs? The illegal alien? Hardly. Every time someone in need of medical treatment shows up at an ER and requires treatment, it comes out of our pockets. You bet I support health care reform. At the very least the new bill will insure 30 million more Americans. Does it suck in it's present form? Of course it does, but it's a big step in the right direction.

Or do you prefer forcing taxpayers to cover those slackers who refuse to provide their own coverage, then end up in an ER and refuse to pay?

Ironically, this bill does exactly that. The difference is that now, it isn't just the people of the "screw them" mindset, it's legalized for EVERYONE to do that.

justice princess...Come down from that ivory tower honey. I've had 5 car accidents on NJ roads in the last 8 years...none were my fault. I've had no major injuries....You didn't pay a dime. The cost of my car insurance would scare you out of your pampers. Grow up. Stop with the martrydom routine. No one is buying it. Drive on any too heavily congested NJ road and see how you won't avoid being a statistic. This is the most heavily congested traffic in the northeast...ask anyone who has driven on one of our roads. Where do you live? In St. Mary's Montana? Yeesh...what's with this one size fits all routine?

Amen Ewent, we pay the highest auto insurance in the U.S. right here in NJ. Even if you have no points, have never had an accident, etc... its still high compared to people I know in other states.

Ophelia

The insurance may cost more BUT YOUR GAS SURE IS CHEAP and someone actually pumps it for you.

My sister lives in Jersey and I agree, it's very expensive EXCEPT FOR THE GAS!

The American taxpayer currently owns a large stake in two car companies. It is arguably in the taxpayers best interest to see those companies become more profitable, thereby able to pay back the taxpayer.

You are so 2000 LATE. GM has paid back ITS LOAN.

We do not own EITHER GM or Chrysler. Please get your facts straight.

Americans loaned them money because the banks refused. No wonder everything is in such disarray. No one knows what they are talking about and just talk, talk talk.

Talk is cheap.

No, it means they will have time to appeal this to the Supreme Court

News flash. Since Obama says they plan to appeal, the NEXT court on the list is the Circuit Court that is in charge of that District Court.

And news flash #2 - there is no guarantee that the Supreme Court will agree to hear this case.

Bullcrap, Karen. Talk is indeed cheap and so are your bold-faced, unmitigated uninformed lies. Bush began the bailouts of GM and Chrysler in Dec. '08. POTUS finished the job in the summer of '09 and spent most of last summer bragging about how he single handedly 'saved Detroit'.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/20/business/20auto.html

GM has paid back PART of the money lent to it, and purchased back PART of the stock but even after the recent IPO the government (taxpayer) will still own about 33% of the company. Part of Chrysler's agreement was that it NOT pay back the loans, and hasn't.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AB43H20101117

http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/05/news/companies/chrysler_loans/

The U.S. government's stake in GM will drop to about 33 percent from 61 percent if all available shares are sold.

Eat crow - you're wrong.

Chile has government controlled health care system. The fees you pay depend on your income. Being on Social Security (US), I pay $160 a month. There is no deductable and the plan pays 80% from the start and more after a certain level is reached. Novertheless, many Chilenos complain about waiting too long for services or being unable to obtain the services. I don't know what doctors get paid, but I don't think most are driving BMW's and Mercedeses. Also, I don't know what happens when the urban poor show up ininsured.

Oh, and joe?

I'm not going to be bothered with you when all you can do is puke forth "sounds like Glenn Beck". That's the weak minded answer of someone who either doesn't have an intelligent response or can't be bothered making one.

PragmaticToAFault

My comments weren't expressed as a criticism of Judge Hudsons' decision nor a expression of belief that the abominable health care bill that passed has any merit or that it should, could, or would, stand the test of higher courts. I did note that Judge Hudson is extremely conservative in his legal perspective, and has been elevated through his career appropriately for his hard work and conservative perspective of the law.

In todays world, reality is that the majority of federal judges are appointed not because of scholarship or brilliant opinions, but because of their political bias and how they are perceived by their supporters to render their decisions in future cases.

It is extremely doubtful that any republican president of the past 40 years would nominate Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court or that a democratic president would appoint Clarence Thomas .. thats just a fact of our evolving political system. This practice has worked its way through the entire judicial system, literally polarizing the judicial system, negating the entire principal of "Fair and Impartial" for the entire American population! And yes, I have seen notations of the politics of judges that have made decisions in favor of the president, and suggestion of political bias, that is just another part of the evolution.

Respectfully .. while you express a hint of the real problem of healthcare & insurance cost, like most, you have bypassed the essential problem. It's not a math problem, It's a economic & a human nature problem, that is almost impossible to overcome in a free market economy.

It is a problem created whenever you have a "third party payee."

Not only do the basic laws of economics intervene but also the idiosyncrasies of human nature. It is a subject I began to consider & discuss over fifty years ago as a university student and today is playing out exactly as I predicted then.

A truly "brilliant mind" like John Nash, could, I believe, build a mathematical model that would, within a reasonable degree of accuracy, show ways to contain the "genie" within acceptable limits of escalating cost, once we determine whats life worth. I am not or pretend to be that mind.

The position that we are in with health care is not a failure of one political party or the other, but the congress as a whole, and the abrogation of both political parties of responsible legislation needed by this country. As long as the people can be manipulated into bickering amongst themselves, and divided into opposing factions, the "fox" will continue feast in the chicken coup without much fear of the consequences.

What most individuals posting on here, in support of the HCR legislation, don't know is that this legislation was never meant to reduce costs. What is was meant to do was to drive employers to drop their health care coverage by increasing costs and penalties, thereby creating an environment where the Government could then come in on a white horse and save the day with a public option/single payer plan. I know a lot of you who support a public option are ecstatic about this. The only question you have to ask yourself is are you happy that America was sold a bill of goods and manipulated to this end? If you are then you are a believer that the end justifies the means and you really need to take a good long look at your belief system and what you believe passes for integrity.

I had ZERO problems reforming our health insurance and Medicare systems. I HAVE LOTS OF PROBLEMS WITH THE GOVERNMENT REQUIRING I BUY HEALTH INSURANCE. That is not a solution with which I agree, and a court just found it unconstitutional because it is unconstitutional.

I think that you should know that the part of the health care law that you disagree with was written in by Republicans, if you don't believe me check it out.

And why would I care WHO WROTE IT? I DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS REQUIREMENT no matter who came up with it. And I am NOT wasting my time looking into WHO wrote a 2700 page bill.

I AM NOT a Republican, just an American.

SVENOLAFSON - I think you have AN EXCELLENT POINT. It is very possible that these penalties and stuff will cause employers to drop health insurance so that the government can come in to save the day FROM THE DEMOCRATS' PERSPECTIVE as spouted by President Obama.

It is very possible that these penalties and stuff will cause employers to drop health insurance so that the government can come in to save the day FROM THE DEMOCRATS' PERSPECTIVE as spouted by President Obama.

Unfortunately, Obama never spoke in favor of a government single payer program.

But, a 5% medicare tax on ALL income would provide comparable coverage for everyone nationwide and take the burden off corporations. Additional coverage could be purchased through private for profit insurers to cover extras benefits as one wishes.

Tim - I I should pay considerably more for my insurance so I can subsidize someone else? How is that fair? If I have no right to limit the number of children people have or regulate their lifestyle, why should I have to pay for their health care?

It is all about personal responsibility not a collective responsibility.

See my comment in post #763.7. Just click on the number and it will take you there.

