Wow, the Supreme Court finally respects the Law?

I just figured we would get another unconstitutional Citizens United out of this.

Ron - The law of the land? Gee, so I guess slavery is the law of the land too since it was passed by a Congress? Oh yeah, and those laws against interracial marriage, those are the law of the land too? This is not "settled" as the law of the land until it goes through the court challenges and the Supreme Court makes its decision. If the SC strikes this down will you then say, of, it's the law of the land that this is unconstitutional or will you be encouraging your representatives to rewrite it and try to get around the ruling?

JJ:

Good answer. I was going to say something similar. Law of the Land...lol.....

JJ--Slavery was a horrible compromise with those who wanted to keep things status quo--ya know--"Conservatives." The South has consistently been regressive on every cause in US history. Let's not confuse parties either. Lincoln was a Liberal and Lester Maddox, Herman Talmadge, etc were Conservatives. The parties flipped the day LBJ Civil Rights Laws were passed.

Healthcare reform was long overdue.

Everybody who thinks they know how the Supreme Court will decide this case has a serious case of head up butt syndrome. Fast tracking is as dumb as Birthers and as dumb as Arizona immigration law. People will have to wait for due process, slow as it is.

If this law is overturned, does that mean the auto insurance laws will be overturned. We are forced to purchase it also. Seems to me if one is constitutional, the other is also.

JJMurray. Health Care is the law of the land. It was passed by Congress.

Slavery was overturned by a Constitutional ammendment

The Supreme Court's part in this is to certify that it is indeed legal in response to challenges. It is not their position to make it legal.

Beverly in Chicago

No Bev, i think it was chief Justice Roberts that made that call.

The Health Care Access act actually creates a new system of universally-available medical insurance. President Obama, in his budget speech, pointed out that he intends now to reform the delivery of health care to cut its costs. He almost certainly will do so by revising the manner in which medical services are reimbursed by Medicare and Medicaid - and, as a result, drive significant changes in the administration of health care services. Those same influences are probably also going to be implemented under HCA.

A Supreme Court review of this law indeed should not be fast-tracked. Taking it through the ordinary steps of the appelate process allows for all sides to develop and present their arguments. The process has the effect of a serious debate in which the best and most applicable points of law on all sides are brought forward and examined for relevancy.

One issue that many bring up is a call for "tort reform." Below I address how the HCA in fact makes "tort reform" moot.

On another blog, I wrote a response to one fellow who raised the issue of "tort reform" because his wife's doctor is leaving town. The doc said medical malpractice insurance rates were too high, and a different state offered significant relief in the price of that insurance. In the process of commenting, I evaluated a number of features of Health Care Access that most people don't know - as well as the very, very important health COST reforms the President proposed on Wednesday. That post follows:

That story (of doctors' high insurance rates) is repeated all over the place. It is presumed that frivolous lawsuits and other abuses are the reason for high malpractice insurance rates, but the truth is such lawsuits are not the reason for high rates. And so-called "tort reform" is going to become unnecessary as the president's health care plan goes into effect.

In fact, read on - I'll drop a few tidbits about how the president has proposed significant cost savings in health care, as well as a number of unnoticed but extremely valuable savings created by health care reform.

First: High malpractice insurance rates.

There are two reasons for them:

1. The devastating cost of caring for a victim of serious medical errors.

2. The insurance companies' huge losses when the stock market and economy tanked in 2008-2009.

Not every instance of malpractice results in serious, disabling or chronic consequences that demand expensive liftme care and compensation for the damage done to someone's life and potential ability to ern a living. But almost every such malpractice case does end up in court with very substantial awards to compensae for those consequences. And I am not mentioning "punitive" awards, which indeed sometimes are quite large, but in average are either not given, or are not "boxcar" awards.

The cost of these insurance losses are spread among the pool of all the insured. Good doctors unfortunately pay for the misdeeds of bad doctors. That makes malpractice insurance, especially in specialties where one mistake or act of negligence could be catastrophic, expensive just to begin with. Later, I'll show how Health Care Reform is tackling THIS issue.

Next, insurers do not collect premiums, earn a bank deposit interest rate, and then pay out claims as necessary. Nosirree - they aggressively invest their receipts with an eye to make BIG money. And their available pool of cash is enough to finance several small countries at war.

The returns enable them to peg insurance rates at lower amounts when times are good. This is a competitive step, and your wife's doctor - if she's been in practice for at least 10 years - will remember when rates were compartively reasonable. But since 2008, insurers not only lost wads of money in the markets, but they also turned to their clients to pay the difference. Rates skyrocketed. Doctors today are paying for insurers' busted investments yesterday - when actually, insurance company shareholders and overpaid executives should be paying.

So-called "nuisance suits" genuinely piss off the doctors who try so hard to heal people. The mere idea of malpractice charges - which were almost unheard-of before the late 1960's - sets off an emotional response far beyond that justified by the actual cost of these suits to insurers. Insurance companies, on the other hand, LOVE "tort reform" that raises a significant bar to the potential of being sued and either settling or losing a trial.

To the insurers, "tort reform" is a treasured goal: The doctors still have to PAY for malpractice coverage, but the chance of insurers ever paying any claims (and those at far lower potential awards) is very, very low. It is a perfect legal rip-off, and the only losers are victims of malpractice.

2. HCR eliminates most malpractice awards

The President's Health Care Reform program fundamentally alters the nature of medical malpractice claims. Universal health coverage takes away the most costly aspect of compensating victims of serious malpractice, and utterly eliminates the basis of most "nuisance" suits, the cost of some medical treatment.

There will remain aspects of liability as a result of malpractice, particularly in intangible consequences (pain and suffering, loss of affection, etc.) and lost earnings potential. But that is half or less of most malpractice awards, and is virtually non-existent in "nuisance" suits.

So Health Care Reform virtually accomplishes what advocates of "tort reform" say they wish to achieve. And the rights of those seriously injured remain intact.

3. HCR achieves huge savings in other forms of personal and business insurance

Critics of Health Care Reform make many wild claims about how it's going to just cost more and only bring harm. That's incorrect on its face, but not the point here. HCR WILL SAVE US ALL BIG MONEY FOR INSURANCE.

Nope, not referring to health insurance. I'm referring to auto insurance, homeowners' and renters' insurance , business general liability insurance, workers' comp insurance, commercial indemnity isnurace of all kinds - product liability, riders to cover exhibitions and concerts, coverage for trucks and truck drivers, coverage for fleet or personal vehicles used on business, you name it.

