As far as I understand it (obviously I haven't read the opinion yet), the majority ruled that fines imposed on those who refuse insurance (aka teeth of the individual mandate) can be categorized as a tax, which is obviously within Congress' power to levy. Health insurance itself doesn't have anything to do with taxation, which I presume is why all the focus of arguments had been on the validity of the commerce clause. The ruling seems to me (I'm not a conlaw scholar or anything) to be bit of a curve ball. I thought for sure this was going 5-4 the other way.

So it is a tax. It is another case of Obama going a little to far in trying to appease Republicans and attract a few of their votes. He should no better. Hopefully when he is re-elected in November he will have a majority Democrat congress who can help him properly implement the law. Perhaps even more important, he will have the opportunity to appoint a few more Supreme Court Justices so that the power of Alito, Thomas and Scalia is at least diluted.

people are dreaming if they think he will be re-elected....im lucky to work in a field where most of my day is spent talking to businesses all across the country, and I have yet to find one of my customers that supports Obama, I don't think libs are ready for whats gonna happen this fall. if they thought 2010 was bad wait a few months

@Jim......im tryin to understand how you think it is ok for politicians to lie to the American people in order to get a piece of legislation through congress. He clearly said it wasn't a tax, yet the only way to find it constitutional is to consider it a tax. According to an op-ed written by Robert Reich, Huffington Post, one of the libs "great" orators, and former Clinton Cabinet member, and I quote from today article,

"It doesn't matter that a significant portion of the public may not like Obamacare. The issue here is the role and institutional integrity of the Supreme Court, not the popularity of a particular piece of legislation. Indeed, what better way to show the Court's impartiality than to affirm the constitutionality of legislation that may be unpopular but is within the authority of the other two branches to enact?"

you think its ok for government to treat us like children who dont know whats best for ourselves. The majority of the country doesnt like this law who is Obama to go against the will of the people, we elected him not to pass unpopular laws, not throw us further into a depression. I can hear it now, unisured people are costing us hundreds of billions a year, its not fair that we have to pay for it. Of course its not fair, instead of forcing people to buy something they dont want, why not ease restrictions to create more competition. I do agree with allowing people to purchase insurance across state lines. Great Idea. Why not have a few more of those instead of telling us what he thinks we need. But dont try to say this will save us money. How?! now that its officially a tax, this will create an additional 500 billion in taxes on the American people, can any of us afford new taxes? I cant, i make ok money and still have to live check to check, and they cut 500 billion from medicaid, so next time you want to complain about the government takin away you medicaid, blame the democrats. Even if all this worked out well, and between cuts and new tax there is a 1 trillion extra dollars. the deficit is far more than that. Stop worrying about my healthcare, and start figuring out how the federal government can stop spending money like it is water. But then again, if I had the ability to raise my own credit limit, i probably wouldn't pay my bill either.....just sayin
#the truth hurts

So...what?

Well that answer is easy - he'll say it was the Supreme Court that dictated to him it needed to be a tax.

edit: specifically, it was Justice Roberts himself. The 4 liberal judges believe the Commerce clause covers it. CJ Roberts does not. This is going to be the ultimate irony, because now Republicans are going to say "Obama swore it wouldn't be a tax!" and now Obama just has to say "but Chief Justice Roberts, a Republican appointee, told me it needed to be so."

Chief Justice Roberts just fashioned a 'get out of 'jail' free card" for the President with this decision.

Nathan, thankfully not everyone feels the same way you and others on here do. You always assume that you're in the majority. Feelings run pretty much even.

It wasn't when the law was drafted. The SCOTUS basically said it was. Not the fault of the drafters. As far as folks like Nathan who say the majority don't like the law... if folks are asked their opinion of each piece of the legislation, those are overwhelmingly popular from what i've read. It's just when you slap the "Obamacare" tag on it with all of the misinformation and rhetoric applied to it that it becomes unpopular. Makes no sense to me, but most people will just listen to BS and take it as gospel without actually reading the legislation.

Looks like the Supreme Court diagrees on the facts of that particular statement! And, it is one of the facts that will come back to haunt him in November...perhaps!!

Debra
1.This is a penalty ( a FINE) for persons being irreponsible and should be because those who choose not to have insurance will still go to emergency rooms, as we all know that at some point we Will get sick, and as Mitt said in Mass people should take personal responsiblity (this is when he thought the Mandate was fine, and I am sure you will see those commercials to remind you What he said, as we should)
2. This penalty will effect a small amount of people
3. Health information Exchanges will make things BETTER not WORST
4.Those Gov's who do Not want to implement the HIE's are not for covering their constiuents should be voted out because they do NOT care about Their health
5. Ask yourself Why we are the Last Major Developed Country in the world not the cover it's people UNTIL NOW! and Why Republican's look for every way to knock it but make no mistake They have coverage for Their Families

Nathan and the rest of you that are against "Obamacare"; maybe if you were in my shoes and the rest of us that do not have insurance (as a result of NO FAULT OF OUR OWN) you would understand how important this is, and to be subjected to trying to decide which medications to fill along with being unable to qualify for the state health care program for my children because we make $2 over and we receive no public assistance. I guess as long as Congress and the rest of you have your families covered it doesn't matter!!!!! So much hatred because OUR PRESIDENT was considerate of THIS human race.......would these comments be so brash had George W. though enough of AMERICA to do this????? Remember this was his war but OUR PRESIDENT was blamed for that too.....how soon do we forget.

And All of the taxpayers will have to cover the cost of the 10,000 IRS employees that the idiot in the white house says they are going to hire to "implement" the plan. That will ALSO be a tax increase. Obama with his distorted plans for the people. His plans to "steal" from the people that work for a living and give it to those who live off the government, is what is going to get the door hitting him in the butt come November when he gets his butt kicked out of the white house. And the statement about Bush, I would have said the same and so would have MANY conservatives. One you libs drink the kool aide and think this guy has a plan...well he does and it come s from the "rules of radicals" the socialist playbook. This is what you libs are looking for but it is NOT going to happen http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI

Two lies.

That 50% number was debunked a long time ago.

Sales tax, gas tax, city tax, medicare/social security payroll taxes... While I did not "pay" federal taxes (thanks to solar and eco home additions) this year, we all still pay taxes.

Bingo, Daniel. The bottom line is that EVERYONE in this country pays taxes. My aunt, who pays no INCOME taxes, state or federal, pays out almost 15% of her income (20K) per year in various OTHER taxes and taxes by another name (driver's license fee, etc.).

Most of those "sales taxes" and other specifically applied taxes will not go to pay for health care. Those that pay federal taxes will end up paying for the program.

There is always "November..." remember?

Your first problem is that your are listening to (mis)-information from Fox News!

Fauxnews, you mean.

Although HuffandPuffingPost is no better.

I love how libs call anything they dont agree with mis information, the actual name for it is an alternate point of view. how bout this, please name for me just one thing that Obama has done since he took office that has improved our economy, and not created new debt and deficits................I'll wait..........................still waiting..................how bout i come back in another 4 years, maybe you'll concoct some type of excuse by then.

Nathan...are you joking? Bush lost 800,000 jobs the last month of his presidency. Now we've seen 26 straight months of job growth. Do we still have further to go? Of course. Are we 10x better off now than we were under the last regime that gave us two massive recessions? Of course. If you can't see progress under Obama's administration then you're flat blind.

@jag .......6 trillion in new debt, with no net job gains........that is all

Believe me, Nathan. I understand that's how superficially you look at the world. No need to add "that is all."

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!
The Hoi Poi will now have health care!!!!!!!!!! Next thing you know they will want to swim at our privilaged beaches!!!!!! There MUST be a way to keep people not like us suffering. How can I feel olay if ther are not people n pain?

Nathan

Fox news is an admitted political organization with an agenda. If you paid a little closer attention you would know that, and if you read the back pages of the WSJ (carefully hidden) you would know that that fine australian who runs fox threatened politicians who didnt do what he wanted them to do so they would be run out of office. He succeeded too and then claimed innocence under oath.

...... me too.

Why? You still have the Freedom to not buy Health Insurance. You will just be taxed (fined) 1% of your income or $285 until 2016 when it goes to 2.5% or $2085.

Oh, alright then.

*Edit*

My freedom now costs $285, until 2016 when will increase to $2085.

The Justices struck down the provision on the expansion of Medicaid coverage as it would unduly burden the states.

Information? Who needs information?! Just call POTUS a liar and regurgitate whatever talking heads on Fox News say! Duh. :P

Fred: No, they didn't as I understand it.

To clarify, and at this point I MAY be incorrect, the Courts simply said that if States choose NOT to participate in the expanded Medicare (and yes, it's a choice as I understand it...unlike the Individual Mandate) that the Federal government has no right to threathen/pull existing Medicare funding from the State.

Right, they can still withhold new funds. Which is a pretty big carrot for most states.

Oh please lord say this is a joke.

If you buy insurance that is better than the government standard, you will be taxed because you have more that the government requires. So it IS a TAX.

