mixxed bag I wish I could have said it 10th as well as you thanks

One question, how is your healthcare?

what part of entire act don't you understand?

WinkWink thinks the judge ruled correctly. The entire health reform agenda carried by the Democrats was ill concieved and poorly constucted. WinkWink hopes it dies a quick and painless death.

WinkWink

Says the person with good healthcare coverage.

What the "reform" supporters blissfully ignore is that the whole act is nothing more than a shakedown of America, to plunder our country and stuff the pockets of the greediest and most useless of humans in history - the health insurance industry. You show me a new bill, one that addresses the root cause of the untenable and inexcusable cost of care in this country, and I'll support it.

Itwv...

Don't get to excited about the prospects of it staying either. The individual mandate is what they were counting on to fund it. The entire law is predicated on making healthy young people pay for it (under the assumption they won't use it because they are healthy) and then using those funds to help pay for what the poor, elderly, and sick consume. IT's effectively a ponzi scheme just like social security. Rob Peter to pay Paul...

Without the individual mandate, it can't be paid for...effectively killing it. So that "small aspect of the bill" being deemed unconstitutional effectively defunds the entire thing.

When the democrats shoved this law down in the throats of the American people by 70% said NO

This is what happens

Mr. Presidents you loose and in 2012 we will send you back to Chicago and be as left wing as you want.

Well, according to the article above, the problem is that we should not be forced into buying health insurance if we don't want to and therefore should not have to deal with penalties if we don't. However, we are forced by law to buy automobile insurance. And we are most definitely dealing with penalties if we don't follow that law. We are forced to be resposible in that scenario. How is it different? Englighten me please. I don't see a difference.

This is not over yet. I'm certain the Obama administration will appeal the ruling. If anyone reading this really feels that health care reform is bad I suggest they call up their health care provider and cancel their policy. Do what I did until I was covered by medicare. Go without a health care provider.

I still think that if the Congress was forced to have the same health care that the working people have the issues would be corrected a lot faster.

I guess by that logic Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional as well. Congress is forever passing individual mandates including those above as well as things like the selective service system( draft). State Governements require a driver to have auto insurance tooperate a vehicle...the ruling is political nonsense!

if the part of the law that requires everyone to buy insurance is unconstitutional, then requireing me a senoir to pay $90 out of my monthly social security check to pay for medicare is unconstitutional. i paid into the system out of my weekly paychecks for 30 years but am still forced to pay for medicare insurance.

Thinker...

The differnce is that buying a car is a luxury. No where in any state are you required to buy a car. Therefore you are only forced to do so if you choose to buy a car. With the HCR law, you are required to buy insurance for nothing more than being born as an American citizen. The two scenarios aren't even the same sport much less the same ballpark.

I have an idea: why doesn't wink-wink come up with a better idea? Or at least lay out WHY it's ill-conceived and poorly constructed. Or maybe do ANYTHING other than say, "it's bad."

For the many conservatives that are assuming that the supreme court will strike down health care reform: here's a Newsweek article that explains why it may not be that simple. It will likely all come down to Kennedy's vote and it's far from obvious how he will vote on this one:

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/12/15/will-the-supreme-court-overturn-health-care-reform.html#

Requiring everyone to buy health insurance -- but at what price? My premiums have already gone up 40% this year. Who has money for this pricey insurance? And health care costs are indeed outrageously inflated -- do you know a panel of blood work costs nearly $2000? Then I'm sent to get an abdominal scan because--I was told--a marker on my blood work. There was nothing wrong--but I'll pay for that scan whose cost no one tells you up front. Why can't i shop around a find a ab scan that will test me for half the price of the one I was sent to? Patients have little control but bear all the costs for a hidden from view marketplace.

Of course, a public option would have kept the health insurance industry in check, prices affordable and competitive.

Thinker, the difference between this mandate and auto insurance is that one doesn't have to purchase insurance unless one chooses to drive. The mandate forces insurance simply because you're alive.

Congress will never have the same health care as the real working people in this country. Republicans will make sure of that. It's supplied by their campaign lobbyists.

MGinRochester...

While the Supreme Court may be close...it definately leans to the right. I assure you, the last thing the Obama administration and the dems want is for it to go to the right leanning SC. Good luck with that.

Why don't these conservative judges stick to what Scalia preaches - if the constitution didn't address it then it's free for Congress to legislate on? (That was also the conservative argument saying Congress should be able to outlaw abortions - Roe V. Wade.) The answer is because they are hypocrites. They are using the bench to pursue their agenda - which is exactly what they accuse the liberal judges of doing.

The payment for insurance could have been structured as a tax, where the government simply forwards the payment to the insurance company. Skipping that unnecessary step is in compliance with the Federal paperwork reduction act. The government can tax.

Kevin Q..."I just cancelled my AAA auto insurance poilicy on my vehicles and will cite this judges decision to not be held to purchase insurance when I get pulled over and ask for proof of insurance and the same thing when I go to court and hopefully have this judge. You cannot be mandated to buy insurance period, the judge said so, and so it is"

There is a difference between these two types of insurance. Having automobile insurance is what affords you the priviledge of driving on the street and putting other people in danger. It is meant to make sure that if you hurt someone or damage property while driving, then the other person can recover from the damages. There is little, if any, danger to other people as a result of your not having health insurance. Clearly, the health care plan is there to protect you from yourself. I don't know about you, but I don't want the government telling me what is good for me and what isn't. I do however want to make sure that if I do cause an accident, that the people/property I damage are fixed afterwards.

and the SAME Florida Courts Ruled that Shiavos tubes can be removed whereby Jeb bush broke the law and defied that ruling. why has he not been prosecuted?

Still waiting for any Republican to explain to me why they WANT to pay for the uninsured with their tax dollars, instead of making them get their own insurance.

Come on, pugface . . . matt . . . mixed bag . . . ira

Stop being a coward and answer the question. Why do you WANT to keep paying the medical bills of deadbeats who do not get insurance?

pugface said:

I suppose that everyone who doesn't want to pay for your way is a hater? Get off your a$$ and get a job.

THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING. Wake up. We are paying the way of every deadbeat who does not want to buy their own insurance. If they don't have a job, WE PAY FOR THEM.

Why do you want to keep giving deadbeats your hard earned money? Why are you against people paying for it themselves? Why are you against the idea of everyone getting insurance so WE don't have to pay for them? It's called being personally responsible. I am tired of people like YOU not getting insurance and then expecting ME to pay for your medical bills. Get a job and buy your own insurance. It's not my responsibility to pay for YOU.

Just2Reason...

You misunderstand the Constitution. The powers granted to the federal government listed in the constitution are the only powers they can claim sole rights to administer. All power not soley granted to the federal authorities within the Constitution are to then be decised by the states.

If your incorrect interpretation of how the federal and state powers are divided were true, then the feds wouldn't have to slip this HCR law in under the guide of regluating inter-state commerse and enforced under the IRS. They would impliment it on its own merit. This was their only shot at trying to subvert the Constitution and what ultimately resulted in this ruling. Happy days...

Another lower court has ruled that the HCR is unconstitutional and this is supposed to be news?

Why is it that the higher courts have ruled that it is constitutional?

Our opinions, left and right, don't really matter, in the case of deciding laws based on the constitution.

How about we wait until this drama plays out thru the Supreme Court for a final verdict?

No we can't do that. We need to let all of you constitutional scholars weigh in.

Throughout my life I did whatever I could to stay employed and with it, a good health plan. I had to bust my ass to do it, so what? I don't see a scenario where someone who goes after what they want, and has the willpower and discipline to pursue their goal, cannot get what they need.

There are too many leeches in this society... too many people who say it's their "right" to have things. Earn it. The hard-working people of this country do not deserve to be sucked dry because others feel they are owed something. There are exceptions - Disabled Vets, Fire-fighters and Police... and others that have served their communities. But free-loading, welfare parents are not on that list. Criminals and losers that have lost their jobs due to drugs and alcohol are also not on that list.

You reap what you sow and "may God have mercy..." Since WE THE PEOPLE are not a collective deity, we therefor have no compulsion to have mercy on someone's free-loading butt. Get a job. If it ain't good enough for you, do what you have to in order to get a better one. Nothing is stopping you, except your own lame excuses.

The comments by Tigerman are absolutely right! We have lived with individual mandates handed down by Congress for a long time. We had the greatest mandate even calling for the laying down of one's life ever since Abraham Lincoln initiated the "Draft." We are also mandated to file a tax return if we have income, although that does have a specific constitutional basis. Let's not forget also, that Hawaii has had a mandatory health insurance participation requirement for businesses for at least 15 years, and no one seems to think that is unconstitutional. We have the quasi-biblical requirement to have a social security number shortly after we are born. Is the number of the beast on their forehead ?

While "right wing" judges couch their decisions on a constitutional finding, it is only their right advocacy that flourishes in the disguise of a constitutional finding. Isn't this what the conservatives would describe as "judicial meddling or judicial activism?" Isn't this truly a question of "whose ox is being gored?"

It's always funny when people cite that this healthcare reform law wasn't liked by the majority of Americans so it shouldn't have passed. Well, the majority disapproves of our two wars, yet they keep raging on...

Actually, the split in the country is about even. Most of the disapprovers are so ignorant about what the law does and why it does it. Everything from Death Panels to the supposed job killing healthcare reform will do are utter lies to promote fear!

What do the Repubs want to replace it with--we haven't heard ANYTHING. The healthcare experts all agree that if the Repubs came up with something, it would probably look just like this law! In fact, this was a Republican idea--Dole proposed it as the alternative to the Clinton reforms; Romney implemented it in Massachusetts.

This judge, of course, is being an activist judge. Sure, he might find the mandate unconstitutional, but that shouldn't invalidate the entire law. That's nothing less than legislating from the bench. (Even when he actually cites an editorial from the Wall Street Journal as proof of a point!)

Now, it'll go to the Supreme Court. Sadly, partisanship will rear it's ugly head there also.

Jess-1177200 -- Yes, the supreme court does lean right but Kennedy has not been a consistent vote for the conservatives. He's voted with the liberal wing now and then. More generally, most of those on the court's conservative wing have argued many times for "judicial restraint" and not "legislating from the bench". Voting to strike down a MAJOR bill like this one could hardly be considered to be judicial restraint. Of course, this professed philosophy didn't stop them from handing down the absurd "Citizens United" decision, so we'll see.

All I am saying is that you can't just assume that the present supreme court will strike down the health care reform bill. Kennedy, in particular, has previously come down in support of laws that were quite similar to this one. I wouldn't be too surprised if he voted to strike it down -- it's just that the conservatives seem to be CONVINCED that it's all over and that's just not the case.

In any case, it'll be bad news for the American people if this gets struck down. Everyone agrees that we desperately need health care reform. The republicans didn't lift a FINGER to pass any kind of health care reform in 8 years. If Obama's health care reform gets struck down, we're all in a lot of trouble (well, the insurance companies will be doing fine but the rest of us would be in trouble).

Thinker...you bring up the VERY tired argument of required auto insurance. First, where required by law, most only require liability insurance, so comprehensive, which would cover the driver and the driver's car. Second, I, as a non car owner, are not required to purchase auto insurance at all. So no, we are not ALL required to purchase auto insurance. I have used the doctor 3 times in the last 10 years. One for sever frost bite. At those times I was not covered under insurance, since I was not making enough money to pay rent and insurance premiums. But each time I went, I paid out of pocket. When I couldn't pay outright, I arranged a payment plan with interest diurectly with the facility. Not once did I request assistance from the state, feds or charity. I paid for what I used. So please refrain from assuming just because someone isn't insured that they are an automatic drain on the system. Plus, there are religious sects out there who do not believe in health care. You are saying it is ok for their religious views and beliefs to be put aside in the requirement that they pay for insurance that they will never use? And don't be fooled..I work in the HR industry and have seen many companies starting the trend of dropping coverage all together, or limiting coverage to employee only and dropping dependants all together because of the new "minor and yong adult" regulations.

Then Jess, its time to repeal the 10th Amendment and make an amendment that allows the Federal Government to pass laws that help people.

For all those who say auto insurance is different. I would like to see you all walk to Wal Mart if automobils are a luxery. Also what about those who can't walk and have to have a car. There is NO DIFFERENCE between the mandate and forcing people to pay big wig insurance companies automobile insurance, NONE AT ALL!!!

Every state which makes up the United States already do have laws that force health care on it's people. All of them are and have been practicing this for many, many years now. As an example, go through a custody hearing and I guarantee at least one parent will get a letter from their respective state telling them they do not have the choice, they will insure themselves as well as their children. It's not a choice, it's the law. But yet these same states that actively force certain individuals to purchase highly inflated health care for themselves as well as their family member, are first in line to tell the federal government that it is unconstitutional. If the states can bend the constitution to even effect a single individual, then so can the federal government. The constitution is for all, not the select.

Not only do these states, fine, imprison and take away additional rights of anyone that tries to go against their self made laws, but they take away any properties owned by the individual even if it is worth many times the penalty supposedly owned.

What are you people thinking, car insurance is a fine example. Getting sick is something everyone is going to do too ?Right? Does anyone know anyone who hasnt been sick at some time? The diff. is WE all PAY for people who are sick because our Health Care Now runs through the EMERGENCY room the diff is that they can BILL US the taxpayer NOW whatever they want and with this bill while not perfect by any means it at LEAST puts some restraint on what the taxpayer can be billed for a person with NO insurance. Oh yeah and when all of you that are in such an uproar ( I hate to say it but Republicans mainly because I am one), over this healthcare bill are calling your congressman to complain about it ASK him/her what kind of health coverage they have?!!

