When Romney gets in office then they can toss this garbage out

Yes Patricia, thank God that no elderly are going to get treated as they are too old. A certain group of people will continue to get free health care, people that are rich are going to be able to afford it with no problems. and anyone making under 35,000 and don't have health care are going to be either feeding their family or paying outragious prices for insurance. If not you will go to jail, directly to jail and do not pass go and collect $200. It is a joke that healthcare is going to be afordable, well it will be because you won't be able to afford anything else, maybe food, utilities. Seniors won't get treated because they are toooo old over the age of 75 and close to death anyways. Companies that have 500 employees will be mandated to offer insurance so they will be laying off so they don't have to supply to their employees which will mean less jobs.

Very well said, CC.

CC, you do realize that Romeny invented mandated healthcare up in Massachussettes, right?

Of course I believe it is a right!!!

Yes it is right for illegals and people on Welfare because they get for free and the rich can afford outrageous prices. obamacare is going to hurt people making under 50,000 and it is either going to be feed your family or buy health care. One way to get everyone skinny in America.

It is a right every other country recognizes as a human right. The US RANKS 37TH in quality of care but out spends all other countires on their per capita health care expenditures(Harvard Report). The health care reform act is over 1,000 pages long. While it does not address the frequent flyers, drug seekers, health care abusers or the costs that the system incurs because of the frivilous lawsuits, that was not the main goal. We already pay for those who lack health care under EMTALA. The government is already the major payer medicaid and medicare. The goal is to allow everyone to be able to shop for health care at Walmart prices rather than allowing it to be unaffordable for 48 million working Americans. Remember if you are elderly or poor you already have health care. Once again as evidenced by some of the comments, people rather than reading the legislation are quoting media blurps often taken out of context. There are no death panels just the idea that people ought to make their wishes known about under what conditions they wish their life to be sustained. Yes there must be some rationing of resources. The question is how do we justly ration them. Americans do not like the ides of rationing but the bottom line is health care resources are finite. The only attempt we have made at rationing is in terms of organ transplants and the first obstacle is the "GREEN SCREEN" the ability to pay. Health care is not a commodity to be traded in the free market.

By it being a RIGHT that means that all healthcare workers have become slaves to the rest of our countrymen. Since they are mandated to take care of you now regardless pf the amount they are being paidfor your stay. Everyone was already given healthcare on any hospital in the USA. No hospital will deny you care before this law was even on the books. People get mad cause doctors make money and live in big house but when did you go to college for 8 to 10 years and put in internships of working 24 hour shifts and then work 12 to 16 hour days sometime 6-7 days a week saving peoples lives. Sorry but sitting around gettring pregnant and just collecting your neighbors hard earned tax dollars for doing nothing doesn't seem valid for enslaving someone else.

The problem is this bill is not universal heal coverage. Congress tried to come up with something in the middle and created a mess. Basically, it is insurance reform with mandated participation by all citizens and gives major decision power over what procedures are covered and what are not to the Secretary of HHS. Congress should have gone all the way for universal coverage, or done a scaled down bill of health insurance reform giving people the features they want, like coverage for prexisting conditions, children to age 26.

Everyone can be healthy! The real problem is that "health" care is a misnomer. If you want to be healthy, eat right, exercise, stay away from prescription drugs, and make sure your nervous system is functioning. What they are proposing is "sick" care - and I don't want it.

Yes everyone will be healthy and skinny because people won't be able to purchase food because they are going to be paying for health care. Anyone that believes it is going to be cheap then they are nuts. Insurance companies might get you in the first year on a cheap rate, but after that they will raise the rates to were we can't afford it.

Steph, Let me get this straight . . . We're going to be "gifted" with a health care plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don't, Which purportedly covers at least ten million more people, without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that didn't read it but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a President who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, for which we'll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's broke!!!!!
'What the hell could possibly go wrong?'

Yeah, what he said! @michael branchen

Universal health coverage is not something we should have in the US. Do some reading about Universal coverage in Europe and Canada! Limited services, wait years for surgery, panels of people who aren't doctors deciding who and if you need a certain treatment! If you are too old forget that MRI or CT scan! Who is going to pay for Universal coverage???? Oh that's right. The government! Please! 16 trillion in debt now! Oh well... right? What are people talking about that the poor don't get healthcare and the elderly now??? MEDICARE AND MEDICAID!!! WELFARE!!! The middle class gets screwed with this "Affordable healthcare act". IT IS A TAX! Everyone gets an additional tax of about 2500 per year if you make about 50K! NICE! NOT crazy republicans! Everyone deserves to be healthy and have healthcare is right. But it is up to YOU not the government to make sure you BUY healthcare or pay for it with your employer! Unfortunately employers now will not be able to keep coverage thanks to this great LAW because of private insurance being forced out of business thanks to Obamacare. Do some research Stephanie and you will feel differently about Universal Healthcare!

You already are.

Ed and CC - You already are paying for someone else's healthcare.
Who do you think pays when someone without health insurance goes to an emergency room?

I'm paying for my own, Mike, not anyone else. Do mix up the cost a hospital charges with who pays.

Ed - You're paying for others through increased insurance premiums and increased taxes.
No one actually is stopping you at the hospital door and taking cash out of your wallet.

you do already!

Mike I know I pay with my taxes for illegals and people on welfare and don't want to work for them to go to emergency rooms. I have been checking out prices of insurance under obama care and i'm going to be paying $432 a month for heath care for my son and I. You tell me how that is cheap health care since I have RSD and Fibromyalgia. I pay now 298 for a neurologist and medications a month. I'll stick with paying doctors and for my prescriptions myself and my son will have the coverage from his dad that doesn't pay for anything before we spend 5,000 a year because that is the deductible that his dad choose, and if I do get to the 5,000 then it will be his dad that benefits from his insurance then I.

Ed your paying for the ones on welfare and Illegals that have great welfarecare though taxes. Then you pay for your own healthcare. How fair is that to us.

The average insured person or family pays over 1000 dollars in insurance premiums because of the uninsured. So now you'll be paying less, not more.

Laura how are we going to be paying less when they said they are going to add more people on wefarecare. Were going to be paying more in taxes and don't forget when you sell your home the government is going to take a nice chunk of your profit at 3.8% and don't forget the capital gains that you still be paying on the sale of your property.

Have you ever heard of CHIPS? In PA you have been paying for children's healthcare for many years now! No co-pay, no-deductables, and no prescriptions costs. As good as every US or PA employee.

Did you pull that number out of your butt? Do you just make things up to make yourself feel better?

Yes, facts please. yawnnnnnnn.

Mind-boggling but... CC is correct by informing you that yes, hidden inside that precious bill, is a mandatory real estate tax that ALL homeowners will be paying upon the sale of their home starting in 2013. You are NOT exempt if you are a Senior Citizen either!! The number is 3.8% though - so when you sell your $100,000 home, the government will automatically take $3,800.00 right off your profit to pay for Obamacare. THEN, you will have to pay the required tax on your gains as well as real estate transfer taxes. HMMM...the wool is being pulled back from your eyes as you read...wonder what else is hidden amongst those 2,000 plus pages of the law?

The Healthcare bill does not impose a 3.8% tax on all home sales. It's an urban legend.

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

@Debs, are those the same Senior Citizens that I see packing the Casino and standing in line for the lottery? Hmmm. I'm sorry, but the Senior Citizen scare tactic has gotten really old. If anything, they look to be the only people with a little disposable money in this day and age.

liliput - Seniors who are soon to be disposing of alot more money by the looks of it...in most cases, they enjoy a tax exempt status on the sale of their home but there is no way to get around this one.

no! that is wrong.

Mike go read obamacare and the last few pages and see what they are going to take off you if your sell your home or property. Great way for the government to stick it to us.

Deb, CNN was talking about it on the news what they snuck in on obamacare and they said by the time you pay capital gains, the 3.8%, and everything else it was almost 30% in total that won't be going in your pocket. It was 29.72% but I rounded it off to 30%.

@Mike ... Actually, Mike is partially correct, but if you look at the link he provided you will see that the 3.8% is only applied if you make $200k + ($250,000k for couples) and doesn't apply to the first $250k (500k for couples) of profit from the sale. Makes you wonder though what else is buried in this bill.

Georgina, you are the only voice of reason here. People have no clue that they're ALREADY paying for everyone else's healthcare.

@Frederick Allen, and increased insurance premiums to cover those who have no insurance...ie, refuse to purchase insurance, ie, refuse to work in some cases.

Exactly! Excellent point Georgiana

@liliiput you said ...increased insurance premiums to cover those who have no insurance...ie, refuse to purchase insurance, ie, refuse to work in some cases. Why should they pay for anything since our MAGNANOMOUS GOVERNMENT is so willing to TAKE MONEY FROM others to give to them? This will only get WORSE not better. FREELOADERS will remain FREELOADERS if you want true REFORM then you DO NOT PAY FOR OTHER PEOPLE"S RESPONSIBILITIES PERIOD! END medicaid and other ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS .. but instead our government thinks it best to create even another ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM.... Which has absolutely nothing to do with health care but just another way to COLLECT MORE TAXES

Right Fred, I agree. No one should have to cover freeloaders, yet, in the current system we are doing just that. What is your solution if not to mandate that people purchase healthcare? Hospitals should just deny coverage & care? That's what it amounts to and that will never happen because it's against the Hippocratic Oath.

Hospitals that operate as non-profit agencies are required by federal law to provide health care to the "uninsured". That is why the hospitals have a tax-exempt status for their multi-billion dollar revenue/property/investments they generate yearly. Thus, presently, if you are needy you have health care.

"Hospitals that operate as non-profit agencies are required by federal law to provide health care to the "uninsured". That is why the hospitals have a tax-exempt status for their multi-billion dollar revenue/property/investments they generate yearly. Thus, presently, if you are needy you have health care."

@Deb, my point, EXACTLY! And who pays for that? Those of us who do pay for healthcare do through high premiums. Not only do they take in the needy, they take in EVERYONE. Even those who are not needy by most standards but chose to spend their money on things other than healthcare.

lilli you asked: What is your solution if not to mandate that people purchase healthcare? Hospitals should just deny coverage & care?

I answer: Short answer yes. But since they are MANDATED by law that they must provide care.. then they must or loose MEDICARE and MEDICAIDE reimbursements. Anyway the only way to fix this mess is to let those who CONSUME a product actually pay for the product. This is the only way to actually control costs because as long as the actual users of the product are not paying for that product or getting a DISCOUNT for using it the prices will continue to climb thus disenfranchising more of the less fortunate thus requiring even more subsidies and taxpayer support for the system to continue. NEVER has any government program resulted in REDUCED COSTS of that were true then our GOVERNMENT would be SPENDING less money each year NOT MORE,

Deb said: Thus, presently, if you are needy you have health care."
So why was there a NEED for OBAMACARE? Since those who are in need get health care now? Isn't that what medicaid is supposed to be for? This whole UNIVERSAL health care idea was born in the union halls who wish to OFF LOAD their health care costs to taxpayers. Next they will want to dump their retirement benefit packages onto the backs of taxpayers.. oh wait GM already did that.

liliiput just because some refuse to purchase obamacare doesn't mean that they are freeloaders, not working. Why should I pay $432 a month when my Neurologist and medications only cost me $298 a month. My work wouldn't cover me because o fa pre existing condition so for the last 10 years I've been paying for my medical out of my own pocket. I do work 40-60 hours a week and I would be paying more for buying obamacare then what i am paying now. Then on top of the 432 a month, i would have to pay a 50 deductible to the doctor and 25 copay on insurance. Where is this saving me money? it is going to cost me $607 a month for paying a premium, $50 deductible to the doctor and then $25 copay on each of my 5 prescriptions. I also see the eye doctor once a year, get my teeth cleaned twice a year and see my primary care doctor when I am sick.
liliiput can you tell me where obamacare is going to save me money when it is cheaper for me just to pay cash out of my own pocket each month. I budget $350 a month towards health care now out of my pay and put $52 a month away in a savings account towards my dentist, eye doctor and primary care which comes out to $624 a year. Over the last 10 years I have been able to save $3,432 towards future medical bills. NOT EVERYONE DEPENDS ON WELFARE AND OTHERS paying towards their medical bills and are to lazy to work.

Already have been (ie, kids staying on until 26). As a business owner, this is the first time we've ever benefited from Federal policy. EVER. Yay, Obama!

Yes indeed we will all benefit alright. LIFE TIME MAXIMUMS.. there will be life time maximums alright.. the problem is your lifetime will become shorter and shorter since rationing will dictate who actually BENEFITS from this farse...YOu will be covered for PREXISITING conditions alright you will just not get care for those conditions.

Hey Fred, have you checked the average lifespa of Americans versus anyone in Europe with government madated healthcare? We are sorely lacking.

NB resident do you actually think $432 a month is cheap insurance for my son and I since I have a preexisting condition? This comes with a $50 copay for doctors and a $25 copay on prescriptions.This might be cheap for you but I will now have to take my grocery shopping money and apply it towards healthcare that obama said is going to be a reasonable priced. My neurologist and prescriptions are cheaper than the the premiums obamacare wants me to pay. Guess I'm going to have to get a jug and sit at the corner of 51 and Brownsville in my wheelchair and ask others to help me pay for obamacare (kidding about sitting at the corner), but not about the wheelchair.

Frederick Allen you are correct on the preexisting conditions. They won't be paying anything towards them, but you will be paying out the butt for insurance.Don't forget if your old and say need chemo, obamacare says your to old and close to dying so they won't pay for your treatments either.

No minorities and illegals will benefit from obamacare. The others will still be paying for their healthcare though our taxes and paying for our own coverage. Yea they are going to allow people with pre existing conditions to get insurance, but insurance companies don't have to pay for any of your pre existing conditions so how is that going to help.

Exactly Debie.. whatever happened to CRITICLE thinking in America? As a culture we are being dumbed down by soundbytes.

Wait, so there are not enough doctors so too bad ppl who are too poor to receive healthcare? Not everyone deserves healthcare? this sounds to me like a job creating piece of legislation then! We have 2-3 doctors less per 1,000ppl more than most other developed countries (this was in 2002, and the amount of doctors has done nothing but grow, so the amount is probably more at this point...3-4 would be a safe bet) with cuba being in the lead at almost 6 doctors per 1,000. We are hardly the lowest. I think we will be ok.

you are either intentionally fear mongering, or regurgitating faulty information. i fully suggest that you read at least the first 4 pages of Chief Justice Roberts opinion of the court.

This is not to say that there aren't valid concerns against the affordable care act, but this is not them.

Yes, whatever happened to CRITICAL thinking. Maybe the founding fathers were on to something when they initially only wanted the educated to vote. Yawwwwwwn.

Sometimes it's just too difficult to take people seriously when they egregiously violate their own points.. :(

Improved healthcare policy could lead to better spelling and grammar usage in the country.

RN = Real Nutjob

yeah perhaps I had a typo since you liberals are such forgiving folk I figured you would be more forgiving and acting fairly and decently and in order. What was I thinking? Liberalism is a brain disorder. But they can SPELL real good. They do not know what the meanings of words are though since they feel they must change them all the time. So I say criticle is the new way to spell critical, HEY if you guys can make stuff up so can I.

'yeah perhaps I had a typo since you liberals are such forgiving folk I figured you would be more forgiving and acting fairly and decently and in order. What was I thinking? Liberalism is a brain disorder. But they can SPELL real good. They do not know what the meanings of words are though since they feel they must change them all the time. So I say criticle is the new way to spell critical, HEY if you guys can make stuff up so can I."

No, Fred, it was ironic because your "criticle" thinking comment was in regard to the dumbing down of America. lol

Btw, calling everyone a liberal is a right wing talking point...an old one at that. Blaming everything on those darned liberals doesn't put food on the table or money in anyone's pocket. I'm an Independent. Disgusted by both parties and not afraid to say so. The only talking points I have come from me. :)

Debbie you are so correct on this. We are going to turn into Canada and have to wait months and years to see a Doctor. Why do you think a lot of Canadians come down to the United States to be treated, because they can't get into doctors or hospitals up in Canada. One of my friends lives in Detroit, MI and works for a OB office and she says they get more and more Canadian women wanting Cancer treatments because they are on a waiting list in Canada and can take years to get cancer treatments. When they come to the United States they can start treatments within a month to 6 weeks.

Frederick Allen just want to let you know that ml is very critical of people if they make an error in their spelling. If you get a red line under the word, right click on it and at the top of the drop down box it will give you the correct spelling. ml does this to everyone so don't take it to heart. She also tries to push her opinions on everyone and she thinks and says she is always right.

@Jean, it has nothing to do with anyone's criticism of Fred. Fred made a point about the dumbing down of America...then he proved it.

I make spelling errors all the time but I also don't do it and tell everyone else they're stupid in the same breath. How's that old saying go? "People in glass houses....?

liliiput- ml gets on everyone if they don't spell something correctly. She does it on all articles on the patch, and she got the answers for everything. surprised that she didn't run for president.

liliiput- go read ml's answer to Frederick Allen "Fred Allen wants to know "whatever happened to CRITICLE thinking in America?"

probably hanging out somewhere with spelling, fred! LOL"

SHE MADE A COMMENT ABOUT HIS SPELLING, AS SHE DOES ON OTHER POST ON THE PATCH, I have seen this on all post and she even got on my case at one point. Jean was correct to point this out about what ml does to people

Deb, your fist sentence says it all. We as a nation do need health insurance reform. there are good provisions in this Bill. But there are also major problems with it. And our "representatives" chose not to participate in the plan. That says a lot.

The majority of Canadians and Irish DO NOT come to the US for healthcare. Fact.

