And yet, Peter, the vast majority of constitutional experts say the mandate is constitutional and has long-standing precedents; in fact, the mandate was originally a Republican idea first promoted by the Heritage Foundation, an idea Republicans supported for almost 20 years, just until Obama decided to support it. This will be decided on party lines.

Joyce's response to Peter is incorrect, there is no evidence supporting the claim that the vast majority of constitutional experts say the mandate is constitutional and has long-standing precedents.

The claim that the mandate is "an idea Republicans supported for almost 20 years, just until Obama decided to support it" is also incorrect. A small minority of Republicans supported an analogous but different concept and the majority of Republicans rejected it. I could just as easily find a few Democrats who favored capital gains tax cuts from 20 years ago and say "Democrats supported capital gains tax cuts until Romney proposed them."

Here you go, Bill:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-22/law-experts-say-health-measure-legal-as-some-doubt-court-agrees.html
Additionally, the mandate was upheld in the majority of court cases in which is was contested, even in courts with extremely conservative judges.
As for Republican support for the mandate, perhaps you weren't around during the Clinton administration when Republicans rallied behind the Heritage Foundation proposal.

Joyce, the idea that that poll of 21 liberal academics was representative of constitutional experts generally has been ridiculed by actual constitutional experts. See http://www.volokh.com/2012/06/26/poll-shocker-majority-of-liberal-law-professors-believe-mandate-is-constitutional/

A few Republicans supported the Heritage Proposal, but the vast majority did not. That has nothing to do with whether the mandate is unconstitutional. What's relevant is the text of the constitution and case law interpreting the constitution, and there's no support for the mandate in either.

Bill, you and I both know we sometimes disagree on these things. How do you justify your position that only some tiny fringe minority of Republicans supported a very different version of the bill with the obvious fact that both Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney and 1990s Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich supported it? The legislatively-elected Speaker of the House can hardly be called the fringe of the party back then!

Mitt Romney's Romneycare bill in Massachusetts was the model of what Obamacare became. The bill differences are minuscule and purely academic.

As to the constitutionality, there is clear precedent for the individual mandate specifically for purchasing health care in the first Congress with twenty Framers of the U.S. Constitution. I'm not saying they won't strike down the individual mandate. In fact, I'm expecting the Supreme Court to ignore the Founding Fathers' clear precedent.

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/102620/individual-mandate-history-affordable-care-act

Colin:
1) I object to the characterization that "Republicans" (without any qualifiers) support something because a few of them 20 years ago supported something similar. So far in these comments one Republican (Gingrich, who was Speaker until his fellow Republicans forced him out) has been identified as a supporter (Romney supported a state mandate based on Mass.'s constitution, which is a completely different issue). There are tens of millions of Republicans and thousands of politicians or former politicians who are Republicans. To pick out a position of one or a few Republicans as a position of Republicans generally is not honest.
2) Whether Republican or Democrat politicians think something is constitutional is not a particularly good constitutional test. Politicians, left and right, love power and tend to think that they have the constitutional power to do whatever they want to do. That's why we let the Supreme Court decide these things and not congress. Obama had a narrow interpretation of executive privilege and the President's ability to fight a war without congressional approval when Bush was president and completely reversed his positions when he became President.

Colin: (continued)
3) The precedent that you cite is precedent for regulating commerce, not for forcing people to engage in commerce. Regulating commerce is entirely uncontroversial. Forcing people to engage in commerce is completely unprecedented, and if it is allowed it gives the federal government new and unlimited power. It's telling that even the government's lawyers didn't try to use this argument.http://www.volokh.com/2012/04/13/still-unprecedented-recycling-the-same-two-examples-of-supposed-economic-mandates/

Bill, I agree it's never fair to say all Republicans support something because a few did. However, it was the established policy position of the party leadership in the 1990s. That's a fact. The original commenter wasn't referring to the position of Republican voters, but to actual Republican policy.