The decision is only one step in the process, and a minimal one at that. Now the 'Right' can say they kept their campaign promise. The Healthcare LAW may not be perfect but it is at least the FIRST attempt to address our medical care system, its inequities, and the spiralling costs to all of us. Let some honest, truly honest discussion start now. The matter has been ignored for decades.

I do wonder how the Judge in this matter feels about mandatory auto insurance, and why that's not a problem..???

I also wonder how anyone approaching retirement feels about a voucher system in lieu of Medicare, in that they will have to purchase and pay for their own private coverage. I doubt you will be charged as reasonable a premium.

May each of the Republicans that want this repealed have a preexisiting condition. These can raise rates for individuals by more then triple. Only winners are the insurance companies...Gee why would Republicans want this overturned they own the country anyway!

@ ltww; I am not sure you read the article, the judge stated in his response: "Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void."

I would feel a lot better about the Supreme Court if votes didn't come down party lines. We already know how at least 4 justices will vote, even though they have not voiced a public opinion on this case.

When determining constitutionality, shouldn't we see more unanimous or near-unanimous votes? Everybody is a politician.

For the haters of individual mandate requirement, would you be OK that if someone makes their constituitional choice to not have health care coverage and they need health care due to serious illness or an accident that they would not get any care that they could not pay for?

"Thinker, the difference between this mandate and auto insurance is that one doesn't have to purchase insurance unless one chooses to drive. The mandate forces insurance simply because you're alive."

So your saying I should have to continue to pay for people who don't have insurance? - You have to be alive, you should have to be responsible for covering yourself if something unforseen happens...

Well, lets see what happens. I happen to want insurance. I have had diabetes since the age of 6. I work, I pay taxes, I am not on disability, and I am 57. I pay for myself, but I need health insurance. I have medical expenses, I have insulin that I have to buy that is over 100.00 a month, plus Dr. bills. I NEED INSURANCE, AND PEOPLE LIKE ME NEED INSURANCE, AND WE ARE NOT DEAD BEATS.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The health care law is not a baby; it is a law. The federal government cannot force someone to purchase an article in interstate commerce under the Constitution. It can only "regulate" or restrain interstate commerce that already exists, not "create" new interstate commerce.

As far as the claim that the only alternative is to have everyone pay for those without insurance to use the emergency room, that is necessarily false. We can exclude those without insurance from using the emergency room rather than force everyone with insurance to bear their costs. Grocery stores and malls already do this. If you can't pay for something, you can't have it. Health insurance is no different.

While I do not believe that the Constitution can or should force Americans to pay for everyone else to enjoy goods or services that they cannot afford and that are completely economically tradeable, I do believe Americans should donate to charity and the poor. Out of the goodness of their hearts and not as the result of some law, Americans should provide money for the poor to afford health services that they absolutely need. Our nation is the best on earth because her citizens are the most loving and charitable. With such a great people, our nation's poor should not need a law to guarantee their health care.

Another point is that we do not fully appreciate items we recognize to be free or that items provided by a faceless entity like the federal government. When we rely on charitable individuals to provide such items, the receivers of the items know that the items are not free and that they are the result of great individual sacrifice. This knowledge influences the receivers to appreciate the items given to them and exhibit much greater stewardship of them.

WE the people pay for the government no they do not pay .We should all get free care, the sale of bonds 50.00-100.00 sold for 25.00 and 50.00. 2 trillion sold sell in two years. be able to cash bonds in 4 years,can take new bonds or cash some or both. 60 % of money held on sales 40% spent,none of the money could not be loaned out by banks for any thing else. Its time for we the people to vote on every thing for what we want. I can see the military getting health care free, police, fire dept and some others. even sell more CD with higher pay off.

I totally disagree with Bag Boy, which is actually sort of refreshing, as I had begun to think there was something wrong with me, but why his comment was collapsed, and by what "community," is a complete mystery to me.

Jeb Bush was a Republican, and we all know they are "above the law". The health care bill may not be perfect, but you damn better have some health insurance when you go to a hospital or doctors office. The price of medicine has tripled, and medicare is a joke for Seniors. I know because I have two types of insurances and still have to pay more. The reason for the passage of a reasonable health care bill was to stop the drain on America's economy and to help everybody have some kind of coverage. Obama is wasting his time, since everybody is happy with the draining, and we sunk farther and farther into debt let us all be happy and stop trying to help. The ones of us that have health insurance pay, the ones without, God bless. We are a nation driven by greed and void of human kindness, but let's all remember except for the grace of God there go me instead of you with no health insurance and no money to buy some.

Truth be told, I don't know why the individual mandate was even in the bill. The dems put it in to win teabagger support for the public option, and when that didn't materialize it should have been removed immediately.

I mean, who here is really surprised that the one republican part of the health bill just got deemed unconstitutional?

That being said...

"Two other federal courts have upheld the constitutionality of the law, including its requirement that most Americans buy health insurance or pay a penalty."

Those who actually read the article notice these inconvenient details.

I for one don't understand why we have to pay for the deadbeats, with, or without this bill. The bill is obviously unconstitutional with it's mandate. I am still trying to figure out how the government got the power to force hospitals to take deadbeats into the emergency room.

There certainly needs to be something done to control cost, as they are out of control. However, most of the forecast I have seen say that this bill did very little in that respect. Maybe a multilevel healthcare system is the answer, with cheap clinics using recycled equipment, and the newest and best for those that can afford it? I know it sounds kind of elitist, but that way we all don't have to come down to the same level. We have multiple former hospitals sitting vacant where I live. They're 1980's buildings, why not use them to offer 1980's level healthcare at 1980's prices? I love the private rooms and the big screen TVs at the new hospitals, but if it came down to it a cold double room with a crappy 19" TV would be better than nothing, and a lot cheaper I imagine. I recently had some surgery done, and really the new rooms are awesome, but certainly not necessary. Maybe the best bet would be to offer a "public" option, but have it only be good for bare-bones services, and not the club med treatment.

Also, if I have a muscle pull, I don't need a billion dollar super scanner 5000 to take a picture. It sucks that I have to pay for that level of technology when a 15 minute doctor's visit and a bottle of pills would do the trick. I think that this over use of technology is part of the problem of cost. I am betting it's a tort reform issue, but I am not sure.

The Democrats public options should never have been put up for options with the Republicans. The republicans knew what they were doing when they decided to sponsor the public pay. They never had any intentions of actually voting for it. Simply put, it was their ploy to destroy the health care bill in it's entirety. Hopefully when they have messed up enough in the next two years and the Democrats retake the house, they will remember what it is like to deal with devils and learn to slam the doors in their faces and simply do the right things for this country.

Exactly. The dems should have taken the mandate out the second the republicans refused to support the public option.

Haaaaa, look up the Forbes article yesterday, on how 40% of the people given waivers from obamacare are his union fundsters. 750 something mega companies get the economic advantage of opting out, as it will mean they would go out of business. what about every one else who will go out of business? I thought he was a marxist, not a croni-capatialist, could he be a croni-marxist? kill the bill, its interesting, reuters has its left wing article on this judges decision, and 29 out of 30 comments are overjoyed, thanking god for this wonderful judge. nope, there is no public support for this bill.

The Republicans (aka Nazis) would all like us to be sold out to the big companies! The ogvernment needs an agency which deals with these traitoros orginizations. Other Nazis like matt Fischer here needs to F^ck off.

James said:

As far as the claim that the only alternative is to have everyone pay for those without insurance to use the emergency room, that is necessarily false. We can exclude those without insurance from using the emergency room rather than force everyone with insurance to bear their costs. Grocery stores and malls already do this. If you can't pay for something, you can't have it. Health insurance is no different.

You are absolutely, 100% WRONG.

We DO PAY for those without insurance to use the emergency room . . . this happens EVERYDAY. If you do not have insurance, and can not afford the medical bill, everyone else pays for them. Studies have PROVEN that taxpayers will pay over $1,000 each year for the uninsured. You have been paying for the uninsured. Why is this FACT so hard for you to understand?

Did you ever notice that you do not see hordes of people dying on the streets in front of hospitals? That is because they DO NOT get turned away if they have no insurance, YOU PAY for it. This is a FACT . . . you have been paying for the uninsured. Why do you want to continue doing this?

ThoughtsFromMexifornia

"making them get their own insurance."...hmmm weak on many levels

they won't be buying their own insurance, the will be getting on the gubment nipple in one of the cool taxpayer backed pools , you know the plans that aren't "single payer", but are the stepping stones to single payer

"James said: As far as the claim that the only alternative is to have everyone pay for those without insurance to use the emergency room, that is necessarily false. We can exclude those without insurance from using the emergency room rather than force everyone with insurance to bear their costs."

That is the Tea Party Republicans ultimate goal in a nutshell. Somehow they will weave their death panels around the necks of the rest of society and blame them for the death panels they themselves create. You have to remember the Tea Party Republican motto, "If it weren't for all the damn poor people, we'd all be republicans. Now to figure out how to eliminate them."

OverTaxedAgain -

I would rather them get on stepping stones than using MY MONEY to fully cover their bill. Obviously you like using YOUR money to pay for them, but I would prefer not too.

However, I would not expect you to understand this. Based on your name, you obviously lack the intelligence to fully comprehend the full extent of this bill. Here's a pro-tip for you: Taxes are the lowest they have been in 10 years . . . so calling yourself "OverTaxedAgain" shows that you are incapable of understanding simple math. No wonder you are against this bill, you don't even know when your taxes are at their low point. (Check with the IRS if you doubt me . . . oh, sorry. You probably don't know who that is. The IRS is that big mean government agency that takes your money.)

Toasty – With the number of times you have argued about this to come out now and say “I don’t even know if the individual mandate is in their” Wow! How does one respond to that?

Independent Thinker – posting the same response in many multiple posts does not make your point any truer – and invites Tyler to delete and ban!

The Surpeme Court will rule this monstrosity as UNCONSTITUTIONAL because IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Last year, my health insurance policy had no deductible. I had $20 copay for my primary doctor, $25 copay for a specialist, and a $100 copay for the emergency room.

Now, thanks to HCR, that policy is no longer offered. I have a $1,000 deductible, a limited amount of times I can see my primary care doctor at my co-pay price before it starts going towards my deductible, and lab fees also go against my deductible instead of being charged as part of my $20 office visit.

And, to top it all off, I have already had to make an emergency room visit this year. So, I am going to be paying that debt off $25 a month until it is gone.

Thanks Obama! Without you, my healthcare costs would be much less.

Jess (post 2.29)

You are correct, 100%. And any power not enumerated to the Fed, is reserved for the states and the citizens individually.

Jeff (post 2.39)

and

aaaac (Post 2.64)

Yeah, I'll bet you were both on the forefront of lamenting the political verbiage that needs to be scaled back. (So long as it's a pretty Democrat who gets shot), but, it's ok, to use the vitriol when it comes to Republicans.

Only you two Yahoos could say that the Health care bill is horrible, and blame the republicans when the bill was the brainchild of the Democrats.

...but, of course, EVERYTHING wrong with the world is Bush's fault, right ? (oh..yeah, and Israel's, too).

There are many that compare the mandate to purchase health insurance to the state mandates requiring auto insurance. They are ever so wrong! First the auto insurance mandates come from the individual states and quite often there is an alternative to purchasing insurance, it's called a bond. Next problem is that driving is a privilege that is not a necessity so therefore the mandate on being insured is for only those that choose to exercise that privilege. Third, the federal government does not have the power to force anyone to purchase any product or service, last time I checked insurance was a product. They have the right to regulate what goes into that product, to tax that product, and limit where and to whom that product may be sold, but they do not have the power to require you to buy it. It is akin to saying that you must purchase tobacco, alcohol, or toilet paper, do you wish the government to wield that kind of power? The court ruling is correct and should stand. While the article mentions that other judges have upheld the law, the refrain from pointing out that in at least one other ruling the court ruled against the mandate while leaving the rest intact.

Well gee, DB, maybe if you actually read what I posted it would make more sense... I'll give you a hint: it wasn't "if" but "why."

In any case, this guy sounds like an activist judge if I've ever heard of one. You'd think the teabaggers would be condemning this guy.

Just2Reason "Why don't these conservative judges stick to what Scalia preaches - if the constitution didn't address it then it's free for Congress to legislate on?"

Nice try at twisting things, but the Constitution says the exact opposite - Any power not specifically mentioned as belonging to the Federal government is a State's right by default.

Well Roy, I guess we should dissolve the US Air Force and give all the planes to the individual states...

Toasty McGrath, et al. Has anybody actually read the rulings? The WHOLE ruling. I have, and I suggest you and et al (that means everybody, no exceptions!) read it too. 90% of the accusations, theories, finger pointing would go away. Referance #3.8

Pray tell, friend. What did I miss?

Interestingly, the judge ruled against the States on the issue of it creating an unreasonable financial burden on the States, and against the Federal government's trying to call the penalties for not buying insurance a 'tax' instead of a fee or penalty..

The real issue is what was long expected - Does the Constitution allow the Federal government to impose a financial penalty on people who refuse to purchase something from a for-profit insurance company?

It could be likened to the Federal government requiring people to buy an automobile from GM, whether they would use it or not, because they 'might' need to use it in the future.