If there is an insurance policy of any kind - on your rental car or your dogs, cats, goats and the odd aardvark, any kind of insurance whether commercial or consumer - that includes coverage of a claimant's medical expenses, then get ready for a MASSIVE DROP IN THE PRICE OF COVERAGE.

Universal health care coverage just removed any issue about paying for a claimant's medical bills.

These saving represent billions of dollars that stay in our pocets, go to the company's bottom line, and circulate in the economy. And oh, by the way, also accomplish a major goal of "tort reform" outside of medical malpractice. Without restricting the rights of victims.

4. President Obama's budget proposal include a major plan to cut the costs of health care

When the President said he wanted to change the method of reimbursing Medicare and Medicaid health service, he announced an effort to completely restructure the health care system. It's long overdue, will improve patient care, and save billions. It is ultimately the single most significant part of all his budget proposals.

I've described this in detail in other long posts and won't do so again now. But basically the president will undo the Reagan-era reforms that resulted in the balloning costs for medical care in America. those "reforms" actually are why you pay $150 for a bandage at a hospital, but only $3.50 when you buy a box of 100 at the drug store - EVERY action and item in medical care now is its own profit center, its own administrativecategory, and its own billing and accounting category. The president's restructuring will improve our quality of care and chop massive amounts of cost and overpricing out of the health system.

David, it's unfortunate your wife's doctor has to act before HCR takes full effect. But relief is on the way. And doctors don't even need to cut their earnings.

John A., excellent analysis. People are victims of fear and misunderstanding. This will help. Thanks.

santrich - the very definitions of liberal and conservative have changed in the last 150 years as well.

fielden - When a Federal court rules a law is unconstitutional then it goes into the purview of the courts to determine its constitutionality. If they (i.e. eventually the SCOTUS) determines the law was unconstitutional then it doesn't matter what the Congress passed and President signed, the law is thrown out and cannot be implemented. I could be wrong on this, but when a Federal district court rules a law unconstitutional I do not believe that the States within that jurisdiction can be forced to implement that law until it has completed the entire judicial process.

fielden--john A. is correct and you are right. Fear mongering and political half truths along with out right lies are being used every day. The insurers have only money on their minds.

I can see Virginia's view in the matter, they want an end to this bill before private health insurance is destroyed and the responsibility is thrust upon the States, (which they can't afford the bill either.) No one can afford the Health care bill, except the rich and the Unions. I can only pray the SCOTUS will follow the constitution and rule accordingly. If they don't, then we are all screwed. Costs are already increasing dramatically for small companies. Some have already lost their coverage and there are many more to follow. Next will be the large employers in 2014. Overall result? A new class of uninsured and lower quality of care for everyone. Thanks for nothing.

BTW, I don't have an opinion of the SCOTUS rejecting the request, many requests are made, but few allowed.

John A.-400474:

You make some interesting points but just because they "can" reduce premiums does not mean they will. The insurance companies are way too entrenched in bonus money, etal...

In order for "your" scenario to work it would require revamping the Insurance Industry from the "ground up", which is not likely to happen.

In your utopia you assume the Health Scare Law was written by Pelosi and Reid looking our for "John Q Public", which is a fallacy. It was written by lobbyists from the Insurance Companies! It's the old "Fox guarding the Chicken Coop"...

Pelosi said it: We'll have to pass it to see what's in it!"

jjmurray: Actually, the judge who ruled the health care law unconstitutional also issued of stay of his ruling, pending appeal. This means that, effectively, nothing has happened.

Thus, the law will continue to be implemented.

The more parts of the law which are implemented, the more people will like the law and not want it to go away.

Initially, people tried to say Social Security was unconstitutional too. Try to get rid of it now.

Remember, the REPUBLICAN PARTY is the one that wants to throw you, you siblings, your parents, the poor, the disabled and everyone not already on Medicare under the bus, and then back up and rund you over again and again to make sure your dead. REMEMBER THE RYAN PLAN in 2012.

As long as they review it some time this year, I think that's reasonable. Regardless of how they rule, we need the ruling so everyone can know what is/is not going to be implemented and plan accordingly.

David, you must be an exception to the rule. I know of no one, (in either Medicare, Medicaid or Tri-Care) who are happy with their service. In our local area, Tri-Care has taken a number of primary providers off the list, forcing patients to seek out new primary care providers, all miles away from town. How would you like your primary care physician taken away from you without reason? Medicare and Medicaid, it would take pages to talk about lack of care, and mismanagement. I do not want to be under the govt. "wing." That wing is full of holes and losing ground fast.

drip101 - Actually I don't think the Virginia judge ordered a stay, the one in Florida I know did, but I don't think VA put one in place. As for the whole "the more it's in place the more people will like it", that has yet to be seen and what worries me the most is that those who learn to love it will be the same ones who right now do not pay into society but instead let society pay them.

As for your comments on the Republican party, that kind of hateful rhetoric diminishes any argument you put forth instead of enhancing it. Stick with the issues and stop the name calling.

Yes, Vinson ordered a stay of his own ruling. See here: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/261254/re-vinson-stays-ruling-robert-verbruggen

John A.-400474

Since you obviously spent a lot of time in your defense of HCR, could you please answer a 'bottom line' question - If HCR is such a great thing, why did insurance premiums go up an unprecedented 20% in the first year, when HCR was supposed to 'bend the cost curve dowwnward'?

John A.-400474

In looking at your post again, I think you lost a lot of credibility when you said that one of the main reasons for high malpractice insurance rates is the 'losses' that insurance companies incurred when the stock market tanked in the last recession. That flies in the face of common sense.

Roy:

In the event John A. can't get back to you, I can answer that. First, John clearly showed why premiums are going up. The market tanked and they have a great deal of their cash invested in the market. Additionally, one thing John didn't mention is that they also have enormous amounts of their assets in real estate, which I'm sure you know has seen better days.

The second point that is routinely ignored by Health Care Reform opponents is that insurance companies have been hammering customers with double digit rate increases for some time. Many people are unaware of this because the employer picks up that tab and the employee is blissfully unaware. Secondly, it is extremely important to remember that those rate increases are compounding.

I'm not going to defend Health Care Reform as the end-all, be-all in its current incarnation, but it's a start. The fact is the private health care insurance industry is nothing more than another layer of pencil pushers. The payout mechanism can be greatly streamlined and there is no need for enormous salaries for the executives whose job is to insure profitability, which can be accomplished in only one of two ways. Increase premiums and/or limit/reduce service. That is exactly what they are doing now.