Deb did not say the majority of Candians come to the US for healthcare, she said ask those that do. After living in Michigan most of my life I can tell you that many Canadians do cross the US boarder for surgerical needs rather than wait months in Canada. i can also tell you that I know people from the US that go to Canada, primarily to obtain drugs that have been approved there, but are still working their way through the approval process in the US.

I've never met a Canadian who wanted to come to the US for healthcare. In fact, quite the opposite. They love the Canadian healthcare system. They're healthier and happier.

@ Sue T, and I could say, "ask the Americans that go to Europe for healthcare." The point is nothing more than a fear mongering scare tactic talking point spouted by the usual supsects that want to get elected.

My point is what percentage of Canadians actually DO come to the US for healthcare? A whole lot less than some would like us to believe, I suspect. If one Canadian comes here should I ask them? What is the percentage exactly?

Explain why congress is exempt. I cannot find it anywhere. There are different plans. There are different hospitals. Congress is covered under a plan. Grandfathered plans are exempt from the mandate. These lines are still fictional. We, as taxpayers, are already picking up the tab for unpaid bills. Doctors are not able to refuse care. It is not like sick people go without care bc they do not have insurance...So this whole argument seems to be based on a fantasy. I am just trying to find some fact here. It is not a "mandated health bill" either. Do you have insurance now? Great! Nothing changes. And then the Russians!? Your history is seriously flawed. That lack of toilet paper had nothing to do with health insurance. By the same (lack of logic) I could say "remember that big ole depression? That was because we didnt have the ACA!" Are the commies coming for us too? Fear mongering. GIANT leaps. No fact. This is madness.

Your life is not going to change. Insurance remains private. The wealthy will continue to have access to better care than the poor. Your world will remain as it is.

lilliput and Mike: No I don't have statistics but I have word of mouth from people I know who now practice coming to the US - especially in the case of heart issues (bypass surgery, etc.). It seems from other posts there are others who know of people coming here. This happened last spring: a friend's son was visiting in NY and broke his arm in the morning. Instead of going to our hospital, he said he would wait until he got back to Canada (later that day) to get it set. He went to their emergency room: they told him to get an appointment to come back to get the bone set - he was seen on Wednesday afternoon, with infection already setting in - and had his arm operated on. His father said he should have demanded he went to the hospital here and could have avoided all this.

Try these webiste as an insight of what to expect with the new law - http://www.movetoireland.com/movepag/medover.htm
Here is a run-down on wait times to see a specialist - this is from U.S. News and World Report:
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2009/07/28/statistics-show-canada-healthcare-is-inferior-to-american-system

You'll probably have to cut and paste these.

Debs - Those are some great stories! You should insert some leprechauns into your story, makes it more believable.

Debs, I have word of mouth from many British friends that they wouldn't trade their healthcare for anything we have.

World of mouth is well.....word of mouth.

liliiput, you are very much mistaken, a good portion of Canadians do come down to the United States for treatments because their healthcare does not work in Canada. If you have cancer it might take a year or two to get in to get chemo or radiation therapy. By then you might be dead. Don't forget the Americans that are in their 70's, obama's way of thinking is your close to death and it doesn't matter, were not going to pay for your medical treatments. Can not wait for Romney to get into office to truly repeal obamacare

Are there any accurate figures as to how many Canadians come into the United States for medical service? http://wmolaw.newsvine.com/_news/2009/07/24/3062455-are-there-any-accurate-figures-as-to-how-many-canadians-come-into-the-united-states-for-medical-service
Canadian citizens are not required to hold a visa to enter the U.S., so no government agency tracks Canadians entering the country for medical reasons, said Devon Herrick, a senior fellow with the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis, which researches medical tourism. Richard Baker's Timely Medical Alternatives, based in Vancouver, says his company annually helps 150,000 Canadians on medical waiting lists receive care in the U.S. "But lots of others come without the benefit of our help," said Baker, who founded the company in 2003. "There are people who live near the border who come out on their own."

The New York Times
Thursday, June 28, 2012

How Canadians Feel About Their Health Care: Wait Times and Spending
By IAN AUSTEN

Usually Canada’s unelected Senate does its business without any reference to its counterpart in the United States. But last month, the issue of health care brought some of the current debate in Washington into Ottawa’s red chamber.
Speaking in the United States Senate in early June, Mitch McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky, cited wait times for procedures at a hospital in Kingston, Ontario, to show the failings of Canada’s publicly funded health care system.
He said that patients in that college town (and prison center) east of Toronto wait nearly a year for knee replacement surgery, six months for hip replacements, and three months for brain, prostate and breast cancer surgeries. And when it comes to cardiac bypasses, Mr. McConnell warned that “patients in Ontario are told they have to wait six months for surgery Americans often get right away.”

Debbie Shilobod as an RN you know first hand about what it is like in the medical field now with shortages of nurses and doctors. And as far as Mike who think that RN stand for real nutjob he will be the biggest cry baby when he doesn't have the doctors and nurses at his beck and call.

Proud American - Actually, I would refuse to receive care from a nutjob like Debbie, RN or not.
Fortunately, I know TONS of mediacal professionals who support this decision.

Mike back up what you are saying, why should people believe what your saying? Debs you are totally correct. In Scotland it takes 3-6 months to get into a doctors office. Going to an emergency room doesn't help you either getting into a doctors any faster either, your still going to have to wait 3-6 months to see a doctor.

Jean - It doesn't take that long in Scotland. You're blowing hot air, especially as you can't back up your ridiculous assertion.

I heard that you have to be 6'8" tall and you have to change our name to Phil to live in Scotland. It's absolutely true because I heard about it.
If you don't believe me then that's your problem.

Mike when 60% of the people think this health care law is all wrong that speaks for itself. And so you don't say facts that was a poll taken after the verdit came down and not on fox news so don't use that excuse. And if you don't like Debbies opinion that is one thing but don't attack her personally. I have found out when people really can't find a way to dispute you they attack you personally. Debbie I don't know you personally but if needed ,you can take care of me anytime and the sad part is because you are an RN you would still have to take care of someone who doesn't appreciate what a hard working professional RN'S are. These are the same people who think the government owes them free health care , free education, etc just because they breathe the same air as the hard working, tax paying people in this country. One more thing when this health care bill starts to hurt not help the people it is suppose to help they can always blame President Bush.

Michael - Why aren't all of our allies in the world bankrupt in the way you're describing?
The UK seems to be in pretty good economic shape, in fact better than the US at this moment.
Same with Canada, their government has a system in place that provides healthcare to their citizens and their government isn't bankrupt.

It is not an issue of economics but an issue of idealogy.

You're providing numbers but you're not using any hard data to back it up. The only link you provide is to your own personal blog.

Fear mongering is not how you win people over to your side of this issue.

And this is the first salvo in the battle against inflated healthcare costs.
Wouldn't lowering healthcare costs, across the broad spectrum, actually lower the chance of bankruptcy?

Well, the links are all throughout my blog... but let me show you some of them now.

Let's take your first issue about the UK... their economy contracted at a .30% in the first quarter of 2012, and another .3% in the quarter before that, so they are not in better shape than the US. The fact that you said that while the UK is in a recession discredits your case immediately, but I will play along here.. here is your link to that http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/gdp-growth

Canada also has historically had a much lower GDP growth rate than the US, partly because their economy is not near as robust.

As for the links to the cost of Obamacare, this oped has some great links to studies that show the unsustainable track of medicare... http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-we-cant-afford-medicare/2012/05/30/gJQAqIGh2U_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions_Thu

In the cost of Obamacare, here is the link for the updated CBO projections http://cbo.gov/publication/43076

And as for the long term fiscal scenario and health care costs, here you go again from the CBO: http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43288

I am an economist, I work in the construction industry, which is anywhere from 40-50% publicly funded depending on the year, so I have to know what the government is doing. Furthermore, our allies in Europe are bankrupt, hence the debt crisis occurring in Europe. Lastly, I have studied policy initiatives of government for quite some time now, so I am not fear mongering. I am a conservative, but only because after 1,000's of hours of studying this stuff, I realize that big governments in dynamic economies fueled by private sector growth squeeze resources and are unsustainable. If you don't believe me, that is fine, it is your choice. But if you want some proof, read a book called This Time is Different by Reinhart and Roguff. They studied 166 financial crises over the last 800 years to show concrete proof and underlying consistencies throughout. And I had the link to my blog to simply show some of these, as well as my opinions on how to get America growing robustly again.

Ohh, and your claim of cost controls, this is a pretty thorough article about the holes in the ACA and why they will not be effective... http://www.forbes.com/sites/sciencebiz/2011/01/05/obamacare-and-price-controls/

The UK seems to be in pretty good economic shape, in fact better than the US at this moment.

Your joking right?

Yea Fred, I think Mike may have his facts a bit misconstrued. I think the links I provided should be enough to set the record straight. If not though, please email me Mike, I'd be glad to show you more non-partisan studies/reports, and ones that I have not written to eliminate bias to back up my claims.

Bottom line (and these are the ones that matter0:

UK unemployment rate 6.8%

US dollar is 64 cents to a pound

The UK economy is doing circles around us. :(

Mike, I'm also in the construction industry and disagree almost 100% with everything you've just said. Can you post your facts and ideas here without linking to your blog by chance?

"Let's take your first issue about the UK... their economy contracted at a .30% in the first quarter of 2012, and another .3% in the quarter before that, so they are not in better shape than the US. The fact that you said that while the UK is in a recession discredits your case immediately, but I will play along here.. here is your link to that http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/gdp-growth";;

And since you're in the construction industry you know and can name the natural factors attributing to those lower numbers throughout the past winter months in the UK?

liliiput, first off, the UK unemployment rate is over 8% http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10604117

So you are wrong there, and also wrong by saying that GDP does not matter, because that matters more than jobs. If you discredit GDP, you simply know nothing about economics.

As for currency, yes it is valued highly than ours, but historically (post WWII) the pound has often times been valued highly, so this is not different, and has not impact on health care policy. You are comparing apples and oranges.

As for those GDP numbers, there is a analytic tool called a seasonal adjustment. It accounts for seasonal variability like winter. So they are in a recession. They are not doing better than we are. If you think they are in the sense of life expectancy/health, you may have a point, I am not well versed on that their living standards.

But from an economic standpoint, our 1.9% GDP growth rate is much better than their contraction. The links that I posted in the replies are not to my blog, but rather to non-partisan studies. Obviously, you did not click on them.

I stand corrected! Our unemployment rates are almost identical. The UK's has actually gone down in the past few months, however.

I don't believe I even mention GDP. I asked you if you know and can name the natural factors that influenced the UK's figures (especially construction of which you claim to have expertise) numbers overall.

Not sure if I follow your point.. You bring up what I said about contracting GDP, ask me to substantiate those lower numbers, and then you said you were not talking about it? If you are asking why their economy contracted, investments are down substantially, their markets are basically frozen, and austerity cuts in a large central government with heavy influence on output will always hurt more. As for construction, I don't study their market, I deal domestically, with owners of larger GC's and concrete, and I can list many factors with that, but the most important is the banks, because if the banks aren't lending, projects can't get financed. And if projects can't get financed, things are not being built.

And the only reason I brought up the construction aspect, is because I hear from a business side what the consequences of the health care bill have on my clients. But if you disagree with the statistics I have referenced and the links I have provided, then you are just ignoring the numbers. Which, you are perfectly entitled to do, but with regard to health care, the numbers don't lie, and usually the estimates are under what the future costs are, as historic CBO projections have shown.

Michael Falleroni, Maybe if the President, Congress, Senate, House didn't borrow all of Social Security and Medicare's money then they wouldn't be broke now. SS and Medicare isn't broke because of over spending of senior citizens. They are broke because our government owes them trillions and have no plan on paying them back.

Jean I couldn't agree more about Social Security. I did not say that the result was "overspending on seniors" for that, but the reality is that they did spend that money when it was supposed to be appropriated to boomers retiring, and the boomers enjoyed some of those spending initiatives. My point is that we are now facing times where we need to address our debt situation so we don't end up like Europe. With regard to Medicare, it is a broken system. I am not going to go in depth, but my blog does show the waste, fraud, and legal problems that suck hundreds of billions from the system. The idea is not broken, but my point is that the ACA does not address the long term solvency, as the numbers show. Health reform is critical, I am all for it, but this plan does not address the structural problems in Medicare and Medicaid, and does not have the adequate cost control measures to curb spending trends... as the links by non-partisan think tanks depict. Agree with your overall notion though.

Outraged Citizen - You win the gold medal for pointless analogies.

Let me offer my sincerest apologies. Perhaps I should use smaller words moving forward.

Dear Outraged - No need for smaller words. Just stop using air conditioners and kleenex to somehow emphasize whatever it is that you're attempting to say.

Let’s say you have product A – maybe for simplicity’s sake we’ll call them crayons. There are sad children out there who cannot afford crayons. The government can’t very well stand by and let children to be sad. Only a monster would allow children to be sad.

To solve this problem, the government decides they can reduce the price of crayons if they forced all children entering kindergarten to purchase the ginormous pack of 96 crayons. By lowering the price through manipulating demand, then all children entering kindergarten would have their very own ginormous pack of 96 crayons and they would all be very happy indeed.

Yay for children, yay for crayons and yay for the government!

lilli you and I finally agree but not for the reasons you might suspect so do not jump for joy just yet. You said: It's a good idea because the way the system works now violates the rights of the people who do pay.

I agree the way the system works now is that those who USE A COMMODITY are not PAYING for that use but instead are being SUBSIDIZED by others so that the ones you are actually using the commodity are paying far less than they should because the TAXPAYERS are picking up the slack. The rights of the people that pay TAXPAYERS are being violated because they do not have access to the service they are forced to pay for.. Medicare and medicaide.

As far as increased costs for insurance can be more closely traced to GOVERNMENT mandated coverage. YOUR insurance companies are not sent a bill when a deadbeat does not pay their medical bill. Health care costs rise because of GOVERNMENT policy and intervention in the marketplace. BECAUSE heavy users of the system are granted a DISCOUNT for their use the costs are then passed on in higher proceedure costs since providers are given lower than the costs of service reimbursements from the government. As a result in order to remain in business these costs have to passed on to other consumers. TO FIX IT: get the government out of health care. But that will not happen now since we have OBUMMERCARE

Fred, I was quite enthralled by your comments, many of which I agree with, until the "Obummercare" comment. Why trivialize such an important argument with playground talk?

If we follow that flawed logic, then we must also say it’s the role of government to limit free speech because what someone says hurts other people. We must also say it’s the role of government to stop all athletic contests that have “winners and losers” because the act of losing might hurt them. It must also be the role of government to close all business they deem harmful because their products hurt their consumers.

Everyone agrees that it’s a good idea that citizens have access to quality healthcare. It’s just not the government role to mandate citizens buy it simply because it is a good idea.

Mmm, Outraged Citizen, you were overseas during the whole "hate speech" debate and law passage?

The court decides what 'harm' means. It's the system we have. When you have healthcare only because you refuse to pay for insurance and my premiums go up to cover your negligence then yes, that's a harm and an undue burden. Yay, Justice Roberts for seeing that!!!!

We all know the limits on speech and those limits mean by its very definition that it is not free. You choose to dance around the issue because you believe the passage of this law will help you financially. That’s a perfectly reasonable point of view, but not one that always supports what is constitutional.

The court is not the sole arbiter of harm. We have laws passed through legislative bodies that define a particular offense “harm” and a judicial system that serves as the mechanism to carry out the administration of those laws.

If you believe that healthcare coverage is not provide you a good ROI due to flaws within the system, you can always opt out and search for a better solution, rather than forcing one on others to your perceived benefit.

Haha. Sorry Robert. I am going to have to respectfully decline so as not to distract from the point of my comment. My bad for bringing it up. Another time maybe. :)

For your own reference, Jon Stewart makes a nightly living off of Fox's blunders and misgivings, so any one of his shows would do. Also try googling "Fox News." lol. This is not a rare or individual statement here.

Task at hand here fella!

I also did not say that they did not have affiliate stations, but that, unlike NBC, they do not place the unruly bias where it belongs, but keep it on the major parent station.

Try not to take the affront to Fox personally. I have divulged no secrets here nor unusual opinions.

Lets see Mike doesn't like RN'S with an opinion, peoples analogies, fox news and Liliiput doesn't like anyone who can give facts that she is always asking for. I can only say one thing if you don't like the way this country is going people need to get out and vote this election could be one of the most important ones we have seen in a very long time.

Why doesn't obama put all money back in Social Security and Medicare MONIES that the government has borrowed in the last 20 years. Then we would see there is enough money for Social Security and Medicare. We as the people should be in Washington demanding this, but we go on what Government tells us. Government needs to make a web site for us that goes back 20 years to show us exactly what they borrowed, how much they are paying back social security in interest on money that wasn't theirs to borrow in the first place. That money belongs to us citizens that paid this and it is about time the tell us what they exactly stole off us the American Citizens.

Though we were not suppose to swear on these post. But some are allowed to get away with it as other get yelled at? Using the above is offensive to me as we all know what it means.

Apologies for mispelling Erin.

Not the task Robert! You obviously see Fox news as some rebel revolutionary in a sea of commies/aristocrats (depending on your war), but you basically just said that Fox News disagrees with and contredicts every other major, reputable news source ever, and that all of these news sources are in some sort of cahoots with Obama.

You have just proven my point.

Nobody goes to jail! Where do you guys get this stuff!?

Please please please read the opinion of the court by Roberts...It is not difficult, but it is long. Just read the first 5 pages.