As to the precedent, did you read the article? The Founding Fathers DID force Americans to engage in commerce. One of the federal precedents actually forced all able-bodied men to buy themselves a firearm. Another forced all sailors to give up part of their salary for health insurance. That's not regulating commerce, but forcing it. And not one of the Annals of Congress records from that time period shows any Constitutional arguments raised against any one of the three clear precedents.

Bill, the arguments presented by the Volokh Conspiracy website are specious - requiring people to buy health insurance is not forcing them to engage in commerce they would otherwise not engage in; everyone, at some point in his or her life, uses health care:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/28/don-t-blame-verrilli-for-supreme-court-health-care-stumble.html

In the Untied States we have have 4 workers to every one patient compared to Australia and Canada. There health care is also paid for by a national sales tax. In the Obama plan anyone who is suppose to pay for it has an exemption. In Croatia they have a national health care plan that cost 50 dollars and has no mandate to buy it. All have a basic heath care plan but you can also pay for additional insurance. The European Union isn't stupid enough to have a health plan run by them for every country. Governor Carlson has already set up the frame work for a state plan with private companies with Minnesota Care. Neither Party will ask for productivity studies to find out who the nonessential people working in health care are. For a state plan to work they would have to be fazed out as they retire.

Tort reform is he most important though. Without it in some cases we are paying doctors to do nothing. They are scared to death to do anything but run test. If they try to do anything and something goes wrong then they get sued. That is why John Edwards sued doctors delivering babies. They have to be delivered. Doctors can't keep the baby in there until they retire.

If we can put together a state plan that includes senior citizens we can get rid of any Federal Health care plan. These are our citizens, our state our responsibility.

Timothy Hall

Colin: I read the article when it first came out. The government's lawyers didn't make these arguments for good reason, they are not even close to being persuasive. This is a Commerce Clause case; the requirement to for men to be armed was not based on the Commerce Clause it was based on a completely different section of the constitution regarding congress's power with respect to militias: "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

Bill, which clause it's based on is irrelevant. The opposition's argument on this point is that government cannot impose a purchase requirement because a purchase requirement is unprecedented. This is false on its face. The militia law imposed a purchase requirement on private citizens. The oft-cited opinion piece on the Volokh Conspiracy claims that a gun could be gifted to you, but the militia law is still a purchase requirement if you cannot have a gun gifted to you. The Affordable Care Act also gifts low income Americans with insurance. There is no difference in the legislation except which powers are being cited and which products are being purchased. Most legal observers believe the solicitor general performed the equivalent of malpractice in making a very poor case for a case that should have been a slam dunk, so it's very likely he missed precedents.

Cue the cries of, "activist judges" in 3, 2, 1....

Seriously, does anyone notice that they are activist judges when you don't get your way and upholders of the great Constitution when it does go your way?

By the way, I would like to see them try to justify forcing American's to purchase something from a private company just because you are alive.

How anyone could argue that is constitutional with a straight face is beyond me.

David, there is precedent for the mandate, and it is constitutional under the commerce clause - if a person chooses not to purchase insurance, then the rest of us become responsible for the cost of that person's health care because everyone needs health care at some point in his or her life.
Frankly, I would prefer single payer, Medicare for everyone. Would you be satisfied with that, since no purchases of private insurance would be involved?

Joyce, if you think there is a constitutional precedent for a commerce clause-based mandate forcing the purchase of anything on people just because they exist please cite the case name. None of the attorneys supporting Obamacare were able to name such a case in their briefs or oral arguments.

Here you go, Bill:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/03/27/supreme-court-decisions-that-justify-the-individual-mandate-in-some-eyes/

Deb, I agree. A sad situation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DlTgrMCxPg

Thanks for taking one for the team, Danielle.

Thanks for sparing me the sight of Alan Keyes mouthing off.