Too many people are busy trying to cloud this issue. Either we decide that it's a national good for all citizens to be healthy, or we say we will close our eyes to the reality that we will let our fellow citizens suffer and/or die. That said, there is another upside that is constantly ignored. That is wellness. Just remember the next time the First Lady points out the importance of fitness, the Palinistas are going to start having seizures and lying about not being able to have dessert.

Willowbrook:

I'm in the VA system. I've spent more time in the private sector than the VA, but my experience has been nothing but good, and in some cases even better. Are there problems? Yes, but in the face of the bankruptcies of auto companies, financial meltdowns, bank thievery, and much, much more, I'm sure as hell not going to swallow the line that private enterprise is to government what God is to Satan. Frankly, I see it just the other way, these days.

What does common sense say about the relationship of stock market performance to insurance premiums?

To take advanatage of everyone before the law is in place. How do you justify in increase of a product when the only thing that has changed is a new law slowing down their increases? Win-win for them, they can hit you in the front now, and if the GOP wins and the law is repealed they can raise them again. It's not that much different then the way some businesses run their sales - boost the price, then put a sale sign on it. I'm a miser and fortunately, or unfortunately, I look at everything that requires me to put out money as a scam until it is demonstrated otherwise. "A fool and his money are soon parted."

John A:
Congratulations on your long and well written post. You should send a memo of thanks to the rest of the staff. You covered all of the talking points in excellent detail. Too bad you are COMPLETELY WRONG. It was a well written piece of misdirection however.

POINT 1 & 2: The HCR law (completely misnamed, as it does not deal with health care in any way) does absolutely nothing to reform tort or malpractice rates. You ASSUME that these will decrease because of universal coverage and governmental price controls. This is completely false. Governmental price controls (through “Medicare allowable” rules) can reasonably be argued are at least partially if not largely is a contributor to the high cost of the US healthcare system. “How can price controls cause higher prices?” You ask. It does, and if you doubt it, I will be happy to go into the tax write-off of the Medicare part-B boondoggle in another post, but I don’t want the rest of this to get lost in that argument.

POINT 3: Your other “savings” that you claim will result (liability and other insurance) for the average citizen is also false, and laughably so. You do not have a medical rider on your auto policy to cover medical treatments for someone who does not have major medical coverage. You have it to cover the medical expense of someone you injure. It does not matter what insurance they have or don’t have, If you hurt them with your car, you are financially responsible, not their insurance carrier.

POINT 4: You give absolutely no specifics other than “I’ve covered this elsewhere” and then try to blame it on Regan era “reforms”. However, it has absolutely nothing to do with Regan or anything else done by government. The $150 bandage is a result of the consumer being divorced from the billing, combined with the Medicare FFS billing structure. It the 80s when HMOs became popular, and the old 80/20 plans faded. As soon as the consumer was no longer looking at their bill because they had to pay 20% of every penny on there, and instead only cared what their deductable was, cost ballooned.

You may be able to mislead the majority of people on this board by saying what they want to hear, unfortunately there ARE people here who know insurance, and how the health industry and Medicare actually operates. People are not as stupid as you would like them to be.

The bottom line is that the requirement, by Congress for every individual American to purchase a product, is unconstitutional. Congress can no more require me to purchase a BCBS health insurance policy, than it can require me to purchase a Florida orange.

John A,

I don't know where you are getting your information, but it not correct and misleading.

There is nothing in the HCA that reduces the amount of the punitive damages awarded through malpractice. There is also nothing to reduce the number of "nuiscence" claims. In fact, there is nothing in the law at all that addresses the cost of care.

Please reference what section of the HCA you are referring to.

Secondly, the rate of medical expense claims through workers comp, homeowners, and auto will go up not down, especially for seniors. Because of the low rate of payment by medicare and medicaid, there is a drive to put the claim through payors that submit 100% of the medical bill (such as non-negotiated work comp, auto and home). This is done at the hospital billing level and has nothing to do with the healthcare reform act. Health insurers, medicare and medicaid currently subrogate claims back to employers, homeowners and drivers. There is nothing in the law that will prevent this, in fact, that practice will increase.

This travesty of a law called healthcare reform completely missed the cause of the problem....the high cost of care.

@John A --- really good post!

I do wish to add one small point to this discussion: When Bush's disastrous Medicare Part D was passed as a fully-supported GOP giveaway to the pharmaceutical companies, it contained one small point that no one still seems to notice:

If you do not sign up to purchase private prescription insurance on the day you become eligible for Medicare Part A, you are fined! If thereafter you ever sign up for Part D, you are assessed a hefty fine ($5,000) up front. And then, for every month you delayed in signing up, your premium is increased by 1%, cumulatively, with no cap. And Medicaid has the ability to sign you up involuntarily should you fall within their purview. The fine is deducted from your Social Security checks until it is paid and the additional premium is also subtracted from your checks. If it should work out that your Social Security checks do not cover the fine and increased premium, the IRS is then instructed to act to withhold tax payments, seize assets, etc just as though it were a tax avoidance case.

It is interesting to note that the pharmaceutical and health insurance industries wrote Medicare Part D to operate in their own interests. There are even studies that confirm what was initially suspected, that the "donut hole" actually kills thousands of seniors annually, and that the "assistance" programs promised by the drug companies would never materialize. These same drug companies and health insurance companies gave their support to, and huge input to, the Obama HCRA.

It is interesting that not a single GOP voice has ever risen against this example of forced purchase of medical insurance. Currently both Santorum and Pawlenty have came out against Part D, saying their support was a "mistake" so that they cannot be attached to this fine by the voters.

But it also leaves me with the sense that the GOP sees any action by Bush as permissible, but sees an identical action by Obama as reprehensible. If the actions are the same, it is then necessary to look elsewhere for justification --- places such as destructive partisan politics, propaganda for the ill-informed, or even racism.

So I'll believe the GOP voices saying that health reform is unconstitutional when I hear them saying that Part D is also unconstitutional and that both should be dismantled. This will not happen because the GOP is owned by corporate interests and they will not allow it.

Maybe I missed it somewhere, but aren't about 50% of health insurance companies "Non-Profit"?

How exactly are non-profits "stockholders" supposed to absorb costs when there aren't any stock holders or profits?

Seems like a lot of fairy tales being told by liberals desperate to make HCA something that it is not.