Frank,

There are taxes...stop misinforming people! Just because you have insurance doesn't mean you aren't taxed to pay for the program. The Ways and Means committee recently stated that there are 21 tax increases in the health-care law costing more than $675 billion over the next 10 years. Of those 12 of the taxes hit families making less than $250,000 a year. Remember the Cadillac tax on premium health care plans? The ones many unions asked to be exempt ...That will kick in. Taxes on insurance providers (sure they won't eat that cost), excise tax on medical device manufacturers. If you think this will not cost us more...I like to smoke what you are having.

Unlikely. This is the definition of a cadillac plan

"a high-cost health plan is defined as costing more than $10,200 for an individual or $27,500 for a family, including worker and employer contributions to flexible spending or health savings accounts. The cost does not include stand-alone vision or dental benefits."

I lost the freedom to be forced to pay for the uninsured, both up front and in future health insurance premiums.

Damn it!
;)

Amen!!!

I think that's way too hard to say w/o all the facts, but in general I believe the cost of insurance isn't expect to go down, nor was that ever the goal of the current legislation (after Dems had to give up on expanding medicare/the creation of a more efficient public insurance option for people to buy in order to get enough Republican support for the bill).

Ultimately, so long as private insurance remains extremely inefficient (the overhead costs for government-run Medicare is much, much lower) and so long as Americans keep treating their bodies worse and worse, there's no reason I can think of that insurance costs would reverse themselves.

Ginger, At the very least you will know more of your options when the states have to provide a pool of insurers you can choose from. The likely hood that the premiums will go down is not good because we are a capitalist nation and whenever big business can charge more they will. So net net ..you may be able to find lower premiums because you will know about more options.

From what I have read, you will have an option to buy your insurance on an open exchange to try to find a lower cost policy if your premiums are above a certain percentage of your income. In which case your employer contributes the same amount as they would otherwise towards whichever plan you choose, and they also pay a fine for failing to provide affordable coverage. In addition, the law requires everyone to have insurance, so premiums should be affected b/c it will stop people from only getting insurance once they get sick. It also caps the amount of profit your insurance company can make, at 15% of premiums. In fact many insurance companies who collected too much this year will be sending the extra back to consumers.

the 15% includes profits and administration. They must spend at least 85% on medical care, (80% for plans not through an employer, I assume to allow for more administration and advertising costs with these plans)

Actually, jag, that was the EXACT intention of this law. It was meant to (and has succeeded somewhat, my insurance has dropped the last six months in a row) make health insurance premiums go down by getting more healthy people paying into health insurance.

For most people, it has done that from what I have seen. It's not a big drop thus far (that will come with the health insurance exchanges where companies will have to COMPETE) but it is a bit of a drop.

Seriously! I can't believe the government FORCES me to buy clothes either! And FORCES me to buy food for my kids, too! I liked it way better when my uninsured butt could just FORCE everyone else to pay for my hospital bills. Personal responsibility within a society is the worst. Totally socialist!

I think there should be an option for those who want to preserve their "freedom" to opt out of the insurance mandate. Of course those people would never be covered from future insurance for any pre-existing condition and would need to pay cash prior to receiving any treatment for any reason. Good luck with your freedom when you are crossing the street and hit by an uninsured motorist or get diagnosed with cancer. Then you would be "free" to die without treatment.

HAHAHAHAH

An anarchist? Do you even know what that word means? Anarchy is a system that has no government, no rules, and people fend for themselves. Thanks, Mary Beth. I needed that laugh. Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about.

You are forced to pay for trash pick up (a tax) which as a society we really need, because without it, it would get pretty stinky around here and diseases would run rampant. But you honestly don't want to contribute financially for your own health care. Oh I get it, you want the government to pay for healthcare. Oh wait a minute maybe you don't want healthcare. Oh or maybe your tired of the government telling you what to do. Okay let's think about this for a minute. No more trash pickup tax I don't like the government telling me what to do even if what they tell me benefits society as a whole. Can you imagine how much trash will be around. Alright now back to health care there's too many people out there taking advantage of our health care system and not paying when they have the means to do so. We need to charge for their healthcare just like we pay for trash pickup. I don't see anyone complaining about the trash pick up tax but you complain about a health tax that will benefit you. Makes no sense to me.

Mary Beth: True personal freedom died with the Patriot Act.

Jennell, there is an option for that. You don't get health insurance and you pay the fine for not having that insurance... WOW.... choice is good!

It's not that hard to reason through here.

I agree with you 100%

You don't have very deep understanding of SCOTUS' leaning if you actually think that.

its ok mary beth, what ive learned is that no matter the truth liberals will always ignore it, bottom line is that they always wanna back these great moral programs without any regard for the consequences or who will pay for it. the funniest part of it is that whenever i see my parents or anyone else that was born under communism they always shake their heads and say, how do americans not see what is happening right in front of their eyes!!!! people who have experienced tyranny are always the first to recognize when it is happening again.........think about it thats all
they think its ok its for a good cause i dont mind giving up this one little right for the greater good, add up all those little rights that you didnt mind giving away and the next thing you know you will be sitting there wondering how we let it get so bad

Same here, mate! This has been one bad bloody day for America!

concur, surprised me

I don't think you quite understand the lipstick on a pig metaphor.

Also, if you already have insurance, this will not impact you at all. I don't quite understand why you are so upset about this. There is no money coming out of your pocket for this at all.

It's about providing care to those that don't currently have access. This is a very logical and reasonable piece of legislation that has been very successful in Mass. for the last few years and is similar to that of healthcare policy in Europe and Canada. This isn't new, Karl. In fact, the US is way behind.

@ Killi , so no money is coming out of the pockets of the insured, please by all means explain then where the billions if not trillions of dollars will be coming from to pay for your precious uninsured, cause from where im standing thats a better magic trick then anything ive seen cris angel do.......
#think before you open your mouth

Well, Killi, they are trying to lie through their teeth about that it will affect people with health insurance by driving up their rates. I seriously doubt it. If anything, it will LOWER most people's rates by getting rid of some of the charges that hospitals have to pay for people who don't have health insurance who they are required to treat.

Megan Kelly did come on and say she was sorry about the mishap. I like the Fox News Best on T.V. I believe. Now to the Obama Care I hope all those in Washington will have to use it too. Another thing I don't think they should get any special treatment it's their job. Last I WISH they would STOP lying starting with Obama. Hum! O'malley sounds just like him. Lets try and get them out in Nov.

It certainly is more than a split decision around here, but Patch is largely conservative due to it being a faux-blog/geared towards older readers. Put the poll on an actual blog like PoP or GGW or SSS and it'd be 95-5 in favor because most all those readers are under 45.

You should know that comment boards are the stomping grounds of the angry and bitter. It makes perfect sense for this group to show up here.

This is actually expected by me. This is a very, very divided issue. Why? because too many people in this country are ignorant - and typically it's not their fault.

@ jag so you're saying that the patch is conservative because its geared towards older readers.....im as conservative as they come and im 27 first, second, dont you think that those pesky conservative older readers your talking about have something you and i dont.........it called wisdom, from being around long enough to see through bs......just sayin

You don't have to buy car insurance. If you don't, then you can't own a car. A bad choice, but it is still a choice. There is no choice to the individual mandate on health care- you MUST buy it or face the weight of the government to collect a fine/tax/whatever you want to call it. And to others, please stop saying that people with insurance will not have to pay anything more. My rates went up (actual purchase cost, copays, and co insurance) for the stated reason of "meeting the requirements of the new health care law."

I agree that the health insurance system is broken. I do not agree that the solution should be an enormous government program.

Using the car analogy is weak.

You can always walk, use public transportation, etc.

But if you get sick, the rest of us pay for your rolling the dice.

I hear you. No you don't "HAVE TO" have a car...but how many of you DON'T have a car? How many of you use Public Transportation...And how many of you DON'T have insurance for that car that you don't have to have insurance on?
AND...How many of you are NOT accepting your Social Security checks - because you don't have to do that either.

its very simple, you do not have to drive, driving is a privilege, and as such insurance can be required, but you still have a choice to pay for insurance or ride the bus or a cab........
the health care law is tryin to tax us simply for being alive, there is no other choice...no other option

Absolutely true. Instead of Republicans saying "Elect Romney, because Obama has been a complete failure, even the Supreme Court agrees" now they'll just say "A vote for Obama is a vote for the PPAHA".

Few other issues will matter. We'll see who wins in November.

Ha, so you're going to elect the 'socialist' who implemented "Obamacare" before it was chic to call it "Obamacare".

Brilliant.

The only real reason the Republicans hate the ACA is because it's Obama's creation. If Obama suddenly agreed with everything that the House Republicans want, they would suddenly change their minds about everything.