I agree with Jaeger, why should I have to pay money to support another persons health insurance? I pay for mine and they should pay for theirs. I just don't understand how people think that those that actually work should pay for those that don't. I just don't like the idea that some think that we should want to lose money out of our paychecks to pay for those that just don't want to get out and work. I realize that there are some folks that can't work and I think that the government already has those covered. I just think that I should take care of mine and other folks should take care of theirs. Maybe families should be able to cover their folks. Like I should be able to put my mother on my insurance if I had to. One big thing about this bill was the president claiming that we could keep our insurance without rates going up. I don't think that is true. The rates for the insurance at my company went up a lot. I am paying 20.00 more a month starting Jan. than I was this year. Insurance coverage is going up for all and a lot of seniors are going to loose coverage due to companies dropping the advantage plans. This bill is crap and is going to do more harm than good in the long run.

Robert-1410076 #2.34...Obamacare may be subversion. It may be an attempt to put insurance companies out of business and allow the government to take over health insurance. That is the way it looks from where I sit.

GM is in China, Chrysler is owned by a company in Italy. Government has it's fingers in banking. Wouldn't it be just peachy, if they took over health insurance?

The private insurance company premiums are under Federal control, the administrative costs are under Federal control, the "pool" in under Federal control, so the Federal Government has the controls needed to put private companies out of business. Isn't that priceless?

Barney, the most talented Fanny and Freddy guru, is ready and waiting for another incompetent assignment. The inexperienced President is looking on in glee.

Wolf,

I think you are looking at the debate with crossed eyes, you are seeing Obama as the responsible party for the lose of GM and Crysler to foriegn companies, but if you uncross your eyes you'll see that it is the Republicans that have caused this problem.

As far as the health care debate is concerned, if it wasn't for Obama your premiums would have soared to 67% now and the insurance companies would be making 190% profit on you right now. How much is too much to pay for health care? when most of your wages goes to keeping you healthy.

gmross

"I think you are looking at the debate with crossed eyes, you are seeing Obama as the responsible party for the lose of GM and Crysler to foriegn companies, but if you uncross your eyes you'll see that it is the Republicans that have caused this problem."

I don't remember the republicans ever telling people to go out and purchase foreigen cars, the public made that decision all by themselves. I will however put part of the blame on the American auto makers for once again being out of touch with what the public wants.

I would be willing to bet if you ask the owners of Cadillac's, Lincoln's, Buick's, Chrysler's, etc. what political party they belong to you the majority answer will be republican. And if you ask the owners of Prius's, Civic's, Corolla's, Etc. they will be predominantly democrats.

eric, when the Republicans got rid of the tariffs on Japanese cars coming into the country they opened the door for the failure of the American auto industry. The Japanese were already making cars cheaper than the American auto makers and when they started making cars with smaller engines that went as fast if not faster than the American cars it was the deathnell for American car makers.

Then the Bush Administration decided to give tax cuts to companies that sent jobs overseas, it became cheaper to make cars overseas and ship them to the United States, this caused factories to close here in this country, so when I say look at the Republicans this is what I am talking about. The Republicans didn't have to tell people to buy foriegn cars, it just became cheaper to do so.

When the Bush Administration decided to cut funding for fuel efficent autos and alternative fuels it made it possible for foriegn companies to get ahead of us on this technology, now we are playing catchup, all of the reasons I have listed for buying foriegn cars are the result of Republican policy, not Democratic policy.

all of the reasons I have listed for buying foriegn cars are the result of Republican policy

Good thing too!! Thank you to all who bought the best selling car in America these past few years. Your decision to do so has kept 80% of the purchase price right here in America. Best you could have done on an "American" brand would have been 40~60%.

Wolf,

I think you are looking at the debate with crossed eyes, you are seeing Obama as the responsible party for the lose of GM and Crysler to foriegn companies, but if you uncross your eyes you'll see that it is the Republicans that have caused this problem.

Actually, gmross, Obama is responsible. His bailout forced GM and Chrysler to do exactly what they would have done without the bailout (file for bankruptcy protection, close dealerships, sell assets, and in the case of Chrysler get bought out by a foreign company). The only differences are that the Obama bailout delayed the filing for bankruptcy protection by a few months, forced GM and Chrysler to close dealerships earlier than planned (some 5 years earlier), delayed the selling of assets by a few months, and did nothing to keep Chrysler as an American-owned company.

As far as the health care debate is concerned, if it wasn't for Obama your premiums would have soared to 67% now and the insurance companies would be making 190% profit on you right now. How much is too much to pay for health care? when most of your wages goes to keeping you healthy.

That's funny, since the HCR law has no means of controlling costs or premium increases. The health insurance companies are actually raising rates at a much higher rate than they had before the law was passed and signed. Then you have the Administration handing out waivers to different companies and organizations so they won't be hit with the premium increases or the loss of health insurance due to the new regulations. So, how is that HCR law working for you?

tomwcraig,

His bailout forced GM and Chrysler to do exactly what they would have done without the bailout (file for bankruptcy protection, close dealerships, sell assets, and in the case of Chrysler get bought out by a foreign company). The only differences are that the Obama bailout delayed the filing for bankruptcy protection by a few months, forced GM and Chrysler to close dealerships earlier than planned (some 5 years earlier), delayed the selling of assets by a few months, and did nothing to keep Chrysler as an American-owned company.

The problem here is that no matter what FOX Propaganda says it was not a bailout, IT WAS A LOAN THAT MUST BE PAID BACK, and it is getting paid back, GM has already paid back a large part of it, in other words THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER WILL MAKE A PROFIT ON THE DEAL. As for the rest of your post that I reposted above Chrysler was owned by Daimler before this current sale and it really did nothing to the U.S. economy at that time either. By the way incase you forgot or didn't know Daimler is German.

That's funny, since the HCR law has no means of controlling costs or premium increases. Then you have the Administration handing out waivers to different companies and organizations so they won't be hit with the premium increases or the loss of health insurance due to the new regulations. So, how is that HCR law working for you?

The HCR law will not take full effect for a few years, but it is meant to allow interstate trade of health insurance, which is not allowed under the current standards, this is how the rates will decrease in time, competing companies will offer lower rates than the company in your state giving you a cheaper option for health care insurance, just like auto insurance is today. Actually the waivers are for tax incentives to allow small business's to beable to perchase health insurance for their employees, the company gets a tax break so they can afford to give their employees health insurance when under the past rules they could not afford to give insurance to their employees. Check out the CBO report on the health care reform law, it explains it alot better than I can, or if you would like I can post the report the next time I come online on the vine.

gmross #2.41...Put all the lipstick on the pig that you want. It's still a pig.

• GM is in China.
• The US workers are no longer working in some cases that could and should have been working in the US for GM. Not the case with Daimler!
• The UAW lost GM workers.
• The Chinese workers are working for GM.
• I would expect Chrysler to favor Italy, and not the US.
• Saturn was scrapped. US workers lost their jobs. A valued asset was thrown away by the Obama administration, and the workers were mistreated.

Some are so blind that they will not see.

Post 2.42

What does this have to do with the health care law?????? Stay on topic. If you have something else to say about the auto companies show proof.

gmross #2.43...It's about putting lipstick on a pig.

1. The government interferred with the auto industry
2. The government interferred with the health insurance industry
3. Obama plans to interfere with electricity rates in 2011

wolf wolfman,

WHERE'S THE PROOF, SHOW THE PROOF. Forgive me I got carried away and had a Wendy's moment. give me some proof and I'll be happy. Don't use FOX they always make things up, show me real proof.