It should be a great test in the Supreme Court on the limitations on the Federal government vs State's Rights, but first, we have to get conflicting rulings from Appeals Courts.

To everybody, especially those whe say "The right-wing nuts should show proof" or "The left-wing nuts should show proof"; be advised. Have read most of the ENTIRE ruling. And the judge keeps saying that same thing over and over and over about BOTH SIDES!! In a few cases, only "half a page" or less was used to bring up various reasons and accusations by both sides. NO EVIDENCE WAS BROUGHT TO COURT BY ANYONE!! And what "facts" that both sides pointed to "proved" completely differant results.

This was my second post. I'm rereading (the total ruling) it again too, if you will, keep my name. Noone brought evidence in many cases, just opinions. And in many cases, both sides pointing at the same written portions and saying they amounted to things 180 degrees from the other side. Also, the judge states, Health care is not even discussed, AT ALL! Most of the complants listed here are not even mentioned, as they where not in the scope of the court case. Only individual mandate / Commerce clause / 10 amendment are touch.

Here is an example ; I emphasized once before, but it bears repeating again: this case is not about
whether the Act is wise or unwise legislation, or whether it will solve or exacerbate
the myriad problems in our health care system. In fact, it is not really about our
health care system at all. It is principally about our federalist system, and it raises
very important issues regarding the Constitutional role of the federal government. This is just one paragraph on page 1-2 of 78 pages.

Thoughts from Cali –

I don’t think you comprehend what exactly James said. He said that people that don’t have insurance can go home and die. It’s like you can’t understand the concept, so it’s pointless to explain to you that some people don’t feel the need to cover other people with their cash and in many cases it really pisses them off. I personally would rather people die than I pay to keep them alive. It’s a shame the bleeding heart wankers that have taken over this country are more charitable than I am. The point that several on here are making is that we shouldn’t be required to pay one cent of our money for others. That would of course require some legislation allowing emergency rooms to turn away people that can’t, or won’t, pay. Now that’d be some great healthcare reform!

Roy (#2.69) That is exactly what I'm reading. I believe what I stated in my first post {It got collapsed with the rest of #1} that most of the postings at that time where by people who did not read the ruling, but let somebody else do it or claim they had. I admit when I saw 78 pages, I knew nobody had read it. Thought that to make a crediteble contribution, it behoved me to read up. And now reread up again. I think this might be as big as Brown vrs Board of Education, or Roe vrs Wade.

If you want to read some of the court cases listed in the ruling, might I suggest http://www.lawnix.com/ as a good place to go. This site hosts information for law students and attorneys including case briefs, law school course outlines, and other valuable resources for education and research. FYI.Lawnix, should the link fail.

Here is a very telling part of the judge's decision that totally undercuts the government's position that the government can 'mandate' that people must buy something;

"I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform
proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time
strongly opposed to the idea, stating that "if a mandate was the solution, we can
try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house." See
Interview on CNN's American Morning, Feb. 5, 2008, transcript"

LOL

In the final analysis, this Act has been analogized to a finely crafted watch,
and that seems to fit. It has approximately 450 separate pieces, but one essential
piece (the individual mandate) is defective and must be removed. It cannot function
as originally designed. There are simply too many moving parts in the Act and too
many provisions dependent (directly and indirectly) on the individual mandate and
other health insurance provisions --- which, as noted, were the chief engines that
drove the entire legislative effort --- for me to try and dissect out the proper from the improper, and the able-to-stand-alone from the unable-to-stand-alone. Such a
quasi-legislative undertaking would be particularly inappropriate in light of the fact
that any statute that might conceivably be left over after this analysis is complete
would plainly not serve Congress' main purpose and primary objective in passing
the Act. The statute is, after all, called "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act," not "The Abstinence Education and Bone Marrow Density Testing Act." The
Act, like a defectively designed watch, needs to be redesigned and reconstructed
by the watchmaker.If Congress intends to implement health care reform --- and there would
appear to be widespread agreement across the political spectrum that reform is
needed --- it should do a comprehensive examination of the Act and make a
legislative determination as to which of its hundreds of provisions and sections will
work as intended without the individual mandate, and which will not. It is Congress
that should consider and decide these quintessentially legislative questions, and not
the courts.
In sum, notwithstanding the fact that many of the provisions in the Act can
stand independently without the individual mandate (as a technical and practical
matter), it is reasonably "evident," as I have discussed above, that the individual
mandate was an essential and indispensable part of the health reform efforts, and
that Congress did not believe other parts of the Act could (or it would want them
to) survive independently. I must conclude that the individual mandate and the
remaining provisions are all inextricably bound together in purpose and must stand
or fall as a single unit. The individual mandate cannot be severed. This conclusion
is reached with full appreciation for the "normal rule" that reviewing courts should
ordinarily refrain from invalidating more than the unconstitutional part of a statute,
but non-severability is required based on the unique facts of this case and the
particular aspects of the Act. This is not a situation that is likely to be repeated.

CONCLUSION
The existing problems in our national health care system are recognized by
everyone in this case. There is widespread sentiment for positive improvements
that will reduce costs, improve the quality of care, and expand availability in a way
that the nation can afford. This is obviously a very difficult task. Regardless of how
laudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the Act,
Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution. Again,
this case is not about whether the Act is wise or unwise legislation. It is about theConstitutional role of the federal government.
For the reasons stated, I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded
the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is
not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and
inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one sixth
of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and
regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute
has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here.30
Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the
entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I
am aware that it will have indeterminable implications. At a time when there is
virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country, it
is hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled "The Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act." As Judge Luttig wrote for an en banc Fourth Circuit instriking down the "Violence Against Women Act" (before the case was appealed
and the Supreme Court did the same):
No less for judges than for politicians is the temptation to
affirm any statute so decorously titled. We live in a time
when the lines between law and politics have been
purposefully blurred to serve the ends of the latter. And,
when we, as courts, have not participated in this most
perniciously machiavellian of enterprises ourselves, we
have acquiesced in it by others, allowing opinions of law
to be dismissed as but pronouncements of personal
agreement or disagreement. The judicial decision making
contemplated by the Constitution, however, unlike at
least the politics of the moment, emphatically is not a
function of labels. If it were, the Supreme Court assuredly
would not have struck down the "Gun-Free School Zones
Act," the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act," the "Civil
Rights Act of 1871," or the "Civil Rights Act of 1875."
And if it ever becomes such, we will have ceased to be a
society of law, and all the codification of freedom in the
world will be to little avail.
Brzonkala, supra, 169 F.3d at 889.
In closing, I will simply observe, once again, that my conclusion in this case
is based on an application of the Commerce Clause law as it exists pursuant to the
Supreme Court's current interpretation and definition. Only the Supreme Court (or a
Constitutional amendment) can expand that.
For all the reasons stated above and pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment (doc. 80) is hereby
GRANTED as to its request for declaratory relief on Count I of the Second
Amended Complaint, and DENIED as to its request for injunctive relief; and the
defendants' motion for summary judgment (doc. 82) is hereby GRANTED on Count
IV of the Second Amended Complaint. The respective cross-motions are each
DENIED.
In accordance with Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Title28, United States Code, Section 2201(a), a Declaratory Judgment shall be entered
separately, declaring "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act"
unconstitutional.

Jess- I don't know where are you from but here in the Florida tri-county area, a car is not a luxury, it's a necessity. To give you a small example: I have 23 miles from my house to my work and in order to be able to get there without a car, I would have to take 3 buses, the metro rail and the tri-rail. I used to go to school and for six months I could not drive. I have to move to a friend's house because there was no way that I could make it to school from my house. So, as you can see, a car is not a luxury, it's a necessity.

Toasty, I appreciate, if not always agree, with your post. Also those of many of those who write (or try to write) carefully thought out opinions. My last 2 quite lengthy post are, of course, from the ruling verbatim et litteratim et punctatim. I also thank you for not dismissing me out of hand as a reg. Republican. I try to keep my personal beliefs out, so as not to color wrongly. As my handle states, I like to look at the facts, and only the facts. I do fail sometimes, and have apoligized when I fail. With that stated,SO! Having read the last two post, if not the entire 78 page ruling, What do you think?

ROY WILSON-336103, Toasty McGrath, a lot of others not listed. Value your post, and your opinion. Think of you as a 'friend'[read vinelink rules]. Would list you as such, but NOT without your permission. Don't answer now, wait about 2 months on this. Read, weigh, debate what I state. Then decide if it's worth it.

To jbonifacejr:

To quote you: "There is a difference between these two types of insurance. Having automobile insurance is what affords you the priviledge of driving on the street and putting other people in danger. It is meant to make sure that if you hurt someone or damage property while driving, then the other person can recover from the damages. There is little, if any, danger to other people as a result of your not having health insurance. Clearly, the health care plan is there to protect you from yourself."

From An Independent Thinker:

So what you are saying that the lower middle class, and elderly should not have health insurance to protect them from themselves. Only the wealthy should have the privilege of owning a health plan. Is that a self-centered or a selfish attitude, or both? Perhaps you should come down with a serious lief threating illness

To jbonifacejr:

To quote you: "There is a difference between these two types of insurance. Having automobile insurance is what affords you the priviledge of driving on the street and putting other people in danger. It is meant to make sure that if you hurt someone or damage property while driving, then the other person can recover from the damages. There is little, if any, danger to other people as a result of your not having health insurance. Clearly, the health care plan is there to protect you from yourself."

From An Independent Thinker: So what you are saying is: The lower middle class, poor, and the elderly do not need to have health care, and a health plan is a privilege for only the elite. Is that a self-centered or a selfish attitude, or both from a jr, who thinks he doesn't need such a plan. I wonder if you would be singing the same tune if you were to suddenly become seriously ill and your insurance company decided to drop you, due to the expenses or raising the costs beyond your pocket reach. Also, I hate to put a big hole in your well thought out theory about someone's health not being a threat to others when they have no health plan. What about the many plagues of the past, such as: Polio, German Measles, HIV, Meningitis, etc., etc., etc.? Many diseases pass around very easily at work (or the social environment) and could cause serious injury to others in fact more often than do the auto accidents. Illness at work causes the employers more money, to raise the health premiums, and a loss of many work hours with pay, than do the auto accidents. Having just a few people covered under a health care plan will be a sure means to quadrupole the health premiums very rapidly as-well-as spread the diseases quickly to others, which can and have caused serious injury to the organs, or take the lives of others. Try thinking about that the next time you get sick at work (that is if you even have a job) before spewing out your twisted theories. But one thing is for sure that the rest of us should not have tom pay for your treatments just because you made the choice of refusing to buy some type of health plan.

The #2.81 comment at 12:43 a.m. was neither posted, nor completed by the writer. The comments were in the process of being written when the web service allowed a commercial to interrupt, interfere, and eliminate the block only to show up later as posted and incomplete; but not by the writer's doing. And that is just one of the many poor web service examples provided by this site. Far too many times, a writer can not make any corrections within the ALLOWED TIME simply because the web service is extremely inadequate, and inefficiently set up.

mikela

Congress will never have the same health care as the real working people in this country. Republicans will make sure of that. It's supplied by their campaign lobbyists.

So are you saying it is just the elected Republicans that have the good health care and that our Democratic leaders don't? I don't see our Democratic elected officials turning down the health care we provide for them.

Now why was my above comment collasped by the community? There were no curse words, I didn't call anyone names. All I stated was how much it was going to cost me to get my 20 year old college student son on my health care at work and that my deductible is no $2500-7000.00. It's either my son have health care or I keep a roof over my head. I make $11.00 an hour. Did it get collasped because I agree with the judge? SHAME ON YOU NEWSVINE!!!

Stull, read your response, and can't for the life of me figure out why it was collapsed. But, then again, my first comment was collapsed. Is it possable that it was associated (as was mine) with another line of comments that was collapsed en mass? I have also noted some people who collapse post because they don't want a discourse with "those type of people", if you will. All I can say is try not to take it personally.

This law is inherently flawed on many fronts, but only unconstitutional on this one as far as I can see. It needs to be completely repealed... and then replaced with something that actually works to cut down costs (remember, that was the whole reason we were doing this in the first place). My suggestion, and realize that this comes from a conservative:

Universal public coverage for regular preventative care: medical check-ups, vaccines, dental cleaning, eye exams, breast/prostate exams, etc. A certain number covered every X period starting at Y age as commonly recommended by doctors, with possible exceptions for identified cases of early risk (i.e. most 25 year old women don't need a breast exam, but maybe one who's already has breast cancer does).

Nothing more, and nothing less. Numerous studies have shown that preventative care could significantly reduce the actual medical costs, so that is what should be covered and encouraged. If you want someone to pay for your cancer treatment, get private insurance. If you want someone to pay for the cast on your broken arm, get private insurance. If you want someone to pay for your cavities being filled, get private insurance. Certain other elements to address private insurance abuses in the current law could be recycled, but the core strategy of cost reduction needs to change completely.

Lets look at the facts " I think this might be as big as Brown vrs Board of Education, or Roe vrs Wade."

I have to agree with you. A better clarification of the delineation between Federal and State powers is long overdue. If this law is allowed to stand, then there are no States rights whatsoever, and the Federal government will, for all intents and purposes, be an all controlling central government, which is what our founding fathers fought against.

Two more comments on this site -
1 - I recognize that the people that follow this site are about 85% liberal, but it seems that a lot of perfectly reasonable comments from the middle political perspective often get 'collapsed', which is a SHAME since liberals are among the first to tout 'freedom of expression'. I would like to ask people to refrain from silencing people just because you disagree with their point of view.