Wrong again Tim. You need to take some courses on government. The States have the power to implement such programs because they are run by the people, at least in theory, and if you do not like what your state does you are free to move to a state you like. Having the federal government implement something that forces it on everyone, in spite of the courts re-writing of the law instead of interpreting it, is not Constitutional. A perfect analogy of the founder's intent on this is the fact that they sought to prevent having the federal government establish an official religion for the whole country but had no problem with the fact that 9 of the 13 colonies had official religions. No one was forced to accept the Colonial religion because they were free to move. When the same thing is done at the federal level, you are forced to comply. Not the same.

The individual mandate was basically a creation of the Heritage Foundation, and supported by Cato and a bunch of the other conservative think tanks. Which led to someone making a joke that conservatives support the "-care" part of the plan, but they want to repeal the "Obama-" part.

Steve, what you said is totally point of view as to this being unconstitutional. Many/a majority of legal scholars on BOTH sides of the political spectrum have come out saying that the ACA is totally constitutional based on the federal government's right to intercede in interstate trade.

Health care IS, period and done with, argument finished forever.... interstate trade. Whether people want to believe it or not, most people do not spend their entire lives in their state of birth, therefore that gives the feds the right to monitor/regulate health care.

You've hit it right on the head, Daniel, good luck to you and your sister. Some of these hateful talking heads on here can't see beyond their own noses.
We are all paying for uninsured people, now. Unpaid hospital bills are included into all the costs of the medical industry, and therefore are included in the price we pay for everything medical related.

Right. Wait until you see those high risk pool rates before you start claiming an improvement in your situation.

Steve, everyone is going to be in the SAME pool under the ACA as written. There will no longer be differing pools based on age, there will just be one pool that EVERYONE is lumped into, which is really how it should be in a perfect world.

oh yes and SS and medicaid are the perfect example of success??? how bout you open an account for each person and deposit their SS money in there that cannot be touched by the government.......that would make too much sense though, i mean how would the government pay back older americans on this ponze scheme if we each had our own SS account.........really sad

LOL. You cite two of the most wasteful, ineffective programs in history, programs which are constantly on the verge of bankruptcy and which truly help no one, as examples of success? Do the math on what you could do with the money you have contributed to those programs if you still had it versus what they will do for you. And those wonderful lower prices everyone is talking about? My parents got a letter this month letting them know that in accordance with the new health care law, their out of pocket cots for medicare is increasing by 10% in 2012, another 10% in 2013, and it will double in 2014. Oh those wonderful democrats? BTW, my father, a lifelong democrat, has seen the light and says he will never vote for another democrat as long as he lives.

"My parents got a letter this month letting them know that in accordance with the new health care law, their out of pocket cots for medicare is increasing by 10% in 2012, another 10% in 2013, and it will double in 2014."

Oh my lord, Steve. Please tell me you and your parents are intelligent enough to recognize such obvious right-wing propaganda. Did the letter tell them they were about to be murdered by a "death panel", too? Honestly, I understand that some very old people are easy targets for con jobs, but you should educate yourself so you can protect them. Right now, all you're doing is feeding ignorance.

You'll note that he didn't say the letters were from their health insurance company, just that they got letters.

I swear, Steve is exposing himself more and more as a Republican shill who doesn't want the 'mean old feds' to intervene in his life for any reason, even when he is causing harm to other people through his attitudes on health care and other things.

I just dismiss him out of hand from now on, he's exposed himself way too well.

To Nathan; Yes, considering everything, Medicare and SS ARE perfect examples of success. The biggest problem with both is that both are raided on a regular basis so that our elected officials can put more money into the military.

Sorry but you are plain wrong. ACA stands for "Affordable Care Act". It's makes sure that health insurance will be available to everyone who couldn't otherwise afford it or who are outright denied it

The real purpose of the "individual mandate" was to make it possible for insurance companies to insure everyone at affordable rates (including free for some people). With everyone receiving some level of health-care, the overall costs of it will increase at a much lower rate than if hospitals and states were continue to be forced to provide health care for no reimbursement to the uninsured. .

Plain wrong about what? I said it is a tax. SCOTUS said it is a tax. It is a tax, bottom line. Taxes have not corrected any wrongs or improved the quality of life for anyone in this country without stifling production and self worth. The only thing this will create is another run amuck bureaucracy. You admit it will "increase" but at a much lower rate. NO increase is acceptable, especially in the current economic conditions. Don't get me wrong, I am not opposed to good health care for those who need it. I am not opposed to regulations to stop the abuses by the health companies who are cheating all of us. I am opposed to another burden on my family budget to pay for someone who can't, won't or doesn't choose to take care of themselves. I ask you again. Wrong about what? We all know how well it will run once the government gets involved. Take a look at the shining examples of say the Post Office or maybe Social Security. How about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Should I continue? Wrong, please Frank. You just didn't read my statement properly.

Okay then, let's get rid of the Post Office, Social Security, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. Let's depend on JP Morgan, UPS, and the Salvation Army instead.

You just named two publicly traded companies and a government agency that can ship a letter anywhere in the country in a day or two and "shining examples" of cruddy government? Odd.

i like the example of the prof. telling his class fine if you want fair grades, we will take the students who have A's and the students who have F's and average it all out so that everyone gets a C, people should not be penalized for having goals and working hard to reach them and enjoy them, i was homeless at one point, no one helped me, i decided things have to change, myself, so I found a job and started school and worked my butt off 75 hours a week for years to get a computer science degree. i feel bad for no one, you say it can't be done, I say watch me do it hahahahahah stop being lazy you dont like things, change it, no one one you anything, least of all health care.......

You're so right, Nathan. If only those people rejected by insurance companies due to a health condition or disability weren't so lazy! If only they tried harder they wouldn't be ill! What losers they are.

Temporary employment tax? Are you talking about the income tax that had a top marginal rate of 95%? What are you paying now?

LOL. No.

The government already encourages or discourages behaviors through taxation.

Typical Limbaugh/Tea Party over-exaggeration. The government has always dictated choices ever since the draft, income tax, and the DEA were created. The government has always "forced" us to do things out of the common good - that's nothing new. What we also have, however, is the power to vote and freedom of speech. That has never been taken away, and that's really the most important thing.

I'm pretty sure I get the mortgage interest deduction because I'm such a great guy.

True, FIFA. that is exactly what the federal government does. Now, there are some areas where I have to agree that the Federal government should NOT intervene, but health care is not one of them because it is interstate commerce and our health care system hasn't been working well for numerous years.

you reap what you sow.....maybe if government didnt regulate businesses to nearly the point of bankruptcy, they wouldn't charge so much for goods and services

No David, Chief Justice Roberts clearly states that the entire Affordable Healthcare Act was a clear violation of the Constitution because of the individual mandate if it had not been argued by Obama's legal team that it is, in fact, a tax levied by the IRS as voted on by Congress and not an issue of interstate commerce at they claimed it was all along until they had to defend it in the Supreme Court. Obama lied to either Congress and the American people or his legal team lied to the Supreme Court. Either lie is reprehensible but the fact that he really lied to all of the above should be an impeachable act but it will be enough just to see him voted out of office in November.

JustABill, one person's lie is another person's viewpont. You could call ANY fee that Congress puts into place through law a hidden tax, but that doesn't make it any less a fee as well.

This is one thing that fits in BOTH categories and it's viewpoint which one it fits into. I call it a fee, others call it a tax.... we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this subject and move on.

Bull. Nearly every other country in the entire WORLD that is first or second world has a nationalized health insurance. Where are they going to go to.... Somalia?

Yeah, REAL nice example of a successful nation there.... NOT!

I don't know about that Sean...the "world" doesn't seem to be in such great shape! I think the "world" might appreciate us staying on task and avoid their pitfalls whenever possible!....Who do you think will be truly laughing at us? I submit they will be praying that we "survive!!!"

On the contrary Sean, all citizens should wake up and see the dreadful direction we are headed.. the infamous promise of "fundmentally changing America and the world" is taking shape...... Run Forrest Run!!!!

David, I was thinking the exact same thing. It is a pity he doesn't educate himself with all that time!

Good centrist news organizations that recognize that both sides are equally to blame for our country's problems, every argument is composed of no more or less than two diametrically opposed sides, and every argument could be resolved if both sides simply compromised to some degree.

Marv,

Don't even try to reason with these people. You will lose every time. Just take a look at where libs control and the crap sandwich they heap on everyone. If the WWII generation was the greatest generation we are now witness to the most selfish and self righteous generation led by liberal/progressive thinking. All of this is not sustainable..CBO tells us, Greece, Spain, Portugal simply confirms. There will be a day of reckoning...and all of us, liberal, conservative, whatever political affiliation, will feel the pain. If not us...then our kids and grand kids, which to me is the most dastardly thing about this whole euphoria surrounding Obamacare. Great for everyone now...but in the future...our kids will pay the price.

Marv, then just vomit. If you cannot see Fox for what it is then get sick. Is MSNBC liberal, yes, I can call it that. Is Fox in the tank for Republicans, yes. Can you man up and call it that? I doubt it.

That's why I get my news for the Comedy Channel and my Comedy from The Fox News channel.