DNFTT Do Not Feed The Trolls

The problem here is that no matter what FOX Propaganda says it was not a bailout, IT WAS A LOAN THAT MUST BE PAID BACK, and it is getting paid back, GM has already paid back a large part of it, in other words THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER WILL MAKE A PROFIT ON THE DEAL. As for the rest of your post that I reposted above Chrysler was owned by Daimler before this current sale and it really did nothing to the U.S. economy at that time either. By the way incase you forgot or didn't know Daimler is German.

Actually, GM used other TARP funds that were in an escrow account to pay back the loans. Those funds did not have to be paid back; therefore, it was a bailout. And, the American Taxpayer is not making a profit, since the money used to pay back the bailout loans came from the American Taxpayer.

As for Chrysler, Daimler sold it to an American Private Capital group back in 2007 or 2008, I believe. This American Private Capital group just sold off Chrysler Financial to TD Bank. They were the ones that were going bankrupt and sold Chrysler to Fiat.

The HCR law will not take full effect for a few years, but it is meant to allow interstate trade of health insurance, which is not allowed under the current standards, this is how the rates will decrease in time, competing companies will offer lower rates than the company in your state giving you a cheaper option for health care insurance, just like auto insurance is today. Actually the waivers are for tax incentives to allow small business's to beable to perchase health insurance for their employees, the company gets a tax break so they can afford to give their employees health insurance when under the past rules they could not afford to give insurance to their employees. Check out the CBO report on the health care reform law, it explains it alot better than I can, or if you would like I can post the report the next time I come online on the vine.

This is news to me, as no news organization nor the HCR law itself have mentioned increased competition between state lines for health insurance. Instead the HCR law, requires everyone to buy health insurance and the STATES still determine what health insurance plans are allowed in them. As for the waivers, so all the big businesses and labor unions applying and receiving the waivers are small businesses now? The CBO report is inaccurate at best as they only were allowed to use the numbers and projections provided by Congress. The CBO wasn't allowed to get all the information about the HCR law to make an accurate projection as to the savings or cost of the law. Besides, why delay the law from taking full effect until after the 2012 elections, unless it was a bad law to begin with and wouldn't have the benefits that were advertised.

Actually, TARP was the bailout signed into law by George Dubya, not President Obama. President Obama set up a package that had to be paid back by both auto makers. Thus, what Obama "gave" to the auto makers was a loan that must be paid back. What Bush gave to the auto makers was a gift of free taxpayer money.

gmross

#2.48 - Obama's TARP, Obama's Tax Cuts, isn't it kinda funny how republicans want to place blame on President Obama for UNPOPULAR REPUBLICAN proposals and policies? Don't they realize we live in the information age where virtually EVERYTHING is documented and mis-information can be proven to be false? Well, they were able to fool people during the midterms, can't blame them for attempting to continue the strategy because they were successful in fooling a whole lotta people...

Now they are trying to pass off a racist as a good choice for president, check out Haley Barbour's latest gaffes, for a laugh.

sandra, you'll be waiting a long, long time before health care is affordable without the government subsidies that the vast majority of us take advantage of.

You make it affordable by making sure you get what you pay for.......

Dear Mark,

Get a job that pays for your own food, your own health care and your own vices, like all of us the are providing the MONEY for the government subsidies. Where did you think the money came from, thin democratic AIR ?

Our country is in trouble, our freedoms slipping because the "vast majority" don't pay their own way.

And that's the problem, we pay for far less than we get because the government picks up a big portion in the form of favorable tax treatment on benefits income. That's one of the reasons the private health care model doesn't work as we think it does; it's private but government picks up a big part of the tab anyway.

C- if you get health care benefits fro your employer, which most of us do, you are receiving a government freebie. That's just a fact.

Whether you think providing healthcare for the poor or those with pre-existing illnesses is a bad thing is really a moral question. I think we should provide for those who can't provide for themselves, you apparently think they should die, and quickly I presume. I can't argue that, it's a personal decision.

If you have a job the government will make you buy insurance whether you can afford it or not. If you don't buy insurance they will fine you thousands of dollars for not having insurance.

Had the "Public Option", which sooooo many ignorant people were against, had it passed like it should've, healthcare costs could have been controlled. I'm curious - did you support the public option part of the original reform bill?

Time to think about adding the "Public Option". Should have been there the first go round.

Gee.........really Living? Controlled? How?

How does the government control anything? Oh yeah.....that's right........by denying coverage.

How does the government ever do anything more effectively than the private sector? Answer - They don't.....ever.

How does the government ever do anything cheaper than the private sector? Answer - They don't.....ever.

This is what most people don't get:

It costs us MORE to not insure everyone than it would to insure them!

Not only do the uninsured have much more health problems due to lack of prevention, when they eventually do have to go to the hospital we end up paying for it anyways through higher insurance costs and taxes.

As a tax payer, would you rather pay for someones diabetes meds that keeps them healthy, or wait until they have extremely expensive issues that require surgery because they weren't getting prevention.

Here is what we do now and tell me how this makes sense? We turn the uninsured away from preventative care, wait til their problem becomes life threatening, then give them outrageously expensive treatment to save their life, and then pay for it.

So unless we start turning dying people away at the emergency room if they're uninsured, the only logical thing to do is insure everyone.

And why is it called the "Public Option" when it isn't an option????

How would that be any more Constitutional? Answer - It isn't.

I agree totally with the Public Option. It has worked well for France and England and don't come up with the old tax excuse. I have not been hearing their people complaining.

Uncle Shags..........

That's because we continue to pay for people who don't want to support themselves.

MWooten.........I've actually talked with people from European nations, and even Canadians, and every single one I've talked to hated their medical system.

AND they don't have our Constitution to follow.........Ain't being an American great. It's nice to have Freedom of Choice.

Actually thank you but my friend from the Isle of Wight is just fine with his.

This will NOT make it affordable... Look at how "affordable" mandatory car insurance is! Its just a way to rip us off differently and give the government a cut. Regulating the cost of the medical procedures would be a better way to go.

Receiving a government freebie? My income isn't the governments and what I get to keep is certainly not a gift.

This country was founded on the idea of a federal tax mandate, and its existence is a pimple on the butt of our country.

No one can measure the impact of not taxing that money, because the money that isn't taxed gets spent by individuals in their local communities, which turns into local, state, and federal taxes for the businesses where it gets spent.

What is affordable? Health insurance can cover all or just catastrophic care. It's up to all individuals to determine which they desire.

we can make it affordable...but we have to admit we cannot have the same coverage. If you think socialized medicine gives you the same coverage....go in a hospital in the EU. You will try to get back here as soon as you can.

We could greatly reduce health care cost by capping lawsuits. 10-15 % of health care cost (if you include defensive medical costs...like tests and doctor/specialists visits recommended so they can't get sued because they didn't do well enough/guess well enough). It is not a coincidence the most litigious nation on earth has the highest health care cost on earth. Even pharma companies have to make huge profits to account for the huge lawsuits they all get (geez, taking chemicals has risk...who would have ever guessed)

Mark,

what you fail to recognize is that the government does not generate any income. When the "government picks up a big portion", it is really the taxpayers that are picking it up.

There are no "moral questions" here. The whole entitlement mindset needs a major paradigm shift - back to people being proud to EARN something instead of getting it for free. See above....it's not free - someone is paying for it.

MWooten.

Then move to the Isle of Wight and have all the "free" healthcare you can get.

In the meantime, leave my wallet alone.