The parties flipped the day LBJ Civil Rights Laws were passed.

Healthcare reform was long overdue.

Right, and the Democratic party has been gone downhill and been dragging America with it ever since.

As to your other comment: I am still wondering what "problems" the health care law "fixed"? It is essentially the same plan we have in Mass, which resulted only in higher premiums for those who already had insurance, and forced those who did not have it (many of whom did not *want* it) to have to pay. Notice that one of the staunch supporters, the AARP, actually announced last October that it was raising rates in 2011 AS A DIRECT CONSEQUENCE OF THE HRA. Go look it up. This kind of "reform" we can do without.

I see this as pretty simple...

Either require EVERYONE to be responsible and carry health care insurance

or

deny medical service to those without insurance.

Since we, as a society and as a country, CANNOT deny service to the sick, then requiring people to be responsible and giving them a mechanism to do so is THE ONLY solution.

Continuing to provide free service with MY money to both the poor and to free-loaders through the ER HAS TO STOP.

Any GOPers here have a better idea than what's on the table?

Chris-53713:
Ah another staffer is heard from. I always love it when you guys go on about how Part-D is a "giveaway" to the pharmaceutical companies. Sigh, you too are incredibly misleading. Yeah there is a Medicare Part-D late Enrollment Penalty, just as there is a Medicare Part B late enrollment penalty (LEP). Why are you not complaining about that? Why are you not acknowledging that the LEP was enacted by a Democratic controlled Congress? Come on, I know you guys can do better than that. You should really work on improving your misinformation; I mean these are just too easy.

There are many different "triggers" that completely eliminate any LEP, and yeah Medicaid (BTW Medicaid and any form of Low Income Subsidy, LIS, is one of those triggers) automatically enrolls its members in Medicare part-D, because the individual state does NOT want to have to pay for it (no one is forcing anyone to utalize Medicaid anyways). Your whole IRS scare tactics are truly pathetic. The larges LEP I have seen (and I have seen personally seen thousands of them) is about $50.

The idiotic attempt to compare Medicare, Medicaid, or Medicare Part-D, to the constitutional challenge of the HCR is also a pathetic joke. There is no comparison. Nothing FORCES you to PURCHASE any of the Medicare/Medicaid products, and the forcing to PURCHASE is the basis of the current constitutional argument.

If you really want to keep trying to throw this cheap BS out here for public consumption, you better find a topic I do not know so much about.

DrDr - Vinson is the judge in FL, Hudson is the judge in VA.

I sat in an emergency room and handed over my insurance card which eventually paid the 10s of thousands of dollars for what I thought was a routine, and probably inexpensive, medical emergency. While I waited in that ER, I witnessed 2 out of every 3 visitors explain at the counter why they were uninsured. They got the same quality service . . . but apparently no bill. I can only assume my excessive charges paid for their cavalier indifference.

Conservatives are fools if they think looking the other way, posturing over their right to ignore fair play, and ignoring self responsibility should prevail.Those who vote for their lunacy are paying and paying and paying for this delusion. The Health Care law is a reasonable start trying to solve this other crisis. When conservatives have ANY solution that will work, I will certainly listen. In the continuing absence of any rational solutions to ANYTHING, I will continue to ignore their baying at the moon.

Never has America been so ill served by representatives who are for sale to corporate interests. But then, I missed the days of the robber barons. This is probably a glimpse into that period returning if Republicans reclaim the White House.

Patriot -1506681

There's actually grown-ups here hashing this out.

Your idiotic post about the President and his nominations and subsequent appointments to the Supreme Court are utterly irrelevant. The essential make-up of the court has not changed one iota. Moreover, the Supreme Court is not usurping the role of lower courts and is allowing the judicial process to play out.

Don't you have some tires to slash or some other socially counterproductive activity in which to engage?

To all those rallying around Obamacare as the most wonderful thing to come down the pike in ages, you better stop and take a long hard look north of the border and see exactly what social medicine brings with it.

The perfect example of why we need to send Obamacare and similar legislation to the deep six is the story of Baby Joseph. In that case a group of doctors effectively told the parents, "there isn't anything we can do other than pull the plug. And, that is what is going to happen whether you like it or not!"

After weeks of wrangling back and forth, baby Joseph was brought to the US. He was operated on by US doctors. He is now home with his parents. He will probably never "recover", but he is home with his parents and in their care and no longer at the mercy of the dictates of social medicine.

The day that government takes away our freedom to choose will be the day we loose our freedom.

Sticking blindly to party affiliation and ideology is getting us nowhere fast...this has turned into Dem. vs. Repub. when it should be about AMERICANS, all of us. So let's see, there's a law that over 50% of the states don't want, close to 50% of the population doesn't want, over 50% of the population doesn't understand, and nobody knows how to fund...yet it sails through based blindly on ideology..."We" gotta stick it to "Them."

Bill-Austin:

You guys are just doo darn easy! You are speaking falsely (was gonna say a liar, but that might be a conduct violation), you did NOT sit in an emergency room and "listen to 2 ot of 3" people explain why they were uninsured while waiting for treatment. That situation CAN NOT HAPPEN. 1 individual is not allowed BY LAW to listen in on the admissions of another person, it is a HIPPA violation.

PLEASE PEOPLE! Can you at least TRY to come up with something that is not complete nonsense.

There are certain things we have to pay for. Nobody can force us to buy a Florida orange, but if we get hungry and eat a few in someone else's orchard, basic property law states that we must pay for it. That is, in essence, government forcing you to pay for something. If you want a more topical example, try the RIAA. Or, you know, taxes like everyone's been talking about. We must pay for what we consume, on pain of civil and/or federal law.

Now that we've got that out of the way, the issue turns to "can the government force you to consume a certain product?" Technically it can in terms of forcing certain competing businesses out of practice, but that's not the issue of healthcare. As biological organisms, we are all already consumers of healthcare, whether we like it or not. Unlike food items, healthcare is not optional or self sustainable. You cannot grow valve replacements in your backyard, and you cannot will yourself to not get herpes.

Furthermore, believing you can do without healthcare has proven to be false and counterproductive. If you go without food for a long time, your stomach shrinks and you require less sustenance when you break your fast. If you go without medical care for a progressive condition, the costs incurred at the time of treatment will outweigh the savings of forgoing adequate care. Of course, you can choose to divest yourself of treatment and arrange for a cheap burial as an alternative.