Not true -- car insurance is required not to cover your own medical costs/car damages -- but to cover OTHER peoples' medical/property damages in case you run into them or cause an accident

In addition to the reason Layne gave this is also not true because (1) the Obamacare case is based on a question of the federal government's power under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, whereas the car insurance mandate is based on state powers under their own constitutions, and (2) Obamacare regulates and punishes inactivity (which if allowed to stand would give the federal government unlimited power), whereas state car insurance mandates only apply to specific activity.

Justin, there is no federal law requiring anybody to have auto insurance.

I seriously doubt it's the younger people (in general - certainly there are specific cases that lead to it, though)) that is causing the dramatic increases in health premiums. Obamacare is an unwarranted tax on the slice of population that is already getting the shaft from the Ponzi schemes called Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. If you want to look at why health insurance premiums are going up so fast -- consider these factors : increased age of people due to medical technology; obesity; illegal immigrants; Medicare/Medicaid/MN care type program cost shifting to those who private insurace. Clinics and hospitals heavily "penalize" those who have private insurance to capture dollars to help pay for the low rates they recover for Government run programs. That's a FACT.

We should not penalize the younger portion of the population anymore than has already been done to them. This anti-liberty law needs to go.

Layne, there are many reasons health care is costing more - the increasing dependence on technology is one reason, as is the duplication of services, something the ACA addresses. As for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid - not one of them is a Ponzi scheme.

Joyce -- Please ask a bunch of informed younger person about the odds of them receiving SS or Medicare. You'll get back that they don't feel like they'll get anything back from their involuntarily taxed $. Ask any financial advisor and they will tell you NOT to count on SS or Medicare if you are under the age of 55. That IS the definition of a Ponzi scheme.

I forgot to add that a couple of other cost driving factors in the health insurance game are -- limited competition (due to federal regulations); people with terminal disease situations being provided extremely expensive medical care in the last month or so of life (when hospice care is likely better route); unneeded and duplicative tests/treatments to prevent doctors/clinics/hospitals from getting sued (tort reform); people using medical services for any thing that blows their way (typically people who have no cost/no deductible private or government insurance);

Layne, the duplicative testing comes about not because of the fear of lawsuits but, rather, because of the lack of communication within the system - I work in health care, I see it all the time. A patient had all the necessary tests at one facility (say, an urgent care center) but then comes to another facility for more comprehensive care (say, an ER) and all the tests have to be repeated because the ER cannot access the test results from the urgent care center. This sort of thing happens all the time, and it is something the ACA addresses.
As for young people feeling social security and medicare will not be available for them, that is because they are ill informed or misinformed thanks to media outlets that, to put it bluntly, lie. Social security is actually quite solvent, and a small increase in the cap on taxable income would make it completely solvent far into the future. I mentioned in a facebook post that social security taxes are collected only on the first $110,000 of income (meaning that someone earning $110,000 annually pays the same dollar amount in social security taxes as someone earning $110,000,000 annually) and I was amazed at how many people commented that they were completely unaware of that fact! Raise the cap, solve the problem.
As for medicare and medicaid, they are in trouble because health care costs are rising so rapidly; control health care costs (which the ACA does) and they will be fine.

I agree...with no other proposals on the table we would once again be at the mercy of health care providers and insurers. I think its shameful that this is really all about big business...

Cynthia, the interstate commerce clause would not give the government the ability to mandate what sorts of foods you can eat - unlike health care, your decision not to eat broccoli (to use the example Scalia raised) does not have an impact on the cost of my spinach or my broccoli.
As for purchasing health insurance across state lines, you may have noticed that credit cards, which are available across state lines, have not reduced interest rates as a result of competition; what would happen with health insurance is exactly what happened with credit cards, that is, the insurers would relocate their head offices to the state with the fewest regulations. Minnesota, for example, requires health insurance companies to be run as non-profits, while other states allow profit taking; some states, like Minnesota, are strict about rescission, that is, dropping coverage for people who are diagnosed with an expensive illness even though they are up to date on premium payments, while other states allow the practice. If health insurance can be bought across state lines, you can bet that rescission will happen in Minnesota and you'll be paying higher and higher premiums for fewer and fewer benefits.

