You couldn't be more wrong, Corey. Guess who wins in this deal, the insurance companies. People who had a CHOICE to purchase or not purchase insurance are now forced TO purchase. This is a sad day for our country.

You don't have to purchase anything just pay a tax if you don't have health care insurance.

Christopher Bates:

Right you dont have to purchase anything, just pay a hefty tax, that's all.

Thanks, now I am being taxed further, and my families healthcare cost have gone up approx. $5000 this year. My company, a small firm of 3 can't afford to provide a healthcare package and if they did it would cost me $500 out of pocket. I don't want it because of the cost now I will be taxed for not taking it. And they are thinking of closing the doors because it is too expensive to provide it. Thanks....I am going to lose my job.

"Shakopee Mom" the cost of your health insurance has not gone up because of the ACA - insurance costs have been going up exponentially for years, since before Obama was even elected. Moreover, most of the provisions of the law have not even taken effect yet.
As for your boss, perhaps he or she does not realize that the law provides for subsidies and tax breaks for small businesses that offer insurance coverage to their employees.

Shakopee Mom, echoing Joyce's comments, either your boss or you need to become more informed. The effect on small businesses has been misrepresented by the media and those who oppose the law. The health care exchanges alone will benefit small businesses such as yours. Mandates for businesses apply only to those whose payroll is more than $750k.

Kelly -- I think you are just as uninformed. Everyone is wrong except you? Hardly.

Shakopee Mom - if your firm only has 3 people than you will not be impacted by ObamaCare.

Only firms with 50 or more people will be subject to the fine if they don't offer some type of health care for their employees.

http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/2011/08/small-business.html

In fact - under the ACA - and having such a small company if you choose to offer health care guess what - you get a break from the government.

Starting in 2014, the small business tax credit goes up to 50% (up to 35% for non-profits) for qualifying businesses. This will make the cost of providing insurance even lower.

So if you lose your job it more likely will be due to the fact that your families health care costs have gone up $5000 in one year - it won't be the ACA.

Now if you are close to going out of business and losing your job - then what you really need to do is get after Congress to figure out a way to hold down your $5000 a year premium increases for health care because it will only keep going up under our current system.

rob_h78 needs to check his facts.

Sure, SOME of the provisions of the PPACA do not apply to small firms, but that's only the sanctions and subsidies. Every other part of the PPACA - the taxes on providers, the taxes on manufacturers, the regulations on insurers, the mandates, the limitations and changes to electronic medical records, etc, etc, etc - almost all of which will drive up costs - will apply to absolutely everyone. For instance, The PPACA drives doctors out of private practice through a variety of policy changes. Surveys of doctors suggest that many doctors nearing retirement are set to retire early specifically because they don't like the changes in law. So, fewer doctors will be practicing. Is there anyone who will be unaffected by this?

I have been accused of being "disingenuous" because I use "biased" sources.

http://www.healthcare.gov - ??? Are you joking? This is little more than the propaganda arm of the white house health care political team.

I don't have to remind anyone of the promises: "If you like your health care, you can keep it". Sure - if they are still in business!

You can claim that the PPACA is necessary, or dither over its cost to the taxpayer, but don't insult my intelligence by claiming that this massive pile of burdens on every part of the health care industry won't drive health care costs! If you recall, that was the point.

@Joyce: you are correct that health care costs have risen, however, since the ACA was passed many, many people are seeing triple the cost in their health care. I see the defense that ACA isn't all up and running yet, foolish way to defend a bad policy, businesses and insurance companies see what's happening, their a step ahead so their not getting stuck with any of the bill, thus, passing it on. I have yet to see a post saying their saving money.

Do you know anything at all about the European health care systems? Every country has its own , different from the other countries . The only thing they have in common is the requirement that every person has health care insurance!
Who told you the story that people are dying waiting for health care? The last time I checked, all European countries have a capitalistic society, If you would educate yourself just a little bit, you would not make those dumb statements!

I worked in a very big international company in the health care area, and had the chance to work with most health care systems in the free world. And i can tell you, the medical part of the US system is great, but the distribution of health care is absolute lousy in the US, even the poorest European country takes better care of their people than the US does!

Define socialism! Providing insurance for all is cheaper and more humane than taxpayers paying for more expensive emergency room treatment. Because of the preexisting conditions excuse the insurance company weaseled out of a 25 year olds relative's required suregery. We the people i.e. taxpayers paid for it anyway. The canadians and Europeans do quite well at lower cost. Ask a Canadian.

Oh! I forgot most of these ideas indluding the insurance mandate were proposed by Republicans in the past. Kind of looks like Romneycare in Massachusetts.

There is so many times Republicans can use the term" Socialism" to criticize everything they disagree with before their argument loses credibility. President Nixon in the early 70's had a very similar plan to the Affordable Care Act, but never got off the ground due to the Watergate Scandal. In the 1990's, The Heritage Foundation, A Conservative Policy group proposed a very similar individual mandate to congress. We all know Mitt Romney took the first step as Governor of Massachusetts by implementing his own version of the Affordable Care Act. It is kind of lack of crebility for Republicans to call The Affordable Care Act "Socialist", when Republicans throughout the years proposed similar measures and nominated a Presidential candidate who as governor enacted a similar policy.

You guys are all arguing about the individual mandate. Who gives a sh$$. The problem with Obamacare is the costs and amount of govt employees and regulations it will put into effect. The reason to go for the individual mandate was because if they ruled it unconstitutional then we could abolish the whole law at once because they screwed up the language in it. When this goes into effect it will not only be a huge burden on all taxpayers, businesses and personal, but will also have a huge negative effect on our economy and our deficit.

@Roxanne... please post some photos or videos or links to same which show these dying and suffering Europeans littering the streets.

As usual, the bugaboo of "socialism" is raised. You display your lack of facts and your toal lack of understanding of what a socialist government is and how it operates.

The post by Hudsoner might help you understand the "real world" as it exists rather than the "unreal world" that you have concocted based, most likely, on the "factoids" promulgated by FAUX, Beck, Limbaugh and others of that ilk.b

Hudsoner is right. There is no single pattern of national health insurance coverage so to speak as if they are all the same is to miss the truth. I lived in Japan for 22 years as a self-employed individual and was enrolled in the public health care system. That system is administered by cities, not the central government! Participants are billed ten times a year with charges based upon income, marital status and children. Visits to doctors and hospital trips are not free - there are copayments for services obtained. However there is no deductable and there is a by American standards at least, a cap on what the patient must pay for major medical expenses. Is the system at risk? I would say it is "challenged" by the large number of senior citizens who are likely to need care. However I am confident that the Japanese can meet that challenge as they have every other challenge since WW II. All in all, I would say the Japanese system is vastly superior to what similarily poor and middle income people in the US can expect to receive without going bankrupt as a result of becomming sick.

We never had to worry about treating every Tom, Dick, and Harry that walked into an emergency room before about 1980 I believe. Before that it was no insurance, no payment, no service. What a concept! There was no skyrocketing health care because the people who used it paid for it! Gov't care = socialism. Simple definition. When I grew up, part of being responsible, getting good grades and graduating was so that you could get a good job and get health insurance. Now we just gave it to every POS that breathes!

Roxanne is right on the money. Health care in Great Britain is attrocious. And yes, it's selective. Canada's is just as bad. And I know for a fact. I was Canadian prior to becoming a naturalized citizen here. Were there issues here? Yes. But what pi$$es me off is the republicans offered their version. Obama threw it in the trash. Same as the Ryan budget. Obama chastised Ryan and the repubs for doing their job. And for those carping about name calling in the genre of socialism. It is what it is. This health care bill isn't about health care in the first place. It's about giving one group rights and taking another groups away. You liberals chomping at the bit loving this thing... You have no idea what kind of trap, yes trap, what you've stepped into.

Roxanne: My father lived in Norway where they have socialized medical care. He spent his last year in a nursing home where the care was excellent, and we didn't have to worry about going bankrupt because of the cost of care. Don't forget, the Mandate is a Republican idea developed by the Conservative Heritage Foundation and supported by the likes of Sen. Grassely of Iowa, and many others UNTIL Obama adopted it to gain bi-partisan support--and none of the Republicans who a few years ago thought it was a great idea, voted for it. I wish we had real socialized medical care, it would be a lot cheaper, and no one would have to go bankrupt because they got sick.

TB, there is no doubt that insurance companies benefit, but as long as more lives are saved and costs go down, that's largely irrelevant. If people who gambled with their lives by choosing not to purchase health care, actually paid for that choice, I might agree with you. But the fact is they get sick and we pay to help them. Now I have ZERO problem helping someone who can NOT afford health care, but I do not want to pay for people who are cheap and greedy. Just as I don't mind paying for government and food assistance for the poor, but don't want to pay for oil subsidies and welfare for corporations who pay no taxes or romney-ians to hide their money overseas to avoid their patriotic duty of paying their share.

If the desire is to choose who you support and withhold support from those things you oppose, there are lots of vehicles for your charity, and I salute your involvement and contributions.

Government, however, is a terrible vehicle for what you want, because by nature *everyone* pays for it, whether you like it or not, and *everyone* gets the same thing out of it - be it wars, postal services, or health care.

Milton Friedman said it best. He told us that in the marketplace, if 60 people want red ties, and 40 people want green ties, 60 people get red and 40 people buy green, because in the market, each one gets to choose. In government (democracy), those same 100 people vote, and if 60 of them want red, then 100 people get red ties, because that is the result of the vote. The red-tie people "win" and the green tie people "lose".

This is why government generates conflict, because in the market, there are no winners or losers, only those who choose. Government pits people against one another.

Whenever possible, choices should be left to individuals.

Donald, this is a bizarre comment. Government is not incapable of accommodating choices. Take Minnesota's Public Employee Insurance Program. Every employee gets to choose from one's own choice of insurance plans and providers. Obamacare works exactly the same way.

What about if 100 neighbors need their trash hauled away? 10 choose red, 30 choose blue, 50 choose green. All one hundred neighbors pay too much, have too much traffic, and need to pay street assessments to fix their roads years earlier than normal because heavy trucks cause hundreds or thousands of times more damage.

Imagine if every single neighbor had to hire a street repair company or snow plow for their small section of the street. You would never get to work.

No, I think the idea that because sometimes collective action is more efficient, government should do EVERYTHING is bizarre.

Look at the controversy in Maplewood. Trash hauling is a good case where the pros and cons are close enough for a good argument, and recently the city council forced all residents to go through a specified hauler. Predictably, those who don't like that hauler - for various reasons - are unhappy. Those who favored the reduced traffic, etc, are happy. Longer term, bet on the newly created monopoly raising prices, and being accused of corruption. Bet on it.

The bottom line, though, is that the people getting their trash hauled all got "red ties".

The truly bizarre comment is that government "accommodates choices .... like Obamacare". This reminds me of the parent who wants a child to choose a food. Knowing that the child would choose candy, the parent presents a choice - peas or carrots. In the same way government "accommodates choice". First it takes choice away, and then presents a very narrow choice of "approved" choices. This is exactly what Obamacare does, and is not "choice".

The point is not that government cannot present choices, or that it should do nothing. The point is that whenever possible, it should not intervene, because wherever it chooses for us, we lose our power to choose. That's not bizarre, it's simple logic.

How about if we agree that everybody needs health care and let the insurance companies fend for themselves. What an incredible sales job has been done when health care equates to health insurance.

Life does not equate to the need for healthcare.

Our imperfect democracy beats the hell out of the places my grandparents and parents came from! I don't reccomend it but you are free to try other countries. Requiring the insurance companies to cover pre existing conditions, end yearly coverage limits, return 80% of premium in health care coverage, (medicare is about 97%) cancel polices when people get sick, etc are terrible regulations?

Mike H
First we were not established a democracy. Our system of government was established as a representative republic with checks and balances to keep the balance of power in the hands of the people who had and should have now oversite and control of government. I, personally want government and insurance companies to get out of healthcare. I'm old enough to remember being able to meet with my chosen doctor, discuss symptoms and decide a course of treatment and a method of payment. Something that is sadly lacking today. I am and always have been an informed patient perfectly capable of making health care decisions in conjunction with my doctor. The way the system is structured now the patient is at the mercy of insurance companies regarding which medication they may be prescribed, what course of treatment will be followed and even which doctor or practice they can go to. There is no need to pay insurance companies for the restrictions you stated. You can step out of the system and take personal responsibility for your health care. It will be cheaper, by at least 25%, probably more when doctors don't need to employ several workers just to service insurance claims and have control of their own billing. Just my two cents

Candace, I like your comments. It is amazing to me that so many take no thought to the fact that when they get something from the government, they are taking their neighbor's money without their consent. Every liberal loves their neighbor's money and they have no sense of shame for taking it.

"when they get something from the government, they are taking their neighbor's money without their consent"

Then I guess I took my neighbor's money "without their consent" when I sent my kids to public school, and when I drive on state highways every day. Oh, and when I take water from the tap in my kitchen, and when I call the police when someone bangs my car in the parking lot, and when I walk in a public park.

How about you? How many times each day do you use your neighbor's money without their consent. By your definition I do it 20-30 times a day.

Crazy . . . this socialism thing is WAAAAAY out of hand. To end it we need to turn off the water and sewer systems for starters . . .