Before this went to the Supreme Court, the Obama Administration was talking about placing people in jail that refused to buy healthcare, before they decided to take hard earn money away from taxpayers IRS checks. I hope Romney gets in office so that we can get rid of this stupid health care bill that is going to rob Americans to pay outrageous premiums that they say will save money.

and I quote "one fact seems certain to me, amd that is that they seem to scare the hell out of the "mainstream media", who pretty much march in lockstep together, a la the NY Times, Washington Post, CBS, ABC, NBC, Time, Newsweek, etc, ALL of them in the tank for Obama! "

Robert I don't know why you won't stay on task, focus on the point of my comment, or do your own darn googling. so here you go.

In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX NEWS that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.

concerning the "ground zero mosque" reporting "Fox News for playing a dangerous game of association based on speculation, and wherein Fox continued to mention a nameless man with ties to Imam Rauf through the "Kingdom Foundation." It turns out the man they are referring to but never name is Saudi prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, one of the biggest shareholders of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp."

The Project for Excellence in Journalism did a study a few years ago comparing all the news organizations and their factual accuracy levels. Fox News came out on the bottom, with the most deliberately deceptive or plainly non-factual coverage.
It is non partisan, non ideological and non political.

http://www.hardsf.org/ThinkPol/TPFoxNew.htm

The Project on Excellence in Journalism report in 2006[36] showed that 68 percent of Fox cable stories contained personal opinions, as compared to MSNBC at 27 percent and CNN at 4 percent. The "content analysis" portion of their 2005 report also concluded that "Fox was measurably more one-sided than the other networks,

A study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland School of Public Affairs, as published in the Winter 03-04 issue of the Political Science Quarterly,[50] reported that poll-based findings[51] indicated that viewers of Fox News, the Fox Broadcasting Company and local Fox affiliates were more likely than viewers of other news networks to hold three purported misperceptions:[50]
67% of Fox viewers believed that the "U.S. has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization" (Compared with 56% for CBS, 49% for NBC, 48% for CNN, 45% for ABC, 16% for NPR/PBS).
The belief that "The U.S. has found Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq" was held by 33% of Fox viewers and only 23% of CBS viewers, 19% for ABC, 20% for NBC, 20% for CNN and 11% for NPR/PBS
35% of Fox viewers believed that "the majority of people [in the world] favor the U.S. having gone to war" with Iraq. (Compared with 28% for CBS, 27% for ABC, 24% for CNN, 20% for NBC, 5% for NPR/PBS)

A 2010 Stanford University survey found "more exposure to Fox News was associated with more rejection of many mainstream scientists’ claims about global warming, [and] with less trust in scientists"

A 2011 Kaiser Family Foundation survey on U.S. misperceptions about health care reform found that Fox News viewers scored lower for factual knowledge than other news viewers.[64

A 2010 Ohio State University study of public misperceptions about the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" found that viewers who relied on Fox News were 66% more likely to believe incorrect rumors than those with "low reliance" on Fox News.

In 2011, a study by Fairleigh Dickinson University found that New Jersey Fox News viewers were less well informed than people who did not watch any news at all. The study employed objective questions, such as whether Hosni Mubarak was still in power in Egypt.

And most recently, Fox news reported that the mandate was struck down...which it was not.

Now that is all of the googling I am willing to do for you Robert. Take it or leave it, but I have asked you repeatedly to drop the fox news thing as it was not my point, and I even apologized. I am now going to stop looking at this thing, so you will be getting no further response from me. I really should not have responded at all. Have an awesome day!

oh wait...one more! Hannity, Beck, Paul Gigot all said on Fox News programs that people would face jail time if they did not pay the tax, even though the aca specifically states that NOBODY can do jail for not paying this tax nor can they be penalized with seizure of property.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/27/bill-oreilly/oreilly-says-no-one-fox-raised-issue-jail-time-not/

Erin can you tell me where your quote came from? I did a search of it and could not find it on the net. or is that a quote from you.

Erin Conners, This is part of the article that you took it out of your quote "In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.
Back in December of 1996, Jane Akre and her husband, Steve Wilson, were hired by FOX as a part of the Fox “Investigators” team at WTVT in Tampa Bay, Florida. In 1997 the team began work on a story about bovine growth hormone (BGH), a controversial substance manufactured by Monsanto Corporation. The couple produced a four-part series revealing that there were many health risks related to BGH and that Florida supermarket chains did little to avoid selling milk from cows treated with the hormone, despite assuring customers otherwise.
According to Akre and Wilson, the station was initially very excited about the series. But within a week, Fox executives and their attorneys wanted the reporters to use statements from Monsanto representatives that the reporters knew were false and to make other revisions to the story that were in direct conflict with the facts. Fox editors then tried to force Akre and Wilson to continue to produce the distorted story. When they refused and threatened to report Fox’s actions to the FCC, they were both fired.(Project Censored #12 1997) This is from a Democratic website http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/11-the-media-can-legally-lie/

Erin Connors
Stewart: FOX Failed To Mention Co-Owner Is One They Accuse Of 'Terror Funding'
Jon Stewart continued his coverage of the 'Ground Zero Mosque' debate last night, focusing on Fox News' incongruities harder than he ever has. In a segment called "The Parent Company Trap," Stewart shared with his viewers how Fox News' plan to "follow the money" from mosque builder Imam Rauf to terrorists will be a tricky one because it leads right back to Fox News. Stewart showed clips from his show last week, in which he mocked Fox News for playing a dangerous game of association based on speculation, and wherein Fox continued to mention a nameless man with ties to Imam Rauf through the "Kingdom Foundation." It turns out the man they are referring to but never name is Saudi prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, one of the biggest shareholders of Rupert Murdoch's News Corps. Showing a photo of the prince shaking hands with Rupet Murdoch, Stewart exclaimed, "That's right, the guy they're painting as a sinister money force OWNS Fox News." Stewart then used Fox's own logic to explain how the "terror mosque" is funded by Prince Alwaleed, despite being a co-owner of Fox News, and therefore funding terrorism. So, using their logic, Stewart said, "If we want to cut off funding to the terror mosque, we must, together as a nation, stop watching Fox." But with this new information, one thing is now uncertain.
http://digg.com

Erin Connors -this is the best, someone unknown person wrote this as an answer on Yahoo Answers and people pick what answer they like best.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080801091610AAEAO9U

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

The Project for Excellence in Journalism did a study a few years ago comparing all the news organizations and their factual accuracy levels. Fox News came out on the bottom, with the most deliberately deceptive or plainly non-factual coverage.

This is an independent, not partisan research organization. From their website: "The Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism is a research organization that specializes in using empirical methods to evaluate and study the performance of the press. It is non partisan, non ideological and non political."

Jon Wain, I have a pre-existing condition and have been paying all of my medical bills out of my own pocket since no insurance company would pick up my illnesses Fibro and RSD which came from a work related injury. I budget 350 a month to pay for my medical bills each and every month to take care of myself. I also have a savings account that is strictly for my medical. I could of quit working a 10 years ago and went on SS and would of been able to get a medicaid card. I chose to work instead. I don't want obamacare shoved down my face either, as I see our taxes going up to pay for the lazy people that don't want to work and illegals. I had no choice in paying for my own medical out of my own pocket, since so insurance company would pick me up. You might get low premiums one or two years then they are going to end up jacking prices up and whats going to happen then. You won't be paying for health care on your own so they will take your hard earn money off you your income tax check. Obamacare is just a scam and we need him out of office asap.

@ Bob and ML: Ha! I just saw this. Thanks! You have to understand, while I am commenting here which has turned into debating Fox News and whether or not this was a good article (I concede that it was not purposefully misinforming, and not really despicable, but I still think it is just wrong and seriously lacking what the addition of two sentences could have rectified), I am also reading the majority opinion of the court, writing a summary, and participating in social networking conversations and phone conversations. I barely know what it going on anymore, but I love it! So I am sorry that I did not see this, and appreciate you confirming that at least some of what I have deduced has been sane. :)

couldnt have said that better myself, lets work together to do whats right for everyone

The U.S. is not a democracy - it's a republic. And Supreme Court justices are not supposed to vote by what is in their heart. or even what they think is the right thing for this country. They are to vote in line with the Constitution. The original purpose of government under the Constitution was to provide citizens with a device to protect their life, liberty, and property from others. Nothing to do with forcing people to purchase something they don't want to buy (via tax or whatever means.) Why would you attribute racism and hatred to those who disagree with you? That has nothing to do with it.

@SSB – It’s pointless trying to reason with the posters here in favor of Obamacare. You’d have better luck debating Slingblade regarding biscuit recipes. They don’t care if it’s constitutional. It doesn’t mean a “hill of beans” to them it is the single largest misinterpretation of the general welfare clause in our lifetime. They won’t lose a wink of sleep knowing that it erodes personal freedom and gives the government the power to force citizens to enter into contracts with private companies.

You see SSB, these people are motivated by greed. They believe the passage of this law will benefit them financially. They would have us manipulate demand through government fiat in an attempt to artificially lower the price of goods and services for their financial benefit. Their greed is the enemy’s biggest asset. The enemy knows we will sell our soul for a dollar.

This thinking is dangerous and short sighted. What they fail to comprehend, or simply don’t care, is that the government now has the power to force us to buy practically anything as long as they feel it’s in the “general welfare” of the people. This is the death of personal freedom.

Let me leave everyone with this, “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

The only way to rid this country of Obamacare is not to re-elect him.

@SSB, actually, the Constittution is written to protect the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...don't remember seeing the personal property line in there. It also protects from the tyranny of the majority.

I'm sorry if you disagree, but the high healthcare premiums I pay for my family (well over $1000 per month) and my employees and their families (again, well over $1000 per month each) to cover those who refuse to purchase their own insurance but still use hospital services, is a huge infringement on my pursuit of happiness.

Liliput, I agree with most of your points, but "life, liberty, ect." is in the decralation on independence, not the constitution.

These people are hoping they can fall though the cracks and get free healthcare is what it is coming down to since obamacare is going to to give more people free welfare and healthcare. Go get a job or work 2 jobs to pay for your own health care. Or learn to budget your own money to pay for yourself if you get sick.

@ liliiput – Despite the fact the Constitution does not protect the pursuit of happiness, let’s just follow your logic to its inevitable conclusion.

You state, “the high healthcare premiums I pay for my family (well over $1000 per month) and my employees and their families (again, well over $1000 per month each) to cover those who refuse to purchase their own insurance but still use hospital services, is a huge infringement on my pursuit of happiness.”

By making this statement, you advocate that the government take action against all citizens if one citizen believes its pursuit of happiness has been impeded. Can you not see that this is a dangerous precedence? Would you really want a country that caters to the lowest common denominator – greed?

I'm with you Ms. French. Our only solution now is to vote the bums out. Obama must go along with Casey. I'm encouraged that there are so many comments yet disappointed at the absence of the word "freedom" in the arguments. Obama care is a huge stake driven into the heart of liberty. If the gobment can tax us for not buying health care can they tax us for not buying local vegetables, solar panels or cars that get 40 mpg. Where does it end. (sorry question mark key not working)

Roberts is right....the law can't protect us from our mistakes in the voting booth. The only hope is a new president and senate in the fall.

Margeret French I am with you on getting that thing out of office. All he has done is waste the taxpayers money. Do you notice now how were not talking about the men and women that we still have serving over in a war from Bush and the one that he started. I've been paying for my own doctors and scripts every month for 10 years. Now that I'm going to be stuck picking out an insurance, i'm going to be stuck paying more money for the insurance and then going to be slammed with a 50 copay and 25 copay on scripts. Will go from 350 now that I am putting aside to over 600. Guess I won't be able to buy more than hotdogs and romaine noodle soup at the store anymore.

But Margaret, according to ml they give you 600 towards your prescriptions so you should be able to afford everything. And before this bill was passed though the supreme court, they were talking about putting people in jail if they did not purchase health care. Guess they figured they would have to build more jails and put people to work and give them free health care in jail is why the nixed the idea. There are people stuck in the donut hole as you are and people like your mom that gets more for less. That is how it is going to continue and instead of you paying the 407 a month prices are going to sky rocket for insurance and drs appointments. mr ml you live find and dandy off their 2500 a month for one person, others aren't so lucky and they have to make a decision to purchase food, pay utilities or buy their mediicationsm, unlike you who has the money to get everything.

ML I have seen you personally slam people for spelling errors, telling people how they waste money and are living off their mommy. There are people that are in the donut hole and can't get out of it. Before obamacare went to the Supreme court the Democrats were talking about placing people in jail who refused to purchase health insurance. I did not see this information on Fox news, it was on one of the Democrats websites and people were mocking them on their because they would have to build more jails to place people in them. Not everyone watches Fox news as you have said.

ML that 600 savings doesn't help everyone especially when some pay out thousands a month on prescriptions. Why don't go find out how much chemo pills that are not on the Medicare approved list of drugs. My brothers and sisters and myself have been pitching in and purchasing them for my father for the last 3 years. He has been cancer free since being on them and if he goes off them as he did in the past the cancer came back and had to go 2 rounds of chemo treatments. The prescription cost close to 4,000 for a 30 day supply. How are some Seniors suppose to pay for these drugs, pay for taxes, food, utilities and other living expenses. Their income a month is less that 2,000 and their savings went down the drain to pay for hospitals, doctors and chemo treatments as their insurance and medicare didn't pick up all the charges.

Also firsthand, no hearsay -
A friend of mine moved to Ontario from Pittsburgh a few years ago. She always says she would not move back, mostly due to the sanity of the Canadian health care system. She recently had major surgery, came out of it fine and left the hospital without any bankrupting bills.

My father had a non-life threatening surgery performed in a US hospital, got an infection and died months later. I have never used this to condemn the entire US health care system as you have for the Canadian system.

It's funny how many people think it's OK to use one example of one occurance to prove a general point. Sorry, doesn't work, it's just lazy. You can, however, look up all of the statistics that repeatedly talk about the US having the highest health care costs in the world, along with the statistics that show we are not getting the best care for our money (life expectancy, infant mortality stats for example).

To all who oppose Obamacare without a plan of their own (most all Republican politicians), what you are saying is that you're OK with what we have now. I would suggest some mental health care is in order for those people. It's all politics and nothing more.

We experienced Canadian healthcare firsthand - we were in the country and spent weeks at the hospital looking after our family member. This is not a "friend of mine move there and says...."

I work for a company that has many offices all over the world. Two countries come to mind where my co-workers have expressed displeasure over their heath care system. They are Canada and the UK. Their complaints are many but a common and frequent one is the substantially long wait to see a doctor. They marvel how quickly we are able to see a doctor (the very same day) when we have a sick child or a condition that needs quick attention. And also at the medical care we receive in our emergency rooms - they are always asking us about it and comparing.

Funny that you mention about an infection - my mother-in-law is in UPMC Presby for an infection (lifeflighted from a latrobe hosptal ER) she is diabetic and in her late 80's. She has gotten superb care and will be released any day thanks to the outstanding medical care. And she will be going to a care facility for rehab - physical therapy.

You can call me lazy but I in no way resemble that remark - Please do not name call - it is only a reflection on you.

Cindy - I did not call you lazy, just the form of argument that you've chosen to use. I've had this discussion with many Obama care opponents. They all know someone or have had one run in, or have talked to several people about single payer health systems and have a horror story. Your argument does not prove anything, just as my situation with my father and your situation with your mother in law proves nothing about the US system. They are examples that don't prove anything.

I know several people who live in Canada, since I recently lived in a border city. I also know a few who have lived in France for some time. All have seen first hand the US and the foreign systems and all prefer the single payer systems of the country they now live in. I guess I just know a different type of person than you do. I also know that in any opinion poll done in Canada, they give their health care systems high marks. The same can't be said for polls in this country, or the statistics that you didn't address.

If you want to go back to first hand accounts (now I'm being lazy), I knew of many people who lived near the Canadian border when I lived there that would go over to Canada to buy perscription drugs, because they couldn't afford them here. They were willing to chance getting caught at the border because our system doesn't negotiate prices (thanks W) with drug companies, we just let them charge what they want. This is the system so many of you want to keep.

They force you to buy car insurance, don't they?

@liliiput – The government does not force all citizens to purchase automobile insurance. My young child is not required to have automobile insurance. My elderly neighbors that do not own or operate automobiles are not required to have automobile insurance. Only those who want to legally operate an automobile are required to have insurance.

The difference here is that citizens can either buy health insurance, or face paying a tax. What we like to call a Catch-22.

Paul, perhaps this stat is the best news. While those supporting Obamacare were coming to the microphones with "time to move on," they knew more discussion of the topic is going to harm them. The stats from those who Obamacare was intended to help are even more strongly opposed. The decision coming now will enable the voters to understand "what is in it" (quoting Speaker Pelosi), and will find the 21 hidden taxes. They will further understand that the main body who will get hit with the tax increases will be middle class.

Armed with the newly found insights because the topic has been brought forward, now as a tax, the voters will make a decision in November that they don't want to be part of continuing the current Administration.

In this respect, the ruling today was a big win for the GOP. The Dems want to "move on," and the MSM will help in this regard. Will the GOP do well at promoting the stats you provided, plus all the information about the 21 new taxes? If they don't, then Obamacare will continue along its path.

Agree 100%.

Romney has already said, in his speech, that he supports everything in the bill but the individual mandate. I really do not think that Romney will repeal the aca. He is basically Obama, but with less concern for social programs and more concern for private industry. I promise that this country will continue to move in the same direction for better or worse. Side note: our financial system is already in its death throes. healthcare is not what is going to break us. what is costing the most money is our military endeavors overseas, and Romney and Obama will make the SAME decisions there. they are both fairly center.