One of the real reasons we don't have health insurance is that insurance companies (the big ones) have essentially divided up the country and don't want to compete across "state lines" because competition drives up marketing costs, drives down prices and decreases profits.

Now it is true that states regulate insurance companies, however, to sell across state lines would also require a national level regulation - not state by state and you can just hear the outcry from Conservatives now about the Federal Gov't usurping "States Rights"... OR, a insurers will all head to one state with the most favorable regulations and then in every state from that states regulations which if I'm not living in that state may not be something that I or you would like.

The difference between Driving vs Health Care is huge.

If you are injured or sick and show up at the Emergency Room - by law - they HAVE to treat you whether you can pay or not and if not that cost gets pushed out to everyone else in the form of higher prices and government payments whereas there is no requirement that anyone has to drive you to the store.

Well, then I suggest we collect all the money used by the "Election Assistance Commission," eliminate elections all together, and use that funding to provide health care to those who cannot afford it.

The mandate is a tax penalty applied to those who have not purchased insurance. Applying tax is well established under the constitution and its amendments, and there are many tax penalties applied unevenly. I am not a homeowner, and so I don't get to take the deductions. I do have a child and claim the child tax credit, while childless adults are assessed a penalty, essentially.

While I do believe the commerce clause is a relevant argument for it as well, the right for the Federal government to tax is clear. If this were worded as a tax credit for purchasing insurance as opposed to a penalty for not purchasing, would we even be having the discussion?

Bill Wilcox, there absolutely is a precedent; In July of 1798, Congress passed and President John Adams signed “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen”; that law mandated that privately employed sailors be required to purchase health care insurance.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29099806/Act-for-the-Relief-of-Sick-DisabledSeamen-July-1798

Bill, you are correct there, however, the Constitution does say, under the 10th Ammendment that all powers not laid out in the Constitution revert back to the states and more so, the people. So in actuality the Constitution is a limit of the government and not a limit of the people, as the people are born with all rights and someone else's right end when they interfere with yours.

On a side note: the individual mandate was added by the Republlicans as a way to trip up the whole bill. At the time Nancy Pelosi's greatest statement was, "We must sign this bill into law so we can sit down and read what is in it". I personally think she got it backwards!
But in the end, both parties are acting like power crazed people who all feel they can manage our lives better than we can.

Joyce, the precedent that you cite is precedent for regulating commerce, not for forcing people to engage in commerce. Regulating commerce is entirely uncontroversial. Forcing people to engage in commerce is completely unprecedented, and if it is allowed it gives the federal government new and unlimited power. It's telling that even the government's lawyers didn't try to use this argument.http://www.volokh.com/2012/04/13/still-unprecedented-recycling-the-same-two-examples-of-supposed-economic-mandates/

Aw Craig, you're a "tenther"! Tenthers are wrong, however; in the 1819 Supreme Court case McCulloch v. Maryland the court ruled that the "Necessary and Proper Clause" of the Constitution (Section 8, Clause 18) gave Congress powers not specifically given in the US Constitution. Moreover, in United States v. Darby Lumber Company (1941) the court declared of the tenth amendment that: 'There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers..... '
In other words, US v. Darby established that states have the right to make their own laws and have their own governments, but those laws and governments are still subject to Article VI paragraph 2 of the US Constitution, the Supremacy Clause, which established federal law as paramount.
As for Pelosi's statement, that is not actually what she said. If you read a transcript of her statement, you'll see that Pelosi was referring to opponents of the bill who were carrying on about death panels and the like; her point was that once the law passed and those opponents could see its effects they would come to like it.

I believe we have health care for all. I do not believe a hospital can turn people away and will provide health care. What we do not have is health insurance for all.

I'm all for a single payer plan. I pay for my health care, and you pay for yours. Just one payer for each person receiving the health care.