I completely agree with Edward's comment. I couldn't have said it better myself!!! Same goes for the Fire Dept.!

Good o'l Jenifer has no clue. ER's will only stablemen a persons condition, but will not take care of follow up treatments! We, the taxpayers will have to pay for the treatments of the uninsured! Jenifer should invest some of her time to educate her self about the US health care system!

Good o'l Hudsoner, injecting his 'knowledge' into the conversation. Your statement about the taxpayers picking up the tab is partially correct. I recently got a bill from my local ER from a late night visit. I paid an exorbitant amount for the few minutes I was under their care. The reason I was given was " the cost of providing the uninsured" care in the ER was being born by all insured users of the ER facility. So.. if you want to speculate...have some factual info before making your claim.

I have a friend who lives in Canda and just passed away from colon cancer. At the beginning, he was complaining about the time lag it took to get an MRI.

I have friends in Canada who cannot stand the healthcare plan in Canada. They fear that the same system will be set up in the US.

I dont believe you.

I have several co-workers in Canada, one had to bring his wife to the USA for knee cartlidge surgery, as it would be 3 years before the "free" Canadian care would be able to perform the surgery... Another co workers father was "not eligible" for Bone marrow transplant for leukemia because of his age.. He could of had it done in the US .

When you can't find facts about foreign health care systems, rumor works great. It allows you to place real doubt in everyone's minds without requiring any proof whatsoever. Three years is fiction. The actual wait time in most Canadian provinces today is about the same as in the United States. 83% of all non-emergency surgeries had a wait time of under three months, including 65% of joint replacments.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2011/02/10/ns-hip-knee-wait-times.html
http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/pick-choisir?lang=eng&p2=33&id=1053003
http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/a26?lang=eng&retrLang=eng&id=1053038&tabMode=dataTable&srchLan=-1&p1=-1&p2=9

I have a friend whose in-laws live in Canada - the in-laws won't come to visit my friend because they are afraid of American health care.

We are Canadian and emigrated 6 years ago from Vancouver, and before that lived in Toronto. We are fortunate that my husband's company has excellent health care here, far far superior to what we could ever get our hands on in Canada. 6-9 hour waits in emergency rooms, 6 months for MRIs, 2-3 years for hip or knee replacements. Whatever comes our way with this plan, I hope and pray that it does not resemble that.

Christine, we share a lot in common with Canadians. I personally spent eight hours waiting in a Florida emergency room some years ago. The national average is four hours seven minutes. Even Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell only claims knee replacements take one year in Canada in his wildest rhetorical flourishes. Wait times are a real problem in Canada, but I fear you're overstating them.

http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2010/07/26/Average-US-ER-wait-time-4-plus-hours/UPI-76891280122494/

Colin...."I fear you're overstating them" (re wait times for care and services) is a pathetic guise for calling me a liar. Go there. Live it. Then get back to me.

Christine, why do you try to pull polemic into the discussion? Great that you have an employer, who provides you with good health insurance. However, over 40 million Americans have none (how many Canadians don't have health insurance?). many more millions can only afford to have very basic insurance with very high out of pocket payments! Only because your employer paid insurance is better than the Canadian the Canadian system is bad?

On the other hand ACA has no similarity with the Canadian or British system, it is much closer in line with the system in Switzerland. In this, only you and the doctor decide when a certain procedure will be done!
Please leave any comparison with the Canadian system out of the discussion, because it is a different animal!

You should educate yourself about the provisions of the ACA! The government has no interests in forcing you to buy something, they just want you to have some kind of HC insurance. If you don;t have this kind of insurance, you will become a burden to the society who has to pay for your ER visits. Unless you want us to leave you laying dying in the streets?

Joe,
I don't have to educate myself to the flaws of ACA. I've lived through the changes that have taken place in the health care field. When consumers are divorced from the true cost of the services they receive cost controls disappear and regulations increase by orders of magnitude. In 1988 it cost $50 to see a physician and a busy practice had about a 40% return on investment, Today physicians in private practice can bill whatever amount they like. They will get paid whatever the insurance company decides and the average return on investment is 18%. The idea tha every person without insurance will become a burden on society and run up ER bills is a democrat chanting point. It is a fact that private pay patients will pay less for the same service especially if they can pay up front. It is wrong to expect the government to take control over health care.

If you are left dying in the streets it should be by your decision and poor judgement. It is not the government's place to take care of you.

Mainstreet, don't you think that this is a very cynical and misanthropic remark?

Hardly. I am not my neighbors keeper, that's all. If you are able bodied you should pull your own weight. If you won't, it shouldn't be someone elses (or governments) issue if you haven't planned accordingly.

Candace,
I am a physician, and a subspecialized physician practicing at hospitals on both sides of the metro. The bill for our procedures is not $50, but rather $50,000. We collect only a percentage of this, and a majority of what's collected goes to the hospital, anesthesia, medical devices, etc. Yet for those who need them these procedures are lifesavers, or at least allow people to still be productive members of society as opposed to draining public funds on a ventilator in a nursing home. For the liberals: yes, we have been hurt by profit-taking and red tape from private insurance companies that are essentially middle men. The lack of a single payor option in ACA was an unfortunate compromise (in the past, Medicare was run at around 3% administrative overhead, Blue Cross at around 50% - how's that for government vs. private industry...) Recently, however, the burden of the uninsured and uncollected bills has become enormous. It's not just a 9% insured rate in MN, it's uninsured from the Dakotas and WI who are transferred here for subspecialized care. It's the uninsured who are often times less well off, have had little or no preventative care, and eventually get sicker than people with insurance. And yes, there ARE wealthy patients without insurance who refuse to pay, even in the face of lawsuits. For "conservatives": everyone with insurance is paying for those who don't have it. The uninsured ARE already hurting healthcare. ACA isn't perfect, but it's a start.

Whose health care is good? The health care of the more than 40 Million uninsured? The health care of those that are denied insurance because of pre-existing conditions, the health care coverage of a cancer patient who had his coverage terminated because the life time max was reached?

Just tell me, who it is with the good health care?

Comments like this and Candace's are usually bereft of any specifics, choosing only to rant about the "loss of freedom." These people parrot media and extremist sound bites without educating themselves about true facts. It is quite simple to claim that the government is screwed up while remaining blissfully ignorant.

Freedom NEVER was Free. Even early woodsman helped each other out. It is called community and common good. Ask military personal, veterans and families what the cost of our freedom is. If you want to be truely self centered ask what's the cost of vaccine versus a unvaccinated kid carrying measles, flu, chicken pox, sitting next to your relative that has immunity issues. What's the cost of a child being permantly disabled by diseases like polio, which are eradicated or close to being eradicated by vaccines developed and paid for with governmen funding. Unless you subscribe to the recent tea party cheer "let them die" prevention and early intervention are cheaper than paying for full blown diseases.

Romney won't touch this legislation. He wrote the blueprint for it (Romneycare) in Massachusetts. You can vote him in, but he won't go near repealing this.

He knows it is good legislation; it's what he did himself, as Governor, in Massachusetts.

Wanna bet Edward? Those silly little Tea Party folks didnt have very much effect in the 2010 elections did they?

Where has the TEA party gone since 2010? Their caucus chair, Michele Bachmann, is nowhere to be seen these days -- after Iowa Republicans dumped her (soundly).

But Clarence and Ginni Thomas didn't have a conflict of interest...? (to the tune of $250 million)

@Bernard.... please stop confusing the complainers with those nasty facts. The Wing-nuts don't use parks, highways, public schools, stadiums, dams, bridges or roads. They are all selfmade creatures who were born pulling up their own bootstraps (yes, they were born with boots on their feet). They travel only on streets and roads that were built and paid for by the followers of Ayn Rand with the help of Libertarians who volunteered the material and labor to construct these roads.

Haven't we all seen the volunteers from the "self made" tribe that constructed the Hoover Dam in their spare time and on weekends?

These people are so devoid of facts and information they have plenty of room in their minds to store the faily tales of "freedom from everything", the fears of "evil socialism" take up more of the mental space, and what space remains is devoted to the "wit and wisdom of the Great Limbaugh".

@ MrsPeel - brilliant. Thank you.

Agreed!

Wow, this might be the silliest comment I have ever read. Your country is completely broke. But, I guess as long as you are getting your free handout, who cares.

Orono
And the US is not? The difference is, Italy has a well functioning healthcare system, affordable for all its residents, the US does not!

Yeah!!! We all implode together! Just wait til that happens and we'll see what Obamacare does for you then.

Hudsoner -- the US isn't Italy...yet. But, you've echoed my point. Italy will have to change things, including healthcare if it wants to fiscally survive. Weare already broke and now adding it. It just doesn't make a lot of sense.

Orono, we agree, Italy will have to change! But I bet they will not even touch their health insurance system. Italy's survival will depend on the willingness of the German taxpayers to fund the bill (so will have the survival of Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland), and can't find any request from those German taxpayers that want Italy or any of those countries reducing their national health insurance systems!

And why is that? Because the Germans have a very similar system and like it very much (yes, all the fancy Porsches, BMWs, Audis, etc. are build by people who are insured through a national health care plan, and even the CEO's of those companies are insured this way. Guess what, they all like it very much!)

Good point. Ultimately it comes down to whether you can trust the US govt. to run this. Being congress isn't bothering to adopt the same program, I won't hold my breath.

You couldnt be more wrong. This doesnt make anyone healthier. Do you honestly believe that fat smokers who drink like fish are going to suddenly quit? The unhealthy will still remain unhealthy.

But the free screenings each year will detect many cancers in the early stages, when they are easier and less expensive to treat.

Many clinics already offer free screenings. It is still incumbent upon the person to remove emself from the couch and make an appointment.

Excellent point! Sadly, many people prefer to take meds than change their lifestyle.

The best way to keep people healthy is to have doctors wash their hands THOROUGHLY before they see the next patient. If anybody saw the germs doctors carry on their hands, they would refuse to be seen by them.

I think it will be remembered as the largest tax ever.

So the fat and lazy that previously didnt give a crap about their health can now sleep soundly because someone else will cover them?

Orono, ill health can strike anyone, even people who exercise regularly and eat healthfully, and everyone is just one accident away from needing health care.
As for "someone else" covering people, that is what is happening right now, under our old "system" of health coverage - who do you think pays for health care for people who have no insurance and cannot afford to pay for medical bills?

Joyce-- touché

Very well stated!

@Mike Hindin. You are correct that those who set up Medicare Part D and making it illegal to bargain for lower prices are not deficit hawks.

They are consistent about one thing and that is they were, are and always will be Hypocrites.

Show me where it states that healthcare is a right.

So far, Orono, all you have contributed in this discussion are out-of-context, spiteful snipes and attacks upon isolated comments of others that you don't like. Please participate in a meaningful manner.

Orono, get some help reading what I wrote. I stated what should be a basic human right. I did not state that is was an existing right. As of right now, healthcare is not a right, but a privilege to those who can afford it.

This would be the system in place in the UK and Canada.

Thank you Joe for the hat tip. I didn't think anyone noticed.

Listen to objective reviews of the law and you will discover that not a word you said is true.

Joe Sixpack. You should stop drinking that much beer, It seems your brain is clouded up!

The only one who should stop drinking something is you Hudsoner. Your diatribes are uneducated at best and smacking of a liberal self righteousness with no basis in reality. Do you actually have any idea what the entirety of the bill does? You list off a couple of good aspects (allowing pre-existing conditions to obtain coverage and getting rid of lifetime caps) and extend that to meaning the bill as a whole is good. You obviously have no grasp of the bill because the bill as a whole is terrible. There are some good parts but if you actually look at the economic impact, increased taxes, increased deficit projections, increased govt employees and bureaucracies it is a hindrance to our entire country. By the way; they just did a survey and if Obamacare does go into effect 20% of companies who now supply employee healthcare will be dropping it. So get off the Kool Aid and get some real knowledge before you start badgering other people.

And you Chad should try to find other sources than Limbaugh and Faux News for your information sources. Once you gained real information and knowledge about the ACA, you can come back and talk again.

Mike, see comment below.

How many "real men" who don't have insurance and get seriously injured refuse emergency room care when they know that they can't pay for it?

You do know that when people show up at the emergency room that the ER is REQUIRED under Federal Law to treat that person even if the person cannot pay for it and has no insurance.

Who do you think pays for it then? You do along with everyone else who pays taxes and has health insurance.

I guess if you are ok with Health Care Freeloaders that's your call - but buck up - be a man and tel those Health Care Freeloaders - ENOUGH - get your own Health Insurance or lay down and die like a man if you get injured, need an ER, and can't pay for it.

Shouldn't you be in the kitchen keeping your mouth shut? I mean, if we are going to revert back to horrible stereotypes of a bygone era.

One mustn't need to be amoral in order to be masculine. True men throughout history have demonstrated compassion for the weak, from Christ to Marcus Aurelius to Henry V. Should I, a retired Marine Corps infantry officer imbued with a lifelong commitment to defending and showing compassion for the weak, grow larger testicles and join your program? I'd just as well join Assad's criminal government.

Since King George was the conservative who owned the transnational East India Company whose tax exempt priveleges the local tea merchants were protesting, the Tea Party protestors and the entire list of founding fathers and the Continental Army were liberal "weak litle trolls?"