Marv, then use your whole real name. Man or chameleon?

Oh, bull, Corbin. The fact is that when you 'compromise' too much, you have a tendency to sooner or live give one side all they want and you get nothing.

That is what the Democrats have done and it's about time that they started REFUSING to compromise and moved this country back from the far-right policies it currently has to the centrist or liberal policies that did so well in the 1950's and 1960's.

49% of people who don't work?

Yeah, I raised an eyebrow at that as well, Able. 49% of people who don't work? Maybe because their husband/spouse has a well paying job, they are physically/mentally disabled, etc.

I.E. they physically cannot work or have mental problems that prevent them from working. Not in any other situation.

It's maybe a bare 1% of American who 'don't work' because they do not wish to. A good number of them actually are working, I would say, yet are in facets of the economy that are illegal such as the drug trade or prostitution, which I personally feel should be legal.

You do realize that all of that could have been done without Obamacare? The good vs. bad leaves far more bad.

Jusith, thank you for this insight.

The problem is that there are nowhere near enough primary care doctors on the planet at this time .... Med students have to be trained in primary care verses the highly specialized medicine that most seek for the money...it'll take a long time for this process to effectively evolve....and it's still un constitutional regardless of a corrupt supreme court ruling..

Sorry, Buck, but once the Supreme Court says that something is constitutional.... guess what it is! C O N S T I T U T I O N A L! At least until a future Supreme Court ruling overturns it, which I don't see happening here, that happens exceptionally infrequently.

Also, yes, there are enough primary care doctors on the planet. I personally only have to go to my primary care doctor once a year for a routine checkup that takes a grand total (once he sees me) of 5 minutes.
Maybe once every 3 during that routine checkup he sends me for a blood test, like he did this last time because my glands were swollen when I came in though I had no signs of illness.

Christopher Kidwell...An un-Constitutional decision made by the perceived Supreme Court is just that. Corrupt decisions are what the Constitution offers protection from for the people.
The general statement that you made about there being enough family doctors to serve the entire US population is totally wrong. The vast majority of new doctors that have entered the healthcare arena over the past 15 years have chosen specialized fields over primary care because this type of medicine pays much more.
The statement about your personal healthcare experience has nothing what so ever to do with the number of primary care doctors currently practicing ,and your notion is wrong....If you do your homework before posting such ridiculous statements you would better understand the process.

Hiding behind "Marv", there is a man?

Michael, why aren't you just deleting comments? Saying "cut it out, now" sounds completely juvenile and leaving the comments standing shows the TOS are teeth-less.

I do believe Paul A. began the banter with his inquiry into Marv's stature. Asking if he is a man or a chameleon is not an inappropriate comment? Really? This is the type of ridiculous discussion we have come to spend our time on instead of talking about the real issues. Sad commentary and poorly used censorship.

Yeah, while conservatives are in bed with religion, you know, the make believe stuff while thoroughly enjoying, throughout history, repressing others like women, gays, etc.

Anyone can generalize.

More than a little ironic to misspell "lesser" while bloviating about someone's cognitive ability. Unless you're saying they're the owner of brain matter and have entered into an agreement to lease it to someone else.

Agreed! Many have overlooked the full opinion as written by CJ Roberts. They got hung up on all the hype and sensationalism and didn't see the real ruling. This matter belongs in the legislative NOT the judicial branch. Although I think CJ Roberts is playing political football with this he voted correctly. At the same time he clarified that it is in FACT a TAX on the American citizens, thus leaving it open for repeal by a FAIRLY elected Congress. This avoids years of legal wranglings if it were upheld as constitutional through commerce. I am a bit curious how he came to this decision considering the POTUS clearly stated this is NOT a TAX. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Thank you CJ Roberts!

Actually, in the real world, to overcome a filibuster, you need 60+ votes to repeal something like this. That isn't going to happen and I personally see more Democrats being elected into the Senate and House and Obama getting a second term from talking with my STAUNCH at one point Republican friends who have said they are voting Democrat this fall.

We can only hope! Wake up sheep and see the "Messiah" for what he really is. Get out the vote. Let me clarify, the legal vote. American citzens votes. Not all the illegal ballot stuffers. It is time for REAL election law changes in this country. If you want to vote and believe strongly about your choice you don't need to hide the veil of anonimity. Just saying.

You really can't believe there are so many ignorant Americans, Rick?

Really?

@Tdolce- The billionaires you speak of earned it..... so what is the problem?...is it not okay to be sucessfull in this Country...? clearly not...we all need to strive for mediocrity....I will be sure to let my children know that....keep in mind....they will be the ones making all of the decisions when you are old ,and judging from your language in your post you are not right now.... what comes around goes around...enjoy your free healthcare... hope you don't mind a LONG wait to see a doctor...

Denise - Better than no doctor at all. Let me see - what are my choices. I might have to wait a little longer for a non-emergency doctor's appointment versus having no insurance at all, or having my insurance company deny coverage for my pre-existing condition, or having them deny permission for the procedure or having to pay out of my own pocket because my maximum limit has been exceeded.

Since I already do have health insurance and don't expect to every lose it ever in my lifetime, I don't want to risk the possibility that I might have to wait a little longer for a non-emergency appointment just so millions of people who don't have health insurance can finally get it. Hell with the uninsured, who are they to delay (potentially, maybe) my appointment for tummy ache...

Actually, Denise, most of the billionaires did not 'earn it'. They got rich off the backs of their employees, who did the real hard work while those billionaires sat in corner offices doing little to nothing for mega-bucks.

it's as I keep on telling people: without the lower-level workers in a business, the business would cease to exist very goddamned quickly. Even in our roboticized to an extent world.

If making people FINALLY take some kind of ***responsibility*** is Socialism (which it isn't, but whatever) then GOOD for Socialism. Do you ocnsider car insurance laws are Socialist? No. It's called BEING MADE TO TAKE R-E-S-P-O-N-S-I-B-I-L-T-Y. People should be MORE appalled that we have dipsticks that actually believe health insurance isn't needed and isn't a good idea and then stick the rest of us with their skip. Tell you what... here is a REALLY good idea. Let's strip the "must provide service" laws enforced on clinics, hospitals and doctors and allow them to MAKE people pay upfront for ALL of their services - man, woman and child. Then let's see how many people do the SMART thing and buy insurance.

It's not socialism. It's just misinformed yet literate people sharing opinions fueled by misinformation.

There are only two realistic options for people in this country. What we have now - our existing health care system (pre-PPAHA) doesn't match either of these options - which is exactly the problem.

Here, conservatives and liberals alike, are your two options:

1) Agree that everyone must buy health insurance.
2) Agree that if someone does not buy health insurance, and can't afford their medicine/surgery/etc, then they will simply die/go homeless/ etc.

Because the PPAHA is esentially all about #1.

Our current system is corrupt, greed driven, and not out for the well being of the people it serves. Additionally, when an uninsured person needs medicine, surgery, etc guess who pays the exorbirant fees? That's right - the rest of us do.
This doesn't even get into the fact that people with pre-existing conditions are being screwed fiscally in the current system through no fault of their own.

That's EXACTLY why National Health Care has been (at times) a bi-partisan platform for decades now. That's why conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation in the past have supported requiring everyone to have insurance - so that when person A has 60k in medical costs persons B-Z don't have to help uninsured person A pay for it

Wow... thanks for the suggestion.... I will be sure to grab my 88 year old father who is a Marine and fought in WWII and move him with me..because clearly Freedom is Free for some people.. I am not a registered Republican so school girl sissy doesn't really apply here, so you can save your comment. I am highly educated however and have worked since I was 13... what I see that is wrong here is again... people get to ride the system...looking forward to how they will do it... surely the folks on independence cards have figured it out.... I see some of them in line at the store buying over 600 dollars in groceries, using their card to pay for it...then loading it into their Lexus SUV's... wow...where do I sign up? oh, that's right...I am one of the stupid people who work their ass off...make just enough money to hit the higher tax bracket and pay for these people to "milk the system"... I am going to sit back and watch this whole thing just implode... I am done commenting on this now... perhaps I will take a drive to New York City and have some lunch...oh wait.... I cannot order a large soda there!!!! government says No..not good for me... perhaps I can order one in Somalia..

Wouldn't you think the Republicans, who pride themselves on people taking personal responsibility, would be FOR this? Wouldn't you think the Republican Party, which is anti Pro-Choice would be for women being made to take responsibility for the life inside them by getting health care? So confused by their behavior on this. It's not, for them, about what is right and just, but about what they can do to make themselves relevant by having a talking point to win an election (That is obvious because even Romney signed into law almost the exact bill - including the mandate for individuals) and screw Americans to the wall for their wealthy friends. This is very sad. Sad, indeed. The dollar is more important then human life. This gives a REALLY good view into what being a "Republican" is all about any more.

Tom: They have in the past (not recent past, though). They are angry about it, for no other reason then the fact that it was passed by Obama.