Hospitals are not actually mandated to give health care to people who cannot pay, they are required to STABILIZE people. If you show up at the ER with a suspicious lump, you will not get surgery, chemo and/or radiation, you will be referred to another physician for care. If you show up with a broken arm, they'll put a cast on, but they will not provide you with follow-up care or physical therapy. The only place where you get health care regardless of ability to pay is in maternity care.
ERs provide emergency stabilization, not health care.

Completely agree with you Jim. The benefit of Obamacare being ruled unconstitutional would be that Minnesota can then work hard toward a single payer plan.

"The only couple thing that are ever going to drive down America's heath care costs is when American's start eating healthier and exercising regularly. How much of our disease and sickness that needs to be treated is due to our diet and lack of physical activity." Tell me why my thin, athletic brother acquired rheumatoid arthritis. Tell me why my eat-like-a-bird, nondrinking, nonsmoking cousin died of breast cancer. Tell my why my husband's thin, daily-walking, healthy-eating uncle died of pancreatic cancer, and his thin, daily-walking, healthy-eating wife of breast cancer. Tell me why my normal weight, active, healthy-eating sister has osteoporosis. Tell my why our active, normal weight youngest child had speech apraxia and speech delay. Tell my why my thin, organic-eating, active coworker has breast cancer. And on and on. It is a fact that in my life, the people who have the most serious and costly illnesses are not overweight and never were, and have taken very good care of themselves. Think it can't happen to you? Think again. It's making me become an environmentalist, because what they all had in common was the air they breathed and the food (even "healthy" and organic) they ate.

Heidi, that's funny!

And cows fly

England does not have single payer, J. People who do have single payer - people on Medicare, for example - are very happy with it.
The only health care in this country which is analogous to what England has would be the VA system and the military hospital system.

Canadians may gripe at times but by and large they would never go back to the old ways. How do I know this...I have a number of Canadian friends and when they hear how backward we are regarding health care availability to all they shudder and quit grousing.

And we need all the facts, minus any bias.

Health Care became health insurance as insurance companies gained power, prices started rising for health care (and most people could not afford anything beyond the most basic of medical care) and people started moving into health insurance plans to deal with the rising costs.

The problem is that if someone does not have health insurance and they show up at the emergency room - by law - the Hospital must treat them (even if they cannot pay for it).

Of course Hospitals make up much of those costs in two ways:
1) they send a bill to the government
2) they increase costs and people who can afford it and\or have health insurance have to pay more.

So, unless we will change the law to not require emergency room care, and we do not allow hospitals to pass along the costs, and we are ready to watch sick people being wheeled back to the side walk and left there (in front of 24 hours news) then without the mandate you are helping to pay for every person who shows up and gets treatment at an emergency room and cannot pay for it.

"but FORCE me to pay premiums even if I do not receive health care"

100% of the population will use health care services (birthing services, vaccinations, health screenings, dental care, extensive services in the months before death) at many points between birth and death. Therefore, forcing you to pay premiums is basically forcing you to pay for services you have received or will receive at some future point.

Nothing is certain except death, taxes and need for a medical provider's services sometime during your life, and most likely on multiple occasions.

If you have a human body you'll endure illness, aging, and death. Healthcare is a necessity if you plan to stay alive.

I don't know if this is right, but I would assume that Medicare and SS are different because you only pay in to them if you are working. If you are unemployed, or like my dad, self employed, I don't believe you pay in to those. I support the Affordable Health Care Act, but do think it is different because everyone, employed or not, is required to participate. Right?

One other point on it is that in other countries yes there can be a wait for some treatment, my relatives in Canada (who prefer their system to the US system - they did live here for many years and have first hand knowledge of both) have at times had to wait a few weeks for something non-critical.

However, in the US we ration health care - its just that in the US if you can't afford it and you can't get it treated at the emergency room - you very likely just don't get the care - so its not like we are actually able to treat everyone without a wait - we just ration in the most extreme way.

So you are saying that the Conservative Heritage Foundation and many Conservative Republicans pushed a "Clearly Unconstitutional" health care remedy for a couple of decades and tried to foist it on the American People?