Obamanation,

So you're advocating turning dying people away at the ER then? Maybe we'll just make sure the morgues are all right next store so they don't have to walk as far? But then who's going to pay for the funeral costs?! Maybe we should just have a big hole in the ground they can fall into when dead...

And ask how many Americans are happy with our medical system: http://www.gallup.com/poll/117205/americans-not-feeling-health-benefits-high-spending.aspx

To MWooton

Worked well in Great Britain and France. Who are you kidding? The European Union is falling apart. Taxes are on the rise, entitlements are being drastically cut and there is rioting in the streets. Look at Greece and Ireland, heck, most of them are going bankrupt. The standard of living does not even compare to that of the U.S. Check it out for yourself. I have and it aint pretty. And you think we should emulate them. No thanks. I prefer freedom of choice, on everything.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. "
Benjamin Franklin

Surely there are a lot of frivilous lawsuits, but when someoen truly is harmed (or even killed) by an incompetent or negligent doctor, they should have the right to recover damages. Have awards gotten out of hand? In many cases, yes. But you cannot tell someone they have no right to be compensated for medical treatments or loss of limbs, etc., due to negligent health care!

"I agree totally with the Public Option. It has worked well for France and England"

French and English politicians also don't invite foreign criminals into their countries hoping to one day garner their votes... instantly add 15 million uninsured to their systems and see what happens to costs.

Affordability is the key reason why we still need to reform the entire health care system (Insurance, doctors, nurses, nursing homes, hospitals, dentist, etc). What the system has not been able to produce is affordable health care for America. This is why the government must reform it. The reform passed did not go far enough!

Sandra...I find it ironic that the state of VA with the highest volume of guns they wash across the country can be so stupid as to live in such a state of denial about the cost of healthcare. If it's unaffordable or bankrupts seniors on fixed incomes...duh....But, VA will continue to ship guns to Mexican drug cartels and this judge will do the bidding of his neocon political hacks...and look the other way. Meanwhile the mean city streets in big urban areas get meaner and guns from VA don't help decrease the use of emergency rooms.

Where did you think the money came from, thin democratic AIR ?

we pay for far less than we get because the government picks up a big portion in the form of favorable tax treatment on benefits income.

I think you just proved the point. "The government" gets 10% of it's $$ from the working class and the other 90% from the "rich".

Allen...Right...That's why even Buffet is saying the rich should pay far more in taxes, right? And why he said numerous times his secretary pays a higher federal income tax than he does. Come off that poor little rich boy routine. The GAO makes a liar of you. Two unfunded tax credits in 2001 and 2003, made rich boys 11% richer. So now you all think the serfs exist solely to keep that Gravy Train running? Get a clue.

Larry, paying federal taxes is one of the duties of US citizens. Some of the money you earn is owed to the US governemnt as of the moment you get paid. The money the government collects in income taxes from you was never yours to start with. If you don't like it move to a country with no taxes. I suggest Somalia which dosen't have a government either. just bring your guns.

Getting to the goal of affordable health care would require congress to vote against their lobbyists. It would require:

- allowing hospitals to reject clients if they do not have insurance

- expecting the AMA to police itself and get rid of or retrain bad doctors

- limiting malpractice lawsuits (which will curb the costly defensive medicine practices)

- encouraging the health care industry (especially hospitals) to become non-profit organizations (eliminating the exsiting corporate death panels currently in place)

- allow more people to become doctors (the AMA does restrict how many new doctors can come into the system, manipulating the supply/demand relationship)

- restrict pharmaceutical advertising costs (I do yearn for the good old days when we never heard about all of these new drugs with a laundry list of potentially negative side effects)

To do all of this would upset too many of the special interest groups which aggressively court both republicans and democrats.

LivinginaRacistState, there is no way any reform will lower costs unless one of three things occurs (or a combination of them): Access has to be limited, cost inputs (like salaries) must be controlled, or third party payer systems must be abolished in whole or in part. You can pretend that a public option or a single payer system would work, but it cannot.

I am okay with limiting access, but I think the locus of that decision needs to be at the personal level, not with a government functionary. That is, rationing will always occur as resources are limited, but I would prefer you use your resources to your best advantage and not assign a bureaucrat the job of caring for your well-being. But, of course, I oppose our trek down this road towards serfdom.

I am not okay with limiting salaries and profits of healthcare workers at any level. To do so would legitimize wage quotas in virtually any area of life. You'd like cheaper food, or clothes, or energy, right? And each of these is definately a more acute need for most people most of the time, so why not limit farmer profits, bakery profits, and so on, and all the wages of the people they employ? Because we aren't the USSR, that's why.

What makes the most sense to me is that states could impose some sort of major medical plan on those within their borders, paid for however they want so long as it isn't with federal money, while at the same time eliminating the tax preference for employer paid-for insurance plans and altering our tort system.

What it all adds up to is that I do not trust you to make wise decisions for me, and that I respect you are a free person to make decisions which affect you by yourself, for the most part. See, when you start costing me money because you don't live how I think you should, then I get to demand you live how I think you should. I'd rather tolerate your individual stupidity than allow you to impose it on me.

You know what power the federal government will have if this law stays on the books. The government can tell you if you can smoke or drink.

I hate to tell you this but in most states now it is illegal to smoke in a public building, like a bar, a restuarant, the mall, and in some states like California it is illegal to smoke in your car. In my state you can't be within the front entrance of a building and smoke, you have to be at least 20 feet away.

joe, "the money was never yours to start with?"

WTF, man. Really? Have you gone over the edge THAT far that you honestly believe that money earned by private citizens is inherently the property of the government who can decide how much to let us keep?

Wow. Honestly. You and I have had some interesting discussions but I simply can't believe you're that far gone.

Are you even aware that prior to 1913, there was NO SUCH thing as an income tax? That it was originally passed to ONLY apply to the wealthy, and then ONLY as a means of fighting what came to be known as WWI? And has grown and grown and grown as progressive NOZZLES have gotten more and more entrenched in government, using their NOZZLE power to suck the freedom out of this country?

And you're on board with that? Sheesh. You have my pity.

Good old reliable Prag. Wants all the benefits such as paved roads, public schools, safe food etc. but doesn't want to pay for any of it. Oh wait, seems you yearn to be the FREELOADER you rail about. Grandma did say the guilty dog always barked the loudest. You been barking real loud for quite a while now.

Once upon a time employers didn't pay for any health insurance. Blue Cross and Blue shield were created by doctors and nurses to help off-set the cost of birthing babies. In wartime the wages were capped so employers used benefits as a means of attracting suitable employees. That has resulted in the expectation that the employer would provide health insurance. Overtime what happened is that employer health insurance was relied upon almost exclusively and rates for said insurance were based on a pool of populace. Insurance allowed for higher costs of health care to be passed over a percentage of populace.

Hey, Shellie? Let me clear up some of your cluelessness for you. I notice you come late to the thread and drop a bomb of insults, but should you come back to this....

There is a difference between what you falsely interpret my position on taxation to be, and what my ACTUAL position on taxation is.

Since I don't think you'll understand it if I explained it to you, choke on it. It's based on complicated concepts like property rights and the Constitution, you wouldn't get it.

I do prag. I also could care less if we have roads and schools or not. I can teach my kids all they need to know to be productive and live life. I can also drive my vehicle on dirt trails no need for asphalt the road to my house is gravel for miles big whoop they have asphalt in the city. Why dont they have a dirt trail next to the road that those of us whom dont want to pay road taxes can use? I have yet to find anyting my taxes pay for that I absolutely need or couldnt go without. Our revolution was started over taxes now look how much of our income we pay to the gov. it is absolutely disgusting and wrong.

guito7399 #3.37...Let's cut the pay of Federal Government workers to $60,000 from $123,000, and vote in a non Marxist Congress and President.