Notice how they claim they have a better solution, only when Democrats actually pass this. After years of private industry underhandedness on Republican watch.

Oh right, they shelve that in the self help section right next to the book that Bush co-wrote with Hitler. Read a newspaper lady.

LOL What are the titles of these books?

Mel: How about you check out this link, and see where it puts you:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/what-health-bill-means-for-you/

@ MelC. sounds like a triage set up: There are those who WILL do well, regardless. There are those who WILL NOT do well, regardless. Then there are those who need the benefits to survive. That's is whom will benefit the most. It's was always that way until the 80s.

Ahhh and there is the rub! How far south, north, east and west of our country does this "right" extend? On our dime, that is!!!

You think there are more holes in the Obamacare than before we had Obamacare? It sounds like you already have health insurance and are not worried about losing it. If Obamacare were repealed today, millions of people would lose health insurance prescription drug costs would skyrocket, and the insurance premium rebates that the are about to be sent out to most people who are currently insured will be canceled. In addition elimination of maximum lifetime limits and pre-existing condition denials won't happen.

There are lots of "holes" in everything. Nothing is perfect but Obamacare is going fix to a lot of those holes.

You people amaze me. Constantly, you're concerned about helping the less fortunate with their health care (which will benefit us with lower rates) with tax dollars, but, are totally unphased by the billions of YOUR tax dollars that drug companies, oil companies, and wall street, receive every year. Can you explain that to me?? I didn't think so.....

You amaze us Tdolce. You whine about the money that companies who actually provide a service or product get but have no problem at all with the ever larger amount of money that the government confiscates from us and those companies for doing nothing at all. A perfect example is gas prices. I know you love to rail about those evil oil companies. Did you see the breakdown of where that money paid for a gallon of gas in New York goes? The oil company, which gets the oil from the ground, transports it to a refinery, produces the gasoline, transports it to the station so we can buy it, and maintains all of that system, keeps just over 8% of the money paid. The government, which doesn't lift a finger to provide that product, gets over 41% in taxes. Who is the evil one in this scenario?

I guess my question, Frank, is who are "ALL".....let us be more decisive when it comes to who the "all" folks are....citizens only, one other country, two other countries, half of the world, all of the world at any given time....Ahh...fundamentally changing America and the world...better to description..enslaving the citizens of America inch, by inch, sting, by sting...

Well, if you want to take that tack, fine.
When you get terminally ill then, and are uninsured, no one will help save you. Because this is the only fair alternative to this plan.

See, that's the whole thing here. The whole point behind forcing people to be insured is to ultimately reduce costs for EVERYONE by requiring personal accountability for one's health.

Well Rosebud, I'm sure you know your constitutional law, but the Supreme Court, for once has done the job they have been charged with and rendered a decision..it seems they disagree with you.

There's a lot of amazing things going on these days. Obviously, uninformed, you may be interested in the fact the the prime reason that we are not and will not be in the European mess is precisely because of the policies of President Obama. Do your own research, which does not include fox, rush, hannidy, etc.

What people are you talking about that say we can't afford to pay doctors, hospitals, and medicine?

We can pay for doctors, hospitals, and medicine. What we can't pay for is people who show up at the emergency room with severe medical problems that could have been resolved for much less by preventative care. By enrolling more people on insurance they can get that care before it turns into major problems.

Tdolce. Sorry, but you are completely uninformed, if not delusional. Obama's policies are exactly the politics that have dragged Europe into economic ruin. No matter what Huffington Post and moveon.org say. Sign up for an economics course and learn.

Tdolce...how sad of you to think that "slavery" has a color....best you review history regarding the many, many types of slavery...many colors, many religions, many genders, on and on and on....we are talking money honey child, working long hours for future gigantic taxes creeping over the land and leaving us enslaved!!! Please, don't play the "race" card....just doesn't fit!!!

Gloria: illegals? Hopefully no one.

Homeless and unemployed? Everyone is.
See, here's the thing.

We either subsidize (read: pay for) their premiums, or we pay 4-10 times as much when they go, uninsured, into our hospitals and run up bills with no ability to pay for them.

At least, that's how I'm seeing this. Optimal? Of course not. Better then the current system? I am certain of it.

That hasn't changed and won't change. All the rest of us do, with or without Obamacare.

We will of course. What do you think those 21 new taxes are for?

Tim...."hopefully no one????" Who do you think pays now; who do you think will pay in the future? We will as we are taxed, taxed, and more taxed...as the government suddenly realizes and announces they overlooked the illegal health care issue...ahhh, won't it be great the world will beat at our doors for health care on your dime, my dime and all the dimes of our great citizens. Not a pretty picture for your pocket book is it?

The same people who paid 5+ trillion dollars with trillions more allocated to the wars started by President Bush. When did the "Tea Party" become outraged? When President Obama took office. Why don't you write a letter to W. and ask for that 5+ trillion wasted on wars and we can put to use for something good - like healthcare.

If you start with the premise that Obama want to destroy our country, then I guess you'll believe any of those outright lies about Obamacare that the conservative media has been spreading. That's kind of stunning too...

no more stunned than I am, cowboy. First off, document your so called facts. The CBO, who know infinitely more than you or I, disagrees with your "facts." Adding 5 Trillion to the deficit is BullS**t. Oh yeah, and where was your outrage posted during bush's two unfunded wars, and billion dollar giveaways to Big Oil, Big pharmaceuticals, and wall street. The thousands of survivable injuries incurred in bushes wars is a prime reason why health care is crazy. Veterans with brain injuries, many thousands, will need very expensive 24 hour care for the next 50 years. Next time, don't elect a war mongering republican, Cheney.

I start with that premise because I take Obama at his word. I read his books. I look at the people he has put into high positions in his administration. People like Van Jones, founder of the radical communist group STORM. I look at his past associations. Read about the man he identifies as his mentor. Read about Cloward and Piven and the plan they authored, which he is following to the letter. Read about the manifesto written by his terrorist friends in the weather Underground, Bill Ayres and Bernadene Dohrn, the people who's home was the site of the affair that launched his political carreer. Ever look at how he speaks of this nation when he is abroad? Obama despises America and everything it has ever stood for. You don't promise to "fundamentally transform" something you love.

Ahh yes Steve, Economics 101...so very basic..even a high school student could grasp it.... Do you plan to run for office honey child? You speak so succinctly...folks would actually be able to grasp what you are saying...mmmmm...a true light at the end of the tunnel!

Tdolce, you would be hilarious if you weren't so dangerous in your ability to vote. Yes, the CBO did say Obamacare would save money before it was passed. And then they recanted everything they said and released their re-appraisal and admitted what is would cost. And remember, this is a body that has underestimated the cost of government programs by an average of 17 times the real figure. Bush's two unfunded wars? The ones that Obama has not only maintained by added to, including involvement in Libya that, unlike Bush's actions, did not have Congressional approval? And I love your lemming-like comments about "big oil, big pharma, and Wall Street". Obama received more money from BP than any other politician. Then his administration exempted them from an OSHA report on drilling rig safety that cited several of their rigs, including the one that later exploded, as being an immediate risk. He also has more ties to Wall Street than any other President in history. The web of corruption that runs through his administration, Goldman Sachs, GE, and other Wall Street giants is unprecedented.

And speaking of the oil rig disaster....remember his illegal drilling ban? Yes, illegal, two separate federal courts told him he could not do it. Why do something that he knew was going to cost thousands of jobs and drive gas prices through the roof? Because his puppeteer, George Soros, arguably the most evil living human, stood to make billions. You see, Soros invested $900 billion in Petrobras, Brazil's state-run oil operation. Less than a week later, Obama promised Petrobras $2 billion of our money to help them with the same deep water drilling that he said was too dangerous to the environment for us to do. So why the ban? Because drilling rigs are leased to oil companies. When they go inoperative for some reason, like because of an illegal ban, the leases are voided and they are leased to a new operator. Guess who got control of all the rigs that American companies lost. Wait for it......Petrobras!!! What are the chances?

Mike, this is exactly my view on it.

The "Right" had no motivation to come up with anything even resembling a reform idea until they were forced to. That's because the fat cats they represent were getting fatter on the backs of all of us.

You are correct about reform being needed, but you are wrong about repeal leading to it being put on the back burner. If the republicans just did away with all of it and did not address the problems that do exist it would be political suicide and they know it.

Steve, or they could employ what both sides have done for decades. Act concerned, do nothing, while milking millions out of the system to not produce anything...all the while the initial problems rages on...That's what I foresee if a repeal does happen..and the waste of a lot of money, attention and time.

Mike...you really, really think this is all about Limbaugh???

Sorry Mike, you are the Lemming. My opinion of Obama and his motives comes solely from his own words and actions.

Sadly, I do not. I think it is about certain small groups of people that have a lot of money and have bought a lot of influence with certain media outlets and my government representation. I wish it was just Limbaugh, in saying what I did, I was pointing out the ignorance in the above comments made regarding what our current president's agenda is...I tend to lean away from the uber paranoid rantings.