What else might these Conservatives be pushing that would be also "Clearly Unconstitutional?" It does make one wonder doesn't it...

rob_h78, Here is the description of the plan proposed by the Heritage Foundation.
http://www.savingthedream.org/about-the-plan/
In doing the research, I was unable to find any attempt at the federal level to enact a national health care before the Obama administration.
But it has been an issue that has been hotly debated over the last few years, but it has been the Democrats that have been pushing to develop a full European system of health care along with, at one point, joining the Euro.
Honestly, we do need a real Health Care overhaul in this country but it will have to come with a full revamp of the tax code, tort reform, and a good hard look at these health care companies exempt status as their directors pull millions out of their coiffures.

Craig, the Heritage Foundation scrubbed the mandate from its website as soon as Obama started pushing for it.
As for your inability to find "any attempt at the federal level to enact a national health care before the Obama administration", I wonder if you were alive and sentient during the Clinton administration. It was in response to the Clinton health care plan that the Heritage Foundation formulated its own plan. The fact is, Theodore Roosevelt, FDR, Harry S. Truman, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton all pushed for national health care. Not one of these presidents, however, pushed for a "full European system of health care" as you put it. Of course, there is no uniformity among the European nations in their approach to providing health care; some have socialized medicine (Britain) some have single payer, others have a program like Obamacare.
As for a push to join the Euro, which conspiracy website did you get that one from?
Meanwhile, I had no idea insurance company directors had coiffures, nor did I realize they kept their "exempt statuses (exempt from what?)" there...do they have to remove those statuses when they wash their hair?

The bases for a "legal timeout" could rest on the fact that many aspects - including the mandate has not taken affect yet - that is, no one yet is required to have health care and Courts usually rule on something that is currently in place rather than something that will only occur at some point in the future but is currently in place.

A 20-ear-old with both back bone and intelligence could very well need to stay on a parent's policy, given the current job market and the fact that even 20-year-olds can have preexisting conditions (a woman was turned down for cancer coverage because she'd had acne as a teenager) and would likely not be able to afford private insurance if that 20-year-old's job doesn't offer benefits. Not every state has something like MNCare; in most states, in fact, if you don't get health insurance from work and you cannot afford to pay for private insurance and you are not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid and you are too young for Medicare, you are out of luck.
As for the "government taking over 1/12th of the economy", you might want to find out how the ACA will actually work before you make such a ridiculous claim. The ACA is based on PRIVATE insurance and PRIVATE providers, there is no "government takeover."

Agree that this is the most activist Supreme Court in US history -- Citizens United is a prime example, and the worst are the conservative activist judges. They wouldn't be able to follow the law if it rose up and bit them in the arse.

Bush Vs. Gore decision - where the court ruled that Florida was not allowed to change the voting laws in the middle of counting the votes? It ruled they had to count ACTUAL votes.

No, Bigfuut - Bush v. Gore was the decision in which the court told the state of Florida that it could not follow its own election laws and continue the recount.

Antisemites? Are you even aware that most Jews are liberals and that Jews vote overwhelmingly for Democrats?

Ignore Karine, Maggie. This person has lost all frame of reality. Skyrocketing private sector health care costs have been the greatest impediment to small business since the 1980s, according to the right-leaning NFIB. Karine doesn't realize that most business owners actually like to be able to afford health care and not worry about paying for their employees. That's why the American auto companies have been building so many plants in Canada.

Hey y'all—you've all been great up to now about keeping things civil. Let's keep it that way.

Colin, you bring up a good point. With those companies fleeing the US to do business in places like Canada, where the healthcare cost burden is much lower, do we also experience outward migration of skilled labor?

The mandate, as much as some people don't like it, keeps costs down for EVERYONE, and this is key to keeping small businesses and strong workforce in the US. Business will go wherever overhead costs are lower for them and their employees, and lower healthcare costs are a big part of that.