That will probably help a little but theres alot more waste that needs to be trimmed.

guito7399 #3.39...You're right. There's whole departments, like the energy department, that couldn't survive in the private sector. They should be removed.

There's whole departments, like the energy department, that couldn't survive in the private sector.

Well DUH!!!. That is why they are government activities, like the Defense Department and the Department of State. Can you imagine the chaos if every company and State had its own State Department or Army?

What a ridiculous assertion that a government department has to meet some private sector criteria. It is among the stupidest comments I have heard yet.

Tim S.-560036 #3.41...Here are some more "stupid" comments. I'm a Dumbass.

How about some criteria like removing the US from dependence on foreign oil?

The US could utilize domestic natural gas resources instead of sending money overseas for oil energy.

Defense of incompetence is harmful to our country; government employees at the SEC watching porn should be punished, not defended.

I did a Google search, and there are plenty of results, which say that the Department of Energy is incompetent.

Okay, and where did I ever post that there is not problems with EVERY level of government AND business And personal lives?

Going to fossil fuel natural gas is as destructive to our environment as oil. That alone is enough to eliminate it from consideration as a longterm solution. As for the current incarnation of the DOE, it is a travesty of the military/industrial complex dedicated to the promotion of centralized energy monopolies. It should be reformed, by all means. That does not mean it should be eliminated. It should be reformed to work for the country and not EXXON, Koch brothers, and Kerr McGee.

The SEC under a deregulation administration where they were told to sit on their hands and let business run amok is not a good example of the incompetence of government as much as it is of the incompetence of the American voter that put that administration in office.

Want to reform these agencies? Prosecute Bush for not following the law.

Every agency should be evaluated on a regular basis and their mission reassessed. After this review, changes or elimination should be required based on those findings. I have no problem agreeing to this process and strongly endorse it. I do not agree with the wholesale elimination of agencies and policies without this process.

In other words, I do not defend the incompetency of ANY entity, government or private. They should ALL be under continuous scrutiny and altered as necessary.

Tim S.-560036 #3.43...

"Want to reform these agencies? Prosecute Bush for not following the law."

My preference is vote the people, who do not reform the agencies, out of office like happened last November 2, 2010.

If the mandate that all Americans must purchase health insurance is not their cup of tea, vote those responsible for it out.

wolf Wolfman;

My preference is vote the people, who do not reform the agencies, out of office like happened last November 2, 2010.

If you check to see who is giving more to the business's that are being governed by these agencies you will find that it is the Republitards. The Republitards have been deregulating the business sector for the past thirty years, Ronald Reagan started it and Bush II continued it in his administration, this is why we have had scandal after scandal since the Reagan years in business. Agencies like the SEC, and energy have had their legs cut out from under them by the Republican agenda of deregulation.

Reagan stated that if we deregulate the business sector that it would open up jobs for the people. Well, under Reagan we lost most of the Saving and Loans due to deregulation. The S&L's were deregulated which gave them the ability to do what ever they wanted with the money in the accounts that they serviced, the S&L's decided to "invest" that money in such things as expensive art work to hang in their offices and to give their CEO's huge bonus's. Does any of this sound familiar?? It should, the same thing happened under Bush, but, it was AIG this time.

gmross #3.45...I still prefer voting to achieve my goals. Comments aren't as effective as voting.

The instant case is about mandating the purchase of Obamacare. 73% have replied to this post:

"No, as the Virginia judge ruled, the mandate is unconstitutional."

"43,565 votes"

"21.9%" "Yes, it is well within the right of Congress to do so, as other judges have ruled." "13,084 votes"

It gives me an exhilarating feeling to just post this comment. I'm hoping and praying it will encourage people to vote, vote, vote. Now, is a good time to prepare for 2012!

Part of the problem with Hitler and Nazi Germany was that the people allowed Hitler to do what he wanted to do; not what they knew was right. Some people don't want to be involved in politics, I'm begging them; vote your conscience.

Newsvine is not a very scientific poll. ABC News/Washington Post poll on December 14th shows 43% favor Health Care Reform Bill and 52% oppose. It also shows 49% approval of Obama and 47% disapproval. I think that may be a slightly better indicator than this asylum called Newsvine.

PAVenturer #3.47...The public's opinion may or may not be close. If the 2010 November elections are any indication, quite a few Democrats got voted out. The polls here can be disputed, but the real thing is coming in 2012. The results here are very heartening. They can be dismissed by the dismisser at the dismisser's own peril.

Calling Newsvine an asylum is dishonest, dishonorable, and an attack not on ideas, but an attack on a news source by calling it a name.

Newsvine is a news source? I think not. Newsvine may be a discussion board but calling posts on here a news source is a stretch. You are really hung up on name calling. Explain to me then what gives you the authority to call other people's statements "stupid", "idiot" and infer that a person is lying? You are no better than any of the other tens of thousands of people posting their thoughts and opinions (which is the purpose of this "news source")

PAVenturer #3.49...There are tabs at the top of each column's page.

1. Top News
2. Local News
3. World
4. US
5. Sports
6. Politics
7. Tech
8. Entertainment
9. Science
10. Business
11. Health
12. Odd News
13. More

I rest my case.

This legislation can hardly be referred to as guidance, unless that word has changed meanings.

Our healthcare system is already the most regulated industry in the world.

In other words, government regulation isn't doing diddly squat.

obamanation, your statement flies in the face of reason. How can a private health care system be more regulated than a government-run system?

Do you think that our system is not HEAVILY regulated already? If not, just sit back and drink some more Kool-Aid.

Not to mention.......Every government facility I know of already doesn't follow their own regulations. Heck, they don't even know half of the regulations that THEY CREATED.

But private industry does......because if they don't follow them, they get smacked with fines, interest and possible jail time. Government....not so much.

Regulations exist because of companies that do wrong. If private industry could always be trusted, there'd be no need for any kind of regulation.

In my opinion, a lot of our existing health care cost issues are due to government regulation/interference. Instead of having a capitalistic system that is largely (not completely) self-balancing, we have a mix that contains effectively government mandated monopolies and a regulatory & legal structure that benefit a select few that have excessive political influence.

@Obamanation - I wouldn't say we have the most regulated industry in the world, but I do think we have a very badly regulated industry. We have lots of laws that make the problem worse (inter-state competition not allowed, extensive mandated minimum coverages, a medical certification system that doesn't meet population demands), and very little of the constraints that could help control costs on the legal side (mainly referring to tort reform).

Go ask one of these countries that has a socialized health-care how much they like it. There is a reason people come to the US for complicated surgeries and health issues.

Go ask one of these countries that has a socialized health-care how much they like it. There is a reason people come to the US for complicated surgeries and health issues.

Keep your head in the sand.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117205/americans-not-feeling-health-benefits-high-spending.aspx

How is cuttign payments to doctors for treating Medicare/Medicaid patients going to improve the quality of health care? It CAN'T! Impossible. we will see a vast increase in rationing and millions of Americans on those programs won't be able to find a doctor who will treat them for the palty sum that Uncle Sam pays them!

Mark:

Have you seen how well the government regulates itself? How well they regulate their own spending? It's non-existant. They HEAVILY regulate the private sector because the fines and penalties for falling out of compliance generates revenue for them. When was the last time you heard of a government regulatory element imposing a fine on another government agency?