Without divulging my own support for either candidate, I am feeling pretty certain that Obama will win, but I really want to encourage everyone to resist the fear mongering and hyperbole. The USA is currently in the crapper. We need to accept this and move forward and look seriously at our international affairs (outsourcing, military industrial complex {man was eisenhower ever dead on}, economic control of other country's resources). If we would focus on producing within our own country, accept that an economy based on military control is doomed, and allow other countries to participate in a true fair market, not only would we be solving our own debt problems, but we would be aiding the rest of the world. Neither Romney nor Obama are going to do this. Lets just try to keep things realistic here.

Mark, that is pretty cynical. i would not just throw away the importance of community discourse which is action unto itself. Sharing information and political ideas is so important. I am just happy that people are talking about this and taking notice whether they are for or against! It is this kind of community discourse that could encourage increased voting and other forms of "getting involved."

ie: Don't crap all over people for wanting to talk about this, whether it is at the dinner table, at your local bar, and a community meeting, or on the internet. That is just not fair.

Bill - That's been the main sticking point I've had with Republicans on this health care issue. Their idea of an alternative is to maintain the status quo, even though it is horribly broken.
I would love to hear what the GOP's idea for health care reform will be.

@Mike – Setting aside the blatant unconstitutionality of Obamacare, it’s difficult to fathom why people would rather treat the symptoms rather than the cause.

Now I know you hate folksy analogies, maybe your grandfather told you too many as a child. But Obamacare is like telling the gas station owner he can only charge $2.00/gallon for gas when it cost him $2.10/gallon. That system is not sustainable.

Admittedly I’m no expert, but it would make sense to treat the cause (what makes it so expensive) rather than the symptoms (artificially inflating demand in an attempt to lower prices). A fundamental piece to any solution would have to be meaningful tort reform. That is unlikely to happen as lawyers make up 43% of the congressional delegation vs. just 20 total doctors. What I find interesting is that of all the MDs currently in Congress, only one voted for Obamacare.

Mr Citizen - Didn't you hear the news? The Supreme Court ruled this as being constitutional.
How can "Obamacare" be blatantly unconstitutional if the Supreme Court has ruled it otherwise?

Have you read the Constitution? Or did you just read the Limbaugh Constitution Cliff Notes?

Senor Citizen - Your gas station analogy is silly and the numbers are wrong. And leave my Grandfather out of this.

@Mike – Please, call me Outraged. We’re friends now and friends use each other’s first name.

Yikes! You’ve really hoisted me up by my own petard. I suppose once the Supreme Court rules that something is constitutional, that’s it, it’s set in stone, case closed. Turn off the lights, Elvis has left the building.

Wait a second you sneaky devil. That’s not how it works at all. If we are to believe your view, slavery would still be legal (Dred Scott v. Sanford), racial segregation would still be legal (Plessy v. Ferguson), sodomy would still be a crime (Bowers v. Hardwick), just to name a few.

I have not seen Limbaugh’s Cliff Notes to the Constitution. What I have read is the US Constitution, the Federalist Papers, heck even the Anti-Federalist Papers. What I also understand is that the Supreme Court is made up of people. People who bring their biases to the bench. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes they get it wrong and they do go back and reverse previous decisions.

Ok Mike, lesson over. I do take Paypal.

Did you listen to Romeny's speech? His alternative is the ACA without the individual mandate. It was really funny because I had noticed this while listening to Romney speak yesterday, and Stewart jumped all over it in his show. For a laugh, you might want to pull up that clip (just for a laugh), and Romney's response is available everywhere.

I have skimmed/read through the ACA several times over the years, and I am working on a summary of the majority opinion of the court to publish online as a lot of people have been asking me to explain it anyways and are unwilling to read the thing. It is 200 pages long! hahaha.

Citizen has some really good and true points. I suggest googling "FED" and "inflation tax." Be prepared for some shocking and lengthy reading!

We each have this idea in our heads of what the framers intended, and it is important to remember that: A. this is why we have a supreme court. and B. The framers could not have possibly imagined the world that we live in today.

but according to the commerce clause, which was written by the framers, this _is_ constitutional. the government is regulating a private industry that the people of this country were furious with and was really doing some serious damage. The outcry was answered with govt regulation/involvement to protect people. This is what the govt was designed for...the security of its people. you can debate over whether or not this really protects people and all of that stuff, but in applying the constitution, written for a world that is so far from this one, Roberts decision was a fare one, and the ACA takes care not to violate the rights of private industry or people. (the constitution upholds the right of congress to tax). So if you have a problem with, not just this tax but any other tax that has been increased or imposed over the past recent years, you have a problem with the constitution. this is totally fine. I have a problem with parts of the constitution as well. So maybe we should address the changes that need to be made to what is and is not "constitutional."

@Erin Conners – thank you for your thoughtful reply.

I do disagree with your assessment that this case was based upon powers granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause, or as some will also argue the Necessary and Proper Clause. Roberts was careful to clarify this point out that, “the power to regulate commerce presupposes the existence of commercial activity to be regulated.”

He goes on to state, “[ACA] does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce.”

And finally, ““[t]he Government’s theory here would effectively override that limitation, by establishing that individuals may be regulated under the Commerce Clause whenever enough of them are not doing something the Government would have them do.”

Simply put, Roberts believes the mandate creates commerce rather than regulating it. He, along with four other justices, rebuked the government’s assertions on this point.

Roberts did, however, support the ACA based on powers granted to Congress under the Tax Clause and the General Welfare Clause.

All that said, I look forward to your summary.

@outraged: I agree, except for your parenthesis which are surrounding "(aca)" and what it should be surrounding to be correct is "(individual mandate)." we are forgetting that there are many key provisions in the aca and the shared responsibility tax is just one of them. There is an important disctinction bc other parts of the ruling _do_ very much have to do with the extend of which the govt can regulate commerce, in this case, the healthcare industry.

I confess, there are a lot of comments directed at me, and I am also answering texts on the issue and responding on social networking, so I am having trouble keeping up, and I am going to have to stop responding on comment threads. I am getting stretched too thin here.

One of the major reasons why i would like to attempt to summarize key points of the opinion, is to highlight the other key provisions of the aca. The ACA is not the individual mandate, and I think that it is important to move past the shared responsibility tax (which is all we will here from the media) and focus on the bill holistically BEFORE we are mislead by the media and only see "TAX!"

I feel really bad that I cannot keep responding to people on this thread, but I did see a brief mention of me being "liberal" I would encourage people to never get into this "liberals do this" and "right wing does this" back and forth. It is always wrong and never productive. Also, I am not liberal. :) I have sided with right, left, and libertarian.

@outrage: cont...I would really love it if you read my piece. Just remember, that I am a writer that has heavily considered studying Constitutional Law, but decided against it and to keep politics as my hobby. ie: I am not expert and am well aware of this fact. I am a strong advocate for public discourse and believe in "keeping it classy" though I am human and my human emotions get in the way sometimes. I can only do my best and do my research and come out with a strong opinion, be it left, right, or off the grid, and encourage/help others to do the same and most importantly - CARE! I really do love the amount of comments, even if I do not love the article though my initial reaction to it has calmed somewhat. Just look at all of the people on here that know nothing except the mandate, and though technically the article is not wrong, the wording just bugs me. I do recognize that I am being semi-hypocritical as I maintain that there is not, and should not, be totally unbiased reporting as interpretation is never without bias. It is a fine line, and I think in this particular venue, in comparison with the rest of the articles that I see on Patch, this article might just be pretty irresponsible. In other venues, it would not have bothered me, or if it had taken it a step further and turned into an opinion piece.

I don't know how they compare line-by-line, but I can tell you insurance prices skyrocketed.

Don't look now but SOCIALISM seems to the road this president wants to take us down.

This article is far from being despicable. Not only are you outraged, you're an obnoxious jerk.

Wait, why are we having all police keep an eye out for me?

This article is despicable, but for why, please read my first comment above. If this were an opinion blog, or a partisan news outlet, then that would be a different story.

I am reading Roberts majority opinion. It is 200 pages long, and I do have a job, so give me a minute! :)

I will not be "detailing" but rather "summarizing." If you want the details, read the thing! It is actually an easy read. If you really do want to read my article (and not just attack), I will be attempting to just state the facts and put some rest to some of the more outlandish claims (like jail time), but I post on Cranberry Patch and not Chartiers Valley which is where this article originated.

The worst part about this article is the first sentence which is garbage and intentional manipulation meant to get you mad (and for this article to get 200 comments, win!)

@Mike – I could ask you if accusing people of pulling things out of their butt, calling an RN a Real Nut job, or asking people to include leprechauns to their stories to make them believable makes one an obnoxious jerk. I suppose you would say no, but to each his own.

If you had read Erin Conners’ original post she says about the article, “I find your intentional manipulation of the facts, or just poorly done research, to be an extremely poor show. Intentionally leaving out any positive factor of the courts decision, or anything that the public might see as positive, is irresponsible to your community. This is not Fox news.”

I don’t think it’s a stretch to say Erin Conners feels that Mike Jones did a very bad job.

@Erin: Please explain to me how the lede is an intentional manipulation of the facts. Here it is in case you didn't read it the first time: "The Supreme Court announced Thursday morning that the Affordable Care Act mandating every American to purchase health insurance is constitutional and should stand."

@Mike Jones. I would just like to sincerely say that I regret sometimes using strong language because I respect the heck out of anyone that writes for the public, period. But come on now, you know that I have read the article, but I understand the emotions behind putting your writing out there and having such a HUGE response. So congrats. So this is why I don't really enjoy this article:

1. The ACA, after this opinion of the court, does _not_ mandate that the everyone must purchase health insurance. What it does, is create a new tax for people that do not have insurance. To quote Roberts in the opinion, "The
payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health
insurance;" Also, like any other tax, there is a choice of whether or not to pay it. It is not a great choice, but it is a choice and _not_ a mandate. Don't wanna pay the income tax? Don't have an income. Don't wanna pay for insurance or pay the shared responsibility tax? Dont have an income, or have a small income, resulting in the govt giving you free, basic insurance.

2. You say that it is a "key provision" and make pretty much no mention of the other provisions, called "key" in the opinion. Support for the bill says the tax is essential to pay for the key provisions in the bill.

But where you do not have a character limit on your articles, I do on this comment, so I will leave it at that. Sry if I offended, but I maintain that you misinformed.

@Erin... The point of this story was not to digest a 50-page majority decision. If you want that, you can read it elsewhere online (which you obviously did). This story was only intended to be a bare bones story to inform people of the decision. The court upheld the individual mandate with an opt-out tax. Those are pretty basic facts. It's just semantics if you disagree with my wording. I am not an arm of the Republican or Democratic parties, so it is not my job to tout all the other "good stuff" in the bill.

The point of this story was to inform people what happened and give our readers an opportunity to express their opinions. And it's obviously working.

I'm not offended by what you said, but I do take exception that you think that my reporting is irresponsible and that I'm uninformed. I think you're in the minority with that opinion.

Ha, well whether or not I am in the minority is something that we will never know and really does not matter to me. I disagree on what you consider to be a "pretty basic fact," and even at a "bare bones" level, you left out some major portions of the decision and only focused on the shared responsibility tax which you misrepresented as the government forcing the public to buy health insurance or be penalized which is not the case. Accurately relating the "semantics" of this tax is huge. Huge enough that the SCOTUSA commented on it repeatedly. I think that you are wrong, I think that I have showed very clearly why you are wrong, and there is no reason to really keep repeating myself. The semantics are actually why CNN and Fox News are really getting mocked right now. the court _did_ find that a "mandate" (by its definition stating that one is forced to do something) is unconstitutional, so they jumped on that without reading further to see that though the "mandate" was unconstitutional along with a "penalty," the tax was not. And as you saw from my quote from Roberts, he feels that the tax is not a "mandate" as well. This is not my opinion, it is the opinion of the highest court in this country and people that are much more informed on the ACA than either you or me. This is important enough that almost every article that i have read has highlighted the distinction, but you simply said that the SCOTUSA ruled forcing citizens to purchase insurance as constitutional.

I do actually fully apologize and retract my statement that you are intentionally misleading due to bias. I now see that you just didn't know or didn't care to make the distinction. In either case, I don't like it.

Oh, I just caught this (I really am spread thin at this point, as I am sure you are as well and probably more so). By "good stuff" I meant "juicy stuff" ie, "important stuff." That was my bad. Poor choice of words.

@Mike Jones: And can I just add, as this is kind of plaguing me. When speaking of _just_ the SCOTUSA ruling, there are only two provisions of the ACA that SCOTUSA was ruling on, so how hard is it to add in the second (medicaid expansion) when, according to the President, the medicaid expansion is the whole reason for the tax?

I have issues with being concise, and I now realize that I could have simply just said this and been done with it. You can display the bare bones without leaving out an entire half of the skeleton which is the entire reason for the other half's existence.

@outraged. Thanks! I am working on it now and have been all day. I should finish today, and then will cut and edit tomorrow and send to the Cranberry Patch. it really is just a summary, so don't be too disappointed if there is not anything really argumentative in the content. :)

@Anthony... The best I can suggest is just posting at the bottom of the thread rather than replying to others (like this). If you address them by name, they should get an email alert so everyone knows who you're addressing.

ahahahahaha. I actually did hear something like that when I was looking into Constitutional Law programs (Pitt doesnt have a specific track for Constitutional Law, but they are close, so I looked into their other tracks). I suppose this is one of the very few points that SRU wins over Pitt! Alright! ;)

Well, Walt...I actually have not decided how I feel about this shared responsibility tax yet, so I apologize if it is coming out as "slanting liberal." I am certainly not trying to fool anyone. I appreciate that you have read "everything that I have written." That is the most important part. :)

Here is a brief example: On Fast and Furious, I side with the Republicans (but not with the hyperbole that some right leaning journalists are using to misrepresent the situation). On gay marriage, I side with libertarians (it should not be a government issue), but pragmatically I lean to the left. What is _most_ important to me, is fully researching everything that I write about (as much as I can), forming an opinion (whether right or left or off the grid), and defending that opinion. I don't really believe in non-biased interpretations because as any historian will tell you, they do not exist. What I _do_ believe in, is when it is necessary and appropriate, trying as hard as anyone can to see all sides of anything, explore all avenues, and represent truthfully. Oh, what is truth? :)

What I can promise you is that I will try to summarize this opinion of the court (written by a conservative remember) without leaning anywhere, and I think that because this is a summary and not an article, I can do it. Maybe later, when I have made my decision, i will write an article defending that opinion.

And Walt...one final note. I am going to make the assumption that you are a right leaning older gentleman. I am an adult, but a younger adult, that is typically (and truthfully) portrayed as not caring enough about the politics of this country. You have probably complained about this in the past.

As a member of the older generation, it is your responsbility to encourage, not dissuade, younger people to keep informed, vote, and participate in community discourse. This is what I am doing, and you really should be encouraging me and my generation (and younger) to participate and keep informed, regardless of their political affiliation. I hope that you will take this into account in the future.

As my Irish-Catholic-Conservative Republican grandparents say, "We may not always agree with what you are writing, but we do always agree with what you are doing."

You would rather have the healthcare insurers making your doctor's opinions about what you need? They are the ones interfering with your healthcare decisions presently. Quite frankly, I'd rather have the government where there are checks and balances in place instead of for-profit companies with no humanity in them!

Cam, ... who was the one who proposed the individual mandate? Was it the Fed government, or insurers? Mandates, by their very definition, have nothing that resembles checks and balances.

@Cam – Your statement tells me two things: people are incapable of making decisions for themselves; and it is the responsibility of government to regulate our lives at the personal level. These are dangerous precedents if played to their logical end.

Actually, the one who proposed the individual mandate was Mitt Romney in Massachusetts. See Andrew's youtube link (I think it is below). Mandates don't have checks and balances? Really? Because this article is describing our highest ranked check and balance, a branch of govt specifically designed to check and balance the legislative and executive branches, and they did in fact support that check when they determined the mandate to not be a mandate, but a tax that does not force citizens to purchase insurance.

@Outraged: I did write the non-partisan summary of the decision, and I submitted it last week. I am waiting to here back from the Cranberry Patch editor. It was 16 hours of work including careful revision...Comes complete with page numbers for every piece of information for further referance. I hope it goes up, but I just wanted you to know that I did not forget. :) Sorry!

@Erin – I think there is a difference between determining if a mandate is constitutional and whether a mandate on private industry is in itself a “check and balance” as defined within the Constitution. While I don’t agree with the decision, the Supreme Court did serve as a “check and balance” on the executive and legislative branches by looking at Obamacare to determine its constitutionality.

I believe what Roger was saying is that branches of the government are meant to serve as “checks and balances” on other branches of government, not private industries.

Hopefully, they will “print” your summary. I look forward to reading it.

The summary of the majority opinion went up.
http://cranberry.patch.com/blog_posts/supreme-court-ruling-on-the-individual-mandate-and-medicaid-expansion

I should add to that, that the fact that a "penalty" is suddenly a "tax" may explain the confusion in the reporting. The bill itself says "penalty" which is unconstitutional". The Court magically changes the word to "tax" and proclaims it constitutional. As far as I'm concerned, they should have shot down the bill, told them they did have the taxing right, and forced them to rewrite and re-approve the bill with the penalty clearly reworded as a tax. But what do I know, I'm just a citizen.

@Sue T... There is no confusion in my reporting. It's crystal clear. The health care law says it is penalty and Robert Justice Robert found it constitutional on the basis that the penalty is really a tax. It's semantics.

Mike, that wasn't directed at you. It was directed at Erin's statement concerning Fox News and CNN not accurately reporting the decision at first (and they were not the only ones). Erin said that the decision stated a "penalty" is unconstitutional. Well, that is the word used in the bill. The majority opinion replaced penalty with tax. I would like to see a legal definition of both words that demonstrates it is just "semantics". The definition I found is "A punitive measure that the law imposes for the performance of an act that is proscribed, or for the failure to perform a required act." That does not sound the same as a tax.