Wow, a lot of over sensative men on here. I found her comment funny. Lighten up guys. Thou dost protest too much...

Come on Rob, you dont have a conservative side. Less liberal? Sure.

Removing the compassion from the equation (Conservatives are really good at that) the program is a loser. The Gov can't manage itself and now they get to run healthcare. However, the insurance companies did zero to prove they should continue to run anything. Republicans want it repealed but have NOTHING to offer as a fix. The rich will feel no effect. The middle will pay the price. Good doctors will go private leaving fewer to tend to the middle. The union sheet metal worker ( for example) making $45 K a year with free medical now will be sharing their services with the poor who will move from the ERs to the family practices. Waiting times will definitely increase. Unemployment might also spike. If small businesses are forced to insure people they previously didn't, they will likely layoff enough workers so they don't have to cover them. What's the answer?

Explain yourself. The Constitution could not have been written, as brilliant as it is, to foresee every issue facing the nation almost 300 years later. Is 50 different mandates for 50 states a logical use of everyone's time and tax dollars? How does making health care for Americans a right and not a privilege fly in the face of the constitution?

When Obama was running for election, he addressed the SEIU and said that h is goal was to do away with employer insurance. At the time, I thought that was very arrogant. But as I think about it now, it is a good idea. Make available across state lines just like car insurance. Do not tie it to a job. People always said that the government can force you to buy car insurance, so why not health insurance. So treat them both the same.
Even Judge Roberts said that the mandate was unconstitutional. But he OK';d it as a tax.

Hardly a shredding of the constitution. If republicans had all these great ideas they had ample opportunity to speak up, but decided to pout on the sidelines. People need car insurance not just to protect themselves but to protect others. Same goes with health insurance now.

That is such a laugher, Mike. It seems that the SCOTUS used the Constitution as the basis of their ruling. Or do you mean the "shredding of your opinion" of what the Constitution means>

Every Justice on the SCOTUS has a law degree, including the human cipher Clarence Thomas, so what do they know about the Consitution?

What are your legal credentials Mike? Your membership card in the NRA? Your tri-cornered hat with the tea bag tassels? Or is it your Gadsen flag?

MrsPee! - My extended legal credentials are as follows:
One year of Architectural Eng
Two years Of brown College (Electronics / Programming)
But we are currently still allowed to voice our opinions, I think.....

Mrs Pee- you can't tear apart Thomas without adding Ginsburg and Sotomeyer to the worthless list who believe the constitution evolves.

Orono, the people who wrote the Constitution and the first Justices who interpreted it, notably Chief Justice John Marshall, believed the Constitution evolved:
'The Founding Fathers had wisely worded that document in rather general terms leaving it open to future elaboration to meet changing conditions. As Chief Justice Marshall noted in McCulloch v. Maryland, a constitution that attempted to detail every aspect of its own application "would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. . . . Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves."'
http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx

Joyce, Sorry, but John Marshall and the Framers are as related as you are with reality.

"Joyce, Sorry, but John Marshall and the Framers are as related as you are with reality" - the post in which Orono claims the framers of the Constitution and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who actually knew and spoke with the framers themselves had no clue as to the meaning of the Constitution. Interesting.

Joyce - Thomas Jefferson and John Marshall were opposites. That means they were NOT like each other. Marshall was a Federalist and wanted more and bigger government. Jefferson did not. Seriously, try reading a book or two before pretending you know anything.

Orono, Thomas Jefferson was not one of the framers of the Constitution, nor was he one of the signers - Jefferson was in France when the Constitution was written and signed. John Marshall was the foremost interpreter of the Constitution.

Oh my god. You seriously are going to continue to try and argue this? John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, were the original 7 that started the ball rolling. I think the fine print states that these 7 were originally going to simply give in to England but John Marshall called them all together to state their independence and then begin the process for creating the constitution.

Here is some history for you, Orono:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_history.html

Barbara, you are my hero. Could we make numbers 4 and 5 a prerequisite for all posts of any kind on all blogs?

Agreed. We all should remember we still live in the greatest nation on Earth despite our disagreements and as Americans we should respect everyone's right to free speech.

Barbara, this is truly a wonderful sentiment and should be a great goal to aim for, although there is one major problem. Even if one were to read and inwardly digest the Affordable Health Care Act the fact is that the majority of the everday details of what is to come have yet to be decided and won't be decided for some time. When those decisions are made they will likely be done so by unelected and fairly faceless bureaucrats who are operating at the advice of the industries they are making decisions about. I guess Pelosi was a bit optimistic when she said we'd have to pass it to find out what's in it.

There are many provisions in the ACA that address the cost and quality of health care, including funding for pilot projects like community health centers in under-served areas and additional research into effective treatments.

Molly, you have such a beautiful name. It's a shame that your words are so ugly and hateful. What ever happened to civil discourse?

@Chris... the only comprehensive and clear thought that came through your rant is that you don't like, nor agree with Representative Keith Ellison.

Funny, I can't think of one reason to like Ellison. Ellison screams racism while defending the likes of Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters.

Mitt doesn't seem to be the ideal messenger on this topic.

And the reply to that comment was:

"Ulcerlative Colitis sufferer here. 500$ a month for Asacol HD to keep it in remission. I did the exact same thing."

Mitch McConnell? Yeah, I agree with you on that one.

I think it's Muchelle off the taxpayers Obama

Mooch off the taxpayers Michelle? Oh, I know her, and I'm with you there. 6th District needs to retire Michelle Bachmann. EVERY job she's ever held was taxpayer funded, and she gets welfare farm subsidy payments, not to mention hubby gets Medicaid dollars for his "pray away the gay" therapy clinic. Talk about mooching off the taxpayers . . .

If you're speaking of Michelle Obama then you don't understand how the system works. She doesn't hold an elected office so, sadly for you, her name won't be on the ballot in November. You can't directly vote for or against her. Sorry to disappoint you! But the good news is that Bachmann's name will be on my ballot, and we get a chance to give her the boot through direct vote!

I seriously hope Freedom is not referring to Michelle Obama. If so, it's crude and not the least bit clever or funny....grow up.

You can always get the healthcare you need. Just pay for it!

What does the administration of city of Northfield have to do with today's Supreme Court ruling?

I came here to read opinion on the SC ruling on ACA, not to see somebody's rant about the perceived shortcomings of Northfield, Minnesota.

I'm surprised Eddie, reading your other responses on here, you apparently know everything. Yet, you can't figure out Mark's comment?

Well, if you are on employer-sponsored health insurance then nothing more gets taken from you than what you are paying right now. If you are like me, you actually saved about $5,000 this year on out-of-pocket health care costs. That give me MORE to give to charities, and other deserving causes. In fact, after this discussion on this board, and realizing I was saving so much money, I gave $1,000 to one of my favorite causes this evening. And, after talking it over with my spouse we decided we should give more in the coming months . . .

Hooray for Eddy - he has to come on Northfield patch and announce to the world that he is giving to charities - why don't be a man and just give and not expect to be congratulated for being a good little boy. But if you insist, here is your smiley face :-) to put on your paper.

Nicole,

So sweet of you to give me a star, but I didn't come here for praise. I was making a point about how the new healthcare law actually SAVED me money, and I was able to use some of it to give to a cause of my choosing (responding to Smokin' Joe's comment).

No need to be snarky . . . BTW, I'm posting this from the Stillwater Patch.

Eddy, this healthcare law doesn't even take effect until 2013 so you are lying. You could not have saved one dime yet. So got anymore stories for us, and BTW i am posting from Eden Prairie since we are all sharing now.

Nicole, I am not lying. The mandate to provide health insurance for dependents to age 26 went into effect, and I'm saving over $400 a month because I have two kids under 26 (and past college). Because they are still covered (due to Obamacare law), I am saving over $400 a month in health insurance payments for them (COBRA).

There are many, many families just like mine, and over 6 million young adults have healthcare coverage, without incurring additional cost of insurance, today due to this part of Obamacare.

Don't call me a liar. I never lie about anything.

So you have no job, and your kids are still are on your insurance. Wow, glad my 21 and 23 year old are successful and not dependent on me. Now I must go, I don't feel like having this discussion with a feminist - ED!!!!

Nicole, you have a strange tendency to jump to unsubstantiated conclusions. I was speaking of the kids when I mentioned COBRA (NOT me, I am insured through an employer). I don't know what makes you think I'm a feminist (??). I'm talking about healthcare here, and that's not a feminist issue -- it's a family issue. One kid is in advanced program that doesn't provide health insurance, and the other has employer that does not give health insurance. They are extremely competent and hardworking people, like so many others who don't have access to health insurance these days. This is not unusual, and it's the reason that dependent coverage was extended to age 26 -- there are millions of kids just like mine out there.

Edward -- Nicole has a huge point. Why the pathetic need to share your giving? And the feminist comment is right on.

Yes we have it because we worked long and hard for it and took it upon ourselves to get a good job (probably far from home in some cases) with insurance. Because you won't do that gets no sympathy from me.

Mainstreet - Do you think you could have 'worked long and hard' for your health insurance if you had a disease the didn't allow you keep working? And then you'd lose your health care too?
Just because you were able to work hard and long and receive rewards for it doesn't mean everyone else who doesn't receive rewards didn't work long and hard or are somehow undeserving to receiving anything.

The PPACA does two things. The first part is popular, but the second part is not. Unfortunately, you can't have one without the other.

First it promises "benefits" through taxation and control of medicine and the insurance industry - "insurance coverage" for all, "no pre-existing conditions", etc. This is the stuff that gets all the attention. People like getting benefits.

The second part is the costs. The taxes are only a small part of it. The Big Deal is that to control costs, the government must effectively seize control of the entire healthcare industry through regulation, prohibition, and cost control.

That control means that people like "mainstreet" will not be ALLOWED to provide for themselves. When health care is a "right", then the means to provide it is a "national resource", and "not for sale".

Goodbye markets. Goodbye choice. Goodbye freedom. (and goodbye innovation, good service, and progress)

This is inescapable because once you start giving things away according to someone's idea of "deserving", someone has to decide both who is deserving, and what is to be produced to care for the deserving. Since we have ruled out markets, these decisions get made politically.

Guess what - there is never enough of what you are giving away, and political decisions tend not to be "wise" or "fair". Think about Congress in charge. That's the reality.

Nothing. It's great. Clearly a lot of clueless people here haven't read the legislation that was passed.

There is nothing in this that will reduce costs. Like it or not, if you add benefits that are touted as "free" people will use them. Those of us who pay our own insurance and carry high deductible plans won't be able to continue our current policies. There have already been changes to the high-deductible/HSA policies, or do you actually believe that that $200 of preventative care coverage is really free?
If you're only paying a $100 copay I'd love to work for your boss, a policy like that probably runs 16+K for that typical family of four. I'm my own boss and my deductible is $11500 per person, per year. That's my benefit package for working my tail off and keeping 4 people off the unemployment line. It's also my choice, at least for the moment, because personally I'd rather have the money and make my own decisions about my health.
The first thing that has to happen in order to have a meaningfull discussion about this is that the ludicrous idea that anything is free has to be eliminated. There is no way, absolutely nooo way that 30 million people can be added to the insurance pool without raising costs. Your preventative care is not free, and every $300 that has to get written off that $1000 ER visit is the reason why they bill it at a grand in the first place. They are going to use their coverage. I would too. As a matter of fact, as soon as I'm required to drop the high deductible I'll be taking a vacation and getting my knees replaced. I hear it's free.

Any borderline employer who offers health insurance now, will not in the future because it will be more profitable for them dump their employees on the government. system and pay the fine. Simple math.

Really? Where do you see socialism in this country? If you are referring to health care, the only place you'll find socialist style health care is at the VA and in the military hospitals.

Freedom, how can you be free from government intervention in your healthcare when you are on Medicare? You do know that is a government run, single payor, socialist system, don't you?

How can it be "freedom" when you aren't using the free market healthcare system? Medicare is NOT free market. It is the evil, socialist government system, the same as if you were in Canada or Great Britain. It is government-run healthcare.

This is too funny.

Freedom, I am constantly amazed at how ignorant and lowbrow some on the right can be! Before you go "spouting" ridiculous examples and generalizations, how about you actually read the ACA and see what it might do to improve your situation?

Susan- its amazing that the people who could benefit from democratic leadership most routinely vote against them for various fear, religion, and hate related reasons.

I agree, Tim.

Hahaha...actually made me laugh out loud! The simplicity of your statements say more about you than any words you could write, or rant. Have a good evening Freedom, you have been entertaining.

Dear Freedom, I feel sorry for you, because you seem to be absolutely clueless!

I just wonder, how anybody with so little knowledge in economy and business can be self employed. Is it, because no reputable employer will hire you?

Please refrain from personal attacks. This goes for everyone.

Susan, if you were even half as smart as you think you are.....

Health care or health insurance is a human right?

Please explain what makes Health Care or Health Insurance a "right".

"Where does the financial help to offset the cost" come from? Oh, that would be from the taxpayers, right?

Candace, are you aware that the government is already subsidizing the cost of insurance for every single person who gets insured through an employer? Premiums are deducted from income BEFORE taxes, meaning people with employer health coverage are getting big tax subsidies from the government; in fact, the higher your income, the higher your tax rate, the more of a subsidy you get.