Those last two paragraphs are certainly debatable, but the suggestion that this is the first time we have had an obligation to pay for a service is false. The bottom line is, as long as you agree that healthcare consumption is not optional, you have a legal burden to pay.

I agreed with your sensible statement on another story, Sandrich, then you go and make a bigoted comment on this one. I suppose that's what I get for slumming on First Read.

Kaff: Thank you for positing a legitimate argument. I disagree with your final conclusion, while agreeing with some of your points. Yes, if you take the orange, you have to pay for it, but CONGRESS can not force you to purchase it before you elect to take it. They simply do not have that Constitutional athority. The Constitution grants Congress the right/ability/authority to regulate interstate commerce, BUT it does not give Congress the right/ability/authority to require someone (an individual, or possibly a business entity) to engage in it. Furthermore, the regulation of insurance is a state function, and numerous federal laws and court decisions have placed it there. Even the insurance companies that operate in numerous states, are regulated by each state, within that state. There is MUCH more going on here that 90% of the population realize.

The "free" emergency healthcare gaurenteed to everyone originates from multiple sources, starting with the physician's hypocratic oath. Quite possibly there is a better way to handle the situation, but you do not use a bomb to kill a gopher (CadyShack reference anyone?). The HRA is not the proper tool to fix the ER issue, and in fact does not address it in ANY meaningful way.

Adam -

His point prevails and YOU continue to ignore it.

I have asked the question numerous times on other posts, and conservatives like YOU always turn-tail and run away. YOU are afraid to answer this simple question.

What other option do we have?

Previously, everyone payed for the uninsured. THAT IS A FACT. If you do not have insurance, and do not make enough money to cover your ER health bill, WE ALL PAY FOR IT.

So, our options are to pay for the uninsured, or force them to get their own insurance. I don't know about you, but I prefer people to be personally responsible for their own health care. I know, the idea of being PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE is foreign to you. I'm sure you would prefer to have everyone else pay for you, instead of paying for yourself. Sorry buddy, your free ride is over.

Again, what are the options?

1. Everyone must buy their own health insurance (personal responsibility)
2. We all pay the medical bills of the uninsured (giveaway policy)

ThoughtsFromCali: I haven't hidden from anyone, and I have never had a "free ride" in my life, unless you want to count some Pell Grants from college. You want to hear some proposals? Sure thing.

1: Resolve the illegal alien problems in this country, and end the anchor baby loopholes in the existing immigration laws. Thoe 2 things alone will solve the majority of the uninsured medical expenses in California and the border states.

2: Reattach the consumer to the actual medical expenses. As soon as I see a $150 charge for a blanket you can believe the hospital and I are gonna have some conversations.

3: Make medical practitioners and hospitals publish a list of fees PRIOR to services being rendered. We demand it of a mechanic, we demad it of McDonalds, but not a doctor? How silly is that?

Public accountability, transperancy to medical charges, and elimination of one of the largest single drains will go a LONG LONG way to cleaning up this mess.

What you and so many other people fail to understand is that HEALTH INSURANCE is not HEALTH CARE. Health insurance is a product sold by a company, that functions in a VERY simple manner (teh details can get complicated, but the concept is simple). In a nutshell, a health insurance company uses statistics to project what the medical expenses will be for a group of people, the larger the group, the more accurate teh statistics, the Insurance company then takes that $$$ amount adds 20% (this is the money that company has to pay for EVERYTHING ELSE from paper clips to facilities and salaries) then devides it among the individuals that CHOSE to be in that pool of people, that portion is then called a premium.

You do NOT have to have Health Insurance to get health care, you can walk into ANY medical office/facility and pay cash. You want to reform HEALTH CARE, great! Lets do it! You want to attack the big, bad, scarry, mean, faceless, health insurance company, and lie to me calling it health care reform, go away.

@David Walker (post #1.39): Funny you should criticize another regarding idiotic, counterproductive posts. I distinctly remember on another Vine you were that tire-slashing guy. It's good to see you sticking to the productive points of intelligent debate this time round.

We will see where this all goes. I for one think everything the politicians get their fingers in is due to fail and we will deal with the failure for years before another group of politicians pass some sort of "reform" and then it will fail. Doom and gloom I know, but just look at the past 50 years.

The reason insurance exists for anything at all is because of cases where the consumer cannot pay for necessary services. You wouldn't think of coffee mug insurance because mugs are cheap and easily prepared for in a modern salary, but if you total your car or someone else's, you're not going to come across $50k or so very easily.

The uninsured are actually a very small part of the healthcare costs to the nation. Most of it is people with huge chronic "why the heck did you not come in here until now" conditions.

The $150 blanket thing is a huge quagmire that will take decades to deconstruct. If you refuse to pay inflated prices, then the hospital won't comp costs from what is essentially an organization run at loss. If they cut costs, patients die due to brain drain and eventual patient drain from the patients dying thing ruining their reputation. If they curb expenditures on big pharma, big pharma stops researching curative drugs. If big pharma stops researching curative drugs, then you default to good old palliative care with the $150 blankets and such to pay for being a hotel for the infirm, and older version drugs don't become generically cheap as hip new patent drugs go into style. Also, if you refuse to pay for a $150 blanket, and the hospital refuses to give one to you at a discount (because it's not a tiered service organization) and you catch cold while waiting on a stool sample or whatever, then they've got a chronic case on their hands and a possible lawsuit.

Bottom line: for most people, health care costs too much not to be insured. If you want to be treated, you have as much chance of paying $5 for acetaminophen or $50,000 for an endarterectomy. If you're in pain, and you're days away from your head exploding or something, you'd better believe you're going to get that surgery whether you can afford it or not.

But yeah, itemized health costs need to be more transparent, though I think you'll find that a bunch of them will be non-negotiable. There's not many services out there that have your life or death as a bargaining chip.

David Walker "Roy: In the event John A. can't get back to you, I can answer that (why insurance premiums dramatically increased after HCR). First, John clearly showed why premiums are going up. The market tanked and they have a great deal of their cash invested in the market.

I thought of that, but then I realized that virtually every state has an insurance commissioner that will allow premium increases only with verified COST increases, not because of bad investment decisions.

Try again.

Adam -

Wow, a conservative who used a government program (Pell Grants) to get through college . . . and now you are part of the party that wants to cut those. How ironic. I guess Obama was right when he said people LIKE YOU used programs to get where you are, but want to remove those same programs for others. And here I thought he was just making a political statement.