Uncle Shags:

Yes; I can find several articles supporting and criticizing both sides of the argument as well. I find that even the polls are skewed depending on a number of factors including who the target audience is. Place a poll on a liberal website and you're likely to get a majority liberal response. I have family and friends who hail from all over Canada, and I will share with you that they are very much disenchanted with their "government sponsored health care".

I would rather listen to polls and research performed by scientists in accordance with established methods to determine my opinion than not. Did you follow the link? It isn't biased, and it was conducted across many countries, not just a liberal American website.

Do you also doubt the WHO data that shows hows our health care compares to other countries? Hint: we aren't doing very well. Actually, we're doing horrible. We rank 37 in quality and number 1 in expenditure per capita.

Yes! We're Number ONE! Oh, Wait...

enoch....No other country of the world would hand over the care of their citizens to Wall Street like the Bush Administration wanted to do with Social Security. All that does is hand Wall Street another slush fund from which to draw money for their high risk investments. And, the only number regarding healthcare in the US is the one that ranks us lower than Somalia for quality healthcare. Stink bad enough for you yet?

Here is another link for you, it took me literally 10 seconds to dig it up.

http://spinstrangenesscharm.wordpress.com/2010/01/09/us-healthcare-ranking-by-who-37-or-1-depending/

It essentially states that the ranking was based on subjective criteria. But what most media influences fail to mention is that we are NUMBER 1 for, “responsiveness to the needs and choices of the individual patient.”

So yes, you were right, we are number 1.

It essentially states that the ranking was based on subjective criteria. But what most media influences fail to mention is that we are NUMBER 1 for, “responsiveness to the needs and choices of the individual patient.”

Responsive to your needs and choices, IF you are receiving health care! Dingdingdingding!

And, if you read the "subjective" part you mention, you will see that author claims that all Americans have "universal access". Anyone who claims that is obviously ignorant to the facts or just lying.

Obamanation...

Are you referring to the same government regulators that allowed the financial sector scandals and signed off on the deep horizon safety plan? These same regulators that spend more time day-trading and viewing porn than doing there job.

The problem is... we do not have effective regulation. We pay for a lot of it, we just do not get our money's worth.

Sigh...there is a difference between receiving health care and paying for it. The article refers to the patient, not the individual paying the bill.

ewent, let's pretend for a minute that you are serious. Maybe you are, but I hope not. Still, for the sake of discussion, you are. If Somalia delivers to people within its borders better quality healthcare, like you claim, then what do you conclude about people, say like a provincial leader in Canada that recently come to the USA to obtain treatment for his condition? Canada has a largely state-sponsored system and Somalia has better healthcare, says you, so why come here?

Maybe, it's true, we are all not as bright as you and fail to follow you to destitute African nations in order to get better care than we can here at home. I bet those frequent flyer miles are worth it too! Okay, now that is off my chest...Do you really expect anyone reading your drivel to do anything other than laugh at you? I mean hell, you whine about Bush wanting to give Wall Street a slush fund, and yet you are orgasmic over the idea of Obama making every American buy private health insurance.

I have a thought...BOTH laws are bad for the USA and bad for the constitution.

Uncle Shaggs everyone does have universal access. You can walk in to an emergency room anywhere and get treated whether or not you can pay for the service. No matter you citizenship, income, ability to pay. You have access to care, that is mandated by federal law.

The WHO data from what I understand is also massively skewed. It depends entirely how the data is captured (take a basic research methodology course...). If this data, which it was, is collected at the country level it doesnt take much to alter. Say, a person has cancer- and they are dying- then they get pnemonia in the hospital and die...if I'm a country who wants to show that my death from cancer rates are low- do you think I'm going to record that death as cancer or pnemonia??

I've touted this multiple times here- but as someone who has lived in a socialized medicine country and someone who has lived in the US- the American system is much more attentive to patient needs and effective.

Oh US doctors ate attentive alright. See a commercial on TV about restless leg syndrome? Here let me give you a prescription for that. What's that you say, have trouble sleeping, yes I have a drug you saw on TV for that too. Stage 4 cancer that has spread to every organ you have and is out of control and can't be cured? No problem, let me continue you on 12K per visit chemo. It won"t save you, but it sure will help out with my remodel at home. yea, they're "attentive" alright

#3.3 - Where did you think the money came from, thin democratic AIR ?

Actually, yes!

Dems were (and remain; thank Obama for giving it even more power just this year) most to blame for the creation of the Federal Reserve System; the non-governmental entity whose (again, only recently) privately held bank printed another $600 billion dollars out of "THIN AIR" (with Uncle Sams blessings) and dumped it into the American economy, further devaluing the U.S. dollar.

Dems were (and remain; thank Obama for giving it even more power just this year) most to blame for the creation of the Federal Reserve System; the non-governmental entity whose (again, only recently) privately held bank printed another $600 billion dollars out of "THIN AIR" (with Uncle Sams blessings) and dumped it into the American economy, further devaluing the U.S. dollar.

Let's not forget about the "thin Republican air" used during the Bush Administration to "manufacture" money under the Bush Administration. It isn't just under the Democrats that money manufacturing takes place, Bush during his time in office had the Fed create more money to drive the market, it didn't work then and it won't work now. Throwing money at a problem doesn't make the problem go away, it only covers it up, this is like using perfume to cover up the fact that you don't bathe, the dirt and stink is still there, it just smells better.

gmross #4.22...Speaking of "let's not forget"; the Weimar Republic in Germany and Zimbabwe can and should be added to the list.

So, you're ok with paying for the healthcare bills of those who don't want to carry insurance with tax payers money, regardless how much expensive care is required?

Auto insurance is mandated by the STATE government........not FEDERAL government, as is set up by our CONSTITUTION.

And you have the right to move to any state you wish. And you also have the right NOT TO PURCHASE said insurance by not driving.

What are you going to do in this case? Stop breathing?

If your poor one person that would be in favor of your not breathing is Queen Palin. You know the author of the death panels? The pistol totin mama. What a joke!!!

And what exactly would be the point in owning a vehicle to park in your garage & not drive?

I go outside and breath the air that makes me sick. I buy food that others have cut corners on and poisons me. I drink water that is polluted by everyones perfumes and viagra and their pesticides. I broke my body working for a company that made billions, bought themselves a part of China and outsourced my job.

I don't deserve to go to the hospital? But one person deserves a million dollar bonus and their 3rd mansion because I am a woman and considered expendable, I spent my life following the rules, being a good citizen.

Do all the people just like me deserve this????

We are all paying for the uninsured because doctors and hospitals charge more because we have such a high number that do not pay.

MWooten. Who said anything about Palin? I'd never vote for her.

And no..........it's Odumbo that is wanting to tax you for breathing, not Palin.

Obamanation, you can decide not to drive a car and thereby be excused from purchasing car insurance. You simple cannot eliminate the risk that you'll require medical treatment. Refusing to purchase coverage is equivalent to forcing others (taxpayers and the insured) from covering your sorry ass when you go to the ER for your kidney stone emergency. You're just another freeloader, the same as a welfare bum, and I resent that you think I should have to pay your health care bills.

Driving in a privilege- not a right. Living and breathing is a right- not a privilege. The Government can NOT mandate you buy something just because you are alive. They can (states) regulate and require you buy something for a privilege- car insurance.

Please do not EVER use that tired old argument again!! It does NOT WASH!

It's about time a judge FINALLY saw the truth in that plan!