Joyce - WRONG - not every employer does that. It actually costs employers money to set it up for their employees. I would have to pay someone to manage the pre tax health care accounts. For smaller employers like me, it is a price not worth paying. Also, some accounts are capped by a specific dollar amount. This would make it fair for everyone.

That would be one way to get you a decent health coverage, However, you could do like I and work for one of the biggest companies around and still get a very good health coverage.

But again, with 10 K deductible I would call it not really a health insurance but rather a catastrophic coverage. But thanks to Obamacare you will have a better and cheaper insurance in the future!

Freedom, Hudsoner is right! I think you will be pleasantly surprised to see that you may now be able to afford better insurance under the ACA...but I suppose you ignore what might be better, so you can stand by your principles and boycott anything this President has done that might make your life just a little bit better?

"Freedom", are you referring to public sector workers line the fire fighters who are currently trying to control the massive wild fire in Colorado? Perhaps you mean the policemen on the beat, or the EMTs performing CPR on the guy with the heart attack or the soldiers protecting your freedom.
As for buying your own health insurance, that's fine if you can afford it, but what should people with lower incomes or with preexisting conditions do? I have a history of both heart disease and cancer - do you think any insurance company would be willing to cover me? Fortunately I get insurance through my employer - employer based insurance companies are required - by the government, no less - to cover preexisting conditions in exchange for tax breaks.
And, speaking of employer based coverage, perhaps you are not aware that the premiums are deducted from income BEFORE taxes, meaning people with employer health coverage are getting big tax subsidies from the government; in fact, the higher your income, the higher your tax rate, the more of a subsidy you get.

I agree that a ton of misinformation is being spewed here and, well, every where. However, hudsoner, Susie, Joyce and Edward are spewing the same ill informed crap just from the liberal perspective. The CBO has been revising the cost of this program for 2 years. What started as a $900 million cost, has grown to nearly 3 trillion. Someone is paying for it. To pretend that all of this is going to magically happen with out effecting your pocketbook is simply stupid. I know liberals don't have common sense and republicans make up facts but surely logic should at least tell you there's is no free lunch, someone is paying for it and we are all likely in trouble if it is the government that is running this show. So, Susie and Hudson how about you also shut up.

You are incorrect about the cost of the law, Orono:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/politifact-romney-claim-that-health-care-law-adds-trillions-to-debt-is/1237960

Joyce - I know I am correct. So, answer this then. How is it NOT going to effect your pocket book? Remove your nausiating, holier than thou, liberal spin from your rhetoric and tell me.

Orono asks how will the ACA affect my pocket book? (I'll ignore Orono's ad hominem comments.) I currently get health insurance through my employer, and in about 5 years I'll be eligible for Medicare, so the main effect will be this: my premiums will no longer be increased to cover care for people who lack insurance and lack the means to pay for care.

Joyce, because everyone will be covered, including everyone who will get it free, your premiums will not raise. It is actually cute how naive you are.

Orono, try looking up "risk pool" - when you expand the risk pool to include people less likely to need hospitalization or medications, you lower the cost for those who will need it. That is how insurance works.

"Orono, try looking up "risk pool" - when you expand the risk pool to include people less likely to need hospitalization or medications, you lower the cost for those who will need it. That is how insurance works."

Actually Joyce, your statement here is correct. What you're not factoring in is by forcing insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions the risk pool is more likely to need services requiring an actuarial adjustment which will raise premiums. There is simply no way around this. To think otherwise is Utopian and unrealistic.

Joyce - expanding the risk pool means also accepting those that were previously uninsurable. Those with preexisting conditions and those that were being taken care of by the government. Instead of running up even more debt by paying for the uninsured, the government will be charging you. Clearly you have never run a business or even a budget center. If the insurance company finds itself having to pay more to cover more, they will charge more. Your premiums will go up - sorry. On the bright side, you can now start telling fat people to stop feeding there face. Their gluttony is your money.

Orono, you seem to be unaware that anyone who has health insurance is already paying for the uninsured through higher premiums; by requiring everyone to have insurance, the ACA will make sure that we don't have to pay for "deadbeats" - I thought Republicans and Libertarians wanted everyone to pay his or her fair share.
The whole point of justifying the mandate under the commerce clause is this: someone who chooses not to have health insurance will, of necessity, use the health care system at some point, and that person's decision not to have insurance will cost everyone who does have insurance.

Joyce - You can spin around this until your dizzy it still doesn’t make you correct. Insurance COMPANIES are not paying a dime for those that are uninsured. Hence the term UNINSURED. The government is paying for them. The taxes you pay went to pay the interest on the debt owed to China, who we borrowed from to pay the hospitals who provided the care. Your premium you pay at work didnt cover those previously uninsured now it will. Hello, higher premiums. Your Park Nicollet doctor that previously never handled those patients without insurance because they went to the ER now will have to also try to fit the uninsured into their already booked practice schedule. Hello longer waiting. Instead of repeatedly telling us how nothing will change, maybe just argue that now people who don’t have coverage will. You can’t refute that.

Orono - that is false. The Minnesota Hospital Association says exactly the opposite. Minnesota hospitals currently pay hundreds of millions of dollars to cover uncompensated care. This cost is covered by increasing the prices of medical services. Currently, 11.6% of operating expenses at MN hospitals goes to subsidizing free and reduced price services. Everyone who buys insurance pays part of this cost whether they pay taxes or not.

http://www.startribune.com/business/137453503.html

Collin - It simply isn’t true. The insurance company anticipates the fees based on their pool of patients already taking into count the mark up from the hospital. That is why your premiums continue to rise. The money that the government used to cover for the uninsured patient is now the responsibility of the insurance company. Adding expensive new patients to the pool will only increase their out of pocket cost which increases your premium. I don’t care if you believe me or not.

However, if you like being misinformed, love to throw the word racism out two or three times a week, wanna believe there truly is a “war on women”, think there is nothing wrong with calling the tea party something derogatory, that capitalism is evil, that rich people suck, that republicans hate everyone, and still believe blaming Bush is the answer, Mrs Peel will be accepting applications through out the week.

@ Orono: I know you aren't an official operative for the Republican party because you keep repeating the left's sound bites, thereby reinforcing their agenda. It's funny how the tables have turned so quickly, and how the left now controls the dialogue.. The left used to repeat the right's sound bites and semantics, thereby reinforcing the right's talking points, but somehow they got smart to that and learned from the right and started creating their own political semantics which are now very effective. What goes around comes around, I guess.

Blaming Bush? I haven't yet seen anyone answer the question about Medicare Part D. Bush implemented that program, which is adding trillions to the deficit going forward, with NO funding mechanism for it. There's a lot of outrage about the Affordable Care Act (ACA), but ACA actually has some funding mechanisms (the mandate and penalty for those who don't participate, for example, and larger pools to spread the risk and costs) included in the bill. Why wasn't the right outraged about Medicare Part D, created by and passed by conservatives/Bush admin?

I love the TEA party, especially Michele Bachmann, the face of that group. The more extreme right she is, the better, in my opinion, because she helps to divide the Republican party. Divide and conquer is always a good strategy (in this case it works for the Dems).

BTW, rich people don't suck, unless they are the Wall Street crooks or Ponzi schemers. Jim Graves is great!

Come on Edward. Please stop trying to prove yourself on here. You've already given us way more information than we want or need about your personal life. You brought your kids into this discussion yet when someone questions you on it, you get all defensive. No one truly cares that your kids are on your plan still. Why you felt the need to disclose that, is 100% on you. If you can’t have a discussion without taking everything literally and seriously, stop posting.

That said, if you haven’t been aware that the liberals control the message and always have, you simply haven’t been paying attention. To be a liberal used to mean you were tolerant of all people and ideas. Now, if you happen to disagree with a liberal you are labeled a hater. You disagree with the president and you are a racist. Instead of repeating the silly rhetoric your party produced, you should ask yourself if you truly believe it. Is it possible to actually not like the president simply because you disagree with him? You hate Bush. If you are black, does that then make you a racist too? Obviously not.

Bush sucked. I would never stick up for him. Rip him all you want. But, your inability to move on from him tells me a lot. Pointing out Bachmann is like me pointing out Maxine Waters, or Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid. Bush is the past. You still blaming Bush today makes as much sense as me blaming Clinton for not taking out Bin Laden and then ultimately causing 9/11?

Seriously Edward, you need to get your agenda right. Highlighting some immoral wall street crooks and hating all of wall street because of it or calling out one or two crooked CEOs as proof that capitalism is bad is so juvenile. Most of those crooks you despise were democrats. Check your party roster. Rich people are typically democrats. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Mark Dayton, Mattoff, Petters... all liberals.

But, since Graves is a liberal and rich, you will like him. Wow, that is some strong convictions there. Your kids would be proud. Let me guess, John Edwards was just misunderstood?

Scott, the wealth of any legislator is not the issue; what matters is whether that legislator stands up for the non-wealthy 99% of us, or whether that legislator screws the middle class and the poor for the benefit of the wealthy.

“what matters is whether that legislator stands up for the non-wealthy 99% of us, or whether that legislator screws the middle class and the poor for the benefit of the wealthy”

Joyce, For someone as informed on everything as you pretend to be, I am really surprised to hear your utopian and extremely naïve response. If you believe politicians care about anything other than getting re-elected, then you haven’t been paying attention. Obama gives amnesty to illegals right before an election because he truly, all of a sudden, feels badly for them? Obama doesn’t believe in gay marriage but now suddenly does right before an election? Mark Dayton truly feels that daycare providers should be unionized and it has nothing to do with unions being his largest supporter? Everyone has their own agenda. You clearly love hand outs and have an issue with those more successful than you. You only support candidates who do the same.

Joyce - what is your definition of wealthy?

Orono, my definition of "wealthy" is being in the top 1%.
As for your other comment, yes, some politicians do, in fact, stand up for the poor and the middle class even in the face of strong opposition and even when it will cost them votes; when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 he knew he was losing the south for the Democratic party for generations, yet it signed those acts anyway, because he knew it was the right thing to do.
Obama NEVER gave amnesty to any undocumented immigrants; in his role as head of the executive branch of government he made a decision not to prosecute undocumented immigrants who were brought here before the age of 16 and who had completed school and committed no crimes - that is completely different from amnesty, it is, rather, prosecutorial discretion, something which is practiced all the time.
As for Obama and same sex marriage, he stated why is opinion changed - it is because he has come to know same sex couples. That, too, was a politically risky position to take, one that probably lost him more votes than he might have gained; the less risky position would have been to make that statement after the election.
Do you really think a daycare provider union would have lots of money to donate to the Dayton campaign? Seriously?
Honestly, hard as it may be for you to believe, some people do the right thing for the right reasons.

Joyce, seriously, clearly I have no idea who you are, but your desire to be specific and correct everything must drive your spouse/ex-spouse absolutely batty. You want to argue the term amnesty? I will call it TEMPORARY amnesty. If your side wants to spin it differently, go for it but if the shoe fits... The fact that Obama chose to do this now, is simply a coincidence, right? Both sides play it. Issa and his contempt charge – partly just a game. Pelosi and the other liberals who walked out of the contempt vote – definitely playing a game. The fact you could only come up with LBJ proves my point (but, I’m sure you’ll argue that).

By the way, I think Wellstone was the last principled congressman.

The ACA does not involve any "state control of the health insurance industry", merely regulation of the industry. Perhaps you would prefer no regulation - pay your premiums every month, then get kicked off the rolls when you are diagnosed with an expensive illness, for example.

Try calling him the President of the United States; that, after all, is what he is.

Well said, mike. I believe that you have accurately described why some on the right (NOT ALL) find this president so objectionable. I don't see any name that Kevin listed as anything more than an attempt to slander President Obama....it seems to be a pattern here with those who might call themselves Conservatives. Why can't they argue specific points about the ACA? Why do they choose to attach others here or the President with silly, slanderous words? Why is it that they can not argue their position without taking immature shots?

Mike, I believe you are the real racist here. Your description of the President as an "intelligent" black man is pathetic. Believe it or not but there are educated blacks everywhere. Some racists hate blacks simply because they are black. Others, are actually impressed when one of them gets themselves an education.

"There will still be more discussion on this, it is not final."

Wishful thinking. SCOTUS is the highest court in the land. That's as final as it gets.

"Romney received an addition $3 million on the same day that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of this. Kind of shows how many people really don't want this."

How much did Obama raise yesterday? Just sayin'. Some people really DID want this.

Poll: Half of All Americans Believe That Republicans Are Deliberately Stalling Efforts to Better the Economy in Order to Bolster Their Chances of Defeating President Barack Obama.

http://freakoutnation.com/2012/06/12/poll-concludes-that-voters-arent-stupid-almost-half-know-republicans-are-sabotaging-the-economy/

Republicans need to change their strategy. Supporting Health Care Reform Act would be a start . . .

Actually, Donna, they did "read it before they voted on it"; I assume you are referring to that snippet of a quotation from Nancy Pelosi, taken out of context. If you read the transcript of her remarks you would realize that she was referring to the people protesting the bill, the ones carrying signs about "death panels" - Pelosi was stating that, once the law was passed and those protesters found out how it would actually affect their lives, they would like it.

@Donna... apparently you don't think that a vote of 5-4 by the SCOTUS not good enough?