Thanks for the clarification, Sue T, and thanks for reading and adding your thoughts to the conversation. We were hoping to get a lot of diverse opinions on this subject and our readers certainly came through.

@SueT: Exactly! I agree on almost everything I think. The bill does talk about taxes (other taxes), but refers to the individual mandate as a penalty. The distinction is very important on multiple levels. Mike can flounder about saying that it is not important, but it was important enough to be addressed in order to make several different points within the SCOTUSA ruling and plenty of other journalists find the distinction to be very important.

Um...I could address all of these points, but I am currently writing about it right now in my summary which (if Jessica approves it after I bashed one of her co-workers..ha...sorry) should be up on the Cranberry Patch by Monday morning. No I will not be referring to this article at all. It will be just a summary of the opinion that I am currently re-reading.

I think somewhere I did actually stick up for Fox News/CNN because it was confusing. SCOTUSA struck down the individual mandate, meaning constitutionally the government cannot force people to buy insurance. they upheld the tax because the government does have the right to tax. I copied a quote for Mike Jones where Roberts explicity states that this tax is not so much that it _forces_ citizens to pay taxes.

In the ACA and the Opinion, there are some really interesting theories saying that the estimated cost per average family through insurance premiums is an additional $1000 due to so many not having insurance. I only mention bc it is interesting. :)

Oh oh oh. I see here. Ok, let me try this again, and Sue I am just a citizen too, not an expert. Nor is Mike Jones, and he could be a little less short with his readers, after all, these comments are going to look mighty good for him. It probably sets a Patch record at some level. how about addressing the points and concerns rather than putting your fingers in your ears while stomping your feet and shouting "nuh uh!" Good lord, do you know how thankful I would be to have this many people reading my article?

Back to the task at hand, (sorry Sue) I may have messed up some wording while I was working my way through this. I am stretched a bit thin today! It is not so much that the penalty is unconstitutional. the mandate, forcing people to buy insurance, is unconstitutional. the government defended it based on the commerce clause, and SCOTUSA didn't buy it. _But_ SCOTUSA did buy that the government has the right to tax ppl for not having insurance. This is why it was not thrown out. Also, (which Mike left out completely though there were only _two_ provisions of the ACA that SCOTUSA ruled on, and this one is the reason for the existence of the tax) Congress is saying that the expanded Medicaid is reliant on the shared responsibility tax (formerly penalty) so by striking down the tax, they would strike down the whole ACA, and based on constitutionality, they could not do that.

I am still working, but i think that my wording was much better there. :)

As my little nephew would yell at the top of his cute little lungs, "SERIOUSLY!?" ha. How about, "thank you Erin for contributing to this conversation and adding 20 comments, keeping multiple conversations going, and though I am unwilling to concede that my first sentence was incorrect, I probably should have taken 3 words to add the only other provision that SCOTUSA ruled on which is the entire reason for the tax in the first place."

Man, I really like to encourage all community discourse regardless of who is right or wrong, but i have mean words going around in my head right now. :)

Darn it! I did it again. In one of my comments i typed "does not do so much as to force people to pay _taxes_" and what i meant was "buy insurance." They do have the right to make you pay taxes.

hahaha. I need a break!

The CA Patch site now has 685 comments on the story.

@Andrew J. Marshall: My issue is not that our system is perfect, but that it gets less perfect every time the free market is removed from the equation. Making you pay the medical bill for my lung cancer (that I earned smoking for 40 years) seems pretty un-American to me.

What has to happen for supporters of this law to figure out that THERE IS NO MORE MONEY to pay for it!! Congress has spent it all and MORE. Trillions more.

@JoeTheNuke: Not only is our system not perfect, it's the worst system among Western nations. Your plan is to take the worst system and make it even less like the best systems. No health care system in the history of the world has functioned in the free market economy--the idea that the further removed we get from that the less perfect our system becomes is simply ahistorical. I would also suggest you review the CBO's assessment of the long-term costs.

A free market in health insurance means allowing private companies to do what they want, including not giving insurance to those with pre-existing conditions. You don't want hospitals to be able to choose what insurance they accept. Is there going to be some sort of private enterprise fairy to enforce this, or are you saying the government should enforce it? Sorry, health care is not a commodity like paper towels. I agree that the government doesn't have a role in controlling how we buy paper towels, no one will suffer or die because of it. Health care is a right that every other country in the civilized world but the US provides their people, like police and fire protection. In your anti-government fervor, do you think only those who want fire protection should have to pay for it. How about only those that want to send troops to the middle east to fight endless wars pay for it (or go fight it for that matter). Yours is a simplistic argument that doesn't hold water when put up to the reality of the world today.

Please, you and all others who have been posting reactionary garbage - let people die in the streets that can't afford care or allow them to go to the emergency room when really sick and have the rest of us pay for the most expensive treatment in the world, which is the system we have now. Which is it? If you don't want single-payer, you have to decide which scenario you want. Please be honest.

Quoting JS, "... Health care is a right that every other country in the civilized world ..."

When did this policy get established? Where in the documents of our country is this stated?

Remember, there was a time, not so long ago, that health care was "pay as you need." I grew up, and for many years of my early and mid-years, health insurance wasn't even an issue -- not available. What happened in these intervening years with the documents of our founding, and with our perception of health care?

We spend much time talking about the need of health care, while 36% our youth are obese. We spend much time talking about the need of health care, while drug and alcohol abuse is rampant. We spend much time talking of the need of health care, and yet are comfortable with a proliferation of recreational sex. We spend much time talking about the need of health care to extend life, knowing the death rate is 100% and wish to ignore preparing ourselves for death.

What am I missing?

Roger - It can be debated that the right to" life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" can be interpreted to include health care, however all of our "documents of our country" were borrowed from other countries and philosophies. The world has changed, people no longer push carts down the street calling "bring out your dead" when there is a plague.

Yes, death is lethal. Does that mean you don't want everything done for a loved one who is sick or suffering. Will you just refuse all treatment that you can't afford out of pocket?

I fail to see what obesity and recreational sex has to do with the topic, but they both can lead to needed health care. I don't see your point - is it that overweight people should be denied treatment or people with many sexual partners should also not have health care? Do we refuse health care for rock climbers or people who drive too fast, both dangerous pursuits. Tell me Roger, what type of people would you refuse service to and allow to die rather than our society try to help? Who should make those decisions, you?

JS, you must be very young. People have made decisions regarding longevity for centuries. People have died for centuries, ... actually, a lot longer. Families were instrumental, decisions that are now often made by others. We cling to the earthly life, as if it is something great. We didn't used to pay for all these extensive procedures because they weren't available. As I stated, we spend far more time trying to extend life, often with a quality that is horrible. Just because we can does not mean that we should. I've seen far, far too many cases of this, just milking the system for the sake of a horrible quality of life. Denial of the inevitable, and dealing with the aftermath of death is far less appealing than trying to put the burden of extension on others.

As for obesity and recreational sex, yes, these are only two examples (of many) of destructive behaviors. These are well within our out control and discipline, yet it is much more interesting to talk about who will pay for the outcome of destructive behaviors. To be sure, many diseases are outside our control, but many others are well within our control. Yet, so many fail to act accordingly. How much money has been spent on AIDS? We all know there is one very simple answer that takes zero money, and five seconds. Yet, the money flows and the talk is endless. The same is true of smoking, drug and alcohol abuse.

Roger - Since you didn't answer any of the questions I posed about who gets to decide which questionable behavior warrants society pitching in to help and individual and which ones should result in the death of the person, I'll assume you don't have an answer. It's just good to know that you have led such a perfect life, free of any mistakes or misjudgements that you don't have to worry about such things. It makes commenting on issues such as this much, much simpler when you can just say that I never made that bad decision, so anyone who has must pay the absolute consequences and society shouldn't help them. The hemophiliac who contracted AIDs from a blood transfusion may be a little tougher to call, but we're just keeping it simple here, right?

By the way, since you wanted to get personal and made some assumptions about me, I'm 54 years old, watched my father die a few years ago due to a botched operation in a US hospital. I had to make the decision to take him of life support and watch him pass on. Just because someone has a different view than you, does not make him a naieve, inexperienced youngster. I have experienced plenty and come out of it with compassion for others and a desire to see a just and caring society. We differ on many things, apparently.

JS, yes, I did answer the question - family.

And, yes, I've done the same with a parent about "pulling the plug." The most challenging and difficult thing was to fight with the medical team. The person was ready to die, and that was our wish. But, the medical team just kept milking the system. Again, we made the decision, and despite a Living Will to dictate these matters, it was difficult to get them to act.

I have seen family drag the procedures on and on, unwilling to admit that death is soon inevitable. They knew the person was not ready to die. Also, I've seen others who have spent literally millions of dollars of insurance claims in order to prolong a terminal situation. Why? Because he could. He dreaded the thought of death. Death is as much part of life as newborns. Yet, we think of it as the end of all good things. Why? As questioned earlier, what is so good about this place?

You want to put the burden on "society." Why should society be making these decisions?

As you know, the blood transfusion issue on the AIDS matter is a sidebar, of little consequence. If people were responsible, the risks in transfusion would not be relevant.

No, I'm not perfect. However, I am deeply disappointed why so many choose risky behaviors. No, education does not eradicate the problems, personal choices help minimize the impact, and costs. Smoking, obesity (most cases), excessive drug/alcohol, recreational sex, ... all issues that are personal choices.

Let's look at how our environment would be if government hadn't gotten involved in cleaning up the mess that private industry made of this world for 100 years. Do you think private industry would have stopped polluting our waters if not forced to by the government? Do you think we'd be fishing in the Great Lakes today if government hadn't stepped in? Your faith in free enterprise above all seems not to be based on history or any kind of reality. A society of free enterprise regulated by the government is the only way this society can work, with government providing basic services that it has been proven that free enterprise can't or won't do.

Government programs have good intentions when they were started then the fraud creeps in then they shift the money around to cover up the shortages and when that doesn't work they will tax tax tax. Now we are so far in debt even taxes aren't helping so we sell our sole to China so they can sell us garbage. Medicare has nothing to do with poverty if you are over 65 and collecting social security they take it out of your check and then they only pay 80% of your bill pushing us average retiree closer to poverty. People are on food stamps because the government can't even create jobs Trust this health care bill that they didn't read before they passed it. then to have the nerve to say we will figure it out after we past it. Since this bill has pass my insurance and medicare has already gone up and so has the cost of my medicines.

Quoting: "... Finally, you seem very concerned about the "working man." You will be relieved to learn that unless that working man makes over $200,000/year, he won't see any increase in his taxes because of ACA. ..."

This statement, or others similar to it, is made several times in this thread. I think it says, "we shouldn't care about the additional taxes because they will be felt by those who make over $200K/yr, not the "working man." Am I correct in this restatement? I will presume I am right.

The message is two fold, (1) That it does not matter because somebody other than me will be paying, and (2) "Working man" is somebody who makes less than $200K/yr. The thinking here is that it is "free" money, and therefore a good idea. Because others will be paying, it has no impact on me. What foolishness!

Why is somebody making over $200K/yr not a "working man?" Who signs paychecks of a business? Is it the one making $40K/yr? Who makes the investments in a business, a start up, supports philanthropic adventures, infuses capital into the markets for VC? Why is the one drawing down $200K/yr and above doing so? Why do you wish to penalize them for their successes, and their abilities to build places of employment? What incentive do you give to be successful, knowing that others want "free money?"

When you choose to take money out of the financial markets and give it to government, who will loose?

What will you do when you run out of other people's money?

@Roger: 3% of taxpayers in America earn over $200,000/year. So while I could call them "employed man," there's really no reasonable interpretation of how the term "working man" has been used for years and years that includes the top 3% of any population. The dictionary restricts working men to manual and construction laborers. I'm willing to extend that to simply "average" salary earners, but no, someone who earns $200,000/year cannot by any reasonable standard be described as a "working man" if the term is to have any meaning.

I have equally little patience for people who think of the wealthy as an unlimited cash cow that should subsidize their part-time employment lifestyle as I do for people whose Ayn Rand-inspired idea of liberty essentially involves nothing more than ignoring one's responsibilities to society. But I think there's a lot of room in between those two views.

We should consider if the +0.9% increase on the top 3% of the population is reasonable. Obviously, not all costs are reasonable, but some are. The top tax rate is currently 35%. This is the third-lowest rate since the end of the Second World War. If it became 35.9%, it would still be the third-lowest rate. This is a lower rate than the rate of Ronald Reagan's terms. People's definitions of reasonable will vary, but in my opinion maintaining a historically low tax rate to help millions of fellow citizens live healthier and more productive lives is reasonable.

I mention the importance of examining the use of term working man because there are people in this thread and elsewhere who are so shrill (not you), one would think that Obama was going to kick the door in himself and steal the good china. It's important that people know that for the vast majority of people in Peters, there will be no impact to their personal tax rate.

Quoting: " ... I have equally little patience for people who think of the wealthy as an unlimited cash cow that should subsidize their part-time employment lifestyle ...."

Whose "part-time employment lifestyle" are you making reference? To those making over $200K/yr, or to those who are sitting on the couch expecting others to pay their bills?

I see you have not expected any of those of the "50% of Americans pay no Fed income tax," to start kicking into the kitty. Would you want the 50% to increase to something higher, like 60%? Or, decrease to something like 30%?

The 5% top earners now pay about 85% of the Fed Income tax. Do you want the 5% to up the ante, say to 90%, 95%?

What happened to all the talk about "equality?" Just talk?

[A brief aside to the webmaster. It's not hard to create a bbs that saves the content when someone signs in so people don't hit submit and then lose their entire post. Please consider it.]

"Whose "part-time employment lifestyle" are you making reference? To those making over $200K/yr, or to those who are sitting on the couch expecting others to pay their bills?"

If you know of someone who makes $200k working part time, please tell me his secret.

"I see you have not expected any of those of the "50% of Americans pay no Fed income tax," to start kicking into the kitty. Would you want the 50% to increase to something higher, like 60%? Or, decrease to something like 30%?"

Considering the top 5% of Americans control roughly 60% of the wealth and the bottom 14% live at or below the poverty line, those numbers don't seem odd at all.

"What happened to all the talk about "equality?" Just talk?"

Your idea of equality seems to be a system of regressive taxation. In the American context, equality means, and has always meant, equality before the law. It has never meant equal rates of taxation. You use a lot of patriotic rhetoric, talking about the "working man" and "equality." These are core ideas to our identity as a country and I support them fully (which is largely why I want the working man to be able to see a doctor). However, you either completely redefine these terms or use them in a way that's completely divorced from its historical and cultural context. I'm not sure if this is the result of naivety, human error, or intellectual dishonestly.

Quoting: "... It's important that people know that for the vast majority of people in Peters, there will be no impact to their personal tax rate. ...."

Ah, ha, ... the old argument of that it is OK to have others pay, because there isn't very many of them. It is OK, as long as the added taxes don't fall to me.

Who cares if there is one, ten, hundred, or a thousand? It changes nothing in the argument.

Sorry, you convince nobody with these kinds of proposals. You still never answered the questions about writing payroll checks, making investments, funding philanthropic endeavors, penalizing the successful because of their hard work, their risk-taking, their ingenuity. If nobody took risk with their wealth, what would happen with entrepreneurship? Your base assumption is that when people have more wealth than they need to live, it is all excess and should be subject to redistribution to others.

@Roger
"Ah, ha, ... the old argument of that it is OK to have others pay, because there isn't very many of them. It is OK, as long as the added taxes don't fall to me."

If you had read my posts, you'd see that I disagree with those who view the well off as an unlimited slush fund.

"You still never answered the questions about writing payroll checks, making investments, funding philanthropic endeavors, penalizing the successful because of their hard work, their risk-taking, their ingenuity."
As you undoubtedly know, capital gains are taxed at a much lower rate than income, which is the baked-in reward for risk taking. I effectively did actually answer your questions, even though the source of the $200k is immaterial to this discussion. I'm not looking to penalize someone's success. Paying the 3rd-lowest rate in post-WW2 America could hardly be called a punishment. "Philanthropic endeavors" are tax deductible and the tax code is fantastically friendly to business owners (sec 1231, Recovery Act, your credit is tax deductible, so on and so on). The system is already arranged very nicely for the person you're describing; the idea that he's somehow a victim in all this is absurd.

"Your base assumption is that when people have more wealth than they need to live, it is all excess and should be subject to redistribution to others."
This is simply wrong and hyperbolic. I never said anything like this. We're talking about a return to lower-than-Reagan tax rates.

@Jim: Social Security has two problems, both are significant. One is demographics and the fact that more people are retiring than we have people paying into the system and the other is the entirely predictable lack of political will to do what was needed when they promised increased benefits in the hopes of getting votes. When I speak to SS's management, I mean the actual employees of the Social Security Administration, not members of Congress.

@Kelly
"The point is, ObamaCare is an incredibly expensive solution to the problem, and it will only become more expensive as time goes on."

According to the Congressional Budget Office, who studies these things, the ultimate result is that this bill will reduce the yearly deficit by $210 billion. By the year 2021, the bill will actually have paid itself and started bringing in more money than it cost.

"Why can't we try a simpler, more efficient, market-oriented solution first??"

No country has ever attempted this. There is no way of knowing it would be either simpler or more efficient. Indeed, the countries that are ranked among the top when it comes to health care have essentially eliminated the free market from the equation. The idea that we should adopt a model that's never been attempted before and is diametrically opposed to the best models available is troubling.

"A right is not something the federal government gives you, it is something the gov't is not allowed to take away ("We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights... " remember?), ie we all have the right to purchase health insurance, or not to, whichever we choose."