So again, I ask the question that keeps going ignored...What plan does the right have to fix or even make this better...The answer i get is deafening silence...And I am a lemming??? really daring to ask questions makes me a follower..I suggest you look up lemming in the dictionary..wanting answers does not make me a follower

Opening up insurance across all 50 states to increase competition. Increase co-pays for Medicaid and Medicare on a sliding scale based upon income but with a cap, restrict lawsuits by making attorneys pay charges for any suit deemed frivious, and come up with a system that creates a disincentive to file lawsuits based upon any bad medical outcome, allow nurse practictioners to perform greater medical function...including prescribing medications and even some minor routine surgeries, etc. I got a bunch of them.

Why do we have to explain our perfectly acceptable need to secure our borders and current methods used to do so?...what happens to Americans who side saddle their way into Mexican or Central American countries without papers and get caught.....my sense of information shared in the media is that jails there are very, very, unkind and you stay there a very, very long time..if you survive at all....no questions asked...no answers given. That alone should secure their borders and probably does...oh, oh, not to mention their army of drug cartel folks standing guard.

My point to you is exactly as you have responded....slavery does not have a color and that is where your original response was directed. As for all being slaves to something...I would rather have that choice...to be a slave or not to be a slave....not to have it rammed in my face..we endure enough of that already..why beg for more??? Improving the health care system is a great need, but not via a nanny state fix, thank you very much.

Steve - actually prescription drug costs have already dropped since ObamaCare became law. They would go back up if it is repealed. Millions more people have already acquired health insurance since it became law. Those people would lose it if it is repealed. The insurance premium rebates will start within the next month or two. Health insurance exchanges will guarantee health insurance is available to anyone who wants it. Finally, It will be unlawful to deny insurance to those with pre-existing conditions and maximum limits will be eliminated in 2014.

Really? Have yours? Ours haven't. My wife's increased by just over 30% last month. No, millions of people have not acquired coverage. It is a lie, just like the laughable claim of 4.5 million jobs created. I can't believe you are falling for this fantasy. Guaranteeing coverage is available at unaffordable prices helps no one and you know those benefits for those with pre-existing conditions you keep talking about? READ THE LAW. Being denied, and being offered coverage at a rate only a CEO can afford changes nothing. The "high risk pools" that are established are no different than what is available now and on top of that, the ban on denying coverage only applies to private insurers. The government programs like medicare will go right on denying anyone they wish, which is to say, denying far more people than private insurers do. If the problem is that health care is too expensive, only someone who pays no attention at all, or a fool, would think that the solution is adding the inestimable cost of federal bureaucracy to the problem. Government involvement is the main problem now. Adding more of the problem does not solve the problem. Ever heard of social security, medicare, medicaid, or the post office. Have you seen their financials lately?

Which calculator is this?

They have definitely dropped a lot for Medicare recipients. As of the rest of us, yes, some prescription drugs cost have gone up, and some have gone down. That has nothing to do with Obamacare.

Lorna - that is simply NOT true. I have a long term, permanent disability with many other things wrong with my health on top of that. I take over $4200 worth of meds every 3 months. That has come down in the past year from $6300.

Yes, a single-payer does make a lot of sense. The ACA is just a compromise, since real univeral coverage would be considered too "socialist". We can't have that - there's too many who don't "deserve" coverage.

And you believe that that backroom tactic will seal the re-election of Obama...If you are right, we are doomed....our leadership needs to encompass so, so much more....I think you have insulted Obama without really meaning to.

It's the AOL~ Patch censorship tool...

Oh lets not drift into name calling "marginally intelligent" shall we? Leads no where and clearly shines a negative light on the messenger's message and thought process.

There you go again honey child...name calling, i.e. monolithic, irrational, arseholes....but I do so love the "talent" spin you use for those folks you clearly are fixated with.. .

Please explain to me how the elderly will be helped when Obamacare is fully implemented? You do understand that Medicare was gutted by 500B to supposedly help pay for this. Projections are that Medicare will reimburse doctors at less the rate of Medicaid. You think with a shortage of doctors which stands right now at 160,000 and bound to get worse since far fewer would want to work in such a system it'll be easy to find doctors to take Medicare patients? Do you think the elderly will receive quality care when in the backs of thier minds doctors know they'll get little by way of payment for that care? Tell me how that's going to work? Don't give me bs platitudes either. I will agree with you something needed to be done but it sure didn't need to be this.

Medicare was not gutted by $500 billion. That is a distortion of facts promoted by Romney and Bachman during the GOP debates. The $500B is the projected savings in Medicare expenditures over the next 10 years by improving the efficiency of the medicare program. No benefits are being cut. The plan is to reduce payments to private insurance companies by $500 billion over the next 10 years.

What's more, Republicans in Congress had supported the plan to reduce medicare payments to insurance companies by $500 billion regardless of whether the ObamaCare bill passed or not. Now Romney is making up a story that the $500 billion in projected savings is benefit cut that has to do with Obamacare when it was actually the plan that Republican congressmen wanted. It's the old tactic of repeating the big lie over and over again until every believes it must be true.

500B from Medicare is what was presented to the CBO in order to declare a savings over time. However they expected to arrive at the 500B is moot. I can link you out the waazoo every experts declaration at the time the claim was made through to today that that number is unacheivable without reducing reimbursement rates and low and behold that's exactly what has to happen.

Karl, Cool - so you agree that it has nothing to do with ObamaCare. The change in reimbursements is something that was going to happen with or without it. My point is that in their efforts to vilify Obama, his opponents will shamelessly promote outright lies and distortions about ObamaCare.

In addition, those monies will be removed from Medicare just about when the number of those on Medicare will hit it's maximum with the retirement of the boomers. You can't pretend that it's possible to have a shortage of doctors willing to accept Medicare patients, an ever growing number of people on Medicare, and the removal of 500B of available funds and expect that math to work. It doesn't. It's fairly obvious to me that old folks have been sold down the river - there's no way to maintain Medicare without rationing care. That means our elders can expect to be treated as second class citizens when it comes to thier health.

Frank - when Medicare was being used as the piggybank to fund Obamacare it certainly does have something to do with it.

Karl - there was no $500 billion cut in medicare funding. It didn't happen. It's not part of the ObamaCare bill. That figure is project savings which may or not materialize over the next 10 years. It could be more or it could be less. But there was no $500 billion bugdet cut in medicare funding - it simply did not happen.

Tdolce, as long as we are casting aspersions on partisan politics, remember when Mike Miller, of the great nanny state of Maryland said they, the Democrats had buried the Republican so deep it would take them ten years to dig themselves out? (I paraphrased but if you doubt it, google it) and you call the other side monolithic and irrational? WOW! Just saying.

So then Frank what you're saying is the Obama administration deliberately mislead the CBO right out of the gate in order to disguise the enormous costs involved in Obamacare because otherwise it would never have passed? That's the 500B that was used in the savings category to offset costs; remember?

Karl - that's a far different point than the original one you posted. Romney and Bachman implied that the medicare budget was cut by $500 billion when that wasn't true. That's the only issue I was debunking, now you change subject...

Frank - take your head out of your arse...nobody changed the subject; you're just wrong so you pretend that's what happened here. I said Obamacare figures were forwarded to the CBO showing a 500B savings that was applied against costs. 500B is a lot of money so I don't think using the term "gut" is inappropriate. So which is it - are there real savings that the IPAB is assigned to collect or did the Obama administration lie from the start in order to get this bill passed? Pick which one because there are no other options.

Guess Frank can't figure out what to say. Explain to the people Frank, exactly what is IPAB. Since you don't know let me take the lead. This is the Independent Payment Advisory Board authorized by Obamacare to find 500B in Medicare savings using nearly any means necessary. That would be your death panel - and it's real. They may say it won't include reductions in care, but you can't get to 500B without it and anyone who might think otherwise isn't logical and honest with themselves.

Again...you jump to conclusions....you have decided to marginalize me "you and the remainder of the right..." School yard name calling is not going to do it...."outsmart" well if it all moves forward as you apparently hope for...you may be shocked when you find out just who has been outsmarted...a game I never have liked to see played with such important issues at hand. Another nanny, nanny boo, boo.school yard garbaage talk..The problem when folks let the chips fall where they may ...well ...whew...that could be disastrous...has been in history in many other countries and I don't want to play.

This had nothing to do with outsmarting anyone...it has to do with bad politics, a corrupt supreme court and greed driven perceived healthcare related corporations.
Our Country will continue the downward spiral until campaign finance reform is forced by the people.....it's all about buying perceived power...

Dennis - If Mitt Romney was serious about illegal immigration, don't you think he would have made sure none were cutting his grass for all of those years prior to him running for President?

He's serious about it all right.

Serious about taking advantage of cheap labor!

File a lawsuit Steve and see where it goes. Toilet comes to mind.