You might recall that the SCOTUS voted 5-4 to seat the person who received the lower number of votes as President in 2000? Perhaps that was an illegitimate decision?

This is correct. These people are ranting about what is essentially a recycled Republican healthcare plan . . . go figure. It doesn't come close to socialist as it puts all the power (and money) into private sector insurance companies.

News flash, when a person reaches 65 years old enrollment in Medicare is mandatory. Additionally if you try to delay your enrollment you are penalized with increased premium prices when you do. It is also mandatory that you pay for Medicare part B. this is whether you are working or not. Additionally, you find it hard to impossible to keep your private insurance. Bottom line you have lost your ability to manage your own health care by force of government.

Candace, News Falsh, you can defer enrollment in Medicare, no matter how old you are, if you can prove that you have health insurance through a third party, you DO NOT have to pay for Part B. You can continue your normal insurance if you wish. Once you cancel this insurance, you have a short time to join Medicare without having to pay a penalty!
Don't tell me that this is not true, because I am in this position for more than 4 years now!

As always, it would be great if your right wingers would educate yourself properly prior to making big but false statements!

"setting a precedent for the government mandating the things that citizens need to have"

It doesn't set any precedents. Social security and Medicare is the "government mandating the things citizens need to have" too. Are you against those as well?

Should we kick all the old people off of government funded and run healthcare (Medicare)? Do you think they can go out and buy affordable insurance (never mind that most insurance companies would never take them due to pre-existing conditions?)

Be careful when you speak in sweeping statements and generalities.

"Our bodies are made to fight infections."

Yes, but often they fail to do it well. Before penicillin and other antibiotic drugs, millions died from infections. There's a reason we have medical science and healthcare: It works to heal bodies, and even the fittest ones are prone to illness and severe injury.

Shay, most people don't run to the doctor for colds, flu, fever, etc, even when all healthcare costs are covered by insurance. Yes, going to the gym certainly improves your health, but it certainly doesn't change your DNA. Fit people still have heart conditions, nervous system problems, brain impairments, premature bone density issues, loss of hearing and sight, and so on. Believe it or not, they also get into car accidents, fall down stairs, get mugged, and have children who can get themselves into all kinds of trouble. People who face these unfortunate circumstances and are not financially secure deserve quality healthcare just as much those with money. Healthcare is the #1 cause of bankruptcy in this country, and everyone who is not a multimillionaire is in danger of that fate, financial ruin because of tragedy or any number of health issues after you are deemed too expensive by your insurance company. Gym membership not going to help in most situations.

ShayC, you write: Our bodies are made to fight of infections.
Wow, you must be a medical expert to know this secret! How come that we, who made our income with research on this (I did that for most of my working life, Working in Infection Control and Prevention Research) did not discover this? If we would have only known, we could have used our time for other things!

Please sign and have notorized a health care directive refusing all care unless you are conscious and able to afford it.

The problem is that too many people do not go into the clinic for every little thing and then allow the little thing to grow into a major health issue that becomes very expensive to deal with. Lower cost innsurance plans with high deductibles and high co-pays add to this problem. Those without insurance use the ER as their health provider, a very costly source, that substantially adds to the overall health costs, tens of $Billions a year, which everyone else has to pay for in higher insurance premiums. The ACA will subsantially reduce this cost by eventually eliminating all the free-loaders that use the ER.

Wow, do you ever need to learn some history, especially the history of medicine! Before the era of antibiotics and immunizations people died of infectious diseases in large numbers, especially children. A simple scratch or cut on the arm, if it got infected, could require amputation because there was no other way to prevent septicemia. Complications of pregnancy and childbirth were major causes of death among women. Before we had early detection of high blood pressure and medications to treat the condition (much of which is congenital - my Dad was an athlete and he had high blood pressure) people with high blood pressure died of strokes and congestive heart failure. Seriously.

"And I'm sorry, but 40 years ago- hell even 20 years ago we didn't have the health issues that we do today. Its because people are lazy! "

It's mostly because people are living longer -- a lot longer. Life expectancy for a man in the US was 47.9 years in 1900. It is now somewhere north of 77 years. You can thank medicine for most of that (not healthier lifestyle). Antibiotics, vaccines (huge -- you are probably here today because of these), treatments for cancer and heart disease, and better nutrition all count for why we routinely live past age 50 these days. Most people used to die before they needed treatment for major chronic diseases.

In the 1800's and early 1900's if you got sick you just took to your bed and died if that was "God's will." Childbirth was very risky -- many women died. Infant mortality was much, much higher (no neonatal intensive care units back then). Nowdays we have options that can keep us going, productively, for much longer. Is it in the best interest of society to ration those options based solely on ability to pay?

That's the dilemma we face. Do we withhold medical care from the child because the family is poor? And who pays for it, and how, if we decide to give treatment to those who refuse to buy insurance (even though they can afford it)?

This act attempts to resolve those issues. It's not perfect, but it should result in lower costs for all of us, and earlier intervention to improve health outcomes.

Edward, where did you come up with the "this act should result in lower costs for all of us" Every article I have read states that overall taxes will go up, premiums will go up and there are small minorities that will be rewarded by some increased competition between states. These new laws require insurance companies to increase their benefits. This is obviously going to increase their costs and thus our costs.

Chad, you clearly do not understand how insurance works. Prices will go up only if insurers are required to cover people with preexisting conditions without the mandate - the mandate prevents people from gaming the system by waiting until they get sick or injured to buy insurance. One way the ACA saves money is by increasing the risk pool to include everyone, the healthy as well as the sick, the young, who are less likely to need care, and the elderly, who need the most expensive care (which, by the way, is one of the reasons Medicare spends so much - it covers ONLY the elderly). Increase the risk pool so everyone is paying into the system and you spread the cost among more people. That isn't socialism, by the way, that is how the free market insurance companies stay profitable.

Joyce, thanks for pointing our the obvious. I'm not sure I should take the time to respond because from a quick glance I can tell your just a liberal troll who doesn't fully comprehend the depth of this bill and is neck deep in the lala land. I will try to spell it out for you real quick;
Yes, individual mandate will create revenue and will help to offset some costs.
Here are some things that will increase costs, govt regulation, govt employees, increased benefit requirement, uncapped insurance plans requirement. Please take your silly little arguments and actually read some article not on liberal blog and find some real knowledge. Here is a quick fact from the CBO:

CBO found that premiums in the individual market will rise by 10% to 13% more than before ObamaCare. Family policies under the status quo are projected to cost $13,100 on average, but under ObamaCare will jump to $15,200.

Come on Chad, if you aren't aware that Joyce knows everything which makes you automatically wrong, then you haven't been paying attention.

'The CBO found health-care reform would reduce premiums. The issue gets confused because it also found that access to subsidies would encourage people to buy more comprehensive insurance, which would mean that the value of their insurance would be higher after reform than before it. But that's not the same as insurance becoming more expensive: The fact that I could buy a nicer car after getting a better job suggests that cars are becoming pricier. The bottom line is that if you're comparing two plans that are exactly the same, costs go down after reform.'
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/did_the_congressional_budget_o_1.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/new-economy/2010/0318/CBO-score-says-healthcare-will-cost-940-billion.-What-will-it-cost-you
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/newsrelease/facts-about-cbo-report-health-insurance-premiums-under-us-senate-health-reform-bill-hr-3

Joyce, your sources you listed are all out dated.

Sign the pledge not to take medicare or social security payments if they are so offensive to you.

Savick, that is honestly the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Medicare and Social Security are paid for by the user. The only problem with both plans is the govt not having the balls to limit them to what the system is capable of handling. This is why Social Security should become partially a private account that each person has. You would then be able to pass on left over funds to whoever you choose. Benefit levels would be determined by what you paid in. We could have a small safety net but really it is unnecessary with all of the other programs available for low income people. For Medicare the retirement age needs to be raised and Medicare needs to be completely dismantled in terms of payments. Did you know there was 68 Billion in Medicare fraud in 2010? (Not positive on the year but I believe it was 2010)

You want to increase the retirement age, Chad? That might work for people with desk jobs, but how about construction workers, road workers, nurses - I'm just picturing a 70-year-old nurse racing down the hall to an emergency with her walker; maybe nurses should have wheels on their walkers!
As for privatizing social security - yeah, that'll work, especially when the economy tanks and the stock market plummets leaving the elderly with no income. But, on the plus side, the wall street execs would make a bundle.

News flash Joyce, if the economy tanks like you state, your government pension which invests in that evil stock market, will crumble right along with it.

Don't you carry any health insurance? If yes, i am of those who pay for your doctor visits, etc. Insurance is based on the solidarity of the insured ! On the other hand, you pay for mine! (that is kind of an socialist idea, isn't it?).

According to Ed we are already paying for his unsuccessful adult childrens healthcare.

The issue is broader than the payer of health care. In a society, all can be impacted by the health of others, such as in the transfer of a communicable disease. If too many citizens do not have sufficient health care, then the broader community can be negatively impacted. It is very much a role of government to address the stability of its citizenry, and that does include the health of the community.

It is not simply a matter of paying for health care; it is a matter of working to improve the health of the broader community.

If you knew my kids you wouldn't call them "unsuccessful". Both have already received more accolades than most people receive in a lifetime . . .

Another thing: You aren't paying for my kid's healthcare. They are covered by private insurance.

According to "Libby" (Liberals=Handout and Edward Henry), we must shorten each others name in an immature attempt to somehow minimize the validity of other's arguments.

Conservative Supreme court Justice Roberts said it was constitutional. You are better informed than he is?

Hi Shay - I hate to break this to you but you already pay for health care of everyone who shows up at the ER, must be treated by law and then can't pay :)

Of course you are choosing to use the very most expensive method of providing health care possible which is a horrible decision from a Fiscal Conservative point of view.

"Insurance is based on the solidarity of the insured !"

Not exactly.

Insurance is based on a pool of insured and the risk is assessed by an actuary whereby the insurers can determine how to price the premium. If a large number of people in the pool are already sick (pre-existing conditions) what do you think will happen to premiums?

The false notion that government can wave a magic wand and require insurance companies to insure the essentially un-insurable without raising prices is a canard.

Market principles apply whether you like it or not. Premiums WILL go up or quality of care WILL be compromised or worse. Rationing is a distinct possibility. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Granny might be told she's too old to get that knee replacement.

The interesting thing about the individual mandate being upheld is the majority viewed it as a tax. Exactly the opposite of what Obama sold it to the people as. This sets a scary precedent allowing the federal government to tax at will. What will they tax next? Be careful what you wish for.

Renee, did you change your name to Edward?

@ShayC... perhaps you missed the pronouncement from the SCOTUS. The opiinion said that, with a couple of changes, the ACA was Constitutional. Perhaps you, with your little pocked copy of the Constitution smarter than the nine (9) Supreme Court Justices?

You are indeed entitled to both your opinion and the freedom to spew your ignorant comments. But you, as Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynahan said, "are not entitled to your own facts. Saying that something is "unconstitutional" does not make it so.

Shay, Is it also not my job to pay for freeways in the North Metro because I never use them. Should my state tax and gasoline tax dollars be used to pay for a highway in southern MN because I never use it? Should you pay for rebuilding the 169/494 interchange if you never plan on using it? I don't use the fire department, so it's not my job to pay for them to put out my neighbor's house fire? What kind of world do you want to live in?

"Renee, did you change your name to Edward?"

I got tired of posting on wife's computer under her name after posters called me honey, sweetheart, etc. Gave me an appreciation for how others degrade women. Apparently sexism is alive and well on the internet. When I switched my name I was treated with more respect while expressing the same ideas.

Eddie-- you already shared that they are on your plan

MrsPeel wrote: @ShayC... perhaps you missed the pronouncement from the SCOTUS. The opiinion said that, with a couple of changes, the ACA was Constitutional. Perhaps you, with your little pocked copy of the Constitution smarter than the nine (9) Supreme Court Justices?

I would agree with you. ShayC is only smarter than 5 of the Justices.

"And Susan this is were the left is wrong because they don't take care of themselves because they are so selfish!"

A sweeping generalization. I know a ton of "the left" who exercise daily. Some are vegetarians. Very healthy people. Careful about painting a whole group with a broad brush. I know a lot of fat Republicans (Tony Sutton comes to mind, and that guy in New Jersey. Christie?).

Actually Susan, I would argue that we haven’t paid for them YET. If you recall, we have a huge deficit. I think China picked up the cost of those folks.

And why shall that be? Will it cause our doctors loose their knowledge? Our hospitals to crumble, or is it because I am retired now? (if you ever had surgery, it is very likely that one of my products helped to prevent a wound infection).

Or do you feel that insurance companies reduce the allowed treatment quality? if yes, this would be profiteering by private industries, but the ACA has some provisions against this!

Well - we can look at other countries who have Universal Health Care - they have better outcomes, spend less per person, cover everyone and live longer, have lower infant mortality rates, the list goes on and on.

A 25 year old man was denied insurance coverage for a necesssary surgery because the insurance company used the preexisting conditons ruse. He was denied Minnesota Care because his former employer checked that he had insurance. ( He was at the end of the contract and using paid leave.) The surgery was necessary to correct a condition he had no fault in creating and was necessary to reduce a disability that interfered with working in the next job. He became medically indigent and the community i.e. us taxpayers payed for the surgery. He had insurance and he couldn't buy any other insurance. The insurance company socialized the risk. Obamacares will prohibit that.