Well, I agree with you about the government's role when it comes to rights, but your example is totally off base. By your logic, it is our right to not pay our taxes or not wear our seatbelts because some element of choice is involved in the process.

Very well said Kelly out of all the comments this sums it up perfectly

To begin, one should compare Canada’s’ health system to that of other countries. The Canadian Health System is publicly funded; meaning that anyone can get treatment anywhere in Canada and the government will pay for all necessary expenses. On the other side of the spectrum, the American health system is Private. With good health insurance, an American can get treatment in any hospital and have less worries about paying for treatments, but without insurance, the access to healthcare is very limited and only certain clinics will treat you. Europe is the median, they have a two-tier system where everyone can get access to treatment and the government will pay for the bare necessities, but if a person can afford it, they can pay to be treated at a private hospital, and have a shorter wait time (Canada and the World)One major criticism Canada is faced with when compared to other countries is the use of new drugs and new technology. Canada typically does not use newer drugs or experimental drugs(The Canadian Press) and cannot afford new technology like Europe because there is no source of income; the government pays for everything. In the end, you are sacrificing...

I don't mean to butt in to your thread, but here it is anyway.

Access to health care is currently available to any and all Americans. Please don't confuse the issue by claiming anything else is true. The issue today is NOT health care, and it never has been in this debate. The issue is how do people pay for it, and on a larger scale, is Health Insurance a Right in America. note, I did not say Health Care, I said Health Insurance.

You state that "for large-scale problems like health care in America, large-scale solutions are needed"...I would say the solution is exactly the OPPPOSITE of that. The solution to health insurance in America is to open it up to thousands of small providers who can sell it in an open market, in all the various forms that other insurances are bought in America.

The Federal Government is incapable of providing Services to the Private Sector in any manner that looks like Efficiency, or even Acceptable. The issue here is money and government power, not health care.

I knew I wasn't going to get off the Judas hook for long!

Please explain how the millions of people who currently have health insurance (like me) and support the law (like me) will financially benefit from this. Was there some meeting I missed? Is there a payment plan or is it lump sum?

Taxing you is not taking away your personal freedom. A despot tossing people in jail without a trial is taking away personal freedom. Don't overstate your case, it becomes insulting to people who face genuine assaults on their personal freedoms. You still have not adequately defined what freedom is being infringed (aside from the "freedom to not pay," which actually doesn't show up in the Constitution).

I don't want to get too sidetracked into a discussion of the Bible, but I brought up Jesus because he understood that the best way to help others was to care for their health (he was more efficient than we are today, but we try) and he actively sought to provide for those who could not care for themselves. Not a terrible model to follow, all things considered.

Quoting: "... Let's not forget that Jesus spent the vast majority of his time providing health care to the poor ..."

Quoting: " ... but I brought up Jesus because he understood that the best way to help others was to care for their health (he was more efficient than we are today, but we try) and he actively sought to provide for those who could not care for themselves ..."

Sorry, you need to take a step back. There are no references in the Bible that Jesus came to provide physical health care for people. However, there are many, many references as to why He became manifest in the flesh, "... He shall save the people from there sins...." (as one of many examples).

When we try to tag Jesus as a social worker, we have missed the gospel message. All the references about caring for others is a response to His call for salvation. In other words, all those passages about caring are for those who have chosen to follow Him in response to what He has done for their salvation. All other caring may be useful, but springs out of human motivation, not spiritual motivation, that is the call of Jesus.

I don't wish to sidetrack the discussion, but his very wrong understanding of His mission is all too commonplace in our society. Trying to make Jesus something other than the Savior first, is to marginalize His purpose.

I like you even more. Dare I say you’re a friend? Maybe that’s too strong, too soon.

I understand you don’t feel as though the freedom lost (the freedom of individuals to choose whether/how they participate in the free market) is a big deal to you. You would gladly have it mandated to us because you believe it serves a higher purpose, like sticking it to the people that have been getting free ER visits at your expense.

I understand you’re tired of freeloaders. It slowly drives you mad every time you go to the hospital and see them sitting there, knowing they’re not doing to pay a dime for the care they receive. What makes it worse is you relive it every time you make a premium payment. It’s human nature to want to stick it to them. The problem is how? They have no assets to go after, nor will they likely ever have them.

So you concoct a plan. What if we made everyone pay? If we did that, my costs would go down and I’d feel a little bit better about my situation. That is greed, pure and simple.

I happen feel the other way. As much as I may hate the scenario above, what I find even more insulting is that someone would use the government to take away my hard-earned money because s/he is tired of paying the bills for someone else.

This is sadly something we’re just going to have to disagree upon.

Jesus was a revolutionary moreso than a social worker, but he did provide physical health care.

He healed an official's dying son (John 4:43)
A madman (Mark 1:21)
Peter's mother-in-law (Matthew 8:14)
He worked so hard, "healing every disease and disability among the people. His reputation spread throughout Syria, and people brought to him all those who were ill, suffering from all kinds of diseases and pains." (Mark 4:23)
A leper (Matthew 8:1)
A paralyzed man (Mark 2:1)
An invalid (John 5:1)
Someone with a crippled hand (Matthew 12:9)
Mark 3:7 reminds us that, "For he healed so many people that all those who were in pain kept pressing forward to touch him with their hands."
A servant (Luke 7:1)
A raising a widow's dead son (Luke 7:11)
A blind man (Matthew 12:22)
A different madman (Mark 5:1)
A bleeding woman and another resurrection (Matthew 9:18)
2 blind men (Matthew 9:27)
The entire sick population of Gennesaret (Mark 6:53)
A daughter (Matthew 15:21)
Another blind man (Mark 7:31)
10 lepers (Luke 7:11)
Lazarus (John 11:1)

I'm sure I'm missing a few.

You say, "There are no references in the Bible that Jesus came to provide physical health care for people," which is sort of true. Strictly speaking, Jesus' role in the Bible is to form the New Covenant. But he spent an awful, awful lot of time providing physical health are for people, so much so that he his described as getting mobbed by the sick and infirm. Surely there's a reason for that.

Quoting: " ... But he spent an awful, awful lot of time providing physical health are for people, so much so that he his described as getting mobbed by the sick and infirm. Surely there's a reason for that. ..."

Yes, there was good reason, namely pointing to His role as a Savior. Yes, people mobbed him, looking for physical healing. But, His role was spiritual healing, and these events were much more about directing people to understand His person, the Savior.

If we want to focus on "what He spent His time," we can look to the topic of His speaking. His most often discussed topic was eternity, specifically Hell. So, if we want to turn the US national conversation to what Jesus thought to be important, we would be spending our time talking about man's eternal demise when left to their own ways. Rather, we are spending our time talking about physical health, at the expense of spiritual health. We are more comfortable in trying to extend earthly life a few years, when we ignore the well-being into eternity.

Consider for a moment how things would change in our country if we spent as much time talking about Hell, and how Jesus provides a path away from God's wrath. But, alas, we are much more concerned about what we think we can do for ourselves, all of which pales when compared to what God has already done on our behalf.

Quoting: "... Most of us will never even notice the tax. ..."

Oh, the naivety of some our younger generation!!!! Astounding, ... speechless. Sorry, Erin, you have just lost any credibility.

Well, if the majority of the population has health insurance through whatever means (private, govt, employer), and then you add those under a certain income level who will be exempt from the tax, that adds up to "most of us." But I cannot force you to be rational...or even just not bitterly mean.

But at least it is the younger generation that will be forced to eat the fruits of this apocalyptic legislation, right? So it is all good.

@Erin – Please name another tax currently in force that is levied against a citizen for not purchasing a commodity from a public company.

Secondly, I agree it is a very easy concept to get. People are angry that their money is being used to pay for goods and services consumed by parties who have no intention of contributing.

Third, it’s also easy to understand that is just wrong to force others to contribute money into a private system to lower your costs. If the value proposition health insurance is there, persuasion not force should be utilized.

Finally, just because you believe there is no measurable harm involved, doesn’t mean others won’t feel passionately about the loss of their freedom. Simply put, the absence of choice is the absence of freedom.

Thank you, Erin, for trying to make a reasonable comment on this thread. To all the people saying "I'm not participating in Obamacare", well since there is no such thing then obviously you WON'T be participating in it. IF you mean the ACA and if you have insurance then it will not effect you. Which leads me to wonder if all the opponents of ACA simply don't have health insurance and fear the upcoming cost. That would be understandable, a fear of the unknown and all. But I suspect it is not that, rather I suspect that most have no idea that a Republican Governor already mandated such a plan for his state (Mass.) and that it is working well. The ACA is a step in the right direction, although may in the years need some tweaking. Guess we'll find out. But to the best of my knowledge the fine state of Mass. is still alive and well and on the map, the people like their health care, and folks looking for a free ride are not swamping that state. No one is going to make you give up your health insurance, if you have it. And if you have dependents aged 26 or under then they can stay on your insurance. Not a bad thing. Again, I can appreciate people being a little unsure of something new but lighten up & don't believe all the negative and often untrue information you might be hearing.

Erin, remember the majority of folks living in the US do not pay Fed Income tax. Citing, "only a few," is a failed perspective. "... only a few" are the ones paying the vast majority of the Fed Income tax (5% pay 85% ..?). So, when you discount that "only a few," how about the other side of the coin?

Let's remove the "few" who pay the 85% share, and what do you have left? That leaves "most of us" to pick up their 85%.

Sorry, but your tortured logic does not begin to explain how out of touch you sound with these assertions. I suspect you have not paid into the tax system for very many years.

Andrew: Exactly. Too many people, LEGAL AMERICAN CiTIZENS, do NOT have health care and are using ER's as their back up plans. If you are for people being responsible then you are for the ACA. If you are for people being irresponsible...including allowing insurance companies to continue on un-checked, then you are against the ACA.

@Andrew – I agree with you that the ER is the most expensive form of care. I agree that those without insurance would be better served by a PCP. I also agree it would be wonderful if all citizens had access to insurance that would make it possible. What we disagree about is how we get there.

In your jacket example, you choose to buy it and you choose to donate it to the Salvation Army. While a noble act, the point is not that you must buy a Gucci to give; it’s that you have the choice whether to give. Obamacare takes that choice away. There has to be a better way than force.

@Stacy – Interesting thing about the word responsible is that it is generally defined that one is accountable for one’s actions. Is facing a “choice” between buying insurance, or pay a tax an example of being responsible? To put it another way, if one’s only motivation is to take the lesser of two evils, is that personal responsibility?

The answer is no. This legislation is not requiring people to be responsible. It is an attempt to avoid the issue all together by taking that choice away. If you really wanted to foster personal responsibility, you would allow people to make choices and pay the consequences for the bad ones.

Before someone tells Stacy that driving a car is voluntary and the ACA tax isn't, I'll ask you to solemnly vow to never ever go to the ER or take a member of your family to the ER in the event of an emergency.

Since you were probably unwilling to make such a vow (yea! you're human/e!), I'll instead ask you to consider the unique ways in which non-participators (i.e., the uninsured) impact the marketplace of the participators (the insured). You choosing not to drive has no impact on my driving (it might even help reduce the congestion in the Liberty tunnel, which would be awesome). You choosing not to have health insurance does impact my own health insurance in a negative way. The health care marketplace is extremely complicated--no man is an island and we can't treat ourselves as such and expect things to work.

@Stacy – The government does not force all citizens to purchase automobile insurance. My young child is not required to have automobile insurance. My neighbors that do not own or operate automobiles are not required to have automobile insurance. Only those who choose to operate an automobile and want to do so legally are required to have insurance.

The difference here is that citizens can either buy health insurance, or face paying a tax. There is no choice.

@Andrew – It’s understood that you abhor the fact that uninsured/under insured/ not properly insured individuals impact the amount of money you pay each month for health insurance. They negatively impact the amount of money my family pays each month. That’s a given.

But why should the government force all citizens to purchase health insurance or pay a tax just to lower the costs of those upset by the amount they pay?

Putting all questions of freedom/responsibility aside; how is this nothing more than a band-aid that seeks to address the symptoms but not the disease?

Stacy- Just having a drivers license does not require you to have the minimal auto insurance. You only need auto insurance if you own and operate a vehicle.. So comparing auto insurance to obamacare does not work at all. Many people have drivers license and pay no auto insurance because they don't have a car. Some people own cars and have no insurance and that is why we have uninsured motorist on our policies.

@Stacy – Perhaps I was not clear.

There is no state in the US that requires all citizens to purchase automobile insurance. Any citizen that chooses to refrain from operating an automobile would not be required to purchase automobile insurance. I was using my child as an example because my child is to young to operate an automobile. I also mention my neighbors because while they meet the age requirements have for whatever reason decided against owning an automobile for personal transportation.

I hope this clarifies the matter.

Stacy-No way you can compare auto insurance to obamacare. Statistics say that up to 25% of Americans doesn't have auto insurance. That is why we all have to carry Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Coverage on our insurance. It also depends if you live in a no-fault state or a state that uses Torte.
http://www.carinsurancecomparison.com/what-happens-when-you-get-into-a-car-accident-and-the-other-person-doesnt-have-insurance

@Stacy – I agree. It’s a tremendous idea that all citizens have health insurance coverage. It would be even better if health insurance coverage were more affordable. I would love to help out my child and leave them on my insurance until the age of 26 to give a helping hand, although we all hope our children are self-sufficient by then.

The rub is forcing citizens to purchase health insurance coverage so you can lower costs by manipulating demand. And that’s coming from someone whose family pays a huge amount each month for health insurance. It doesn’t matter that it might reduce costs, that’s not the point. The point is you advocate forcing citizens to enter into a binding agreement with a private-sector company. The kicker is you’re advocating this for your own financial gain.

But with an Auto Insurance company, they have a shot at making money, so their rates to you and me depend on the risk we pose of having an accident. With the ACA, the 'health insurers' will NEVER make money. They are required to 'insure' people with pre-existing conditions. So someone applies with diabetes or cancer and money only flows one way - out of the company. The only possible result is everyone lining up for the government health care with bureaucrat doctors.

@Andrew – Interesting automobile analogy that is better suited to the discussion than automobile insurance. The interesting thing about it though is that automobile registration (albeit, again, automobile ownership is voluntary) is not a significant form of funding for maintaining our infrastructure. The vast majority of funding for our infrastructure is through the gas tax and to a much smaller extent the use of toll roads (in states that utilize them).

So in this example, even those who don’t properly register their automobiles would still need to purchase gas to power them or pay a toll if utilizing a toll road and this would provide for the upkeep of our infrastructure. Though I will agree it would be better to have some assurance the automobiles on the road are safe.

You’re right. The distinction here is one of political philosophy. I’m more than willing to stipulate that Obamacare could very likely reduce the cost of health insurance and would obviously expand it through government mandate.

I’m just not willing to concede it is the role of government to mandate that people buy something just because the government says it is good for you. I realize many supporters would say that healthcare is different because it touches the lives of so many. But what’s next? What’s that next purchase the government will deem so good for all of us they must mandate we buy it?

ha. I was just going to share that.

Thanks for posting that, Zandy. It's helpful and may contain information some folks did not know :)

Jean Smith accuses others of pulling numbers and facts out of the thin air.
Now that is funny!

@Jean

And, again with the fact thing.

First off, there is no flat amount that the ACA "costs." People without insurance will purchase whatever plan they deem appropriate. People making less than 133% of the poverty line (who are generally the groceries or utilities crowd) will be added to Medicare, granting them free health insurance. People making up to x4 the poverty line (essentially, the middle class barring some crazy cost of living adjustment, certainly not Peters) will have their health insurance subsidized on a sliding scale.

The bingo hall isn't the most reliable source of information, I agree. But I would add to that list wherever you were told the ACA will force people to choose between groceries or utilities.

For those who share my interest in facts, here are some very important numbers to know that will help you determine your costs. Note that these numbers represent your absolute ceiling of costs, it's possible there may be options that are less expensive that you think will work for you and your family.

Step 1: Figure out how much money your family makes. You probably already know this in exacting detail.

Step 2: Figure out how much money that is relative to the poverty line. For families making between 134% and 400% of the poverty line, some amount of their health care will be subsidized. By way of example, a family of 4 making $88,200 is at the 400% level and would qualify.

Poverty Line numbers
http://coverageforall.org/pdf/FHCE_FedPovertyLevel.pdf

Step 3: If you are between the 133% and 400% numbers and want to figure out exactly how much you will pay, go to Table 3 on page 10 of this document. The most you can pay is a percentage based on a sliding scale. To return to our family of 4 making $88,200, it would be 9.5% or $8,379.
http://www.ncsl.org/documents/health/HlthInsPremCredits.pdf

Mike, Andrew J Marshall, it wasn't I who thought that were going to pay 25 a month on insurance but these two ladies did as they heard it at Bingo. I thought you would all get a kick out of it but I was wrong.

I think we are all going to be charged outrageous amounts but that is my opinion because were going to have to pay for the ones that can't afford health care.

Jean this is definitely funny as people believe Obama that they are getting affordable insurance. They are in for a rude awakening when they see their first check when their health care is being pulled out of there or have to send the insurance company a check.

Andrew J Marshall, believe it or not Peters has homes that cost less that 100,000. Not all millionaires live in Peters. There are many homes out there like their are in Baldwin Township, Whitehall, Castle Shannon, Dormont. There are people that live paycheck to paycheck with just purchasing food, paying their mortgage, paying for their car insurance and paying utilities. How do you expect these people to come up with the money to pay for medical insurance. I don't believe that people making 50,000 a year are going to get free healthcare, they are going to be paying towards their health care.