2 - Does everyone else have the same problem with SLOWNESS on this site? It seems to take forever to even read, much less respond to comments.

My comment being collasped was not taken personally. It is very sad though. I guess we are all suppose to be the same and think the same.

Yes this sight is slow!

Hmmmmmmmmmm....... I wonder if ruling "Big Business" as a person and allowing it, to donate secretly, to "special" candidates, is unconstitutional?

Our illustrious (Republican) Supreme Court says it is constitutional...go figure!!

Grow up!, Get off your high horse! And get over the liberal and conservative idiot name calling games played during the after school hours recess period. It's all a matter of logic with the law and not who is in what party. What, needs to be considered and has not been, such as: can all the people afford to pay this premium along with the other basics needs. We already know that the wealthy and most middle class (provided that group still exists) can afford the basic payments. But there are many of the lower middle class, elderly, and poor, who are already doing without some or most of the basics necessities of daily living due to the high costs with just about everything, taxes, etc. They would not be able to afford this extra burden of payment. You can only take on so many part time jobs (provided you can even find enough of those nowadays).

If this health mandate is unconstitutional, then wouldn't logic follow that the required driver's auto insurance (already mandated in all States to at least have the minimum) is also, unconstitutional?? You can't have it both ways. It's either one way or the other. The auto insurance protects injury to others through payments for recovery, etc.. The health insurance takes care of the individuals as-well-as protection from spreading the illness or cures to others. What has really gotten out of control is the ever expanding high costs for the coverages that enables the Insurance Companies to have their outrageous profits; way overly inflated, unrealistic salaries for the CEO's; and unrealistic bonuses for them as well during a serious Recession that affects the majority of the population. There comes a point where you just can't keep taking your profits from the middle to lower end of the population to excessively feed the big businesses CEO's salaries and bonuses. Did you notice how quietly the health insurance companies sat on the sidelines? They wanted the mandated insurance plan to pass without a Public Option (competitive Gov. plan) that meant and GUARANTEED more money in their pockets. However, there are no plans to cap the costs of the insurance fees and medical costs. But there seems to be no problem with capping the costs of medical malpractice law suits. So if the law suits can be capped, then why not cap the insurance fees and medical costs as well??? Ah-h-h-h! but that would mean less profits in their already huge pockets. You can be sure that they'll pay big bucks to the lobbyists to keep it that way as well. They'll also, pay big bucks with campaign funds and ads to see that their controlled puppets are selected for the public offices, too. There seems to be plenty of money for that to go along with a huge profit after the extra expenses that are not beneficial to most of us.

Did you notice that the FL Judge was a Regan Republican appointee? It appears as if the decision making by the Judges is going along the lines of their original appointee's Party. So eventually it will go to the Supreme Court Justices (made up of more conservatives than liberals) and they will make a line by line decision. If the mandate line is voted unconstitutional, it is almost guaranteed that the costs will go even higher for the Insurance fees and medical costs to cover the Bill while the work wages remain flat. The Insurance Companies are currently jacking up their fees before the law is enacted in 3 years time. Many will not buy a plan with such high fees. So then, what will they do when the uninsured continue going to the EM Rooms? The Health Bill Plan is then forced to be covered by fewer individuals. Something has to be done. That's why the Ins. Companies need some real competition like a (Public Option). But the way it stands now with the required mandate, or else pay a fined penalty fee does not appear valid in my own opinion. It does not seem right that any Govt. would be allowed to require individuals to buy a product because they say so. There has to be a better solution to this problem.

IndependentLiberal

you say in one post:

"Grow up!, Get off your high horse! And get over the liberal and conservative idiot name calling games played during the after school hours recess period. It's all a matter of logic with the law and not who is in what party."

then you follow that post with:

"Did you notice that the FL Judge was a Regan Republican appointee? It appears as if the decision making by the Judges is going along the lines of their original appointee's Party"

all of your posts follow this same pattern...thanks for the laughs!

Independent Thinker

The point of contention is governmental power, specifically Federal Government Power as granted in the Constitution. As I point out in my above post, Auto Insurance is a state requirement, not a mandate for everyone. Those that choose not to drive don't have to purchase Auto coverage and those that do have an alternative with a surety bond. Therefore it doesn't qualify as a mandate in the same terms. The interstate commerce clause allows the congress to regulate commerce not mandate it! They can tax, regulate, and even prohibit purchase of a product to a specific group or groups but they are not granted the power to require anyone to purchase any product they do not want to buy! The clause was included in the constitution to level the playing field from state to state, not to give the government to do what it pleases in the common markets.

An Independent Thinker-If this health mandate is unconstitutional, then wouldn't logic follow that the required driver's auto insurance (already mandated in all States to at least have the minimum) is also, unconstitutional?? You can't have it both ways. It's either one way or the other.

It's a privilege to drive a car, its a right to live. If you get a D.U.I. you can lose that privilege, by your reasoning they can take your life away as well. They are not the same thing. They state you have to have insurance in order to drive a car, if you can't afford it you don't drive. What about those that can't afford health insurance, will they not be allowed to live.

All you whining people talking about those that don't pay for their medical care raising the cost's to you. The cost's for care and insurance both have gotten way out of hand, and make it impossible for more then half the country to afford, and it is only going to continue to rise. The price for everything continues to rise, except for the pay employers pay their employees. There is a much bigger problem here, but everyone is getting distracted by each little piece of the problem and losing sight of the whole problem.

Obama isn't going to fix the problem. Like all presidents before him, he's just distracting everyone from the bigger picture. This country is run on money, those that have it are the ones the government will watch out for. If you honestly think they care about anyone making less then $100,000 a year then you are very gullible.

To everybody, especially those whe say "The right-wing nuts should show proof" or "The left-wing nuts should show proof"; be advised. Have read most of the ENTIRE ruling. And the judge keeps saying that same thing over and over and over about BOTH SIDES!! In a few cases, only "half a page" or less was used to bring up various reasons and accusations by both sides. NO EVIDENCE WAS BROUGHT TO COURT BY ANYONE!! And what "facts" that both sides pointed to "proved" completely differant results.

To OverTaxedAgain:

Thou dost protest to loudly!! Your own sarcastic comment proves my point! Obviously, "you did not take the time to read very carefully", because no where in my comments did I resort to name calling, which leads me to believe that just quite possibly, the truth hurts the guilty parties. Also, I didn't see where anyone else bothered to take the time to agree with your remark as was done with both of mine. That ought to say something to you! "There are none so blind as those WON"T see"!!! Do read more carefully before posting manipulated party remarks!

Wouldn't that be great!?

I believe that the Obama Administration has the Healthcare law suits on the slow tract because their hoping to be able to appoint another Justice before the suit reaches the Supreme Court. Thus giving a 5 to 4 Liberal Court.

The Supreme Courts moves at their own discretion. Holder trying to force them would make it worse for the administration. Besides holder would just screw it up.

Does this mean that my mandated health insurance in the state of Massachusetts is unconsitutional? I sure hope so. Someone needs to call former Gov. Romney and let him know.

Hannah, the state law operates under state law, obamacare was a federal law answering to the fed constitution.

No, as a state constitution would have to be looked at in that instance.

Couldn't have said it better, Slodon

Holder doesn't setermine when it goes to the Supreme Court. The court will put this on their docket and get to it in the order at which it is received, or, if it is time-sensitive, may push it forward. However, the court does have cases already on their plate.

Hanna you must understand the Federal constitution is different from State constitutions. We are a Republic. Please read about Constitutional Republics. I'm sure your liberal education forgat to educate you about the difference. It's about the Federal Government overreaching their powers. Your state constitution regulates the power the PEOPLE in their own state grant it. If the peopel in Mass want to grant their State that power they can. The Federal Constitution limits the power the Federal Goverment has. It has no powers unless sprcifically granted it under the constitution. It has the power to tax you and regulate what you buy but not force you to buy any private good. If the law taxed everyone and then offered health care funded by that taxt, then it would be constitutional. The Congress and the Senate and the President understood that the people would not stand for that. So they engineered a back door end around. It did not work. Go back and pass a constitutional bill and all will be fine.

Good! After this bill past my health insurance went up sky high and I am a middle class American who is on a tight budget. That's what happens when you rush a lousy bill without tort reform or to get insurance over state line. All this congress has to do is take out a few that are ok like the child can stay on the parent insurance at 26 and the rest scrap. Obama care stinks AND HE LIED on top of it.

So should the individual mandate be struck down, should insurance companies still have to sell a person a policy in the days after a catastrophic, expensive diagnosis? MS, cancer, stroke, etc etc etc.

Insurance companies not being allowed to deny coverage because of pre-existing conditions is really good for a lot of hard working Americans who would otherwise not be able to obtain private market insurance because of prior health issues, but they have paid into the system via employer sponsored or via private market (but then were cancelled, etc).

But in all fairness, the above scenario cannot happen either. Say you have a 'refuse to purchase health insurance die hard' who gets diagnosed with leukemia or MS at 30 years of age. Should we mandate that health insurance companies sell him/her health insurance the day after the diagnosis?

@Hannah (post #5.4): I'm curious, are you a Democrat -- did you vote for Obama? If "yes," then you should be grateful for your MA "health care." If "no," I suggest you move from that bastion of liberalism as soon as humanly possible!

Hanah-2721721 if it is a mandated health care then yes, you should fight it. then again since taxachusetts is on the verge of bankruptcy because of it, well the problem may take care of itself. This ruling should make the houses recall fight unnecessary because it classifies the law as invalid. The big question about the supreme court and whether comrade obama could infect it with another unqualified communist thug is how badly is the house republicans compromised by communists. Don't be fooled the republicans have been compromised as Snowe & Collins from maine prove, even the tea party backed Scott Brown from taxachusetts turned out to be one, sorry guys, either train the mutt or pull your support when the traitor is looking for re-election. In order to save this country the communists, aka, socialists, aka liberals, aka progressives need to be filtered out of both parties.

Slodon has a good point, I think the Conservative judges should take extra care in their activities. It would be an awful coincidence if one of them had an accident of some sort. May God protect the SCJ's from the evil that lurks in D.C.

"Gary-302710

This will end up in the Supreme Court. The only question, if it will end up there before or after the 2012 election? Why doesn't Eric Holder at the DOJ push to fast track it?"

The longer HCR remains in effect, the less people will want to see it repealed, as is happening, now.

Only 18% want it repealed. What is that percentage going to be in a few months, as Americans are able to realize the advantages of HCR? The GOPTP has failed to make their case about the evils of HCR, and Americans are seeing thru their lying scare tactics. Death panels...socialized medicine...government take over of health care...increased national debt...will lead to more unemployment...shortages of doctors and nurses? No.

The longer it takes to get to the Supreme Court, the better. Would our politically biased Supreme Court really want to strike down a law that most Americans like?

So many stupid posts from racist righties. People complaining that their insurance has gone up since health care reform was passed- dumbasses- it won't go into effect until 2014. The increases were the private health insurance companies robbing you because they can- just like the oil companies have been doing for years. Righties are congenitally dishonest- always have been- will be until we get rid of them.

JimC -

People complaining that their insurance has gone up since health care reform was passed- dumbasses- it won't go into effect until 2014.

It does not go into effect until 2014, but the government is collecting taxes on it now. That is why the premiums are going up and the coverages are going down. Learn more about the law before you make ignorant comments like that one.

I see far more racism from members of the liberal party. You are the ones that throw race around. Unfortunately, you don't seem to understand that favoring a particular race is just as racist as denying them. Let's forget about race and start living as human beings.

And my company's policy costs experience their sharpest increase in a decade because of this bill. The insurance companies are building the price up so that when the socialist government comes in and forces prices down a little, they will still be making money.

The best system would be one that forbids any insurance for a doctor visit and provides only critical care coverage. And if you are caught trying to scam the system, you should be denied all coverage.

Health care isn't a "right". Just like a nice car, some can afford it some can't. Just like a nice home, some can afford it and some can't. And if someone is going to die without the insurance, well, they are still going to die with it. Insurance doesn't mean that anyone will live forever. I wish that the socialists would understand that people are dying all the time, even those with insurance.

If the health insurance companies were shut down, health care might actually become affordable again, because you would be able to shop around for a doctor you could afford, instead of them not caring because they are in the insurance companies' back pocket.

The biggest thing killing our economy is trying to make it where everyone is rich, and unfortunately, with the socialists in office, that means that everyone is living at poverty levels and individual effort and work are punished.

Heather

I am opposed to the bill but sill also admit that it has many good parts. The problem is that it is over reaching, inadequately funded, and amounts to another social handout designed to take private medicine and make it a public utility. That is just wrong. The key intent of this bill was to have the industry collapse so that Government could step in and socialize medicine. The liberals so wanted a single payer system that they were determined to get one even if it ment bankrupting most of the nation to get it.

There are some CRAZY people reading and responding to this blog. I wish you all the best and I hope and pray for those of you who are ok with the dying in the street mentality, that it does not happen to anyone you love. (PERHAPS JUST YOU! )Those of you who articulate a voice of reason and are looking for a soloution to the problems facing America you are not alone.

Ok, It is all Bushes and Obamas fault.

How about Universal Care, tort reform, Congress must use the exact same care as us. Added tax merge with Medicare tax, health care merge with Medicare, 100% coverage for all, Same tax/amount per person for all, Can not afford tax, Drug test when you get treatment, No care for illegals with teeth to back it up. The Health Insurance personnel can get retraining and join Medicare establishment. The extra Insurance personnel train for fraud investigation... just some positive thoughts, feel free to add yours........