"Dearest Freedom" - one of my adult children, a woman with a Master's Degree, works two part time jobs with no benefits and she cannot get health insurance because of a preexisting condition; if she lived in Minnesota, she could get MNCare, but she lives in another state. Most states do not have anything equivalent to MNCare, so for most Americans right now, unless you get insurance through an employer or you are poor enough to qualify for Medicaid, old enough to qualify for Medicare or rich enough to pay for your own health insurance or health care, you are out of luck if you get sick or injured. My daughter, by the way, has never smoked, and she runs, cycles and works out in a gym daily.
"Get out and work"? Seriously? There are 4 people for every available job, and many of those jobs are part time and do not offer benefits.

"There are 4 people for every available job"

Don't worry. Obama will create some more government jobs as soon as he's re-elected.

Markus, you write:"Don't worry. Obama will create some more government jobs as soon as he's re-elected."

Those jobs may be bitterly needed to create an adult education system to provide poorly educated people like yourself some decent education, to enable you to read and understand the ACA.

Hudsoner,

First of all, I am well educated, fairly articulate and understand the ACA pretty well. I took Joyce's little test and got 10 out of 10 for whatever that's worth. I think she thought us dumb right wingers wouldn't be able to pass it.

I don't play politics and I don't trade insults. I'm happy to have an intelligent rapport with those willing to.

Why don't you reply to the above post about the "solidarity of the insured" rather than delete your original post I called you out on? Please quote your original post when replying.

Patch, I apologize in advance, and I am sure I will get deleted, but I can not believe how ignorant and stupid this last comment is!

Republican are are always borrowing and spending. Major deficts were result of Reagan & Bush borrowing. Clinton's budget had a surplus. Bush borrowed to pay for two wars off budget and prescripotion drug converage. Borrowing that you don't intend to pay back is either a "handout" or theft. Pawlenty borrowed from schools to avild paying for his budget. Borrow and spend is a tax in the end. Now htey are deficit hawks?

Selectively pro-life?

Wow, that's a new one from the right.

You must be a Harvard grad with logic like that...

Being critical of someone's statement is fine. Name-calling of the person themselves (and their children ... ahem) is what will swiftly kill any constructive conversation. And while I'm not even totally sure I understand "Liberals=Handout"'s comment, it would be safe to say that if you see someone making an outrageous statement just to raise hackles, please consider ignoring it.

Danielle, you are right, thanks for the reminder.

Candace, are you saying you are in favor of dismantling the Social Security and Medicare systems to end the payroll contributions for those?

Candace, do you really believe that repeating a false statement every hour makes it to be finally true? An hour ago I answered your identical statement:

Candace, News Falsh, you can defer enrollment in Medicare, no matter how old you are, if you can prove that you have health insurance through a third party, you DO NOT have to pay for Part B. You can continue your normal insurance if you wish. Once you cancel this insurance, you have a short time to join Medicare without having to pay a penalty!
Don't tell me that this is not true, because I am in this position for more than 4 years now!

As always, it would be great if your right wingers would educate yourself properly prior to making big but false statements!

Hudsoner, Direct quote from Welcome to Medicare handbook, "Warning: If you don't keep Part B when you are first eligible, you may have to wait until the General Enrollment Period (January1-March 31 each year) to sign up, and your coverage would start July 1 of that year. You may also have to pay a Part B enrollment penalty. If you have insurance you may be able delay joining Part B. Contact your employer or union benefits administrator to find out how your insurance works with Medicare. You May be required to join Part B. If you sign up for Part B later, you will pay 10% more for each full 12 month period you could have had Part B but didn't take it. You may have to pay this late enrollment penalty as long as you have Part B." Good for you that you have been able to take advantage of the third party insurance loop hole in the enrollment penalty rules. Not everyone can. Divorced, widowed people for example. Often these same people have a very hard time surviving on their Social Security benefits of say $760 a month before taxes and having the current payment for Part B deducted. How many people do you think can manage to live $700 a month? Real numbers real case.

Candace, and how would these people pay for health insurance is Medicare would not be existing? All people eligible for Medicare are 65 and older or have such disabilities that they cannot work anymore! Would you recommend that those people live without health insurance? Those people could not even dream about getting an individual private insurance,

Can you tell me, which point you are trying to make?

We could, of course try to establish a system like the European countries have, in which retired people that live solely on Social Security need not to pay for their health insurance, the society picks up their cost!

I know that the Far Right is freaking out over non-existent voter fraud (I am waiting to hear their outrage for how many votes always get changed on a recount - doesn't that mean that all of those changed votes were improperly counted for a candidate?) but yes, I agree rather than the care factor for Voter ID, I think we would be better served by asking people to provide a brief statement of the difference between Fiscal vs. Monetary Policy, or What are the Three Branches of Government, or a few other questions that show that they actually have a clue about even the most basic aspects of our government and what these politicians are actually talking about when they speak.

And - I want every one who runs for office to have to pass a basic economics course, course on history and course on government.

"And - I want every one who runs for office to have to pass a basic economics course, course on history and course on government."

And to have held a real job in the private sector first!

Thanks John, it's interesting to note that this mess got a huge boost through a government intrusion into the private market. As much as it kills my libertarian soul to say this, it seems like single payer may be the only way to resolve this fiasco. If the government is going to run this, then they should run it, period. They've corrupted the process so far through loopholes, credits, disallows, and deductions that nobody knows what anything costs anymore. Ever try to be an informed consumer and try to find out what a procedure is really going to cost? Another Pelosi moment in the making as you pretty much have to have it done and wait for the bill. At the very least portability and the elimination of disallows would add some transparency. Let the taxpayers cover the costs as we are used to doing already and let the insurance companies die the death they deserve.

Actually IMHO the Insurance Industry is the Real Free Market at its best. The Real Free Market is very different than the Free Market because in the Real Free Market we have lobbyists from industry who spend a huge amount of money and time each year to get government to enact laws, rules, regulations, etc... to essentially remove those industries from having to really be in a Free Market (which of course no company really wants because the Free Market is brutal - its much better to get government to put in barriers that allows you to make money, limit competition, limit disclosure, etc..).

Honey, you have have some serious masculine features going there - how did you do that?

So, what is your comment on the Medicare Part D program that was passed under Republican Majorities and a Republican White House?

That is Massive Spending which is completely unfunded.

I have yet to hear any Repeal Outrage over Medicare Part D.

Again, it spends hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars with no funding source at all.

The only explanation I can see is that Conservatives don't really care about spending (because if they did they would Repeal Medicare Part D).

But, rather, while massive spending is fine, they just don't want to pay the bill.

If you would have read the judgement explanation, you would not write comments like this. The tax mentioned in the judgement deals with the fee (called therein a tax) for those who refuse to join an insurance program.

Educate yourself properly prior to partaking in a serious debate!

I hate it when you are right.

I hate that this passed. I hate everything about this bill. But I also hate the republican congress talking about how they want to only repeal the law with nothing better to offer. How does that campaign promise from the republicans go? “Vote for me, I will repeal the ACA and bring us back to the screwed up crap we had originally." The liberals passed this crap, behind closed doors, in secret, in about 10 minutes. Surely the republicans, or anyone could come up with something better. Until they do, they should shut up. I won’t hold my breath.

The Republicans did come up with a plan, back in the '90s - it is virtually identical to the ACA.

Joyce - Do you not get the attention and love you desire at home? Why the need to insert your two cents into every single point on here?

Since you love to be exactly correct, it was the Heritage Foundation that devised a plan because they were tired of having their tax dollars spent on other people’s health issues. Yes, the same ultra conservative group that is screaming about it today.

The Defense Industry (The Military Industrial Complex) will piss away $940 Billion over the next 10 years and not a whimper will come from the TEAPublicans.

President G. W. Bush pissed away more than than on he great adventure of invading Iraq based on a series of lies. Do we hear the TEAPublican/Randians/Libertarians whining about that?

These are the people whose "Demi-god Ronald Reagan" tripled the National Debt on his watch. Did they squeal and whine? Nope, they put it on the credit card.

These are the people whose President Bush the Lesser was selected by the SCOTUS doubled the National Debt on his watch. Did they piss and moan? Nope, the Debt Limit was raised 8 times without a problem.

The feigned indignation of these factually deprived individuals is so incredibly misplaced as to be bordering on the ludicrous.

I have yet to read from one of the "bootstrapper" that they will no longer use a public library, drive on a public street, road, or highway, that they will not call the police or fire department if they need assistance, that they will not use a public boat launch, nor have a picnic in a public park. Nor have I heard any of them say that they would not hunt deer on public land where the herd is managed by the DNR. Nor have I heard any of them say that they would not fish in lakes that have stocked by the DNR. I haven't heard any of them say that they don't want their streets and highways plowed when the snows come.

Drake, you are looking only at the costs of running the program, not the savings - according to the non-partisan CBO, the ACA will save the government quite a lot of money and will reduce, not increase the deficit.

Actually Mrs Peel, I hear it all the time. The difference between you and those with common sense is that we all understand how bad Bush was and we don’t need to keep blaming him for everything still today.

Obama inherited Bush. Reagan inherited Carter. The difference is that Reagan and his debt improved the country. Obama and his debt has hurt the country.

Who is arguing that we don’t need government at all? LESS government, not NO government.

Finally, I know how good you are giving advice... Do you even know what a libertarian is? Obviously, no.

"Do we hear the TEAPublican/Randians/Libertarians whining about that?"

Yes actually you do. At least the Libertarians and Anarcho-Capitalists are.

Ah, the myth of the overpaid public employee rears its ugly head; in fact, when variables such as level of education and experience are accounted for, public employees earn LESS than they private sector counterparts. One of the reasons public sector workers are paid less is because they traded lower pay for better benefits.

Joyce, do you ever get tired from all the pretending you're doing? Show me your facts. In similar jobs, the public employee makes more than the private sector employee. Your benefits are counted as part of your compensation package. Please try to keep up.

Here you go, Orono:
'Benefits make up a slightly larger share of compensation for the state and local sector. But even after accounting for the value of retirement, healthcare, and other benefits, state and local employees earn less than private sector counterparts. On average, total compensation is 6.8% lower for state employees and 7.4% lower for local employees than for comparable private sector employees.'
http://www.nirsonline.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=395&Itemid=48
And:
http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/28/news/economy/public_workers_earn_less/index.htm

Joyce - Did your internet stop working in 2010? What is with all the really old reference points?

@matt: you have to look at the facts about who is uninsured in this country. The poor and the rich are covered. It's like going to college -- the poor don't pay (they get the financial aid, grants, etc) and the rich don't flinch at paying the price because it is very little to them.

Likewise, the healthcare realm Medicaid takes care of the poor (in Minnesota that's a great program called Minncare), and the rich can easily afford whatever they need.

The profile of the uninsured in this country is an interesting read. The typical uninsured person is white, an American citizen, works full time in a job that doesn't offer benefits, and is between the ages of 19 and 35. I think the law is targeted at that group, since they are the bulk of the uninsured.

This profile also debunks the myth that these are illegals, black or hispanic, and lazy. They simply aren't. Most are white people who work.

See the profile in this report:

http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/7451-06.pdf

The demographics of this problem are what drives the law. It's why healthcare under a parent's policy is now extended to age 26. This part of the law alone is capturing millions of uninsured people. It's a good law if you read about the inputs that went into crafting this legislation; it seeks to solve a real problem in our society in an efficient and cost effective way.

So who was Barrett bought and paid for by?

And Mark Dayton was paid by the unions. So what?

Big difference for me, personally. The bill now goes to my employer, not me. This law is saving our family $419 a month (almost $5,000 a year) in out-of-pocket premiums. That was a huge tax on us and now it's gone.

Edward,

So who is picking up the difference?

I know nothing of your personal circumstances but from what you've said it sounds like he's handling the situation well. It also seems like a terrible business model for the insurance companies to exclude a food allergy from coverage for an otherwise healthy young man, The very nature of their business is pooling risk, and, while the situation is certainly not trivial to you, the costs involved in an occasional ER visit are nothing compared to what most old people cost in coverage every month. If they need a prod to do the right thing I'm all for it.
You do raise a very interesting and under discussed issue though, if he/you can handle the problem on your own or with a bit of medical help, why is that ER visit required? I have a prescription that in order to get refilled I am required to see a doctor every 6 months. This little visit costs me $224 and a morning, just to have him ask me if I'm okay. 3 minutes of his time, tops. In my case it's not the insurance company that requires it but the doctors' office. I know they need to make a buck and I'm a captive market unless I want to drive to Mexico, but maybe dropping silliness like this would allow them to spend a little more on those who actually need the help.

This describes one of my kids. Extremely fit, but with a non-healthstyle related pre-existing condition. There are millions like them out there. The righties would have you think that everyone with a pre-exist is fat, lazy, smokes, or does drugs. Insurance companies don't care about whether or not your condition is caused by your own selfish habits . . . they kick anyone off regardless. That's why we need the ACA as law, to protect people like your son and mine so that they can always get affordable insurance. As Christians, we don't kick people like this to the curb. They have a tremendous amount to contribute to their country, and they deserve better.