@Mwooten - a few months after blasting Palin's comments about death panels, Paul Krugman came out and said they were needed. The reality is, health care costs are virtually unlimited and our resources are not. So, there is, and always will be health care rationing (which includes death panels). The real question is, who to you want to do the rationing - private businesses or government?

My preference is private businesses with oversight from government (ex: companies should not be able to deny coverage if they find something unrelated wrong in your original application). However, I don't believe there is a clear right/wrong answer. There are valid points on both sides and I think it really comes down to if you think government is the answer or the problem.

That, of course, would depend on the car...

joe- so by your reasoning, the simple fact that I live and breath means that I am required to buy something I may not need/want or be able to afford? And for the record, I do have health insurance, but only because I get it through benefits from my employer. I wouldn't be able to afford the absurdly high costs of private health insurance.

The insurance you get through your employer IS PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE...

The auto insurance argument is BS as first, it is governed at the State level not the Federal level - Constitution.

Second, the minimum auto insurance in most states is that you must have liability insurance, which means coverage for someone else that you may harm in a accident. If you wreck your car, you only pay the damages to the other party, but you are now without a car as you took the risk for not protecting yourself.

If I decided I don't want insurance, that is my choice and if I get ill, then I pay the price. I should not get treatment and then pass on the buck to my neighbor because he wanted to look out for his future as I took the risk.

Insurance at a min that most states require for home, auto, etc, are to insure that you do not cause harm to someone else and that they are stuck with the financial burden because for your accident.

If you have enough free time and read the health care law, there are two death panels included. Both mandate that treatments are checked for cost effectiveness; results vs. cost. Now, this will include treatments that may only help 20% of the people, but a bureaucratic panel will decide if you are one of the 20%.

Why give granny a hip replacement - she has Alzheimer's, gonna die anyway.

Palin sure enjoyed the government run health system in Canada that her family utilized when she was growing up

Brokinarrow. Not quite. the fact that you live and breathe means that you might require medical treatment. People purchase insurance to cover that risk. People who don't purchase insurance are forcing taxpayers to cover that risk. The new health care law simple forces people to pay into the pool to cover the risk that's created by the fact of their being alive, either by purchasing coverage or by paying a tax (aka fine) on their tax return.

Will- who do you think is going to pay the subsidies for the folks that buy insurance? The plan allows for money to help pay insurance premiums if you are below a certain income. What's the difference?

We need to look at a way to control costs. As far as insuring the uninsured worker, why not just allow them to buy into Medicare? Does it really need to be this complicated?

" People who don't purchase insurance are forcing taxpayers to cover that risk."

I've never had someone come up to me demanding money for their healthcare bills... it is the government that forces taxpayers to cover others and it needs to stop. If you don't pay for insurance you need to pay your expenses out of pocket, plain and simple.

pjam, hospitals take a tax deduction for unreimbursed ER room charges, reducing gov't revenue, which is equivalent to a tax on all of us. whether you "need" to pay your expenses or not, those who refuse to purchase coverage and don't pay are costing the rest of us money. I'm glad the government will force those slackers to pay into the system.

johndavid...Maybe in YOUR state...not mine. If you purchase a car, the forms for purchase include the car's registration and from there, the auto insurance company forms. If you don't have car insurance as a first time buyer or driver, the NJ will provide state insurance but it costs twice as much. By the way, the cost of auto insurance in NJ for one car? On average at least $900 a year. The average cost for healthcare insurance? For a family of 4, $2400, for the individual? $1500. And that's with high deductibles for hospital, ER and diagnostic care.

marklepew

Palin sure enjoyed the government run health system in Canada that her family utilized when she was growing up

Show me a kid under the age of six that "enjoys" going to the hospital, understands the complicated process in cost, and gets to decide which hospital they want to go to based on the politics involved and I'll eat my shorts. Seriously? You're using someone's parents decision to a 1-6 yr old on hospital visits against them personally? How desperate are you guys getting for talking points?

Allen ...I might ask the same of Mitch McConnell...He had virtually free heart surgery at the country's best medical facility on the backs of taxpayers...How desperate are you to hand HIM a bill? Did you mind paying for that?

Allen,

In this particular case it wouldn't make much difference as Palin presently has about a six year old's intelligence and ability to grasp what health care choices we have to choose from, you betchca, while you might find her ignorance refreshing it is surprising to me that out of a party of thousands of people she is the best rep they could find???

The original post was about her family's use of government run health care and that she makes a case that it is inadequate and a danger to our society. I was just highlighting the irony of her having used and apparently benefited for a government run health care system she rails so hard against.

You don't have to drive or own an automobile Will, no law currently on books forcing that or levying fines for non-compliance.

The Federal Government is not a state.

Exactumundo. The Constitution allows for State's Rights. The Federal government is not a State. And you can not buy auto insurance by not buying a car.

It is not a "Breathing" tax..........

scary part is...

people like this vote.

You have a choice wether or not you drive. No auto insurance no driving your auto. What's this then. No life insurance I guess we have to put you down? Also auto insurance is required not for you but to cover the costs of any damage you may do. If I get sick or hurt myself it won't cost anybody else money. Trust me, everyones had to pay hospital bills before.

If you don't want to buy car insurance, you don't drive a car. You don't want to pay for home insurance? Don't buy a home.

Don't want to pay for health insurance? Well, the only way to avoid that is not to be alive anymore.

You only need insurance to drive on "their" roads. You can drive your vehicle on your own property for its entire life without insuring it. I know farmers, hunters and others that do exactly that. My sister and brother-in-law have a pickup that they use for plowing their long driveway and hauling firewood that hasn't been insured for years.

The government doesn't "own" the hospitals...at least not yet anyways.

I love it. I get to keep the insurance I pay for, and don't have to pay for the insurance that others do not pay for..........

Gotta love our Constitution. Makes people responsible for their own lives and not the pocketbooks of others.

States mandating car insurance. Worked in public health for 30 years. Just because there is a mandate doesn't mean people by car insurance--maybe just long enough to get a vehicle licensed. Why do I have uninsured motorist coverage on my car insurance if there is a mandate. Doesn't work. People drive with and with/out insurance.

If I remember correctly, this law allows for subsidies for people that can’t afford the full cost (low income or unemployed). These monies have to come from somewhere, so I don’t think much will change with this law. Except that the people who work will still have to pay more for less. My hope is that this insurance will be nationally coverage, most insurances now are state locked so if you are out of state and have to go to the hospital, you may not be covered.

As long as you dont get a wreck and you will be fine.

Dont get sick and you will be fine as well.

Magnolia, that's it exactly. The only way for someone to avoid the risk that they'll require medical treatment is to die. Refusing to purchase coverage is to force others to cover the risk that you'll require treatment. The mandate is therefore fair and, I believe, constitutional because forcing someone else to pay your medical bills is commercial activity, which is covered by the commerce clause.

You wanna bet, If you dont have a car and no car insurance, But you buy a house and go to get insurance on that house. The insurance companies charge you a surcharge because you dont have a car or car insurance. The same about car insurance, no matter what your driving record is as long as you have a good credit score you get cheaper insurance. Bad credit score but no tickets or accidents you will pay 5 x as much as a person with 15 speeding tickets, A dui and an accident. If you think I 'm nuts, get a quote using both examples and see the difference for yourself. Health insurance will be the same....