I am curious what the school yard name calling would have been had the votes of the court gone the other way....but, take note, "tax" is the "key word" the darlings have included in their decision...not exactly what the darlings in the administration were hoping for. Ahhh...legaleeeeze..can be so, so trying, don't cha think???

In response to your "marginally intelligent" jabs...are you suggesting that folks on the left side of the aisle are marginally more intelligent that those on the right side of the aisle...or....that anyone other than those on the left side of the aisle are not the brightest little ole birds in the tree? I love it when folks are so, so devoted!!!!

Last I checked the only one we know is incapable of mistake is GOD, otherwise a body of men is certainly capable of arriving at incorrect decisions, because a body of men is just that - a group of humans recognized as imperfect. However much they may try otherwise mistakes will occur as well as demonstations of poor judgement. If that were not true there would never be car accidents, bankrupt companies, war or catastropy, etc.. What Paul said is perfectly within line and logical, you however not so much.

@Lorna
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm

It has been shown that atheists and liberals have IQs 6-11 points higher than conservatives. That's just a fact. Marginally more intelligent probably fits.

FIFA: Just read that article. Sounds like a lot of unsustantiated "facts" from some liberal think-tank. I can probably find other magazines that can "prove" just the opposite.

Actually it is a valid statistical sample. I understand you might not like the results, don't shoot the messenger. I would think that atheists are more scientifically leaning and can understand that. As liberals tend to believe in climate change more than conservatives, thus also more science leaning, I can see that as well. Seems logical.

Sorry, but you don't find $500B in savings by deciding individual cases - get real. My understanding is that it is more about savings at a higher level. Let me reiterate - this is not a Death Panel.

Shall I link to you what the IPAB is assigned to do without oversight...let me repeat without congressional oversight. IPAB must create systems in which they find the savings they have been charged with achieving - it's not about trying it's a mandate. The only way you can get to a number that large is to restrict care. It's not about a case by case - never said that. They make overarching policy decisions such as "stage III cancers (cancers known to be beyond the confines of an initial tumor location) in an 89 yr old will not allow cat scans". My freind, anyway you frame it there's a death panel there.

You act as care is not restricted and denied now. Balderdash! The difference is now the one who denies you care gets a bonus! Wake up Karl.

Gee, a link might be helpful - and I disagree that "the only way" to get there is to restrict care - how about cutting back on the huge number of tests that are ordered so that providers can CYA over frivolous lawsuits. Or looking at some of the other horrendous waste and fraud in the current system. You should pay less attention to Sarah Palin - her 15 minutes is way over.

Since someone asked for a link and people should really be educating themselves, I'll oblige: http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2011/May/09/ipab-faq.aspx

"Under the health care law, the board is required to recommend reductions in Medicare if spending per capita is projected to exceed specific targets. From fiscal year 2015 through 2019, that target is based on inflation gauges. Beginning in 2020, the target is based on the growth of the gross domestic product plus one percentage point."

The article goes on to explain that the board probably won't exist for awhile since the CBO predicts that Medicare will stay way below those targets. Karl, I don't know where you are getting that $500B figure from but this article pretty much contradicts that.

"Some critics, including House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., charge that IPAB will ration needed care for seniors.

Defenders counter that the law bars it from rationing care, restricting benefits or changing eligibility criteria."

If the law bars it the law bars it. As Honeygo Hal said, this is not a Death Panel.

It's a death panel...you can't get to 500B in cost reductions without limiting care or reducing reimbursement to doctors/hospitals and either way it results in substandard health care. Read your own link - it doesn't at any point suggest that possibility might not be true.

Okay folks, (those who support BHO), just remember this; this new health Obamacare, guess who is exempt from it (He, his wife, his family, Congressional personnel, etc...). Hmmm....it's good enough for us, but not for them. Why is that? Oh remember this, Democrats have been in control 8/12 years. The president has only so much control. Clinton left Bush in a bad spot. Clinton reduced funding the US military. Here comes Sept. 9, 2001 and he had to dump billions of dollars to employ and set forth our military again. Check your facts before pointing fingers.

Sandra wins for downing the largest amount of koolaid! Congrats! An impressive feat considering the amount of BS going around on this thread.

Sandra Jones - what freakin' planet do you live on?!?!?

One point IS correct - Fed's are exempt. Other than that, it's like reading Lorna and her foolish rantings. Put on your big girl underdrawers, sweetcheeks - AFFORDABLE, LIFE SAVING HEALTH CARE IS HERE TO STAY. And if it is ever repealed? You best hope that you, one of your kids or grandkids doesn't have a pre-existing condition. Of course, you would be on her whining and complaining. Just face it - this makes useless citizens take RESPONSILITY.. and you seem TERRIBLY afraid of that.

That's what 2 years of propaganda will get you. "Death panels", "socialism", and "largest tax increase ever." Unfortunately, there's a sizable segment of this country that just loves soaking it all up. They're consumed by hatred and don't give a crap about actually educating themselves on issues. Progress has always flown in the face of them, but, eventually, the propaganda and hatred always loses. Onward and upward.

Nice comment jag...

Agree with you Corey, gas prices are at the whim of the market not Obama. Loved how earlier in the week, Romney said that when the Supreme Court will repeal Obamacare, and that Obama's signature legacy will be nothing. Ooops, look like he popped the cork a wee bit early. But hey, the Republicans did get Holder! The amn who allowed a Federal agent to be killed, of course the reason he was shot was because of a defect in the SUV locking mechanism. Nothing remotely to do with Holder, but hey lets get him anyway because this one man died, and I agree any death is important and should be looked at seriously. But were is the outrage over 5,000 deaths because Bush\Cheney didn't like Saddam Hussein?

We just have to face it that Repressives are just the new "OZ Trio"... at their convention this year they will singing "If I only had a brain" while Sarah Palin crones about being heartless and ol flipflop Mitt Romneys jumps in with "If I had courage"

Dennis - If government would focus on having all people pay taxes, can you imagine the revenue? There is the problem, I agree.

Na...I ask to have green cards provided all the time...never had a problem sending illegals off a jobsite...they don't want trouble..

Tdolce...are you including illegal immigrants in your "..I am tired..." statements. Just ask, because they are conveniently being excluded in conversations when it comes to cost...all 10 million of them. Wonder why? They do tend to use hospital ERs quite a bit and who, I ask again, who will pay? Is that going to be one of the surprises awaiting us down the road?

I called the hospital and my insurance carrier and no one has an explanation as to why there was an increase. WHAT INFORMATION DO YOU NEED ? Of course you can't explain it either.

And what happened the previous 8 years before Obama?

It is not your job, clear?

As always, conservatives don't like the truth so they deny, pretty simple.

Lorna, the data is unquestioned. The IQ differences were statistically significant.

The theory as to why liberals and atheists have higher IQs I have no opinion on. I am just quoting data.

The study was done by:
London School of Economics and Political Science
Department of Management, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, United Kingdom

Check them out.

Yep...so many so-called scientific findings are flawed just by the manner in which the subject data is collected....but, unless the research paper/data is reviewed and the work redone copying the flow, who is to know?? I wonder if the IQ data included folks who simply don't pay into the system, but happily draw from it? Then again, we don't really know from what part of the research scene his subjects originate. Oh my goodness, I do go on and on don't I.....

Yes, Lorna - you do go on and on and on and on... thank you for the entertainment of a ranting nutcase. It is making my mailbox "full of the fool" and is just....well, just sooooo entertaining, cupcake.

Oh, bunkus. At most, they will increase the Medicare tax that you are already paying or SS tax by a slight amount to pay for this.

You make me smile Lorna...

Sorry Tom, honey child, I think thou doth protest a bit too much! Your remarks make my eye blur over..."..rude and arrogant rantings of a fool..." another bit of school yard garbaaage. I am taken aback by your assessment of my responses as being insulting and "snotty behavior"....mmmm, sorry I hit a few sore spots honey child. Actually I strongly feel that when it comes to school yard nanny, nanny boo garbage, it is much better to remain silent....an excellent suggestion you might want to ponder,,, knowing, of course I would never, ever suggest you might be "foolish."

Can you "honey child" snarky *ss comments. I'm not impressed - and you've failed to wow or impress anyone else on here. We wonder where kids learn to be bully's and b*tches? Take a look at some of the adults like yourself. You were probably the same in school as you are on here - and we just don't care. Shut up. I've had foster kids with more manners and behave better.

First, the article itself does not guarantee that any given party or philosophy is smarter than any other. What it says is that general intelligence has no correlation with whether an individual is "conservative". In comparison, that same measure of general intelligence shows a positive correlation with whether an individual is "liberal".

Understand, this was a longitudinal study that recorded an individuals intelligence and sociopolitical stance over time. Those with higher intelligence ratings seemed more likely to choose a progressive (labeled "liberal") stance. However, correlation is not causation, so they have to theorize ~why~ the data showed this. Some theorize that sociopolitical ideals can be heritable with tendencies encouraged by environment. Others suggest that intelligence rating is linked to non-comformity, which of course is an aspect of progressive thinking.