Jean, I have to agree that what you wrote in the truth as Obama said healthcare is going to be affordable and people think they are going to be saving a ton of money. They listen to the stupid democrats and obama and know one actually knows what were going to be paying. Insurance companies are going to raise rates every year and it will get to the point where it is now, people won't be able to afford it.
They say they are going to let children stay on their parents healthcare till they are 25, so what happens in the meantime if their child get married and has a child of their own, are they still going to be allowed to stay on their parents healthcare. Who's going to cover their child if their parents are still on their parents healthcare?

@JustMe

Of course Peters has $100,000 homes, when did I suggest otherwise?

A family earning $50,000/year won't get free health care, that's true (unless it's a family of 8). I never claimed they would. What they will get, however, is heavily subsidized health care. The most a family of 4 that makes $50,000 (most, mind you, not a required number) is $3,150 and this family would qualify for assistance with copays as well. That isn't free. But considering the average cost of insurance for this family otherwise would be over $20,000, it's not that bad a deal. You can find links to all these numbers in a separate post of mine in this thread.

@ML – I realize it was just an attempt to be cheeky and take a shot at Gov. Corbett, but I would recommend you direct your barbs about the dismal state of higher education in Pennsylvania at our illustrious former governor, Ed Rendell. It was under his watch that Obamacare was formulated, debated and eventually passed.

@Steve – You make it sounds as though there is some cabal of insurance executives that gather at secret conference and decide to arbitrarily raise insurance rates. If this is true, I suggest you contact the authorities and report this violation of the Sherman Act. Or could it be that market conditions/government regulations/frivolous lawsuits might also pay a part?

Obamacare does not seek to root out the problems that make healthcare unaffordable. It seeks to address the symptoms (high health insurance costs) by manipulating demand (mandating the purchase of health insurance).

Steve this was something that I thought you would all get a kick out of. I know we have high insurance cost and don't see them dropping at all. I see them going up every year. I still don't see how some families are going to make it as they live pay check to pay check.

ML – I apologize. I didn’t immediately point back to what in your original post I was referencing so that you could draw the correlation between your post and my reply.

I was referencing your comment, “Maybe if Corbett hadn't cut so many funds to higher education, more could read with comprehension and understand better” to point out that the blame should be pointed at Gov. Rendell, rather than Gov. Corbett, as Rendell was in office when Obamacare was introduced, debated and enacted. If there was a failure to comprehend the legislation and a substandard higher education system in Pennsylvania is to blame as you intimate, it would appear to make logical sense to blame the governor at the time, Rendell, rather than the attorney general at the time, Corbett.

As you’ve proven yourself to be a logical person, despite posting the earlier quote by DeParle, the only logical solution was that you were taking a shot at the current governor.

To your statement, “’Obamacare’ as you call it, did not cut the education funds.” I’m not sure if you’re confused by my original post, or merely off on some sort of non sequitur tangent as it makes no logical sense that Obamacare would have the ability to arbitrarily cut education funding. You may be interested to learn that Obamacare is not actually a person with the power to dictate funding levels, but legislation designed to force citizens to purchase a commodity from private companies to manipulate demand.

Outraged Citizen do you expect anything other than ml to take cheap shots at Colbert. Rendell isn't any better as we were promised when he was Governor that we would have our property taxes cut to nothing.
In Pennsylvania we had an Children's Health Insurance Program (Chips) and a Adult Heath care Insurance Program (Adult Chips), put in place by Tom Casey (Republican). Most adults paid between 35 to 80 a month for insurance and a smaller amount for their children. But when Obama pushed for obamacare and it was passed, under Rendell this Adult chip program was canceled. Pennsylvania had an affordable health care program set up for Adults that didn't have insurance and weren't able to get insurance under Welfare and could not afford what Insurance companies were paying and their jobs did not offer insurance. PA still has Chips for Children but thanks to Rendell Pennsylvania Adults were shut off.

I see ml is once again off the topic and talking about Colbert when this article is about ACA . ml did you read the topic of this article where in it is our Governor being mentioned about cuts in the budget to schools. also again with the rude comments to people like your always right. In my opinion, I do feel bad for your neighbors as you probably tell them how to raise their kids, tell them that they are wasting money and to only purchase shoes and coats for them for a year. I can see them all running when you come out of the house.

This feed is about obamacare that was passed by the supreme court and I see no where in the article where it says anything about Colbert and education cuts.

obamacare is still a bad idea as the insurance companies are not going to be giving Americans cheap health insurance.

If I may return to my interest in facts for a moment:

"LOL! If it was so affordable, it would not require the BIGGEST TAX INCREASE IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD in order to pay for it."

Quoting from the linked article, "So no, the Affordable Care Act isn’t the 'biggest tax hike in history.' It’s not even the biggest tax hike in the past 60 years. Or 50 years. Or 30 years. Or 20 years."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/02/no-obamacare-isnt-the-largest-tax-increase-in-the-history-of-the-world-in-one-chart/

Here is a scenario--in America, the richest country in the world, someone falls in the middle of a road and has a heart attack. Better yet, it happens to a good friend in front of your house. He has no insurance. Do we: A) let him die or B) take care of him? If you answered A, then stop reading Atlas Shrugged and try something like the Bible or some nonfiction. If you answered B, then welcome to humanity. Someone will have to pay for this care. If the person can afford it, he should pay for it. If he can not, then someone has to. Currently all of us with health care pay for those without it. What would be better is if we payed for prevention, BP checks, some lipitor, and not bypass surgery. If you agree, then welcome to the ACA.

Marsha, I can see Americans losing weight as they won't be able to pay for junk food since they have to purchase obamacare and won't be going to fast food restaurants everyday. But don't see them quitting smoking. You are so correct that people put themselves in the mess their body is in because they eat unhealthy, smoke, pile on the salt and don't exercise.

True. And some people drive fast all the time. So if either of these people need health care, again, do we provide it or just let them die? Prevention, as you should know as an RN, does work especially if it is done early. Especially in heart disease--a disease of affluence.

Steve, ... already discussed in this thread on Saturday (Sunday?). Nobody is interested in preventative measures. "... do as I please, ... somebody will pay for the care needed because of my choices ...."

Not true. Prevention DOES work. Regular Screening works. Blood tests work. Mammograms work. Blood sugar testing works. Liver enzyme testing works. Should I go on? The research is fairly clear on this topic.
AGAIN I ask a moral question: Even if a person ignores prevention, yearly physicals, etc. then has a heart attack, do we treat them or let them die???

Whoa, Steve. I did not say the preventative measures don't work. I'm all in favor of preventative measures. What I am saying is that few are interested in preventative measures.

Try selling your preventative measures to those waiting in line at McDonalds. ... in the line at Bruester's Ice Cream. .... at the all-you-can-eat buffet. ...at the Super Bowl parties. ... on the South Side on a Saturday night. ... at the Gay Pride parade in downtown Pittsburgh. Most people are educated. They know. They just choose to ignore what they know. It is far easier to expect others to pick up costs for remedial measures that be responsible for their own choices.

Hi Marsha. I am compelled to share with you that my husband did in fact have a heart attack at a fairly young age and your generalization of folks that have heart attacks is unfair at best. My husband was a non-smoker who crewed and biked regularly; our diet con sited of organic foods, many vegetables and fish and we are so committed to eating as "fresh" and correctly as we can that we have our own vegetable garden. That did not stop his body from having a heart attack when, which happened on a warm day while he was working in the yard. Since his heart attack we have watched as the health insurance raise our rates to ungodly amounts and he has even been refused insurance. We have worked our whole lives, we have paid taxes our whole lives, we are the "responsible" folks down the street who, because we have allowed health insurance companies to go unchecked under the guise of free enterprise and capitalism, are being screwed. Currently, with him being labeled with a "pre-existing condition" we really are targeted, even though it doesn't matter that he is in even better health than at the time of the heart attack. We am not asking you to pay for our health care but we are asking that protections go in place that insure this does not happen to even more people. God forbid this would have happened to a young child of ours and if my husband was a factory worker; the scenario of extortion by health insurance would have been no different, although certainly more devastating.

So, you truly believe the Tax increases are only going to impact 5% of the population over the life of the ACA??? I have a really nice bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you...

Ernie I totally agree with you there.

@Captain – So it’s better to let people go hungry than purchase their food? So it’s better to let people die of thirst than pay their water bills? So it’s better to let people freeze than pay for their heat? So it’s better to let people die from heat exhaustion than buy them an air condition/pay their electricity bills? So it’s better to let people die from exposure than to pay for their place to live?

Based on your logic, the answer to all of the above would be no. It is now the responsibility of government to feed, water and provide shelter for all citizens. I have a few questions: When did this become the responsibility of government? What authority does the government have to enact these programs? How will these programs you advocate be funded?

Hyperbole??? LOL! Mr. Pot, please meet Mr. Kettle.

I prefer the old adage: "Socialism is great until you run out of other people's money".

On a State Level, they stink. On a Federal Level, they are plain awful. Which Federal Privilege would be withheld from Citizens, as the State withhold's a Driver's License? Bad, bad, bad Law.

PS, if those sorts of "taxes" don't represent Rationing of Health Care, I don't know what does....let's see...do I get that pesky operation, or do I keep my driver's license...hmmmmmmmmm....

Does everyone remember when Obama visited all 57 States in the United States;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16Tu3kR77NE.
How he doesn't put his hand on his heart with the Pledge of Allegiance and how he looks the opposite way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hU9iCANi02o

Then we got Obama "In this video, Obama speaking in Hawaii says, referring to Hawaii, “when I meet with world leaders, whether it’s in Europe or here in Asia….” So, he wasn’t born in Kenya, but in Asia. Not only does he think we have 57 U.S. States (perhaps confusing them with the 57 Islamic states in the United Nations), he thinks Hawaii is not one of them. How does Won do that? Incredible considering the differences between the way trade and Asian governments work, among other significant differences, including insisting he was born in the U.S." http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/2011/11/obama-in-hawaii-here-in-asia-obama-born-in-asia-57-states-hawaii-isnt-one-of-them/

Ummm...I think you have me confused with someone who said you used hyperbole...I did not say you did that...

As to your response about the Tax increase being based on a percentage of GDP being the relative analysis, again, I think you are wrong, but so be it. The ONLY analysis anyone will do regarding taxes is how much more or less each of us pays at the end of the year. Analysis based on percentage of GDP is a fun and exciting academic exercise, but meaningless to just about everyone.

And if you want to equate health care access to the ability to pay, again, we are not going to agree. I clearly stated health care is available to any and all in America. If you think that is false, the burden lies on you to disprove it.

Your OPINION that I have made false statements, and your OPINION that you have demonstrated them false is sort of amusing. Thanks.

@Andrew – You assume that I’m male. How utterly barbaric of you to make that assumption. Just kidding, I am male.

I believe the point Ernie is trying to make is that everyday Americans are not going to judge Obamacare as it relates to GDP or inflation, they will judge it on how it impacts their pocketbooks. I think it’s reasonable for people to look at it from that point of view.

Currently, more Americans than not feel like this is a bad idea and they will end up either paying more for healthcare or will see rationing of care to the point that lower insurance costs are not worth it. That may change their minds once Obamacare is completely implemented in 2014. However, this seems doubtful based on the SCOTUS ruling surrounding the expansion of Medicare and a good number of states refusing to set up the exchanges necessary to determine which plans are eligible for the credits.

All that said, if people think they’re getting a good ROI with Obamacare it will likely survive. If not, there will be tweaks or a gutting of the law. We’ll just have to wait and see.

@Outraged.

Man, I was totally ready to pull out my, "the generic he is totally acceptable according to the Chicago Manual of Style!" after reading your first sentence. You're not the first person to mention that to me :)

"everyday Americans are not going to judge Obamacare as it relates to GDP or inflation, they will judge it on how it impacts their pocketbooks. I think it’s reasonable for people to look at it from that point of view."

This (and the bit on ROI), I totally agree with. And I get where you're coming from regarding what Ernie may or may not be trying to say, but hopefully you can appreciate my efforts to distinguish between opinion and fact. I'd love for my opinions to be facts--it would mean that the Yankees would suffer some terrible karmic collapse--but it's not likely to happen any time soon.

The last poll I saw was 48/52, which was within the margin of error, so it's a statistical tie. Of course, this means I've also heard both sides claiming to be the popular one. (Venting: What the hell, America? When did basic math become so hard for everyone remotely related to the media industry? Venting done.) Americans are on the fence and, as you say, things will ultimately get decided when the rubber hits the road.

@Andrew – My point was not to say an overwhelming majority of Americans oppose Obamacare. But the fact is that except for a two-month window when Obamacare was first announced the vast majority of polls show that more Americans oppose it than support it. Obamacare has never enjoyed a significant stretch of majority support within a good sampling of national polls.

Does that mean it is intrinsically bad law? Of course not; but it does mean more people than not believe it’s a bad policy. It’s going to be difficult to win the hearts and minds of the people when you begin from that starting point.

How Much Obamacare Costs the Average Family
by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann at Townhall.com

Whether or not you now have health insurance, Obama’s health care bill will cost you dearly.

If you don’t have insurance, you will be required to buy it. The legislation specifies how much you will have to pay for the coverage before any subsidy kicks in. All during the campaign, Obama kept speaking about affordable coverage. Now it appears that his definition of “affordable” might be a bit elastic.

If your household income is $66,000 a year, slightly above the national average, Obama’s health care bill will require you to spend 12 percent of your income — about $8,000 a year or almost $700 a month — to buy health insurance before you get any federal subsidy.

Even those making less will have to reach deep into their meager resources to satisfy Obama’s statutory requirement. Families scraping by on only $44,0000 a year will have to pay 7 percent of their income (about $3,000) on insurance. Even those making just $33,000 will have to ante up 4.5 percent of their income (about $1,500) for health insurance. The required payments reach so far down the scale that those who are living at the federal poverty level of $22,000 will have to shell out 2 percent of their totally inadequate incomes ($440) for insurance.
http://americayouaskedforit.wordpress.com/2009/10/20/how-much-obamacare-costs-the-average-family/

@Jean Smith

I get the sense this thread is winding down and it's not like you're a particularly credible contributor after you efforts to convince people there is a 3.8% sales tax attached to home sales in ACA, but these numbers are completely wrong. The figure attached to a family of 4 making $66,000 a year is 8.05%, not 12%. This works out to $5,313. By way of comparison, it currently costs a little over $20,000/year to insure a family of four on average. Furthermore, this isn't what you /have/ to spend. This is the most someone is allowed to charge you. The health care exchanges will have different options from which families can choose. Some will cost $5,313, some will cost less. Your $44,000 figure is also incorrect. A family of 4 making $44,000 is just under 200% of the poverty line, which means their ceiling is 4%, which is $1,760. This family is also eligible for cost-sharing credits, which help defray the cost of copays. And, just for good measure, your final numbers regarding the family making $22,000 is also wrong. Families making up to 133% of the poverty line (for a family of 4, this is $30,657) are placed on Medicaid and their health care is free.

See table 3 on page 10 of this document for the % of income numbers
http://www.ncsl.org/documents/health/HlthInsPremCredits.pdf

This document (and page 9 of the previous document) has the variations on the poverty line.
http://coverageforall.org/pdf/FHCE_FedPovertyLevel.pdf

Note that these numbers can also be found on page 111, sec. 1401 of the actually bill itself, which I would claim is pretty authoritative when we're discussing what is and is not in the bill. The linked documents simply display the data in a more user-friendly fashion.

Andrew and you really believe the Democrats that they are telling you that your going to get cheap health care. The insurance companies are going to charge our of their butts for insurance and going to keep raising prices. For as many articles that you post about the affordability of obamacare their is one to say that it isn't going to happen. So Andrew who are you to tell someone that they are not creditable poster. I didn't see anyone dying and making you GOD and the expert on obamacare. Frankly what your posting is a bunch of hogwash too.

@JustMe

It's remarkably cowardly to tell someone they're posting hogwash and then refuse to support the claim. Every time I have pointed out someone's inaccuracies in this thread, I have supplied evidence supporting my claim. You not liking, or understanding, the facts doesn't make them less true. So please, which of my numbers are wrong? Cite your evidence. Use primary sources, as I have.

I'm not posting opinion pieces. I'm posting numbers form the bill itself. There's quite a difference. One represents opinion, the other fact. The ACA will result in free health care for some (up to 133% of the poverty level) and subsidized heath care for others (134-400% of the poverty level). Cheap is a relative term, but I think it's entirely accurate to say it will result in cheaper health care. Considering there are caps on how much a family can be charged and those caps are well below the current health care averages, it's difficult to see how that isn't cheaper.

@Andrew J. Marshall, You are a saint for explaining the numbers over and over again and providing sources, etc. Unfortunately, when I saw the "romney said he will repeal obamacare..." I found that to be a pretty clear indication that there is nothing more that you can do. At this point facts and basic math and the voice recording of Romney explaining his plan...Good Lord. I really enjoyed the sources and was amazed at your patience, but these last few are just completely ignoring anything that you have said, and rather than doing the math themselves, or checking against other sources, they would just rather believe what they were already set on believing. (I am sure there is a more eloquent way of saying that but you get the idea). So thanks for sharing the videos/articles/facts from a very non-partisan viewpoint!

ObamaCare Causes Health Insurance Premiums to Rise
Health insurance costs continue to rise as President Obama’s healthcare overhaul begins to affect Americans’ insurance premiums, according to a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust (HRET). Leaders in health policy analysis and communication, Kaiser and HRET found that annual family insurance premiums have spiked this year at a rate three times higher than in 2010, significantly outpacing wage increases and general inflation.

In a survey administered from January through May 2011, Kaiser and HRET interviewed 2,088 public and private employers asking questions about enrollment numbers, average firm and worker premium contributions, total premiums for single and family coverage, and insurance changes relating to coverage and benefits.