To Intelligent questioner:

To quote you: "I see far more racism from members of the liberal party. You are the ones that throw race around. Unfortunately, you don't seem to understand that favoring a particular race is just as racist as denying them. Let's forget about race and start living as human beings."

From An Independent Thinker: Although I've not read all the comments written here, I have read many comments on this particular blog under the article, and did not see any racism remarks from any of the parties. Don't you think it's about time to move on and stop using race as an excuse for all the problems. It is people like you, who are constantly bringing up the topic of racism, while pointing your finger at others and blaming them for all the political problems, that so many people are sick and tired of hearing. Practice what you preach in your last sentence and stop blaming the liberals for all the political problems!!!! One needs, not to look too far from the fence to see many faults on either side, simply because no one is perfect.

.

unfortunate and true...not suppose to be, but obviously is

Saintone - You are assuming that partisanship played a role in the decision of any of the judges. Why not just assume, as most others would, that they have differing opinions and, in fact, heard different lawsuits involving different parties and made different arguments?

It will be heard by the Supreme Court. Unless now the Senate and the President come to their senses, repeal a bad piece of legislation and start over with a blank slate and clear heads. Listening to the will of the citizens would also be helpful.

donedone could really use some good health care -- he appears to be brain-damaged.

Our judges should not in anyway be partisan... If they lean towards one political party in anyway and it affects their ability then they should be removed... Law/Justice should be enforced and interpretated through facts not ideal belief... If that ideal belief then becomes law then they act accordingly.

donedone: "uphold the law?"

Health Care Reform IS the law. Passed by Congress.

This shouldn't come as surprising, since federal justices are simply politicians in robes anyways. That's the first thing you'll come to realize if you take classes in Constitutional Law or the Supreme Court.

Derek, if that were the case, we'd have no judges. Impartiality is a really neat idea but it's completely opposite of human nature.

Wait until it gets to the Supreme Court. Do you think Thomas and/or Scalia will recuse themselves because they have been activists on this issue? Probably not.

Have you forgotten the supreme court (Conservative at least) electing G W Bush?

The court is terribly partisan, ever since the lying and now largely silent Clarence Thomas.

I just cancelled my AAA auto insurance poilicy on my vehicles and will cite this judges decision to not be held to purchase insurance when I get pulled over and ask for proof of insurance and the same thing when I go to court and hopefully have this judge. You cannot be mandated to buy insurance period, the judge said so, and so it is!!

Hey Bill 12600019,,, unlike the Egyptians....

Us had working, tax paying, NRA, Republicans have plenty of guns...

The founders of our country were perceptive people they put in a clause that keeps that from happening, it's called the second amendment.

We have castle laws in my state you start rioting and burning around my house, you kiss your girlfriend before you start.

More taxpayer money wasted on meaningless lawsuits as stated. This is one of those issues that will always divide the people affected. And the fact of the matter is that until put in place and operating for a few years, the cost to us taxpayers is a big unknown. Just like the debate over the cost of a tax increase vs. decrease. (And all the time arguing is costing us also) Yes it has some issues that need to probably be changed. But is it better to argue over the unknown costs and effects for years, or enact it and let history tell us? Then we either scrap it, fix it or let it ride.

Kevin - I hope you have a good lawyer, then. You do realize that driving a car is NOT a Constitutional right, don't you? Therefore, you can be forced to buy insurance to drive. However, breathing IS a guaranteed Constitutional right (life, liberty, etc) and therein lies to problem with forcing people to buy health insurance.

jerry- your post is incomprehensible. The second amendment guarantees the right to own guns. I can't, for the life of me, figure out who you were responding to, or how it's relevant.

Lastly, this isn't news. Anyone with half a brain would know that there are going to judges uphold the law and others who declare it unconstitutional. This has been heading to the Supreme Court since the famous, 'You must pass it to see what's in it,' declaration of the criminal Nancy Pelosi.

@Kevin Q - Thank you for showing just how retarded you are. Comparing the mandate to buy Medical insurance to buying auto insurance is absurd. The mandate to buy medical insurance is mandated by after birth which is a guaranteed right in this country (LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness). Having a mandate to buy auto insurance is based on you buying a car and carrying a diver's license. Buying a car or being issued a driver's license is not a guaranteed right in this country, IT IS A PRIVELEDGE!!!! Nice try.

Jerry194283, I always thought "amendment" meant "change".

Trust human nature to insert politics where politics is not. This thread has become, like most other threads across the internet, A left vs right troll contest.

In my opinion (that is ALL you , I or any justice of the peace can offer) The ability of the govt in any capacity to tax or penalize for an "inaction" is kin to communist theory. For a person to be part of the "system" they have to be recorded as such in that same system. I for one, do not use the hospitals, doctors, or any other idealist theory behind "generalized healthcare" BUT when I do co see a care practitioner I pay CASH, I do not expect some other company insurance/govt/free agent to pay for me. And for that ability to pay CASH for my medical I use.. the govt is going to penalize me for not using their system? Sounds like communism to me personally.

@ Kevin Q:

Auto insurance is mandatory ONLY if you CHOOSE TO DRIVE. You choose to purchase and operate a vehicle, you must acknowledge the threat of danger to society and purchase insurance that will cover damage or injury to OTHERS. You don't drive, guess what?! You DON'T have to buy auto insurance!

Forcing someone to buy insurance (essentially, because you exist) rather than not buy insurance (READ: commercial inactivity) is what was declared to be outside the scope of the Commerce Clause.

Let me see, Social Security has be so succesful and let's see did we scrap it or fix it or let it ride? Hmmmm. It seems to me that we all knew it was bound for failure, but it takes on a life of it's own. You can get rid of it and you can't fund it. So we all just pretend there is no pink elephant in the room. Well now we can all see it and like this law, it should have been abolished by the supreme court just like this health care bill. Forcing people to have a unfunded retirement plan should be a lesson to us.

lol.. hey K Q.. Driving is a privilege, you choose to drive, so insurance can be mandated. You can't mandate or require something just because you are living.

If congress is really willing to do something they make national guidelines pertaining to healthcare and open competition across state lines and Limit lawsuits. But remember, most of them are attorneys and that would cut into their friend’s pocketbooks. They should pass a law getting rid of lobbyist and making it illegal for congressmen and women to receive money from these groups. Most of them are millionaires. Btw. Congress has doubled they pay over the 20 years. While the rest of Americans are struggling

Thinker-3003957 compares to mandatory auto insurance. Big difference is that it is not enforced. That is why in most states you have to buy uninsured motorist coverage. 100% of the illegals in the country do not buy auto insurance.

Leave it up to the reagan republicans the rich and greedy to take everything away from working people. The republicans are the party of big business the greedy and rich. THEY SUCK BIG TIME I HATE THEM

Why do you hate me? I happen to be rich, by most people's standards. I am also a Republican. In my opinion, if you have earned more than you need yourself, you are obligated to share. My husband and I took over two mortgages for families whose wage-earners had health problems. I volunteer at my local middle school to tutor disadvantaged students and also volunteer for an organization that helps disabled children. My husband is a small business owner who busted his A$$ to make sure his employees were not laid off during the recent economic downturn, getting up @ 4:30am many days to make sure things were running smoothly at work. He provides healthcare for his employees, and pays his hourly workers when they are off work due to family or health emergencies. He also gave each employee a $250 gas card when gas prices escalated last summer. Rich...yes. Greedy...I think not. If everyone could share because they WANT to, not because they are forced to by the government, the USA would be a much better place.

Yeah Right?:

The Constitution makes no distinction between rights and privileges.nowhere in the body of the Constitution is the word rights used on a stand alone basis.It is always part of the phrase"rights and privileges".As in the last paragraph, which reads, if memory serves,"Simply because certain rights and privileges have not been specifically included herein, does not mean that they were meant to be excluded."

If this is construed to mean that the founding fathers meant to keep the rights of Englishmen under the Magna Carta, which they grew up with, then, one of those rights is, "The right of free men to travel from place to place, to seek out employment, unhindered by princes or governors."I believe the constitution does actually guarantee the privilege of driving to a job interview, in todays society.This does not however guarantee the right or privilege of buying a car.You are required to insure the vehicle, not the driver.

Jim

Social security as originally set up would not have failed, at least not for several hundred years. The problem became manifest when the trust that ran social security was moved into the general fund by congress in the late 60's. Once congress got a taste of that first influx of cash, and the huge pool of available funds, they started on a mass spending spree that ruined social security and brought us to the 13 trillion in debt we are today.

I have Blue Shield, and I've seen lots of improvements since the health care bill was signed. Such as no lifetime dollar limits or maximums, limitations on rescissions or cancellations, expanded coverage for dependents up to age 26 and new patient protection benefits.

Given all those improvements, I think this little snippet from the article truly shows whose trying to get this thing overturned:

"The health care market is more than one sixth of the national economy..."

So since the health care market is so huge and profitable, do you think they really want the Health Care Bill to happen, or would they rather go back to the old corrupt way of doing business? This isn't about paying more taxes to pay for the uninsured, that's just a smokescreen to try and get you angry. This is about protecting your right to improved health insurance that you may already be paying for. And that's something the Health Care Market doesn't want that.

Why would anybody in their right mind implement the largest benefits package in the midst of the worst economic crisis in decades?

Exactly what damage? You have absolutely no data that shows it causing ANY damage to our economy. All you have is a bunch of conservative pundits and politicians claiming that. None with any evidence at all to back it up. Can you cite even one objective study that says that?

The law is only "clearly unconstitutional' if you have your mind made up. Two federal judges say yes, two federal judges say no.

But kudos for knowing the difference between effect and affect. So few people do.

Could you provide each FACT that supports how the economy is damaged by the law. I hear all these allegations that it does damage and that it creates jobs, but never any facts or statistics that support either side. The GAO report I saw seems to support the current administration, but even it makes various assumptions that may or may not be true. So somebody show the facts.

TG @#7: "during which the damage to our economy that this law has effected"

Really? What damage would that be? Please spell out to the class the damage you claim has been done, and articulate the precise point in this law that caused said damage.

I know that the propaganda machine is going full throttle, and the lesser-intelligent baffoons just eat that BS up and beg for more, but try to actually support the claims your ilk are making.

How is the current law damaging the economy? You claimed it, now back it up.

Disclaimer: Right-wing, idiotic speculation and anecdotes don't count, nor do infantile temper tantrums from the right wing KoolAide drinkers that screamed, "If you voted for Obama, then I'm closing my doors!"

And don't bother admitting defeat/dishonesty by going into a "liberal" spasm. It shouldn't be hard to provide some evidence to back up the party-line nonsense you're spouting.

For the record: This law is helping me by allowing me to put my daughter on my insurance while she finishes school. Yes, I'm paying for it, so shove your "socialist" replies right back where they're starting to come from.

FtE

Please quote FACTS about how this has affected our economy. Please refrain from talking points about how this and how that may happen. Both side of the argument can do that. Also an intelligent argument about how heath care cost can be brought down would also be nice.

TG displays more intelligence than your average rightwingnut, yet his post is the usual drivel. How sad.

WHAT DAMAGE to our economy? CBO has declared that this would reduce deficits overall. Isn't this what we wanted along with taming down the abusive health insurance providers?

Damage?!

The damage is being done by the current system. The system that is being replaced by the new Health Care Law. That's why we needed reform.

I would say the recent increase in most law abiding legal citizens premiums of more than 15% is damage. I would say giving waivers to get votes is damage to our democratic process.

I would say a CBO putting out estimates with no idea whether mandated individuals will get insurance or just pay the fine is unfounded damage to promote one party view and ignore common sense. However, to me the largest damage is allowing any government power over my constitutional personal freedoms.

Here's your proof.. My insurance premiums went up 37% this year. I was told it was due to the insurance companies having to cover pre-existing conditions. I am sure I am not the only one that has their rates raised. That is money that we could have put straight back into the economy, instead we are paying inflated premuims. There's your proof!!

when I was young we didnt pay for someone elses insurance -- when did we let this get out of hand?????

You libbies really and truly think that business and the rich, will just stay here and pay more taxes and fees and be happy, don't you?

This has to be addressed soon, or we will get to wave good bye to the last business in the country, leaving.

I would really like to be a mouse in the corner of a libbies mind and see how they twist logic around to belive that.

Right , damages to the constitution and our economy, GAO score was misleading, they were not told to score the effects to the economy concerning Medicare. The Dems directed GAO to only score the added mandate premiums ,, kind of tricky aren't they..... It would have been so easy to take down state lines and let health insurance be sold like auto insurance. New insurance providers would have come charging to the market place and the cost issue would have immediately gone down.

scott9169

Scott, I guess your insurance is really ahead of the curve! Last I heard the Obama plan didn't kick in for 3 more years.

scott9169
I

I would say the damage with the 1099 law every company in the country must now provide. You do know this was in the health care bill to help pay for the cost. You know the cost that we were told doesn't exist. So we have a law making every company in the country responsible for becoming an IRS agent and filling out 1099 for every customer that makes a purchase over $600. This is going to cripple small business. Ask anyone in small business if they can afford to hire an accountant full time for 1099 submission only. You ask for an example THERE IT IS!!! This can't be argued, even though you will try. STOP putting the burden on the government on small business!! If you want 1099 filled out then you hire the 50,000 irs workers needed. Don't make it a law every small business in the country has to provide this insane compliance!!!