I know two people who are looking closely at today's decision; if it goes against health care reform one will be taking a job offer overseas right away. The other will be pushed closer to that decision. Both are young, talented people. Inability to reform healthcare (cost and access) gives them one more reason to leave US for what are, at the moment, greener (more affordable) pastures for them.

Can the US compete against other industrialized countries for workforce talent without healthcare security for its citizens? Affordable and secure (coverage whether or not you are employed) is key.

"Seriously, do you expect people to believe the story of your two little friends?"

They are my children. It's not an "extensive decision" when you are 25 years old and single. It's easy. You just pack a couple bags and go.

Corporate interests supported the health care reform act. Companies like 3M had already modeled new retiree healthcare plans, and had sent out communications to retirees about how they will be using the healthcare exchanges for coverage. It saves them money. Despite what the right says, the healthcare reform lowers costs and saves corporations money. That was the bottom line.

This ruling is good news on two fronts. It saves the provisions that we all care about: no ban on pre-existing, no lifetime caps, young adults may stay on parent health insurance, and insurance companies must rebate you if they spend less than 80% on health care. However, the individual mandate portion is on hold to go back to Congress to be rewritten as a tax, so the health insurance industry will be forced to spend our health premiums lobbying for something other than hobbling public Medicare-for-All systems in states like Vermont. This means we that states will have more freedom to innovate.

Feel how you want, but would you might keeping your namecalling in your head?

She put losing in quotes, indicating that she does not believe it is a loss at all, just the perception of the other side.

"Wow Susy, when we win in November we will do a full repeal and replace"

The problem is that you'll have to win the executive and both houses of the legislative branch -- this is rarely done as Americans don't generally like the results when all three are held by one party (see Wisconsin for an example of what happens).

In any case, good luck.

Ditto

Right. There will never be a "full repeal and replace" (replace with what? We've never seen a coherent and viable plan from the Republicans).

Romney won't get near this issue if he's elected. After all, he was the architect of the blueprint for all this (Romneycare, as Governor of Massachusetts), and he believes in it, even if he can't say it aloud because he has to keep the extreme right wing of his party in his camp.

The country has come to consensus on this issue, and the political will is to support reform and the mandate. This will only get stronger.

Even if Obama loses on this (and I doubt he will) he has left a lasting legacy of meaningful reform and he has executed a piece of the hope and change he campaigned on. He's given young people some hope for a better future that includes affordable healthcare. Nobody can take this accomplishment from him and the American people. Giving people with pre-existing conditions a route to healthcare was the simply the right thing, the Christian thing to do.

God Bless Obama. This legislation is a blessing for millions, and it makes us stronger and better able to compete going forward. Is it perfect? NO. But it's a start, and it will be tweaked and improved as experience guides us.

There is nothing activist about upholding an existing law; are you accusing Chief Justice John Roberts of acting with liberal bias? Seriously?
An activist ruling would be Citizens United - the case before the court involved a narrow issue, namely whether a propaganda film could be aired within a narrow window of time before an election. Contrary to standard procedure, the court instructed the litigants to re-argue a much broader case and overturned about 100 years of stare decisis in their final decision.

Making people pay a tax if they "choose" not to buy health insurance is acceptable because we all end up paying when the uninsured go to the emergency room because the clinic won't see them without payment, or because they wait so long because they can't afford to go to the doctor, that their condition becomes critical, and the costs skyrocket.

Voter ID is not racism, it is voter suppression, plain and simple.

Will you support a full retraction of the Requirement that anyone who shows up at an Emergency Room must be treated?

Then if a child or adult shows up to an ER with no insurance and cannot prove that they can pay out of their own pocket that the Hospital can refuse to service them - or if they do the Hospital must do it as a Charity cause and cannot raise rates to cover those costs?

And if a Hospital refuses to help them that person is wheeled out to the side walk and if they die they die.

And no, I am not kidding because unless you and others are ready to get rid of the Health Care Freeloaders Mandate that is already in place then I am sorry but people have to have either insurance or pay the penalty.