Andrew go finish reading the article
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/1931-obamacare-causes-health-insurance-premiums-to-rise

@JustMe

Instead of just Googling, you should actually read the things you post.

"[T]he law probably accounted for one to two percentage points of the nine-percent increase this year." So roughly 78% of price increases are unrelated to the initial implementation of the ACA. This doesn't really help your case.

But--and this is frankly hysterical--all your numbers are from 2010-11! No one denies health costs went up during that period, in part because (wait for it) the ACA's price controls hadn't been implemented yet! Now, if your argument is that health care cost inflation is far outpacing normal inflation and something really needs to be done to control costs, then the Kaiser study demonstrates this, you're spot on. In case you were looking for a plan to help accomplish this, I give you the ACA.

If, however, you were looking for a study from 2010-11 that somehow demonstrates the cost increase inherent to something that won't be enacted until 2014...well, the time/space continuum thing sort of undermines your argument.

And to further illustrate the dangers of simply posting from blogs, here are some more quotes from Altman (who ran the study) about his findings.

[con.]

[/con.]

“And that reflects the costs of providing prevention benefits without cost-sharing,” he said. “It reflects the costs of covering young adults up to 26 years of age under their parents’ policies. Those are also very popular benefits, according to our tracking polls.”

"Critics of the national health reform law passed in 2010 like to blame everything but the weather on 'Obamacare,' but regardless of how you feel about the Affordable Care Act, its effect on premiums this year is modest. Most of the law’s provisions don’t go into effect until 2014. The two biggest changes this year allow young adults up to age 26 to stay on their parents’ insurance policies and require some insurance plans to cover preventive services at no cost to patients. These are popular provisions that provide real benefits, and combined they account for about one to two percentage points of this year's premium increase."

"Our analysis, based in part on estimates provided by federal agencies when regulations implementing these provisions were issued, suggests that these provisions are responsible for 1-2 percentage points of the 9% increase in family premiums in 2011."

So yes, when you add benefits (in this case, it was allowing people to stay on their parents' health care until 26) without expanding the pool, costs go up. ACA expands the pool.

@JustMe

More to the point, you disputed the numbers I presented in refutation of Jean Smith's inaccuracies. In an effort to stay on topic, please find some primary source material that contradicts the numbers I have put forward.

Romney said the first thing he will do in office is repeal obamacare and I am all for that idea.

Roger that is the truth but there is always people that going to believe that obamacare is better than slice bread.

This is a pretty alarmist article. It's noteworthy that it doesn't cite a single source for all the claims it makes. The key factor the ACA uses to determine health coverage is your adjusted gross income and the government already has this information on file, assuming you pay your taxes.

"if there is any contradictory data between what he’s told the IRS for years and what the government is going to find out as this law begins."

This is just bad journalism. It makes it seem like there is some agency outside of the IRS that is now going to be looking at your AGI. As many people in this thread have pointed out, the ACA requires the hiring of thousands of new people to work for...the IRS! There's no overlap because it's still the IRS and they're still looking at your tax returns. The returns just require extra levels of processing, but there isn't some sneaky, phantom dataset out there.

"Remember, now that Obama’s health care reform is legal, the government can obtain any information it claims it needs to make the process work."

Presumably, the author of this blog has never read the 4th Amendment.

I didn't bother responding to it earlier because it's a ridiculous, fear-mongering piece.

Marsha,
I agree that preventative health care which includes a healthy diet and exercise is the best way to go, and we too become frustrated by people that seem so careless w/ their health. (i.e. smoking, living on fast food) that aside, despite our efforts the insurance companies are allowed to label my husband w/ "pre-existing condition". that is one item of the ACA that we are really glad will be addressed. I can appreciate how frustrating it must be to be a nurse and know folks ignore some very simple good-health practices. The American Nursing Association is, and has been, strong supporters of the ACA.

Marsha I have to agree with you there, as there is also people that have had healthcare that never set their foot in a doctors office, had checkup, don't watch what they eat, don't exercise, smoke and end up going to the emergency room because of a heart attack or stroke, ends up having a triple bypass because they didn't take care of themselves. We also have people that go to the doctors and emergency rooms for a cold or a blister on their foot. Emergency rooms aren't meant for getting a checkup.

@JustMe
"Insurance companies are going to continue to raise prices no matter what it says in obamacare"

Well, raising costs beyond the set limits in health care exchanges is illegal, sort of I somewhat doubt this.

"You can believe what you want and post all your articles that you think are correct."
Again, I'm posting directly from the bill itself. Please do the same. It makes discussing the bill much easier.

"each person to take from each article and make their own opinion."
You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts. I don't care either way if you like or don't like the ACA. I care that you are misrepresenting the contents of the ACA.

"Many people believe that obamacare is going to make them choose between buying food, paying their mortgage, paying utilities or paying for their heathcare."
Could that be because people have been lying to them about what's actually in the ACA?

"I DON'T KNOW ANYONE RIGHT NOW THAT IS SAVING MONEY ON THEIR INSURANCE PREMIUMS UNDER obamacare"
This is likely because you don't know anyone who is living in the year 2014 when the individual mandate (the thing this entire thread is about) goes into effect.

"Until I see proof that obamacare is going to save money then I will believe that obamacare is a farce that is only going to cost people more money. Your entitled to believe what you want."
Check the tables I've provided.

And, once again, I'll ask that you demonstrate that the figures I presented Jean Smith are "hogwash" using primary sources.

Can't wait till obama is voted out of office and he packs his obamacare in his suitcase and takes it back to Chicago. Maybe he can go sell his obamacare in Kenya.

Stacy this is not true at all, Kaiser Permenante does not own Kaiser Policy Institute.

Stacy - Presidents have been proving with Executive Orders that they have powers never envisioned by the Founding Fathers. By Executive Order, a President Romney could delay the start of the ACA or allow states to opt out of it. For example, Obama recently determined that he would not uphold his oath of office and allow illegal immigrants to remain in this country through an Executive Order. I think the time has come for Congress to put a limit on Executive Orders with the possible exception of a declared war (not the current way in which we go to war without congressional approval).

Hi bd,
Yes, Presidents have issued many Executive Orders and if they are within the law they stand. George W. Bush, for example, issued 29; President Obama 129. Since our Supreme Court has ruled ACA Constitutional then I question if the legitimacy of Romney's claims. It does make for fun political speeches, however. I agree with you that there needs to be a limit on Executive Orders.

bd:
CORRECTION: Typo on the number of EO's by GW Bush: It was 291, not "29"

Stacy - the law does not matter concerning executive orders. In fact, the Constitution does not matter. Illegal immigration is in reality a crime. This president for purely political reasons ignores the Constitution and his oath of office when he issued an exec. order allowing illegals to remain. Therefore, a President Romney can issue an executive order halting the implementation of the ACA no matter what SCOTUS has ruled. He can also propose no implementation funding.

Hi bd:
People born in the United States are immediately American citizens. Period. That is governed by our Constitution and was clarified long before President Obama was in office. The conflict has been, of course, what one does with children born in the US of a mother that is an illegal immigrant, although *our Constitution (Amendment 14) is clear on this and our country has generally allowed this to be true. President Obama defended the Constitution in regards to clarifying the status of children born in this country of illegal immigrants. Apparently we will have to agree to disagree: I believe in the Constitution, even if I personally am not in 100% agreement with its outcome, and you apparently do not believe in the Constitution when it is an uncomfortable outcome for you or your beliefs. But to say the Constitution does not matter is...well. Un-American.

Stacy - No. youe are not correct about Obama's executive order. It had NOTHING to do with a person born in this country from illegal immigrants. He did NOTHING to defend the Constitution. His executive order allows illegal immigrants to remain in this country which is counter to the the law of this land. Take a read: http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/15/politics/immigration/index.html

@bd,
From the article you cite:"Under the new policy, people younger than 30 who came to the United States before the age of 16, pose no criminal or security threat, and were successful students or served in the military can get a two-year deferral from deportation, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said." People born in this country are, according to our Constitution, American citizens. The only possible thing you must be upset about is if a child between the ages of 1-15 was brought here by their parents being allowed to stay legally. Sorry, but holding 8 years olds in contempt for the actions of their parents is not what I believe in.

Why is Justme cruel because she said to send him back where he lived part of his life at. If the house and senate goes Republican, you don't think they would vote out obamacare? Plus he can use threatening tactic that obama used when he wanted this bill passed.

It was obamabinliar that filed suit against Arizona when they made it a law to ship illegals back to where they belong if they were found to be illegally in the United States. In California, they quit giving food stamps to Illegals and are just giving them to the children that were born in the United State along with Medicaid. The illegals now are fighting this, as they say how can I feed my family on 129 a month in foodstamps. Go back to your own country and have Mexico feed you and give you foodstamps. If an American goes to Mexico to live, they cannot get free food, free medical, free anything, but yet here we take care of Illegals better than they take care of our own.

It's true that today the Kaiser FF is not joined with Kaiser Permanente but it is also true that both were begun by Kaiser. But I understand your point and do believe there is some bias there.

Marsha, don't you know by now that ml thinks she is always right about everything. Even obama and the democrats are referring to it as obamacare. I totally understand what you said but unlike her she only reads what she wants to and doesn't read the whole thing.

Zandy, so far there are 13,000 pages of regulations that have come from the 2,400 pages of the legislation. I think the typical ratio is 1:40 to 1:80, so there may be many more pages yet to be written. Most of the words in those 13,000 pages are somebody's interpretation of what was written into the bill.

My point is there is not "trusted" source. There is none now, and never will be any. Like any of these programs, the key word is evolution. What is the 2013 interpretation for some topics will not be the interpretation in 2015. There are far too many issues to be handled, and some (many?) will be shown to be unworkable, inconsistent, and simply will be shown not to be reasonable. This has nothing to do with the bill, rather just how these things unfold.

So, forget about the "trusted" source. Not going to happen.

Roger totally agree with you there as they are tweaking obamacare every day and still putting the hogwash together.

To further prove my point ML, a banner ad on the Sewickley Patch homepage was from Obama’s own reelection campaign and the ad read “I like Obamacare.” Perhaps we could have a discussion on brand marketing when the time is right.

"Outraged Citizen"
I agree with you in regards to the whole "Obamacare" debacle. No one...and I mean no one...should be referring to the ACA by that name. First of all it incorrectly infers that somehow President Obama came up with ACA organically which he did not. Secondly, it just comes off sophomoric when people debating / discussing something don't call the item in debate by its proper name. I also agree with you on another point: Personally, I DO applaud Americans that take the time to question our government and enter into healthy debates and fact-finding queries. My hope is that both sides on an issue can learn something in the process that perhaps they didn't know before. I've said it before and I will say it again: I can appreciate why some folks are nervous....afraid...outraged even concerning the ACA. In this instance (health care) we are all blazing a trail never taken by our country and of course there will be opposing views and some messiness on the path. I appreciate your opposing view :)

@Stacy – Brand marketing is the reason Obama’s own campaign is calling it Obamacare. If it’s successful, people is forever associate its passage with Obama, securing his legacy. This is a gamble though. If it’s not success, it will hang like an albatross around his legacy. This is not the first instance in the history of politics this type of brand marketing has been attempted, nor will it be the last.

@Stacy – Additionally, there are certain posters here that attempt to draw a correlation between calling it Obamacare and a lack of intelligence/knowledge. I suppose they only meant to draw this correlation between those who call it Obamacare and disagree with it. However, that was not clearly stated.

As a result, I wanted to point to the fact that many supports – including the Administration – call it Obamacare. Since those who meant to draw the correlation clearly did not mean to add supporters to this group, I wanted to point out the hypocrisy.

Outraged,
My point is that President Obama did not organically create the ACA and hence it should not, even in slang, be called "obamacare"....whether someone means it as a positive or a negative comment it is misleading. On the Health.gov site the term "obamacare" is not to be found yet it IS bizarre to me to see it on a Democratic site. Either way, it is misleading, that is not to say that I don't agree with you on WHY the Democratic site may use that term. I do not agree with its usage, however.

In case no one has thanked you lately for being the type of business owner that IS making this country great: Thank you!

@liliiput – I applaud you for having the fortitude to open your own business and decide it’s better to work for yourself than someone else. Tell me, how does Obamacare benefit you as a business owner?

@Stacy – It’s amazing you didn’t take time out you praise for liliiput – much deserved I might add – to point out to that she will benefit under the ACA and not Obama as she claims.

I guess as long as you support Obamacare . . . .

@Outraged,
I really do not understand your comment directed at me. Don't tell me that you find it odd that a person compliments a business owner for providing health insurance for their employees? And if that same person feels they has benefitted un the Obama Administration, then so be it. I think what you are looking for is this: thank you, Lilliput, for mentioning how you are benefitting under the current administration and the ACA!

@Stacy – The thing that I found interesting is that you are such a stickler to point out that Obama did not come up with the ACA organically and that there is no such thing as Obamacare.

liliiput states that, “Fact, under Obama, my children have healthcare up to age 26 under the same policy I have been paying for them for years.” It’s clear here that liliiput is thanking Obama personally for this new provision.

As you very well know, Obama did not expand healthcare coverage so that children could stay on their parents’ plans until the age of 26. That is a provision of the ACA – something Obama did not come up with organically.

Based on your previous statements, I would have thought you would have been consistent to point out to liliiput that she can thank the ACA, and not Obama for this provision.

Again, I guess as long as you support . . . .

Hi Outraged,
You are literally making me laugh now....thank you! It is appropriate that President Obama be thanked for signing the ACA into law and despite how many folks might NOT like the law he WIL be credited with placing it into law. That does not mean the he organically created the law. It's kind of like when people hold Cheney and Bush responsible for war crimes when they did not invent torture techniques. I'm just giving you an example to draw a correlation to. Kudus to the business owner for being so responsible and thanking the President that signed ACA into law.

@Stacy – It is indeed a good day when we can laugh. I know too many people that don’t laugh enough. Myself, that’s the primary reason I come here.

I would wholeheartedly agree with you if liliiput has said, “By signing the ACA, my children can now stay on my insurance until the age of 26. Thank you Obama.” But that’s not what liliiput said. liliiput said, “under Obama” and there is a clear distinction. I could explain it ad nauseam, but what’s the point?

Any who, I don’t really care if liliiput thanks Obama, Obamacare, the ACA, Visigoths, alien invaders or the impending zombie apocalypse for children being able to stay on their parents’ insurance until the age of 26. I was merely pointing out your inconsistencies and the steps you’re willing to take to justify them.

And again, I guess as long as you support . . . .

Asbestos Worker Local #2 have been covering their children to the age of 26 since back in the 70's and there are a few other Locals do this also. It was always left between a Company and the Insurance company when they wanted to terminate children off their parents insurances. Most chose to cover them till they were done with college. The option was always out there.

@JustMe

just to clarify, that option existed in 20 states; the ACA expands it to all 50.

And since you haven't been able to produce any evidence that the numbers I supplied a few days ago are hogwash, I'll assume that you retract the claim.

Andrew first of all ", I'll assume that you retract the claim, I did not such thing. I was answering liliput, as she says she is a business owner and congrats to her btw. She pays for heath care for her family and employee. I also know for a fact the the Insulators Local pays for all children to the age of 26 in all states as other labor unions do.

your numbers are all hogwash to me as I don't believe it as they keep on changing things. we the tax payers are going to have to pick up more slack to have more people on welfare to pay for them. you say everyone is going to get affordable healthcare and someone is going to have to pay for that. hospital rates go up, doctors rates go up, prescriptions go up, who is going to pay for this????? obama, is he going to take the money out of his salary and pay for this, since it is his bill.
I just hope and pray that obama and obamacare are gone after the next election and they repeal obamacare.

@JustMe

"I did not such thing"
Irony seems to be lost on you. In truth, what you've done is totally ignore my evidence-supported counter arguments when at the civil thing to do would have been to retract your claim. You may not like the peer review process, but this is how it works. Put forth better data and it goes more smoothly.

"as they keep on changing things."
Point to a single number in ACA that's been changed since it passed, otherwise drop this line of argumentation.

Andrew did you go read any of the links that I posted? obamacare is a farce that how many people don't want. your not going to convince me that your correct in what you post as you are not GOD. I have read obamacare and it isn't cracked up to what you think. obamacare is taking away my rights. I have freedom of speech still just as you do. you got your opinion on obamacare and I have mine and you will never convince me or others to come over to your way of thinking. We do need Romney in office so he can toss all this garbage out.

@JustMe

This is the second time you've reminded me that I'm not God. I was pretty clear on this going into the discussion, but thanks for the heads up.

"Andrew did you go read any of the links that I posted?"
I did, and I replied at length, quoting the author of the study three times. The blogger you cited doesn't even use math that adds up, which should be a cause for concern.

"I have read obamacare and it isn't cracked up to what you think."/"your numbers are all hogwash to me as I don't believe it as they keep on changing things."

First, it's great that read ACA. Since you've read it, you're surely familiar with page 111, sec. 1401, because that's the source of the numbers you're calling hogwash. It doesn't really explain why, if you've read it, you don't believe those numbers are in the bill, which is why I'm asking for clarification. When you claim "they" are "changing things" you need to do two things. 1) Define who "they" are and 2) define what things, exactly, have been changed and in what way.

"I have freedom of speech still just as you do."
This is absolutely true. Completely irrelevant to the discussion, but true.

"you got your opinion on obamacare and I have mine and you will never convince me or others to come over to your way of thinking."

This is about facts, not opinions.

"We do need Romney in office so he can toss all this garbage out."

Please watch the YouTube video I linked. I think you'll be surprised.