@Fred the evil - what would the premiums be for an individual policy for you daughter to carry? What would the premiums be if she enrolled in a medical program through her college (which all of them have)? Are those costs really more than the costs of a group plan? I doubt it highly. The difference for you is that most likely your employer is paying 50-90% of your dependent care costs through the medical plan saving you money personally. But that doesn't mean overall it is saving any money. That money your employer is paying for you duaghter could be going to better plans for all employees, higher contribution rates, better salaries, etc. Just because it might be saving you money doesn't mean it is saving the overall economy money. Most likely it is costing the overall economy more. This also doesn't mention that employers already had the choice of covering dependents up to anywhere between 23-25 years old. Most employers choose 25 with dependent and full time student statuses as part of the strings. So this new rule for most employees only ups the dependent year by 1 year. WOW!!! And if your kid is still in college at 26 (that is 8 years after highschool age) I would hope like hell they are in their last year before starting their residency to become a Doctor. Otherwise I would ask what the hell have they been doing for 8 years.

You want the damages caused by Obamacare? Okay!

First, the bill itself costs over 1.3 trillion dollars to implement - a simple requirement to force insurance companies to cover everybody with pre-existing conditions as well as not being able to drop coverage when they get sick would have cost 0.00 dollars.

Physician owned hospitals are suffering - http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/01/obamacare_stops_construction_a.html - Under Section 6001 of the bill, POH's will not receive Medicare certification, and thus 45 hospitals have stopped construction.

With insurance companies forced to cover everybody regardless of condition, premiums have been rising. In my own case, over 200 dollars in less than a year. The reason is that the companies can now charge any amount they want as people cannot cancel their coverage under the individual mandate.

ObamaCare is so bad, those who voted for it exempted themselves from ever having to be under its laws! http://www.heartland.org/healthpolicy-news.org/article/27328/Senior_Hill_Staffers_Exempted_from_Obamacare.html

You think Dr. Berwick is bound by it? Once again, negative. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/10/obama_care_for_thee_but_not_fo.html

Higher costs, and a projected closing of 15% of hospitals due to the new health care Medicaid cuts: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/07/obamacare_lies_keep_on_coming.html

And that's just some of the information regarding the bill. Let the repeal begin.

jerry194283

You libbies really and truly think that business and the rich, will just stay here and pay more taxes and fees and be happy, don't you?

Jerry, if the rich continue to get richer and the poor poorer, it wouldn't be safe in this country for any rich person anymore. When crime leaves the inner-city and comes out to the suburbs and the hills, they'll be a different cry.

The wealthiest in the country have experienced unprecedented wealth while the middle class and poor have been struggling and you expect everything to just be ok? Maybe revolution in other parts in the world is not enough to wake you up.

Go to the CBO site and try to figure out what the Health Care Legislation really costs. I can understand why lawmakers were confused and argued with equal vehemence on both sides. It's hard to argue that the U.S. health care system doesn't need an overhaul. I've never been comfortable with the way the current legislation was rammed through in an extremely partisan way (both sides). Further, many lawmakers on both sides said they didn't read the bill (to include the Speaker of the House). I'm not sure how common that is with other laws...it gives me pause. I also wonder why the bill did not go through the typical conference committees to be revoted on once an agreement between the two houses of Congress was reached. One interesting tidbit from the CBO documents:

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) have estimated that about 21 million nonelderly residents will be uninsured in 2016, but the majority of them will not be subject to the penalty. Unauthorized immigrants, for example, are exempted from the mandate to obtain health insurance. Others will be subject to the mandate but exempted from the penalty—for example, because they will have income low enough that they are not required to file an income tax return, because they are members of Indian tribes, or because the premium they would have to pay would exceed a specified share of their income (initially 8 percent in 2014 and indexed over time). Individuals may also be granted waivers from the penalty because of hardship and may be exempted from the mandate on the basis of their religious beliefs.

I thought unauthorized immigrants were a large draw on the current system. Looks like this bill specifically excluded them from having to pay for their own medical care and exempts people who don't file taxes from having to contribute. The argument for national budget impact is important (and I can't see clear data as to whether it will be positive or negative), I'd also say that, based on all the people exempted from having to pay, the possibility exists that the very people who now pay taxes to fund the government will be asked to fund this program in its entirety or be subject to financial and legal penalties if they opt out. Am I reading this wrong?

In my opinion the damage this failed health care reform has caused is in the outrageous premiums being quoted currently. We tried to keep coverage the same for our business and the quotes we got were from 56% to 70+% increases, everyone involved said point-blank the increases were due to health care reform - that's proof enough for me! Health care needs help, but Obama failed.

I am not sure of all the facts....

I am not a CPA, Healthcare expert, political pundit.....

My best experience is just that, along with some simple common sense:

2000 Plus pages is embarrassing!

Such complication always results in unintended consequences!

CEO friends I have are not terrrible people - they are just people!

Healthcare needed, and still needs, realistic cost reductions, in that I mean, work on the problem, lower the cost!

We seem to forget EVERYONE should be interested in lowering costs and keeping or raising levels of care, everything else is politically motivated and can be debated forever.

Obama care is clearly not the answer and is a progressive / left attempt at something. We should not assume that it is the one and only solution. Some parts of it are desireable and we should strive to maintain those, other parts are counter productive.

I still say 2000 + pages is still an embarassment - figure out how to do it in 200 and I'll listen to you with greater attention!

Name calling, speculation, mispresented facts are wasting my time and the taxpayers money. Why was this not checked for constituitional muster prior to being written into law? I'am tired of all the whining, my opinion, I am tired of increasing taxes and diminished or unskilled services. It is time for everyone to get a real perspective on improving the system and making quality care more available. As a nation and proud Americans - we can do this now ....... for we have done greater in the past with less.

If you take down the state lines and let every state make their own rules a conservative senator or governor would just create an environment that the insurance companies feel is best for them.Then you would have every provider working out of one state under those state laws and nothing would change.It would be like a big insurance party screwing Americans even more.

Also I look at the mandate as a personal responsibility.I'm 33 and havent been to the doctor in 7 years.I pay almost $500 dollars a month for my wife and son.We don't use it much but I want to be responsible for my family if something happens.If you don't have health insurance in my eyes you are worse that someone on welfare for 20 years

Never thought I'd hear Republicans ranting and raving for people to be so irresponsible and pass their healthcare costs onto everyone else.So much for the party of personal responsibility.What a joke.

THE CBO has already acknowledged that the PPACA will add to the deficit. The deficit reduction was based on unrealistic assumptions that the government would reap a huge windfall from the 1099 reporting nonsense. Interestingly, at the top of the agenda now is to repeal this provision (it wouldn't have worked anyway, because they're erroneously assuming that all transactions have a zero basis).

I've read the law, and there is nothing in it what-so-ever that addresses health care cost containment outside of a few references to "forming committees to study the issue".

The most damaging provisions are the ones concerning "guaranteed issue" which promotes adverse selection (people wait until they have or anticipate a claim before taking out coverage), and conflicting mandates for employer sponsored health plans. Starting in 2013 employers must provide written notices to employees informing them of the insurance exchanges, but in 2014 if any of their employees actually go to the exchange to purchase their coverage (even if the employer offers them coverage), the employer will be subject to penalties equal to the number of full-time employees it has (not just the one employee) times $2,000 (excluding the first 30 employees). Now put yourself in the employers position. If they are going to be paying out large amounts to subsidize an employee health plan, and those amounts are very large, AND face the prospect of still getting hit with the same penalty they would pay if they didn't even offer a plan at all, why would they? It's just a matter of time before the HR departments crunch the numbers, drop their company sponsored health coverage, and push the employees into the exchange, where ultimately they will pay more for the same level of coverage.

As a business owner I can provide your proof of how damaging this bill is. First, COBRA is restructured so that a person can have coverage beyond 18 months if they desire. Under COBRA the ex-employee had to pay for their own premiums to stay on my plan. Under this new act the company is responsible for 65% of the ex-employee premium, rebated back as a tax credit from the Government. The flaw in this plan is that if a company is barely making it, or in financial difficulty there are no taxes to pay and no credit to then apply. Further, an ex-employee can add spouse or children AFTER they've left, even if they weren't eligible when employed. This does not encourage or support small business in any way. Second, our insurance rates have increased this year because our carrier says all preiums are being raised to offset the costs to carry previously uninsurable persons. Therefore we are being unfairly charged for insurance costs, again an action detrimenal to business. These are just two FACTS that show this bill is detrimental to our company's business climate, jobs growth, and economic recovery. Perhaps the bleeding Left should voluntarily pay these additional costs they want to heap on business. There's plenty more in the bill that's an economy killer- read it. Read how many NEW government entities will be formed, how many more people will be put on the government payroll, people we have to now support through our taxes... You people are unbelievable in your ignorance!

Ha... Ha........ hahahahahahahaha!!! Oh man... that was a good one... Your a doodle alright...

Now that's funny!

They have been increasing premiums EVERY year by a ridiculous amount beyond normal COLA adjustments and will probably deny these current increases were due to the HCR's.

Does anyone here actually trust the insurance industry???

No.....the insurance companies will keep the money and keep the premiums at the level they are now.

That's shameful!!!

Don't care what party you support...that's funny.

...in a sad sort of way.

I have very little trust in insurance companies, having said that, I would be more likely to believe them than anything the inept lying quasi socialist in the white house said.

So let me get this straight Jerry, the insurance company is out for itself and doesn't give a damn about you and the "socialists" want to help everybody including you, but you're on the side of the people who want to screw you? That doesn't make any sense...but to each his own. Maybe you like taking it up the...

It's unseverable. They have to keep the whole thing or toss the whole thing out.

" It works in over 20 industrialized countries, why not here?" Define works.... Our system isn't perfect, but to completely turn it over to government control is a bad path to go down. There are other ways to improve our system. Why is the headfirst leap into socialized medicine required at the start of reform?

I believe that I just read recently that Great Britain is trying to find a way out of their single payer healthcare because their government is going broke and the system is "broken"...

If the universal health care works so well, why do they come to America for health care? why is the UK looking at doing away with the single payer system?

Because of something called the, rule of law, it is unconstitutional for Obama healthcare. Read Article 1 section 8 of the U.S. Constitution and you will get it.

"single payer or universal.."????

with THIS government running it????

forget it, sparky....

and, as far as your BS "other countries" have it? IT AIN'T WORKING!!! they're going BROKE!!

mcj you are correct and they have just implemented a money saving scheme wherein people have to email their symptoms to their doctor and he will diagnose them online…ain’t socialized medicine GREAT!

"not severable" = all, or nothing

Socialized medicine sux!

No, McJ, they are trying to get out of funding it and letting people die for lack of care because the Conservatives are trying to cut government spending. And like the conservatives over here, they are also refusing to raising revenues by making the rich pay their fair share of taxes. Instead, they are trying to lower the taxes on the wealthy and balance that lost tax revenue by taking away services that mostly benefit the poor.

RE: "I believe that I just read recently that Great Britain is trying to find a way out of their single payer healthcare because their government is going broke and the system is "broken"..."

Please share the source from which (you believe) you read this about Great Britain recently; until then, it can be considered only another in a long line of bogus claims made by conservatives in their ethically challenged campaign to win public favor on any topic (you know the claims: they're the ones that appear on Faux News accompanied by the universally ambiguous phrase "some sources say" - yeah, THAT kind of claim).

If so good WHY all the Exemption ? Over 700 hundred I think I heard, That in itself would make there phoney $ numbers more scewed.

It doesn't seem to be working in the U.K.

They are turning to private healthcare because it costs the gov't to much money.

Here you go...straight from Britain with all the links you want...

the NHS in Britain is the 3rd largest employer in the WORLD!!! If we do this, our government will be the largest employer in the world! I want less government...not more!

Honestly, how can anyone look at our annual spending and think our problems are all because we don't spend ENOUGH? For the love of God (or the higher power of your choosing) look at our education system- we've been throwing money at it for DECADES and it continues to fail more and more spectacularly every year! Our health care costs continue to rise and thanks to the ever increasing premiums we pay for the "privilege" of having insurance, many of us have seen ever rising deductibles in order to keep the insurance cost reasonable but once we're done paying the premiums, we can't afford to actually GO TO THE DOCTOR when we're sick because the deductible will be the straw that breaks the monthly budget's back. We've been pouring money into Medicare and all that we get out of it is increased fraud. States are going broke because of larger and larger portions of Medicaid spending they've had to absorb. Giving the federal government more money to spend has never ONCE improved the quality or efficiency of ANYTHING! The more money we throw at the problem, the less inclined those who run the programs are to FIX the inefficiencies!

Slodon et. al. - IIRC, the biggest problems in these nations were the extremely lax vacation/pension standards. That's what is causing the biggest burden. So far as I can tell, the biggest problem with Socialized medicine in Britain is that doctors don't make all that much money, making it less attractive to enter the profession, leading to a shortage of doctors (particularly in the less specialized fields). That's becoming a bit of an issue in our heavily medicated and increasingly frightened nation, too.

I'm all for a single payer system here - Medicare is much more efficient than private insurance, and the costs can be kept down with the bargaining power of the whole nation paying in to it. Having said that, I don't think we'll get a better deal if this bill is repealed, so I am reluctantly for it.