1: Really? You are going to bring in your immigration social agenda into the health care debate? No, no . . . you are absolutely right. All those people who were laid off jobs over the past few years, and no longer have health insurance, are NOW all illegal immigrants. Get off the GOP social-agenda band wagon. Fixing illegal immigrants will barely make a difference. You will still have millions of people receiving health care on my dime.

2: You think they are going to reduce their costs because YOU have a "conversation" with them? Please, they will laugh in your face. Those prices exist because the insurance companies (those big bad organizations you are protecting) allow them to exist. Those charges get passed through the insurance companies to you, increasing the % that the company gets to charge you. Why would the insurance company reduce that cost, thus reducing the % they get? No matter how tough you think you are, it will not change.

3: Publish fees PRIOR to service? Because people coming into the ER are typically in a state of mind where they can make an intelligent decision about the cost of care? Have you ever been to an ER? Half the time people are not even conscious when they come in. So then who decides? And you want to ask people to sign off on charges when the other option is death? "Hello sir . . . you have just been shot. Let me just calculate these charges and figure out your bill, so that you can sign off on it, before we provide you any care. Try not to bleed out in the meantime." Or "Hi ma'am . . . oh, your baby is not breathing and turning blue? Well let me just pull up your bill first, give me a second to calculate everything. We need you to accept these charges before we save the life of your child." Are you serious?

Finally, I won't say that HCR if perfect, but what are the other options? Continue to pay for the uninsured or those who just don't want to get insurance? (No thanks) Or a retarded voucher program that gives COMPLETE control to the insurance companies, so that if you can not afford their policy you just find a corner to die in? (Again, no thanks) The Republican "you are just out of luck" mentality will not benefit a modern society. Unlike auto repairs, or McDonalds . . . if someone can not afford medical care to cure their disease, it DOES affect us, because a disease can spread. Making sure EVERYONE has access to health care helps keep everyone healthy.

Adam-1897760

Nice try! I've seen your posts and the negativity is glowing. I can't help thinking you are connected to (in some way) to for profit HC so called companies. Common sense solutions is not your strong point. We all know that the current HC system is major broken and needs to be changed. I know you can't understand that and that my friend should be a deep concern to everybody on this thread.

Cali - you leave out so many alternatives. 1) We can stop providing medical care to peoplewho won't pay for it. 2) We can create charities to pay for the people who can't afford to pay. 3) We can charge foreign governments for those people that are here illegally and are using our medical services. 4) We can force all insurance companies to be "not for profit" and limit the salaries of their boards and executives to make health insurance more affordable. 5) We can shut down the trillion dollar per year health insurance industry and actually socialize medicine so that we all get the same treatment no exceptions.

The scenario that you described with the baby turning blue does happen, right now when you enter an emergency room. Before you see the doctor, they want to know how you are paying. If you are unconcious, someone needs to sign for you and take responsibility otherwise the state will be making decisions for what treatment you are going to get.

If you are going to be paying cash, you will be paying more for the same service then the doctor would charge an insurance company or the government.

How do you think people survived before the insurance companies? Amazingly well it seems. Ask someone who had a child in the '60's and 70's how much the hospital charged for the service and how they paid the bill.

Let's deregulate the pharmacies and allow people to treat themselves without paying the middle men.

Why shouldn't people be responsible for themselves? Just because there's a law that says that pedestrians have the right of way doesn't mean that the driver approaching the crosswalk can or will stop.

Well, you folks still can't seem to get the concept that health insurance is not health care through your thick heads. I've stated several times on several different posts that I work for what would commonly be termed a health insurance company, no surprise there. I find your attempts to prod me with terms like conservative as funny as the time you tried to call me a racist. I am what scares both political parties, someone who can and will think. There are issues I agree with "the right" on, and there are issues I agree with "the left" on, yipee.

I have worked in and around the health insurance/health care/Medicare fields/industries for the better part of 20 years. I KNOW many of the problems. I KNOW many of the myths. I also KNOW where alot of the problems came from. Poke and prod at me all you want, I don't care. The bottom line is that your health insurance premiums have nothing to do with big corporate bonuses. They have nothing to do with stock prices. Your health insurance preiums are 100% generated by statistics, and the Law of Large Numbers. To a large extent they are not even directly tied (indirect ties can be found but that has to do with loss transferance) to the uninsured. Everyone uses the medicare FFS rates to calculate physician compensations in contracts, which are set by CMS (Medicare's inefficient beurocracy). You REALLY want to reduce the cost of health care in America, start by fixing Medicare. As long as Medicare is paying $500 for a vaccum powered sexual aid for males, that can be found for $50 in the back of mens magazines, then we will continue to have a problem.

As I have said before and will again, This is a complicated issu, but has some simple roots. The first of which is to get people to understand that health insurace and health care are not the same thing.

"Well, you folks still can't seem to get the concept that health insurance is not health care"

Right, but it is ACCESS to healthcare, which is a pretty large piece of the healthcare system, wouldn't you say?

DrGimmetheNews: YEP! it certainly is. There is a teensy wittle pwobwem however.

We already have universal ACCESS to healthcare, the real problem is the cost of that access.

hammer meet head of nail, head of nail meet hammer.

The HCR is a multi-thousand page lie. It does not address the problem, but instead tries to create scapegoats (the big bad insurance company), and destroy a major industry in the US, FOR NO GOOD REASON. It is utter rampant stupidity.

Fix the problem, don't create new ones; misleading the entire country while you are at it.

Adam and others -

Before turning to rebut many of your comments, let me observe that a snide introduction to what otherwise was a relatively thoughtful response to my long post only diminishes the credibility and value of the statements. I see MORE of "talking points" in your several posts that were in mine. As for "staff," gee, fella, that would be nice. But I'm just me, myself and I, and don't ever get or read anyone's "talking points."

Since apparently credentials are called for, I began my business career at Metropolitan Life's Western Headquarters in San Francisco in 1968. (And I wore 3-piece suits all the time, sang as the tenor soloist at St. Mary's in Chinatown, and had no idea there was a "Summer of love" going on at Golden Gate Park. Sigh; I stayed straight and I missed it, to paraphrase an old song of that day.) Subsequently I was a senior executive or owner in public relations/public affairs/advertising agencies for 30 years, working closely with a number of insurers as clients, hospitals as clients, and a global division of a major capital medical diagnostic equipment manufacturer. As well for the opposite side, I also represented the California Trial Lawyers Association during a monumental fight over "tort reform" and medical malpractie - which in a limited way, was ultimately effected in the late 1970's in that state. Overall, my client list ran to more than 500 separate clients including the entire Fortune 100, involving 18 discrete industrial sectors and 81 different business categories. And, of course, I was involved as a campaign consultant in local, state and national political campaigns for both candidates and ballot issues.