Note that the study revealed that an intelligent individual was likely to espouse novel ideas rather than follow blindly; thus, a more conservative approach would (obviously) be less likely. what the study did not do was label the "rightness" of any given progressive or non-comformitive ideal. Thus, saying that the data shows that "liberals are smarter, thus more correct" is a fallacy.

Second, the measure of intelligence used is not guaranteed to be an appropriate measure of an individual's "smartness". The tests used in this study (PPVT, WISC-R, PIAT, and VMI) were general measures of logical and academic studies. Although approved, most modern psychologists recognize that the concept of intelligence is shifting from Stanford and Binet's scales of intelligence toward a broader scope that recognizes a variety of traits. The most popular is Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences, which states that there are nine different areas individuals should be measured in.

What this means is that, even if there is a correlation between intelligence rating and progressive thinking, that correlation may not mean one is "smarter". The correlation may simply mean that liberals are more likely to be educated in academics, such as mathematics and vocabulary. As one popular conservative ideal is to concentrate less on the academic and more on the practical, this would be understandable. That means it is just as likely that conservatives score higher on other intelligence scales, such as interpersonal, bodily-kinesthetic, or visual-spatial. We may never know until someone performs a study.

Finally, someone noted that studies can be twisted to show whatever you want and questioned the state of this article. I will support the former concept but deny the latter because of the following.

People have used intelligence studies for all sorts of heinous activities. Studies on IQ during the early 20th century were used to denegerate African-Americans. There are peer-reviewed studies by reputable organizations that showed that Blacks were less intelligent than Whites. Of course, as mentioned, correlation does not mean causation. These studies did not take into account the lack of opportunity for education as most African-Americans were segregated into poorer schools. Poor schooling means a lack of knowledge in basic academics... which is what IQ tests were initially designed to measure.

As for the reliability and validity of this given article, do not judge the link provided by the actual article. Social Psychology Quarterly ~is~ a modern, peer-reviewed scientific article; the data is the data and the studies followed all the rules for scientific studies. However, the "summary" listed by ScienceDaily is ~not~ necessarily a scientific summarization and may be guilty of twisting the article. If you have access to scientific databases, I direct you to the correct article so that you can read it yourself:

Kanazawa, S. (2010, March). Why Liberals and Atheists are More Intelligent. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73(1), 33-57.

In summary...

The original scientific article does show a correlation between high intelligence rating and progressive or non-comformist thinking. It does not recognize the moral or ethical standing of such thinking. In addition, the study does not take into account the various forms of intelligence rating, instead using tests based solely on mathematics, vocabulary, and logic. Finally, the article is peer-reviewed, reliable, and valid; the interpretation of the article on ScienceDaily is ~not~.

Thank you for this analysis. Makes for great reading during a power outage.

It appears Brook that you work in some related field to this article. My post only indicated the factual data without interpretation and to spark some life into Lorna. Theories are espoused from the data and the study has their own.

However, I note your statement in the Second post as "That means it is just as likely that conservatives score higher on other intelligence scales, such as interpersonal, bodily-kinesthetic, or visual-spatial." That statement appears to be an opinion based on no data whatsoever as you state in your follow-up sentence.

But I will admit, in my opinion, I'd rather begin with the head start. ;-)

Wow! Brook...I thoroughly enjoyed your response to the "IQ" concept.

Bull. A 1% profit, according to the business teacher that I had in high school, is a damned good profit.

Anything over 5% profit, he was of the opinion (as a conservative and Republican) that lawmakers and law enforcement should be looking into the business in question for them ignoring regulations meant to protect workers and doing some 'funny business' with the books.

15% profit is WAY over and above what a legitimate business should be getting per year.

Christopher...you continue to pull statements out of your rear end it seems. The government has no regulating authority over a private business profit margin legally.
Could you please provide an example of your claim here...

Not pulling statements out of my ass, Mr. Harmon. Just stating blunt facts that were told to me by the economics teacher in high school.

A 1% profit is MORE than enough for any legitimate business. If a business is making much more than 5 times that (the maximum where the economic professor said things start looking hinky) it's time to step in and do an investigation based on them 'cooking the books'.

Funny thing is that if they had done that, Madoff's financial hijinks wouldn't have gone unnoticed.

Agreed. At the very least, if they are not going to control profit margins, they should step in when a company is making over a 5% profit and go "We are going to take a look at your books just to make sure nothing hinky is going on. Part of our 'due diligence' as regulators."

Thank you Dennis...

Actually, the economy doesn't control the profit margins of corporations. Many times, companies have 'back-table' agreements when they won't sell comparable items for less than X dollars.
You can read all the cases of the high tech and agriculture companies being whacked over that in the papers and online to see my point.

Frank, if the SCOTUS allowed ObamaCare under the Commerce Clause as the Democrats said it fell under for 2 years, then it wold have required 60 votes. THAT is the difference. The GOP will have at least 60 seats come 1-2013.

"it wold have required 60 votes. THAT is the difference. The GOP will have at least 60 seats come 1-2013."

First, you're delusional if you think the GOP is going to end up with 60 seats anytime soon. Second, you have little grasp of Senate proceedings. Good try, though.

"Has anyones premiums gone down? Anyone?"

I have no idea, since my employer covers my insurance, but I do know that they/I am receiving a pretty massive rebate check because the companies used didn't spend enough under the 80/20 and 85/15 section of the law.

I used Golden Rule prior to joining the firm I'm with and they sent me a hefty check because "In your State, Golden Rule did not meet the Medical Loss Ratio Standard. In 2011, Golden Rule spent only 66.4% of a total of $47,345,151.000 in premium dollars...Golden Rule must refund 13.6% of your health insurance premiums."

For my current insurance w/my employer (UnitedHealthcare), I also got a letter saying a refund was being given to my employer for the same reason (except that fell under the 85/15 rule). I'm not sure how big that check will be yet - fingers crossed!

Could this law have been better? Sure, they had to water it down to get it passed. But this is honestly the best law I've seen passed by the Fed Govt in a long time. To take one of the worst industries in America and force them to do basic things like cover people with preexisting conditions and not price gouge is a huge step forward for literally hundreds of millions of people. Once fully enacted, I'm supremely confident this is a signature piece of legislation that generations of Americans will look back and see as wildly successful. I know I'm enjoying the extra money already.

"I also got a letter saying a refund was being given to my employer for the same reason (except that fell under the 85/15 rule). I'm not sure how big that check will be yet - fingers crossed!"

Sorry, I should clarify that the letter from UnitedHealthcare said my employer was being reimbursed and that the company would then reimburse me directly.

Help people with preexisting conditions receive care, help children up to the age of 26 receive care, and require refunding unspent premiums (beyond 15% profit for the company - maybe now they will stop spending billions of our dollars on lobbying Congress and running ads!). This is zero chance this doesn't go down in history as a wildly successful step forward for healthcare reform.

Bravo to the President who refused to back down, not because he ever thought it'd be politically easy or immediately popular. He did it because he knew the system was broken and, unlike 30 years of politicians before him, he "walked the walk" and did not waiver until reform finally passed, no matter how much Republicans dragged their feet in offering exactly nothing to any debate (healthcare and beyond) except universal disdain towards every topic this President even mentions. To get this law passed in this political environment is truly impressive. Certainly everyone agrees on that, at least.

"help children up to the age of 26"
Wow! Now the democrats redefine what "children" are! If you have "children" and they are in their 20's you have failed at being a parent.

My premiums have gone up 40% in 2 years.
Don't hold your breath waiting for that "refund" check. Your employer has no obligation to send you one. They can use the check to help pay their part of the contribution next year and help keep the total costs down for all .
It doesn't matter though since President Romney will repeal and replace what would have become another program like Medicare which is broke. At least ONE person in Congress has proposed a plan. That man will be the next Vice President. Hmm. Where IS Crazy Uncle Joe anyway? He has been AWOL this past few weeks. Is he at the dentist getting those feet out of his mouth?

Wow, what an embarrassing response, Joe.

"If you have "children" and they are in their 20's you have failed at being a parent."

First, apparently you need to look up what the word "children" mean. You're still somebody's child, even though you appear to be a bitter, old man. Second, the fact that you're incapable of imaging a situation where a 20-something might be unemployed, underemployed, seeking an advanced degree, or in a field that commonly doesn't provide health insurance, shows how pathetically out of touch you are. But I'm sure the millions of parents you just insulted appreciate it.

"Don't hold your breath waiting for that "refund" check. Your employer has no obligation to send you one. They can use the check to help pay their part of the contribution next year and help keep the total costs down for all ."

First, I love how you said that as if it's a bad thing. Employers having lower insurance costs! Oh my, what has Obama done! He's so anti-business! Second, as I said, I've already received my refund from Golden Rule and my refund from UnitedHealthcare is coming directly from my employer. Thanks for your concern, though.

The rest of your comment is nonsensical gibberish about uncles and feet. Nice one.