Suzy - Medicare's quick and easy response/payment system has caused significant fraud, that's true. However, fraud accounts for a very small percentage (less than 1%) of its payouts. We could quintuple the overhead on Medicare (to 5% from 1), devote that money to fraud deterrents, and it'd still be far more efficient than private insurance.

As for the education system being an instance of bigger budgets not helping, that's also true, but I'm not sure government is the only entity to blame here. I would place the blame on both (local) government negotiators and public sector unions, which have diverted increasing amounts of money away from classrooms and to bloated staffs and salaries of administrators. Having said that, state/local governments participate more in funding education than the federal government, so the comparison may not be as apt as you intended.

It's unseverable. They have to keep the whole thing or toss the whole thing out.

According to one far-right judge's completely unjustifiable opinion. There's absolutely no legal basis for claiming that it's unseverable. Then again, there's no legal basis for declaring it unconstitutional either. Conservative judges tend to not care about having a legal basis for their decisions, though.

Here you go...straight from Britain with all the links you want...

the NHS in Britain is the 3rd largest employer in the WORLD!!! If we do this, our government will be the largest employer in the world! I want less government...not more!

Let me just say, I couldn't care less what you want. More government is what we need.

"According to one far-right judge's completely unjustifiable opinion. There's absolutely no legal basis for claiming that it's unseverable."

That is incorrect. Most legislation includes a provision which states that each provision is severable, and that striking any one provision does not affect the validity of the other provisions.

In the case of the health care law, no such provision was included. Based on recognized principles of statutory interpretation, striking the whole law was required. What was unjustified was the conclusion of a prior judge that the whole law should not be struck down because a portion was unconstitutional.

Private issurance is not the problem. Insurance for non-castastrophic conditions is the problem. Every one gets colds, and must see the doctor and everyone should pay for normal doctors visits because it is never economical to pay a middle man to pay for something that you are going thave to pay for anyway. Issurance is a sharing of the risk and that only works for this that have a low probability of happening.

In the end the real issue is that we want more health care than we can afford. Now it would be nice if you could pay $100.00 a month and get $1000.00 dollars of treatment, but that only works if 1 our of 10 (or more) need treatment. But if everyone is getting $1000.00 a month in treatment, the guess what, it will cost more than that a month to pay for the bills plus the adminstration of the program. If the average person cannot afford to pay the actual medical bills, then the average person cannot affort to pay the premiums for those medical bills. It nice promise people all the care they need, but it is a lie. There is not enough money in all the bank accounts of all the "rich" people in the world to pay for that. If you did take that money next year from the rich, who would pay the bills the next year?

"Universal Health Care" wont happen in this country for several hundred years. The Health insurance companies would throw billions of dollars into lobbying & PR to kill it. Not that a UHC is such a great thing. During good economic times it kinda works, but as we are seeing if the economy becomes sluggish or a depression hits UHC's ae one of the first things to be cut to the bone/abandoned. It also tends to dictate what health professionals are paid, which generally causes decreased care and less educated personnel.

Here is a story from Yahoo that says that the health care system in the UK is "Broken" and rates are going up 14%.

Taking the time to read all the comments I have come to one conclusion. No matter which side of the fence you are on there seems to me to be an over whelming sense of doom for our county. We are broke on all levels of government, we all seem to want some sort of change as long as it benefits our personal condition. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize that we are in big trouble. There is no longer a large enough tax base to pay for everything we think we are entitled to. Horrible word entitled. When our government fails us ( and we are still the government) so we are failing ourselves . Anarchy is the result. We only have to look at most of the governments of the world to take heed. Sad part is I think we are behind the curve. We have become a large snake that doesn't know it's head is cut off yet. Health care won't be an issue in a few years. We have become a Nation with lots of problems and no one offering any solutions. We need answers not excuses and self indulgence.

I have been in the health insurance industry for 25 years as an independent broker and have spent many of the recent years explaining to my clients why they continue to receive double digit increases averaging 20-25%. (FYI-I DO NOT work for an insurance company either). After reading all of the comments above, most have scant knowledge as to what the true cost drivers are in our healthcare system. To name a few: wonderful advances in medical technology (which isn't cheap), increasing age of the U.S. population needing more medical care, too few insured under healthcare resulting in 'adverse selection' (I won't bore you with an explanation), etc.
Hence, on one hand I see why the govt. wants to mandate insurance for the populace (to help ameliorate 'adverse selection'), but on the other hand over-reaches its authority under the U.S. Constitution. The other problem under the PPACA law is it contains an oxymoron in the word, "affordability". How can it be 'affordable' if there's no medical underwriting: i.e. no pre-existing conditions? Granted, from a social standpoint guaranteed issue policies are wonderful in that they accept any and all, but the cost will be unsustainable. Don't believe me, just look to Western Europe, Canada and even Romney's law in MA and they all have one thing in common: budget-busting costs associated with their respective health care laws. Can you imagine what a life insurance policy would cost if it was "guaranteed issue" like medical plans?" I feel badly for the people with pre-ex conditions that do eat properly and exercise regularly so that's where the govt. has to help. But just remember, the govt. is getting the money out of our collective pockets, they don't generate the revenue.
Consequently, we need to scrap the law and begin meaningful discussions on allowing insurance companies to offer lower cost products (which is now overly regulated by many of the states) with some degree of 'limited' medical underwriting so a person who takes care of themselves (with or without pre-ex conditions) pays less than the person who sits on the couch eating donuts and bon-bons (again, many states don't allow any type of medical underwriting). And perhaps if the govt. wants to mandate individual coverage for all they should do it "above reproach" by offering-up a constitutional amendment by having the states citizenry ratify by 2/3 majority. That should mollify all parties concerned-dems, repubs and independents. And for what it's worth, I can't agree more with the comment about Congress being under the same healthcare system AND retirement system (social security)? And shouldn't we have fixed --no that's too optimistic-addressed Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid first-gee; 2 broke healthcare programs-coincidence? (Check-out the problems the states are having with Medicaid budgets and some are even contemplating bankruptcy to try and fix).

What the hell is wrong with people like you? Health Care is an important issue for everyone, but you bozos turn it into a political fighting match with useless labels. I agree with a recent article that the problem facing America today is STUPIDITY, proven by idiotic comments like this.

Mark Di...useless labels like bozos???

helloooooo;

Remarks like, "This should set the left winders into a fit!!!", is more acceptable and contributes to this discussion?????????????

AKRandy, you are only proving the liberal viewpoint. Conservatives don't care about the people or the country. Or even themselves. They only care about winning.

so tell us, Disabled US Submariner...how's your socialized health care plan workin' fur ya?

The disabled submariner receives health care because it is part of the contract that the US government made with him for willing to put his life on the line in protection of this country. It is called delayed compensation.

It's government-sponsored healthcare, AKA "Socialized Medicine." Oh, and if contracts were so important to Rightwing Nutjobs, they wouldn't be so quick to throw out union pensions and healthcare (which are all NEGOTIATED in good faith with Big Business) would they? Oh no, that's DIFFERENT because Big Business would then have to pay their bills instead of massive salaries for execs.

Wanna cut a govt entitlement? Try the VA first, and see how many wingnuts lose their minds. Then eliminate SocSec, and see what happens. Then Medicaid.

Honestly, you talkshow fans just amaze me with your inability to see the forest for the trees.

This ruling doesn't have anything to do with the law, common sense or the Constitution. On the contrary it defies all three.

You mean like the government workers, who took retirement pay in lieu of wages being paid in the private sector, which the Republicans want to take away by having states declare bankruptcy?

I see no distinction between my service, your service and that of the 20 year old volunteer firefighter who risks her life for mine. Health Care while costly should be a basic human right. Jesus has ordered me in the protection of the less fortunate. If taxes can go to war then wth...give them the doctors. Would you honestly tell some one who was sick that they can't see a dr. because they are poor? You swore an oath to protect the constitution against ALL enemies foreign and DOMESTIC. What is a domestic enemy of the constitution? IMO anyone who tries to silence opposition using misdirection, fear, and propaganda. You don't need to be in the military to serve this nation. Volunteers all over do as much if not more in many cases than our servicemen and women every day of their lives. They just don't get paid for it so it doesn't count right? Youth athletic coaches give our children lessons in teamwork, honesty, drive, and compassion. They influence a generation. So do nature societies that help keep our parks clean....think about it. I am proud of my service to my country. I however in no way believe my service to be greater, and therefore more deserving of a doctor than any other form. May God forgive them for they know not what they do.

This is EXACTLY the opposite of the ruling in Wickard v. Filburn, which ruled, in 1942 that Congress can regulate trivial local, intrastate activities that have an aggregate effect on interstate commerce via the commerce power, even if the effect is indirect.

Look up the case 317 U.S. 111, 63 S. Ct. 82, 87 L. Ed. 122

You might want to check out Judge Vinson's analysis of the Filburn case and its lack of applicability here.
Whether you like his ruling or not, the judge has made an exhaustive and careful analysis of the entire history of jurisprudence pertaining to the Commerce Clause.

That isn't really at the core of this. The issue is more about precedent and whether or not the fine/tax is included as a funding method (which was the intent), or a sideways regulatory method (a secondary consequence), which was deemed unconstitutional in the 1922 Bailey case.

If it is a matter of funding/raising revenues, then the constitutionality is not in question whatsoever. If the explicit purpose is an attempt at non-direct regulation then an issue may exist. It's pretty clear that the purpose of the mandate was not to simply to cover everybody, but also to provide funding for the overhaul and future of the program. To ignore the revenue side of this equation is pretty dishonest; yet this is how two of the judges are choosing to interpret the law. I honestly don't see much of a case here... but with enough money greasing the judicial gears, I wouldn't be surprised if this nonsense continues.

Apparently, more than you.

I was wondering if this was another Bush appointee but when I saw NW Florida no need to even ask. Possibly the most conservative region in America. Obama got 1 in 10 white votes in '08. Gore lost a national election in '00 because this end of the state was so weighted for Bush. I grew up there. Another reason I will always be a liberal Democrat. One of the most economically depressed areas of America as well. If it weren't for the military and tourism Pensacola would have had to close up shop long ago. Watt and Reagan ruined this strand of some of the worlds most beautiful beaches, half of which are now paved over. You don't get nature back. But money talks when you let it.

But it is a clash of interpretations and we all know if that goes before the current SC that means a 5-4 in favor of conservatives every time. But it is all about interpretation. The Founders were not seers. The document we call the Constitution is truly quite vague in many areas and understandably so. What was considered commerce in that day is a very different concept from modern commerce. America is an experiment and unproven experiments rarely lead to a known hypothesis. Madison was a wonk whose words often baffled those engaged in ordinary conversation with him. Hardly someone the Tea Party of today would likely admire. But of course they will rubber stamp him with the noble statesman on a gilded steed image. No matter that he was short and frail and a true disaster as a chief executive. A great man no doubt but like the other Founders to ignore his failings is ridiculous.

Here we will see conservatives cheer the interpretation of the court yet when they don't have their way they curse thevery idea of interpretation. They are hypocrites, nothing more. They will continue their fight to keep us as the only civilized democracy on Earth that does not provide for nationalized healthcare. Their arguments in the end are little more than rhetorical hogwash.

What a novel concept, huh? A ruling that follows the Constitution? Hard to fathom. I still won't believe it until I see a US Supreme Court ruling that declares it unconstitutional. Until then, I'll smile, but I won't be laughing out loud.

SCOTUS will rule it unconstitutional by a 5 - 4 vote. This is actually better for 0bummer than having the voters taking 0bummercare out on him in the next election. If this stays law until Nov 2012 0bummer will be a 1 term Prez.

Only 18% of Americans want the law gone, clowns.

And this judge made a ruling that doesn't even come close to following the Constitution.

Calvinius your funny think you got that that backwards 18% want it gone, that is funny.

^this

Siara Delyn

soo true, i with you 100%
some of these dumb asses don't realise what the trade off will be, so fine Flordia you out, but understand this, don't show up at the emergency room, and if you need a doctor, pay him out of your pocket the full amount.
some times people are so dumb you can't lead them to water even with the water right at the nose.
but lets take this for what its worth, A reagan appointee rules on this, Enough said. once again reagan is still there after he has been goan.

You may not "intend to pay for some redneck's hospital expenses" but you will.

You don't seem to understand that you already ARE paying for his/her expenses. I don't agree with the law, but SOMETHING needs to be done. But NOT the Canadian or English system where you wait months for diagnostic tests and then more months for treatment.

It's not the rednecks you have to worry about...it's the 12-20 million illegal immigrants who use and abuse the system we tax payers are paying for now...

gawd...here come the "oh woe is me" BS from the libs..."don't come cryin' to US..."

siara...you didn't seem to have ANY problem with illegals et al getting "free" healthcare AT YOUR EXPENSE...but heaven forbid, don't let some "redneck" "get some"....

this ruling is FANTASTIC!!!

buh-bye obamascare!

That's fine with me---if you don't have insurance, then you do not have to be treated. Let's also extend this to welfare----why should I have to pay for someone else's baby? Let the state take the baby away---if you can't afford them, you can't keep them

Good answer! I agree with you.

ACTUALLY, it's not always months people wait in the UK for treatments and diagnostics. In the UK it really depends on where you live, as many times budgets are developed for a region/area much like we have states. Even if it is a wait for treatment, it's surely better than the fact that here in the US people don't seek treatment for things because of cost. Or that those who WOULD buy health insurance or pay for it via an employers plan, cannot because they have a pre-existing condition.