"the costs involved in an occasional ER visit are nothing compared to what most old people cost in coverage every month"

And that's why the insurance companies don't cover old people, at least not at a reasonable rate. That's why the government had to step in (many years ago) for that age group and create Medicare (government coverage). If people over 65 actually tried to get complete coverage from an insurance company they'd be turned down or the coverage would be extremely expensive. My brother, age 60, has to pay over $3,000 a month for private health insurance. Fortunately he's wealthy, but how many people that age can afford to pay that much?

Edward - STOP TALKING ABOUT YOUR KIDS. Stop giving ammunition to the idiots who will use it.

Excellent, thanks Joyce! I got 10 out of 10 correct, so I guess it pays to do your research. I haven't read the bill, but I have read information online, watched some cable news (avoided Fox), are read opinions from those in the field.

Really good, thanks.

Good, simple test! Got 10 out of 10!

@Candace... I also got 10 of 10. Actually I believe that one of the questions is incorrect based on the decision by the SCOTUS, but it makes little difference.

Where is Hudsoner incorrect in factual matters? I have followed this discussion very carefully and I have not seen any factual mis-representation by Hudsoner.

Where has Hudsoner been incorrect?

Susie - me proving you wrong doesn’t make my comment a stick bomb to anyone but you. Although I am confused how I changed my name or deleted a comment....

Oreo, I don't believe you have "proven" much of anything...other than your propensity for dropping in snide comments where you find individual's opinions not to your liking.

Oh cute, did you come up with Oreo all by yourself? If you want to call my corrections to idiotic comments snide, have at it.

The vast majority of people making $130K a year are working for an employer that provides health insurance, so the point is mute. Those making $50K are likely to also have employer-paid insurance. Top tier government workers have the same skills and education as those in private sector who receive health insurance from their employers as part of their compensation packages. Why is it that government workers should be cut off of health insurance ? How can those jobs be competitive with private sector if they no longer offer health insurance (or other benefits -- would you also take away vacation and sick days, life insurance, and retirement savings plans)?

Understand that most government employees are paid somewhat less than their counterparts in the private sector for similar skill/educational requirements. Most traded pay for better benefits (health insurance, for example). If health insurance is removed from their compensation package then the salary must increase to be competitive with private sector jobs.

Are you suggesting we eliminate health insurance from all employer compensation packages? If you remove it from all government jobs then it will soon disappear from ALL employment packages. In fact, that's what might happen anyway, as employers might find it more cost effective to do away with health insurance and give employees a lump sum to get insurance through the new exchanges. That would be fair, wouldn't it?

Matt, cancer treatment can easily cost upwards of $1 million - are you certain someone making $130/year can afford that? A friend with MS would have to pay more than $30,000/year for her medications if she did not have insurance. Heart disease can cost millions. Seriously, how many people have that kind of money put aside?

Edward, you write:"The vast majority of people making $130K a year are working for an employer that provides health insurance, so the point is mute. Those making $50K are likely to also have employer-paid insurance. Top tier government workers have the same skills and education as those in private sector who receive health insurance from their employers as part of their compensation packages. "

Well, we are such a typical family. Before I retired, I used to be an employee in the private sector with a salary similar to the stated one, and I received top quality health insurance for a rather low cost (to me), it was part of my total compensation package (which also included 6 weeks paid vacation, sick leave, family emergency leave, etc. ,very similar to the fringe benefits public employees get).

My wife used to be a public sector employee and received about half the salary what I received, the only difference between my wife and I is that she has a way higher level education than I have, and she was the highest level she could be in her job section.

And surprise, she still had to pay some contributions from her own salary for her fringe benefits!
I just wonder how that fairy tale was established that public sector workers get free fringe benefits and a higher salary than private sector workers!

Our family is the living truth that this is nothing but a fairy tale!

Hudsoner wrote: "I just wonder how that fairy tale was established that public sector workers get free fringe benefits and a higher salary than private sector workers! Our family is the living truth that this is nothing but a fairy tale!"

Edward wrote: "Understand that most government employees are paid somewhat less than their counterparts in the private sector"

The Congressional Budget Office would disagree. At least for federal employees.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/02/federal-pay-is-out-of-line-with-private-sector-pay-cbo-supports-heritage-aei-conclusions

Well matt, I don't know what federal employees earn, but I know that most Wisconsin state employees earn way less than similar educated private section workers!

Hudsoner,

You wrote this: "Well matt, I don't know what federal employees earn,"

More than the private sector according to the CBO which you would know if you would have read my post above.

You also wrote this: "but I know that most Wisconsin state employees earn way less than similar educated private section workers!"

Not according to this article. USA Today is hardly a bastion of right wing conservatism either.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-03-01-1Apublicworkers01_ST_N.htm

Who is telling the fairy tales here? You seemingly don't want to respond to facts when presented with them.

Markus, you cannot compare the average wages of the public and private sectors; averages give a skewed picture since, on the whole, public sector jobs require more education and experience than private sector jobs. Once you correct for those variables, and compare only wages for jobs with similar requirements for eduction and experience, public sector workers earn less, even when benefits are counted:
'Benefits make up a slightly larger share of compensation for the state and local sector. But even after accounting for the value of retirement, healthcare, and other benefits, state and local employees earn less than private sector counterparts. On average, total compensation is 6.8% lower for state employees and 7.4% lower for local employees than for comparable private sector employees.'
http://www.nirsonline.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=395&Itemid=48

Joyce,

It is not at all surprising that there are "studies" that support whatever position you are in favor of. I was pointing to CBO numbers. Not that they're necessarily credible either but since most of those here that like the ACA love big government I thought it apropos.

What these studies don't take into consideration because their is no way to gauge it is output and/or productivity. How can you compare government employees to the private sector in that regard? Teachers simply have to get more education and they get a pay raise. That doesn't happen in the private sector with maybe the exception of the health care industry. But that as we are now seeing is run pretty much like government anyway. So the amount of education factored into whatever statistics these "studies" are using to bolster their skewed ideas doesn't really mean much. In government education=higher pay. In the private sector performance=higher pay.

A person with a Ph.D might be "valuable" in a university setting. Put that same person in a private sector job the degree has no value unless he can perform. A sheepskin in many cases simply means you spent a lot of time in school. What is your daughter's Master's degree doing for her right now?

Using pure numbers government workers particularly in the unskilled labor sectors make much more and have way better benefits according to the CBO.

LOL, Markus - have you never heard of the Peter Principle?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle
The managers at the Wall Street investment firms did a truly bang up job, didn't they? Do you remember JP Morgan's loss of $ billions? They still don't know where all the money went.
As for my daughter, her MA got her a job as a college reference librarian and instructor; unfortunately, the college offered only half-time jobs to avoid having to provide benefits. My daughter is being interviewed today and later this week for full time jobs at other colleges.

"The managers at the Wall Street investment firms did a truly bang up job, didn't they? Do you remember JP Morgan's loss of $ billions?"

Wall St. investment firms are crony pseudo-private sector companies. They are in bed with government and lobby for the regulations to allow self-serving instruments like credit default swaps and derivatives to bilk investors, savers and taxpayers while encouraging the Federal Reserve to lend them printed money at 0% interest. All the while referring to it as "Stimulus" or "Quantitative Easing".

Let's not confuse Wall St. with real private sector companies that actually produce something of value.

I hope your daughter gets the job she's applying for. But her situation illustrates why people shouldn't depend on employers for benefits. In a true market based economy without government intervention, employees would negotiate for pay commensurate to their skill, experience, etc. Health insurance, and retirement would be left to the individual to purchase at their own expense. The whole benefit thing would become a non-issue.

We can trace health insurance and benefits back to when there were wage and price controls. (Government intervention again). Benefits were a way for employers to get around the wage controls to attract employees. Now everyone has been trained to expect those thing from their employers. Another instance of government intervention gone awry.

Explain how. This isn't at all like the system in any European country, and not one expert has made this comparison (because it isn't remotely close to truth).

Get the facts before spouting irrational tripe.

Edward, it is somewhat similar to the Swiss system, but not all to close. It is absolutely different to the systems in the rest of Europe. Only the UK has a similar system as Canada has, a single payer system funded through tax deductions.

@Terry... we should all be so lucky.

In the US the costs for healthcare are nearly double that of any country in Europe or Canada, or Australia, or Japan. The rankings of outcome for the US are about 17th.

The Healthcare Insurance folks have CEOs who are earning (oops..paid) around $35,000 (That's Thirty-five Thousand and 00/100) dollars per day. Look it up. These individuals do not apply a single band-aid.

These are the vultures who take your healthcare insurance dollars that you pay, or your employer pays and they do absolutely nothing to provide a single service to a human being.

So, Terry defend your comment, which is obviosly based on little knowledge or real experience.

Actually, Hudsoner, Britain is the only western nation with true socialized health care - the hospitals and clinics are owned and operated by the government, and the physicians and other health care professionals and ancillary workers are all government employees in Britain. Canada has nothing like that; the provincial health care systems in Canada are single payer, much like our own Medicare - the government provides the insurance but care is given by private practitioners in private hospitals and clinics. Other western nations have variations on that theme; Germany and Switzerland have systems that are closest to our own ACA.

Joyce, the German system is quite different than the US ACA, because Germany has an insurance provider (AOK) who is similar to the alternative insurance that was originally planned. it is a nonprofit organization which catches all residents who have no other insurance. The AOK is the one providing health insurance to the, unemployed and disabled. The AOK provides mostly basic insurance. There are other non profit insurance companies in German (i.e. Barmer Ersatzkasse, Techniker Kasse, etc.), which charge higher fees, but provide better coverage. Every employer (no matter on the size of the company) has to pay 50% of the insurance fee of each employee,

@Candice... and your point is? Did you ever learn about breaking up rants with white space so it can be read?

Your rant made no sense anyway.

The very problems that you state are related to the vulture Insurance companies demanding all kinds of verification before payment. Also Providers have to be able to deal with a myriad of private insurance companies, who each wants information in a different format which drives up the costs. Medicare (a single payor system) is consistent across the board.

Don't try and bullshit me as I have worked extensively in medical claims processing.

Candace, you write:"and provide her with samples given him by Pharmaceutical companies to improve their sales to him."

And you feel that is a positive thing? Sales reps who try to influence a doctor what medication to prescribe? And the doctor giving out free samples as much as possible to get the patient hooked on this specific medication and believing it is the best available?

Candace, It is clear to me that you have no idea how medical marketing works! Did I mentioned before that I made my living in medical research? Well, from an "insider" I can tell you that those samples do not need to be the best medication for a given condition because they are the ones that provide the highest profit margin to the manufacturer and the highest sales omission to the sales rep! One of the reasons that your mother might have been on 14 medications because of the fact that she did not get the most efficient medication for her problems, and an array of mediocre medications was needed to achieve some positive outcome.

And those doctors in your Californian hometown had to take off a day because they needed the time to polish their hallows which they got because they loved the privilege so much to be allowed to treat their patients Pro Bono!

I don't understand how you can promote such a system in which a patient has to depend on questionable handouts from their doctor instead of a system in which the patient can get the best possible treatment because of an affordable health insurance system?

I hope the $3 billion dollar fine charged to GlaxoSmithKline will help with some of the problems with the drug industry and their promotional techniques, but I have to say that this hope is small.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/drugs/story/2012-07-02/glaxosmithkline-pleads-guilty-3B-fine-illicit-promotion-prescription-drugs/55979616/1

'I don't need to listen to competing ideas to know I am "right."'

Why are you on this board? To participate in this discussion (properly) you'll be forced to read competing ideas. You should stay in the right wing echo chambers, yet you are here. Your actions don't line up with your words here.

And what has that to do with the ACA?

Anyway, what are you trying o say? Is it that you don't need to hear anything else but the hateful gibberish of Limbaug and his kin? is what they say enough for you to make any of your decisions?
If your answer is yes, I pity you!

" love competing ideas . . . I don't need to hear your ideas."

So you love competing ideas but don't want to hear any . . . and you don't suffer from the liberalism "disorder" . . . but it appears you have another "disorder".

Please get help, or the cognitive dissonance you exhibit might explode your brain.

Have you ever checked who owns most of the talk radio stations? Does Murdock or Clear Channel mean anything to you?
And no, you do not suffer from the liberalism disorder (me neither), But your disorder seems to be really bad, I hope your brain will survive!

I have seen similar brain lapses with people who had the Kreuzfeld Jacob disease. You should run to your doc and be checked for this, I hope your health insurance will cover this!

Scott - that is the definition of liberalism. Read anything Mrs Peel has said. If she isnt telling someone how stupid their point is, she is accusing them of racism.

Candace, you try to make a joke, aren't you? Saying that the samples given for free are not the ones being pushed by the manufacturer! Our sales reps would not have survived very long if the would not have pushed the most profitable product (not always the most expensive, but most profitable) to the docs. There was a reason that we took key docs on cruses to the Bahamas or Jamaica, these docs were opinion leaders in their field and were to push our products,

If you worked in a docs office, you would never have known! I don't want to elaborate on the pharmaceutical education of family docs, but there is a reason that they use the Merck Index like their bible!

Try practicing what you claim to admire. While reading the comments on here, please include your own.

And even though you and I are on opposite sides of this issue, I appreciate your input. Maybe we can all (me too) try to drop those snide comments, and try to "help" each other understand our different views? I promise, I will get off my soap box now.