The various States can require you to obtain vehicle insurance because driving is a PRIVILEGE, not a right. The States pay (well, most of them do) for the maintenance and improvement of the roads and if you, as a private citizen, want the privilege of driving on those roads then you have to obey the rules...and those rules include insurance. No one is REQUIRED to have vehicle insurance unless they are operating a vehicle on a public road, therefore it is an OPT IN situation.

Health Insurance, on the other hand, is universal and mandatory, there is no means by which one may opt out. Additionally, the gov't pushes this unfunded mandate that you purchase a product from a private company at prices set by the private company. And since these private companies must obtain various licenses, they are subject to various political manipulations. Way too much potential for abuse here, not to mention it's just plain wrong.

This is a lose-lose thinly clad in good intentions and "wanting to do something" political theatre, and based on a program who's original developer has decried as a complete disaster (See Also: Canadian Medical System). And this is supposed to be an improvement of one of the best and most advanced medical industries to be found on the planet? It's more like a recipe for how to implode the entire system while simultaneously bankrupting the governments and citizens ensnared within it...if you have any doubts, just look at what's been happening as a result of the legislation having passed and hasn't even gone into effect yet.

joe - Most of the people that don't currently have insurance can't afford it. So how will those people get insurance? The government will provide subsidies for them. Where does the money for those subsidies come from? Our taxes! So you'll still pay for it either way.

-Stygian

Where do you think the states get the money to pay for road improvements and maintenance? They don't get it from the insurance company unless the the accident damages the road. They get the money from fuel taxes, DMV titles and registrations, citations and property taxes. Public Road, paid for by the public.

People who don't understand the difference between auto insurance and mandated health care insurance scare me. How did they turn on the computer to start with??? It is a privilege to drive not a right. If you decide to avail yourself of the privilege of driving you have to do a number of things which are required - get a drivers license, get a vehicle to drive, register the vehicle and pay insurance on the vehicle. Those are examples of commerce which can be regulated by the Fed Govt. If you choose not to drive or to collect cars and leave them in the garage you don't have to insure them. Healthcare is different. Breathing is not considered commerce and therefore can not be regulated. You can't be forced to buy something because you are merely breathing. The 2 are 180 degrees different from each other.

Brokinarrow, those who refuse to purchase insurance will pay into the health care pool through their income taxes. Nobody likes to pay taxes just like nobody likes to pay for insurance. Ya know what? Tough. It's just irresponsible to expect taxpayers to pay your insurance coverage.

Joe - I believe Brokinarrow and I are talking about the 47% who do not pay income tax and who will not be able to afford insurance. We will still be paying for them.

@ Will... I am so tired of hearing people try to make an analogy to auto insurance. Auto insurance is only mandated IF you own and drive a vehicle. Even more importantly, the entire reason that auto insurance is required by the state is to provided liability coverage. If you damage someone's property, injure someone, or kill someone, the insurance will kick in and help pay compensation. How is my own health going to hurt someone elses property, injure them, or kill them??

Those of us who have worked for a Medicaid ins carrier know that this current "free" ins program paid for by the working class,for our 'undocumented' citizens, etc, know that only the bottom of the barrel doctors will even agree to treat these people. Indulge me in what the current 'free' auto-ins program is...oh, there ISN'T one. Also, all 'states' are not 'states' some are Commonwealths (ie, VA, MA). Commonwealths are like separate countries!-trust me, move from a 'state' to a Commonwealth and you'll know what I mean.

While the government does mandate that you buy auto insurance, it does not mandate that you buy a car. Therefore, this mandate doesn't violate any rights, for it is a person's CHOICE to buy a car.

Obamacare, on the other hand, forces Americans to buy health insurance under all circumstances. There is no way to avoid the mandate. That makes it a violation of our rights.

If the courts uphold the individual mandate, imagine what else they could require you to buy.

outtolunch, this vine is about the constitutionality of the mandate, not income tax distribution. but for the record, I'd support cutting back the EIC along with reducing business tax rates and increasing personal tax rates on millionaires.

joe:

"Magnolia, that's it exactly. The only way for someone to avoid the risk that they'll require medical treatment is to die."

Yes, there is always a risk that someone will need medical treatment. However, the federal government is forcing you to buy a private enterprise product. They can't do that.

"Refusing to purchase coverage is to force others to cover the risk that you'll require treatment. The mandate is therefore fair and, I believe, constitutional because forcing someone else to pay your medical bills is commercial activity, which is covered by the commerce clause."

Do you really think that those that don't pay for themselves now will pay for themselves in the future? In Massachusetts, we have state provided health care, and those that didn't pay for themselves enrolled into the state provided health care. The cost to the state for next year is about $150 million more per year than originally estimated (and $38 million of that is to cover illegal immigrants).

So in response, our taxes have gone up. And the state wants to levee "one-time" taxes against providers and insurers, which means higher premiums to those that pay for their insurance.

So we're still paying for those that don't pay for themselves. Only now I'm paying by reduced coverage and higher premiums of my own health insurance and higher taxes.

what's the difference?

If you really feel that way, write your Democrat Congressman and ask them to force everyone to purchase auto insurance even if they don't own a car. After all, it's those "evil rich insurance companies" charging me $40 a month with a clear title for full coverage. I'd like to get it down to about $20 with all those people riding the bus helping spread the cost. */sarcasm*

Driving is a form of transportation and is a right NOT a privilege. I can't believe so many of you are willing to believe driving is a privilege. Had the same argument with people about flying. Americans shouldn't sell themselves so short.

"By Jack McLamb (from Aid & Abet Newsletter)

For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a permit or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted the privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal. Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented here are some of these cases:

CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

...

CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941."

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/travel.htm

Here's some rulings from the Cornell School of Law. (link)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cases/topics/tog_right_to_travel.html

As for Congress, the Commerce Clause and Health Care, Here's what the very first Supreme Court ruling on the Commerce Clause had to say.

Gibbons v. Ogden

22 U.S. 1

"State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0022_0001_ZS.html

Not sure how that would effect Health Insurance. I guess we'll just have to see.

Magnolia, if you don't want to purchase insurace you can choose to pay into the health care pool by paying a fine on your 1040. Your choice, therefore no coercion.

I realize RomneyCare did not work out as advertized, but surprised people in MA have decided to provide insurance to illegals, something the federal HCR does not.

Sweet, I'm going to cancel my car insurance, and not pay my tabs when they renew, and not renew my drivers license.

I'll give the cops your name and say that you said it was ok.

Gee thanks, but I'm not a Supreme Court Justice, so any decisions mentioned above were not by me. My argument was about right v. privilege. If you want to do all that and blame someone you'd have to give them Jack McLamb's name or take responsibility for your own actions.

joe:

"Magnolia, if you don't want to purchase insurace you can choose to pay into the health care pool by paying a fine on your 1040. Your choice, therefore no coercion."

How is that not coersion? Either you buy health insurance, or you pay a fine. I have a friend who pays for his health costs out of pocket. He has thousands saved up just for that reason. When he goes to the doctor, he pays for the appointment out of pocket. When he needs medication, again, it's paid out of pocket. He's never had any costly medical problems, so he didn't see the point of paying every month for health insurance.

He's provided for himself. But now he'll be forced to buy health insurance. He's not a burden to the taxpayers, yet now he's being punished for taking care of himself.

How is that right? I understand he's a very small minority of people who live like this, but he still should be considered.

"I realize RomneyCare did not work out as advertized, but surprised people in MA have decided to provide insurance to illegals, something the federal HCR does not."

It's not like the people of MA had a say in who got handed tax-payer paid health insurance. I know I don't want to be paying for illegal immigrants to have coverage. Yet I do.