@Siara Delyn: Furthermore, just who do you think pays for the health care the uninsured seek in the US as it is? Seriously? Know how it gets paid for - those who make below a certain level get state financed health care as it is. Those who don't, often end up at state facilitated hospitals. And the hospitals (example being a medical center affiliated with a state college/university) funded by state tax dollars often take losses on treatments for the uninsured. Now, if those uninsured go to private run hospitals, these facilities are ones who write the costs off as charity care to get out of, get this, paying their fair share of taxes. This conundrum would be why, when I was treated at a private hospital's emergency room in November, the costs of treatments I received at that hospital were astronomically less than the costs of the same treatment at the state funded hospital I work at. One little test would have been 3 times as expensive at the state funded medical center than the private hospital. Why? The bottom line. The state hospital would bill my insurance at a higher rate and what they get out of my insurance lessens the amount they lose over the uninsured people they have to treat anyways.

Socialized medicine is already here. Just what do you think the military uses? What is the underlying concept behind Social security / Medicare?

Well Siara--I and my employers have paid thousands of dollars into the system with few claims made, and when I lost my job, I can no longer afford to pay for health insurance. Cobra is out of the question, since it has a much higher premium, which I cannot figure why, since it is supposed to be a transistion between losing your job and getting a new one. Since the insurance companies took my money (and my employer's as well), shouldn't they reimburse us at least a percentage of what was paid, since I have had few claims beyond the normal preventive stuff I do yearly? They have made billions and maybe trillions from majority of the people they insure. I am somewhat employed, but do not have benefits--for the first time in 40 years of employment history! And before you get too worked up--it could happen to you as well!

@Big Steve-3003689 where are you getting your facts 12-20million, try 2 million....

@karen 16.7 yes because while the state can't handle HCR it is totally qualified in child rearing? Wow that will be cheap. You got an easy fix....no longer allow the poor to procreate. I wont get into how disgusting of a remark that was.

yeah right are you just counting those that came across last year?

DR2011 - you are so right. Why do people not understand this? Dr's charge the insurance companies a ton of money knowing the insurance company wont pay that much. They try to suck as much out of the insurance companies as possible. People who go in with no insurance dont get charges anywhere near the same prices. So the Dr's make up the difference by charging higher rates to our insurance companies, who in turn try to make up their money by raising our deductables and copays. We are already paying for people without insurance. And now insurance companies are raising deductables and copays even higher in preparation for this new health care bill. And Dr's will probably start charging more in return. It's a vicious cycle!

Driving a car is a privilege, not a right and as such the requirement for insurance can and is regulated and required.

First, no court, no state mandates car insurance. You are wrong. Some require either a bond or insurance and some do not require anything. This is also do at a state level, and is based upon the state laws.

Car Insurance --you choose to drive therefore to protect people car insurance is mandatory,,,health insurance is a personal optiion that no one has the right to dictate my participation,,same old liberal spin...the only way liberal healthcare reform works is to DICTATE( hmm sounds like ) to a free society (ok see dictator again) buying into a government mandated program...sounds like another erosion of freedom to me.. BTW I am gloating too ,,ha ha ha ha ha

Well said for a man who has a govt. paid for health care.

@Disabled US Submariner - some would argue that being born in the U.S. of A. is also a privilege, not a right and therefore, according to your logic, 'the requirement for insurance can and is regulated and required.'

Does car insurance cover oil changes? how about break downs? Car insurance is just that, insurance against the unknown, like accidents. health "insurance" on the other hand covers routine care, the equivalent to an oil change, and your body breaking down. these are things that make the analogy fall apart. Car insurance also covers damage you cause to other people, which I might add is the main reason for the mandate, so that if you cause an accident, the other party has the recourse to get damages. also, insurance is required to drive, what is the requirement for "health" insurance, that you need it in order to have the privilege to live?

ITC, then will you agree to deny all medical coverage for illegals also? If you don't have your insurance card then you will be denied treatment and kicked to the curb. Or is it only US citizens you want to deny treatment for but are willing to pay for anyone who manages to crawl across the border?

Car insurance is NOT MANDATORY. You can choose not to own a car

So, is health care a privilege - in which case your argument says we can regulate it, or a right, in which case all people ought to be able to use it. If all can use it, why not a single payer system?

m-grady you need to recheck your info. Iowa requires all owners to carry Liability insurance on any care you would like to have legal plates and registration on. Without Liability insurance you don't get a set of plates.

Granted this doesn't mean you can't own a car and not insure it but it does mean that you can't use your car without having, at a minimum, insurance to cover the damage you do to others with it.

Bill765872, how well thought out, honestly if somoene does not have health insurance and does not get their immunizations which will put them at risk for disease, you don't think that puts us all at risk. Come on. Very sad, and Florida no less. We have childern covered under Florida kid care (a state run program) and our seniors and we have a ton covered under medicare. Let's stick it to the working class, yet again becuase those that pay for these programs don't deserve coverage.

So is health care a right or a privilege? If it is a right, then who do you think should pay for it? If it is a privilege, under your argument, insurance can be mandated.

Interesting connection! Is it that a privilege can be regulated but a right cannot be regulated? Is that it?

Is being alive a right and therefore cannot be regulated?

Is having health a right and cannot be regulated?

Is having good health a right and cannot be regulated?

Is having health insurance a right and cannot be regulated? Or is it a privilege and can be regulated?

Is spending my money a right and cannot be regulated? Or can the government mandate that I spend it in certain ways or tax me and then spend it in certain ways.

We don't want a single payer - universal coverage system - that would put the govt in charge of Healthcare. Look at the wonderful job they have done running Social Security, Medicare, Education, Border Security and a bunch of other things.

Health care is not right. It is a commodity that one purchases. The federal government can only regulate interstate commerce. Since health insurance is regulated at the state level and cannot be purchased across state lines, interstate commerce doesn't apply. If that changes and people are able to purchase across state lines, then the federal government can regulate the commerce. However, it still would be legal for Congress to compel said commerce. The federal government doesn't have that authority. Those who use car insurance as an example are mistaken. Not every state requires car insurance.

I was going to comment on the car vrs health insurance debate but you guys are doing well with out me so I will just sit here and smile , gloating.

eagle: Car insurance is NOT MANDATORY. You can choose not to own a car

So, by that logic, health insurance should not be mandatory, because you can choose not to be ill or injured?! We care more about our cars than we do ourselves?

And, by the way, liability insurance at least IS required in all states before you can obtain plates or a driver's license.

This has nothing at all to with how much one cares about his/her car. Another thing to keep in mind that car insurance is not used to pay for routine maintenance such as oil changes, new brakes, tires, etc. (kind of like preventive care). It is only used to recover financial losses related to the car and or caused by the car (kind of like catastrophic coverage). And keep in mind that car insurance is not required by the federal government - it is a state by state issue. You are wrong about it being required to get a license or even a license plate. That is simply not true. Many people have licenses so that should the need to rent a car arise, they can purchase the insurance offered by the rental company.

Ok, one more time for people that get this confused.

First, you cannot be forced to buy auto insurance. You can choose not to own a car, in which case you do not have to have auto insurance. Even if you do have a car, a number of states require a bond of a certain amount or insurance. The states that do require insurance only require liability to protect the 'other people' you may hit, not you. Finally, the Federal Government CANNOT make you purchase auto insurance, even if you own a car. That power is left completely to the states because it exceeds the Federal Government's Authority. The insurance industry (life, health, and P&C, or auto/homeowners) is currently highly regulated at the state government level. When you buy any of these products, you must purchase from an agent licensed in your state. Since the commerce law applies to interstate commerce, the Federal Government cannot regulate it until they allow interstate commerce of insurance, which they currently do not. Even the states, where the authority resides, cannot tell everyone they must have insurance. Again, if I don't have a car, I don't have to buy insurance.

imo health care should be a right. you say its a privilege to be able to maintain good health? Since its a "commodity that one purchases", what about the people such as myself, for whom it is not such a commodity, who do work 40+ hours a week, and have been working since the day i turned 16 (im 33 atm) who are single parents (my daughter is 15), and can barely afford to put food on the table and a roof over their heads...let alone the $300+ per month for an insurance premium for themselves and their child? i do not receive any help from government (even though i do have a few medical issues that do require medication, and which i do not have access to without insurance), as i am not in "the qualifying income bracket" and im not pumping out more children every 9 months. i dont look for handouts...but i believe there should be some way for everyone to have access to healthcare. the lower middle class are the ones suffering. the poor can get medicaid, and the upper middle class and above obviously can afford health insurance. what happens to the growing population of middle/lower middle class citizens?? we should just have to deal with what ails us and die because of lack of care and no access to medications BECAUSE WE CANT AFFORD IT?? what kind of crock is that?

There are subsidies for them to utilize. If it's tossed they will just have buy the private insurance they had before...what??? Oh, never mind.

imperious1: Why should Daniel have to read the bill to figure out how he wants to argue it? The people who voted for it didn't even read it! Pelosi told the House that they had to vote for it so that they could figure out what was in it.

imperious1
There were exemptions in place for anyone below the poverty line

There are also exemptions in place for members of congress. If the legislation is so poor that it isn't good enough for them, it shouldn't be thrown out by the masses!

There have been 733 waivers granted to date. Most of those receiving waivers are unions.

Source: http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/approved_applications_for_waiver.html

TX Libertarian Expat: The notion that Congress didn't read the law is a lie. Pelosi was talking about passing it so that the American people would be able to see what's in the bill without the right-wing lie machine's distortions.

So...The average cost to insure a family is a little over $12->14K/year.

The average family income is a little over $50K

The average federal tax is $6K for $50K average income...

Hmmmm...Assuming that $12K per year and 100% federal income tax goes towards that, that leaves you $6K in the hole...that everyone will have to pay IF we cancel every program.

Plus there are no checks to control increases in premiums, or tort reform (which made a lot of congressional people rich as lawyers)

It's just a bad bad plan.

Lucy, thank you for your prayers. My family has been decimated by cancer. With or without insurance, the financial damage left to us is unbearable. My wishes are that should I be diagnosed with a terminal illness, I will be taken to a remote area of Maine, and eventually become part of the food chain. Not a joke. Insurance companies and the medical profession in general can all go screw as far as I'm concerned.

Issues such as pre-existing conditions and loss of coverage can and should be addressed by Congress but we don't need this monstrosity to do it.

Rick,

what exactly do you know about what you call "this monstrosity"???

Dear Dear Lucy

I pray pray pray that people stop suing doctors out of existance, and that everyone actually pays their health bills so hospitals don't have to cost shift onto health insurance companies.

The Amish have zero insurance, and they ALWAYS pay their health care bills.

But I guess you would know nothing about the causes of what's making insurance so expensive.

Grudgingly, I have to somewhat agree with Rick. While I believe the HCR bill is far from perfect, I also believe it's better than nothing. The whole situation leaves me torn.

The healthcare reform that was passed was great as a step in the right direction, but horrible as a final destination. Personally I would've preferred to see a graceful, elegant solution that would greatly increase care and lower costs without trying to force an (admittedly badly needed) cultural shift. Personally, I know a universal coverage system like exists in other countries won't ever happen here...Oddly enough, my fellow Americans are happy to pay 5% of their income to a company that pools those fees to pay for thousands of such people, yet staunchly refuse to pay 5% of their income to an agency that would pool those fees to pay for thousands of people. I don't get it either.

Anyway, the system I see being able to work in the best interest of the people without forcing a cultural shift the country won't be able to adjust to is thus:

1. Convert the whole shebang over to single payer. This is for two reasons...see #2 and #3.
2. Currently, the insurance companies are also the payers; as insurance companies are for-profit entities, this is a blatant conflict of interest. The contract with the customer requires them to pay claims. Their responsibility to investors is to maximize the stock price. Paying claims is unprofitable; they can't do both at the same time.
3. Ending the arms race between doctors and insurers will go a long way towards bringing costs back down from the stratosphere. Currently, insurers insist on paying a certain percentage of a bill...doctors inflate their charges so that the percentage covers their costs, the insurer lowers their percentage, and the cycle repeats until all of a sudden a change of sheets costs $400.
4. Classify all healthcare providers [clinics, hospitals, etc] as nonprofit. From a moral standpoint, why is the best interests of some anonymous shareholder more important than the life of the customer? This doesn't preclude healthcare providers from paying good money to good doctors and buying top-of-the-line equipment; it does however remove the pressure for high dividends from the equation.
5. Under this setup, insurance companies are still able to remain in business. The insurance companies can contract to cover various parts of the bill, without having to worry about the arms race above.
6. Tort reform. A blanket cap on damages won't help; someone that is permanently wronged deserves restitution. Instead, raise the bar for proving the merit of a case; eliminate the frivolous 'You said "no vigorous motion", not "No rollercoasters!" Pay me millions!' stuff, but allow things such as giving muscle relaxers for a heart attack.
7. Weed out the bad doctors through a blacklisting process; doctors that cause permanent damage through malpractice are straight out (I'm not talking complications beyond the doctor's control, but genuine negligence here), forbidden from practicing medicine again. Set up a reviews board for all incidents with the power to revoke, much like the process for disbarring a lawyer.

My fear about the current constitutionality challenges and calls for repeal stem from the constantly-changing balance of power in Washington, and unsustainable levels of vitriol in American politics, and the obscene amount of influence of lobbyists. In the current political climate, the law will not be replaced with an improvement; rather, I fear it'll put us right back to square one, or the alternative will be a thinly-veiled permission slip to screw over the citizens.

Perhaps we have become ungovernable.