Candace, experiences differ across the country; where I currently work (I am a Registered Nurse) drug reps are not allowed in the hospital. Where I worked previously, in a different state, drug reps came weekly with lavish meals for the physicians, expensive gifts (fully loaded doctor's bags, for example) and offers of free vacations. I personally heard a drug rep asking an attending physician how he and his family enjoyed the Caribbean vacation the drug company sent them on, and where would they like to go next.
Drug companies keep track of how many scripts a physician writes for a particular medication, and they will reward physicians for writing a large number of scripts for a more profitable drug; not every physician is part of this corrupt process, but enough are.

Candace, I do not attack the medical profession, I am part of it! But I just put some facts into the right light. Corporations are there to make money for the share holders or the owners, and their employees (sales reps are employees of corps) are part of the system to make this money. If sales reps would push unprofitable products, they would not meet their sales quota and would soon be terminated.

Docs are also in the business to make money (if it is only to pay back their loans), because they have to pay their employees and their facilities. Most of the time they also have to bring money in to support their family. There are enough docs who have a social responsibility and do some work free of charge, but this cannot be a lot because they need to make money! And our health care system cannot rely on those free "handouts".

You can wonder why (and I say again, why should I attack my professional group?), because there is no why, I am just realistic and try to tell the facts!

Markus, in point of fact it was only Roberts who deemed the mandate constitutional under the powers of taxation by considering the fine a tax; the four liberal justices deemed the mandate constitutional under the commerce clause and the four conservative justices deemed it unconstitutional under the commerce clause.
As for the ability of congress to levy taxes, here it is in the US Constitution, Section 8. Clause 1: 'The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.'

Joyce,

It's apparent that you are a proponent of a "living, breathing" Constitution. You've said as much. However most of the framers did not see it that way. You're taking that clause completely out of the context of the Constitution as a whole.

“For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?”

“With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers (enumerated in the Constitution) connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

— James Madison, in Federalist No. 41

Refer to my above post about revising the constitution to one paragraph.

In your opinion wouldn't this be a much cleaner document and allow the Federal government to do whatever it darn well pleases? Which it already does anyway. Why not simply eliminate the rest of the text including the listed enumerated powers if they mean nothing? Heck, we could simply revert to two branches of government. Or maybe only one. The last couple of presidents have acted as if the executive branch were the only branch.

I encourage everyone to read the opinin here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

It was not just Roberts who found the PPACA constitutional. It was 5 justices who agreed. Justice Ginsburg wrote a dissent where she said she would have ALSO found it constitutional via the commerce clause, but Roberts would not sign up for that, so the "5" in the 5-4 decision was Roberts plus the 4 who agreed with Ginsburg.

sorry.... Roberts found it constitutional *as a tax*....

Very wise insight from the dissenting opinion:

"Here, however, Congress has impressed into service third parties, healthy individuals who could be but are not customers of the relevant industry, to offset the undesirable consequences of the regulation. Congress’ desire to force these individuals to purchase insurance is motivated by the fact that they are further removed from the market than unhealthy individuals with pre-existing conditions, because they are less likely to need extensive care in the near future. If Congress can reach out and command even those furthest removed from an interstate market to participate in the market, then the Commerce Clause becomes a font of unlimited power, or in Hamilton’s words, “the hideous monster whose devouring jaws . . . spare neither sex nor age, nor high nor low, nor sacred nor profane.” The Federalist No. 33"

"Against the mountain of evidence that the minimum coverage requirement is what the statute calls it—a requirement—and that the penalty for its violation is what the statute calls it—a penalty—the Government brings forward the flimsiest of indications to the contrary."

"For all these reasons, to say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it. Judicial tax-writing is particularly troubling."

Here you go, Mike:
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/04/a-38-percent-sales-tax-on-your-home/
http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/realestate.asp

Nothing like a conservative to spread lies and innuedos. You should be a proud Mike. I hope you go to confession and repent this sin.

"The Law" will not care for the child. People will. The law can say what is required or prohibited, but it does not provide care. The doctors and medicines do not spring forth from the pages of legislation.

There is evidence that the combination of higher costs, regulatory harrassment, and lower incomes are causing poorer job satisfaction on the part of health professionals. This is driving our best and brightest *away* from medicine. This legislation is making this problem worse.

When the doctors quit, the drug companies go out of business, and the hospitals close, who will care for the child?

Karine, do you have any links to reputable sites that confirm your statement?
After all, most of the judges on the court were installed by conservative presidents.

Did the judges act impartially when they declared G. W. Bush to be president of the US, even though he had lost the election? Or were they to conservative at that time, and they just changed their ideology?

Again Karine, do you have any links to reputable sites that confirm your statement?

The only people who will pay the tax is people who do not have health insurance - if you have health insurance you will not pay a tax.

In reality what it truly is, is an "Anti-Health Care Free-Loader Penalty and Tax".

Now, if you want to get Conservatives to change the requirement that ER's treat people then I would be all for a person signing a legal document stating that if require treatment at an ER for any reason and cannot pay for it upfront or if they do have not health insurance that they understand that they will *not* be treated, with no exceptions - except at the charity of a hospital (and that hospital is forbidden to pass on the cost of that treatment to its other customers or to taxpayers).

Now if you can get that done and if someone wants to sign the document then they don't have to pay the Penalty - otherwise sorry but while you may support people freeloading on the health care system I don't.

No More Health Care Freeloaders!!!

Rob, I feel we should promote your idea. I found a nice sample for an appropriate wallet card that could be used by those who dislike Obamacare!

https://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/394572_438965766137774_210987047_n.jpg

Great link, Hudsoner. I was, only twenty minutes ago, suggesting this to a neighbor.

Now that's personal responsibility! Healthcare system freeloaders could also have vanity license plates ("don't treat me") and wear special medalert wrist bands ("I don't pay -- so "give me liberty AND give me death!").

Since this is a free market society, we might be able to make some money printing those cards, making car stickers, etc. I wonder, if we could get rich, selling them. if most of the population dislikes Obamacare, at least Karine Ravetto said so, we should be able to sell a lot of them! Are you guys with me in in this business venture?

A poster on another site stated it concisely:

"We already have socialized medicine. In our socialist system, we allow people to get sick enough that they need emergency attention, and then we let them show up at the emergency room to have problems that should have been caught early treated at massive expense in their later, more severe stages. If the patient has no insurance and cannot pay, the hospital just eats it, or the government pays.

Are we really going to sh*t our collective pants over a new tax to properly fund and reform this stupid system?"

Hudsoner - WOW - that is awesome!!!

I am calling my Republican Representative right now and asking if Republicans will do that because clearly they have no other ideas except to whine.

Wow, "CANCER to America", that's a new one! ABSG, I wonder if you have any reputable sources to back up all your above claims, or if Limbaugh and Hannity are your only reputable and unbiased sources?

Why do you support Health Care Freedloaders?

Why don't you support individual responsibility?

@ABSG...Please define your term "bro-whipped" in a manner that is not a racial slur or the language of bigotry.

Rob, why do you support the government telling you what you need to do? Clearly you are an educated person. I am not arguing the morality of it, simply the need of the government to tell me what to do. Everyone has health insurance now. Great. However, for the guy who for whatever reason doesnt want it, why should he have to have it? For that matter, why should I have to wear my seatbelt if I dont want to? Conservatives dont like freeloaders but they also dont like the government dictating what we have to buy.

I Do Not support Freeloaders! I DO support individual responsibilty - absolutely! But I Do Not need the Government telling anyone what they HAVE TO buy! That is utter BS.

@ MrsPeel - Seriously? White people can call themselves Bro's FYI. That's funny and just a stupid reply.

really Markus, have you ever compared the efficiency of medicare with that of the private insurance industry? Or the one of Tricare (the military insurance) of that with the private insurance industry?

If you do, you will be amazed how efficient government programs can be!

Markus, we currently have rationed health care - right now, it is rationed on the ability to pay.

I see that you have your Foxnews Talking Points down.

1) We already ration health care based on ability to pay.

2) We allow people to use the ER's at no cost to them - which means it is essentially socialized because we all end up paying for their treatment through higher costs - and hospitals are being left with the rest that are killing their bottom lines.

3) Do you consider other government programs such as: Social Security, the US Military, Medicare, the interstate highway system, etc..."failures on a massive scale". All of our brave servicemen and women who are fighting for your liberty receive a government paycheck, government healthcare, etc.. and yet you consider them a massive failure - that is really sad.

4) Are you ready to push Republican's to eliminate the requirement that people who showup to the ER must be treated? And if that means they die on the street we let them? If not then what is your solution other than the insane method of treating people at the very highest cost place possible?

Hudsoner,

Medicare is not an efficient system. It rations the delivery of services and imposes price controls on providers. It is also the largest unfunded liability we are facing. $75,000,000,000,000.00 was the last number projected by the Comptroller General.

I have a friend who works for the VA as a bean counter. Hardly an efficient system. The stories he can tell!

If the insurance industry were left to operate under market controls rather than government dictate, and be able to sell policies based on the requirements and demands of a competitive marketplace, it would have to be efficient or fail.

Joyce,

Using your rationale, everything is then rationed. Gasoline, food, aspirin, toilet paper are all rationed on the ability to pay. Maybe we should have a program to provide those things to those who can't afford it. Oh wait, we already do.

On a similar note, shall we also fine (penalize, tax whatever the supreme court decides) people for not buying those things? People who don't buy toilet paper (they're using public restrooms) aren't contributing to the TP pool thereby resulting in those who do use it having a larger out of pocket expense than the non-TP users. It would only be fair.

rob_h78,

I don't watch Fox News.

1) See my comments to Joyce.

2) That should not be mandated by government, it should be left up to the hospitals to decide. We used to have charity hospitals until the government drove them out of business.

3) "Do you consider other government programs such as: Social Security, the US Military, Medicare, the interstate highway system, etc..."failures on a massive scale". " SS, yes. US Military, no. It is one of the only things allowed for in a strict constructionist reading of the constitution. Medicare , yes. See my comments to Hudsoner. Interstate Hwy system, good idea maybe, constitutional purview was lacking.

4) There is no easy answer to this question, but before government decided to get involved people were not bleeding to death outside the ER door. Doctors used to provide pro-Bono services routinely for those who couldn't afford it. Refer to my comments about the lack of Charity Hospitals. The marketplace is not perfect, but allowed to function works much better than government fiat.

I can speak to the efficiency of Tricare having lived with it for 2over 15 years. I have sat with my husband who broke his collar bone for 3 hours while all all staff was busy tending all the children with runny noses whose parents decided that the runny nose that started midweek that their child had to be seen after hours on Friday night. I have waited from 10:30 pm until 6:30 am for an xray to confirm that her broken wrist was properly set after her cast was in place. I have paid co-pays, deductibles and out of pocket percentages of the bill for emergency care for a potentially life threatening head injury. This after my husband was promised free healthcare for himself and his family for serving in the Viet Nam War and also completing 20 years of active duty service. I could go on and on but suffice it to say if you like cattle call OB appointments, ill prepared doctors and lab techs Tricare is for you. There is absolutely no reason to believe that PPACA will be any better. Hudsoner, before you ask these are personal experiences with the medical records to prove it.

Yeah - its funny how all of these Conservatives suddenly believe in paying for Free Loaders who show up and can't pay...

I remember when Conservatives used to believe in the concept of being responsible for yourself.

In fact the whole concept of the Mandate (or Tax) was created by Conservatives such as the Heritage Foundation as a response to the Clinton Health Plan and the requirement for people to have insurance (so that others did not have to pay for their health care) was pushed by many high profile Republican's and this was pushed for a long time - right up until Obama said he supported it - then within weeks they all ran away from what they used to support and started this new narrative.

Of course I would love to hear where is this Conservative Outrage over Medicare Part D - a massive government giveaway to old folks that is completely unfunded - and yet Republicans pushed so hard to get - and not one peep on that - I wonder why...

@ rob_h78: "And if that means they die on the street we let them?" .... but your idea is that everyone should pick up that tab for them right, have open arms for everyone and sing kumbaya together? Spreading The Wealth Rhetoric?

Again, robbing Peter to pay Paul does not work because Peter (in this case Obama) will come looking for more and he believes there is an endless supply!

How about if this country does a better job at creating jobs and "mandating" people actually get a job!! Why not tax people for not having a job and tax them for not being responsbile for themselves?

It is insulting and absurd to suggest that the human beings who work at hospitals would deny lifesaving care without immediate payment. This has never been the case, and is unlikely ever to be the case as long as practitioners are not required to do otherwise.

The difference we are talking about is not between getting and not getting care. It's between how those practitioners get paid, and whether the person walking into the ER is a human being asking for help, or a freeloader demanding his rights.

The vast majority of ER visits are NOT for lifesaving care. As various mandates have arisen, the incentive to use the ER for primary care has grown. Ordinary people have figured out that the ER is easy, it's available, and it's effectively free.

Why not????

More mandates and more laws do not make this better. Obamacare makes it much worse. We will never have a rational market in health care as long as we have patients (and doctors!) with no interest in what things cost, and the payers (gov and insurance) guaranteed profits by being state sponsored monopolies.

Again, Obamacare makes this worse, not better.