So, Adam, I've had decades of work in the trenches and the same industries you claim - plus more. I am not in that line of work today, do not have any vluntary or professional connections with any politicians, and do my own work.

Big deal. It all comes down in the end to the facts. One of the facts you completely missed is that the original discussion about massive savings in insurance rates was articulated in 1993 during the Clinton Administration's first attempt at some form of health care access. The same arguments hold true today.

The reason they hold true is that with universal health care coverage, the issue of suing for compensation of medical expenses is rendered moot. Even the trial lawyers acknowledge this. Essentially, that component of redress of injuries essentailly turns into a "no fault" condition in which there will be compensable loss.

As for insurers actually reducing their prices - they don't have to. Consumers will simply not BUY that coverage. There are usually three legs to a Workers' Compensation business insurance plan, for example. One is medical; one is rehabilitative; the third (sometimes written separately as a disability plan) is replacement of lost wages. The medical component is extremely expensive, as it addresses open-ended risk. As soon as universal health care coverage becomes available, watch the state legislators revamp laws mandating medical coverage under workers' comp - as well as in auto insurance, and any other form of mandated medical injury insurance coverage.

Let me make this clearer, since some here misunderstood: It is not any language in HCA that will affect malpractice or other forms of insurance, it is the practical consequence of universal health care coverage.

You are correct in commenting that health care access is NOT health care reform - the term is a misnomer now in such general use that to constantly carp on this point is to become a squawking correction crow.

However, you blithely ignored the opening paragraph of the post:

The Health Care Access act actually creates a new system of universally-available medical insurance. President Obama, in his budget speech, pointed out that he intends now to reform the delivery of health care to cut its costs. He almost certainly will do so by revising the manner in which medical services are reimbursed by Medicare and Medicaid - and, as a result, drive significant changes in the administration of health care services. Those same influences are probably also going to be implemented under HCA.

You are perfectly aware that insurance industry practices tend to track Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement standards and methods - and that health care delivery itself is shaped by the reimbursement methods.

Presently the American health care system is structured by the basis of "Diagnostic Related Groups," or DRGs, in which there is a very detailed formula for every aspect of treatment of every kind. Without going too far into what surely would be tedious detail, DRG's were originated under the Carter Administration as a method of hoping to restrain health care costs, but became under the Reagan Administration a revolutionary influence on health care delivery that wrought havoc in the industry and is directly responsible for the massive expenses now.

Essentailly, the Reagan reforms made EVERY action - including administration, accounting and billing - a profit center. It became an incentive to bloat the system with non-producing elements for which each keystroke, phone call, and memo has a profit margin. THAT is why a bandage at the hospital costs $150. One estimate I saw on this - in another 'Vine blog post - claimed as much as 30% of medical costs are from the non-productive layers.

To make the claim that consumers are removed from knowing the cost of what they get from health care is true enough, it's so hard to figure out the bills and sources of the bills it takes a specialist to do so. To say that unconcerned people are the reason for high-priced hospital bandages is pure fiction - and is, by the way, an oft-repeated talking point for the Tea Party Congress members.

I was very actively engaged in helping hospitals, doctors, insurers and medical system suppliers through the period of reform between Carter's last months and Reagan's aggressive reforms in the early 1980's. I saw each step of this take place and dealt extensively with the medical economics implications. It was a disaster in no time, with more than 1,000 non-profit and rural hospitals shut down. Someone in a different post referred to government price-setting - that's exactly what took place under the Reagan reforms, along with almost monopoly protection for surviving health care providers.

The President said he wishes to restructure the reimbursement system so that it is more results-driven rather than basically selling health care by piecework. If he does so, then the emphasis will change and so will the reimbursement system, and so will insurance company practices.

As for the medical malpractice insurance rates - most states indeed have insurance commissions. Roy Wilson's claim that rates are only allowed to reflect actual costs is pure nonsense, however. Few state insurance commissions are genuine watchdogs - Florida's is a joke.

The medical industry in 2001 was hit with a whopping rate increase in Florida, directly attributable to insurance industry losses caused by the dot-com bubble. In previous years the rates had been quite reasonable, because of revenues earned during the boom years of the Clinton Administration. The insurance commission allowed as how that was surely a problem for the insurers and allowed the rate increases. They do the same with almost all other forms of insurance (State Farm's obscene piracy for homeowners' coverage being the exception to the rule).

JohnA: If you are who you claim, and I have no information otherwise so choose to take you at your word, then I apologize for calling you a paid mouthpiece. In this post, you are mostly correct (I would quibble with a few details that are not truly significant such as the statement of most states haveing insurance commisioners, they all do as insurance is state regulated and has been for quite some time). You are also correct thta the vast majority of the current cost problems in the US is very directly attributable to the CMS "price fixing" as I also stated. CMS is a beurocracy in the worst sense of the word, tehy have a mjor influance (it isn't most, it is virtually all, insurance plans and HC contracts that use Medicare rates as their base. I'd say all but I try to avoid absolute statements of this nature). You continue to be very wrong where teh HCR would impact other insurance.

If person A drives their car into person B, person A is "at fault" and liable for all damages. It does not matter if person B has medical insurance, as their medical insurance is not responsible for the care; person A's automobile insurance (if any) is and after the insurance pays out, person A is personally liable for any excess. It is neater and cleaner if person B has medical insurance as it will pay and the recoup form person A's insurance carrier, but that is a side track. Insurance is a narrow transfer of monetary liability. Your argument is invalid on its face.

One topic we can both seem to agree on copmpletely is P&C insurance, argh. They make L&H look like saints.

Obamma is correct (yep that is right, I agree with him on some things) that a change in the model from the classic FFS is needed. However, the idea is not his, not even close. In fact most of the companies attempting to do this are ones he specifically wants to close down (yes that is specific factual knowledge that I possess and can/will not publically disclose how I know it so take it or leave it). In fact it was one of his campaign pledges to do so; fortunately he has not yet followed through on it.

The bottom line remains that the HCR legislation is bad law in its specifics (and unconstitutional too boot). It does NOT address what the real problems are, and most likely will only make them worse. All it does is target for destruction the only industry that has been resisting the bloat that you described, and trying to innovate to improve the situation. It is complete stupidity.

Dan H:
To answer your questions:
1: No
2: They already exist
3: Interesting idea, I like it. It won't make you very popular to the progessives though.
4: No
5: Well you were doing ok until this piece of brainless drivel. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and hope you are not foolish enough to actually think this is desireable.

JJ- You're right. My bad.

psst...by the time the court hears it, congress will have repealed it...and it will be moot.

The Republican-Tea Bagger tried and failed in repeal.

This is such a joke. Obama's HC bill is unconstitutional, and it will go down in time. For those who don't think so, answer me this. How if you are a Christian Scientist follower who does not believe in doctors or any type of medication, how can you be forced with the threat of fines / and jail be required to "buy" insurance which your "faith" forbids? Answer me that. It's absolutely unconstitutional in every way.

joe, will they also require that every senior return the $250.00 they received in the same legislation ?

Boehner & Cantor did their pandoring to the Tea Party. The ship has sailed on this one. This is one law which is here to stay.

dirp, the Virginia ruling said it was unconstitutional, so it remains as such unless overturned.

They make the Amish put tail lights on their buggies. Your version of superstitiion does not exempt you.

Just one more note about separation of powers, to repeal health care you will need the Senate as well. Good luck with that. (Oh, and there's this thing called a veto and a veto override...and, gosh, it's more complicated that Glenn Beck told you it would be, ain't it. Darn that constitution, always getting in the way...

JCB - The Supreme Court will NOT find the law unconstitutional because to do so would be to then find that the Medicare laws are also unconstitutional. The Justices will not throw seniors under the bus and in any case the Medicare law requiring all workers to contribute to and ultimately participate in the program has already been deemed constitutional. The Health Care law is just an extension of the laws underwhich we proceed with Medicare.

Dirp, your dreaming, and have zero idea whhat you just wrote about. The courts will strike this down on religious grounds alone.

Because buying health insurance does not prevent you from practicing your religion or ignoring the need for medical assistance. Kind of like people having to pay taxes to support schools when they don't have any children. You can't claim you're not going to support the schools since you don't have any kids, you still have to do it.

Laurie, would you like to wager on that? Your whole argument is flawed. You don't "have to" use Medicare, it is a choice. You can chose not to go into a Doctors office or hospital. Health care insurance mandated through "law" is another matter all together. You CAN NOT FORCE someone to buy something that violates their "religion" period, end of story. This bill is toast.

JCB - Using your logic Medicare would have been struck down.....but it has not been. Remember when you retire you must go on Medicare. You can no longer buy private insurance. Do you know what happens if you try? The Private insurers will only write you a policiy that becomes the second payor, ie a supplimental policy. No private insurer will write you a primary policy once you are over 65 and retired from the workforce. If you continue to work and have a policy from your employer, you can remain on that policy but once retired you MUST enter the Medicare system unless of course you don't wish to be insured at all and want to pay out of pocket for your health care.

Common Sense, you obviously don't have much. You think the "government" can FORCE you to buy something that you find religiously offensive? LOL Buying health insurance is totally different than FORCING you through threat of punishment / jail / fine to buy something you find religiously offensive. This Christian Scientist thing has already been upheld, your argument has no clothes.

JCB - See what happens if you try not to pay your FICA taxes. You are forced by law to contribute to Medicare. It's like buying an insurance policy....the money is taken from your paycheck...you don't have a say. Same as being "forced" to buy an insurance policy under the Health Care Law.

JCB - You don't have to insult people to debate your point. What's the matter.....your arguments can't stand on their own without a dose of insult to distract the reader on the obvious flaws in your arguments?

Laurie, again you don't get it!! Medicare IS A CHOICE! Yes, your enrolled but you don't have to use it!! This bill FORCES you to pay with threat of force, totally different. You can not "opt out", you are FORCED to buy insurance, no one fores you to go to the hospital on Medicare, you can stay home and die if you want. Damn, people THINK!

Single Payer would wipe out the entire argument. Healthcare for all without the "middle man insurance companies" grabbing profits and raising premiums.

And there's an option if you don't want to buy health insurance. Look into it. It's in the law. There are also some religious exemptions.

JCB - It is you that is missing the point. Yes you are not forced to use Medicare but you are forced to pay for it because you are taxed each week in your paycheck for it. What is it that you don't get? Being "forced" to buy an insurance policy is that same thing....you must pay for it but you don't have to use it. You can instead not bother to go to the doctor or pay out of pocket for your services. The only thing the health care law requires is that you "pay" for a policy....same as Medicare.

Laurie, boy your something. Taxes aka "Fica" has been upheld many times within the Supreme Court. It has been tested many times over the last 60+ years in court. Health Insurance mandates have not, and they will never be upheld. I KNOW that this law is toast. And trying to compare Medicare to this bill is just plain stupid. Now if Obama had done the right thing and had "single payer" then it would be like Medicare, but it is not like that in the least. Then "religious" people could simple not go to a doctor or hospital. That is COMPLETELY different than the FORCED spending of an individuals money. Car insurance is one thing, because you are involved with others, put PERSONAL health insurance is another. I can't believe how people can't desifer between the two.

JCB, what about those who are "forced" to pay for a military force if they are non-violent and anti-war? What about those who are "forced" to pay for roads even if they don't drive? Your arguments just don't hold water.

You have to pay taxes if you're an American citizen, even if you don't believe in our system of government or the way those taxes will be used. Boom.

When you retire you can no longer buy private insurance? My wife has been retired for over 10 years now and she has her own, personal private medical insurance and is is not a medicare supplement type of insurance. She is over 65. Private insurance is much better simply because there are doctors who DO NOT take medicare patients.

Second subject: I am forming a religion that does not believe in paying taxes. Wanna join? Then we wont have to pay taxes just like we don't have to buy insurance on religious grounds.

JCB? Are you even reading what you write???? You are correct that you don't HAVE to use Medicare. But you are WRONG in that you DO have to contribute during your lifetime. So your argument doesn't hold water. Like the above poster states, you may buy private insurance once you are 65, but they are NOT the primary payer and you will be forced to file a medicare claim. I work in a Drs office and know what I'm talking about. Besides, if they don't want to go to the Dr for religious reasons, they don't HAVE to go.. but they will still have to pay. Much like (as mentioned) public schools and property taxes.

JCB -

The courts will strike this down on religious grounds alone ?

What religious grounds ? That the law was signed by the mesiah, the chosen one ?

And for your information, any person who is a clergyman for a religious organization can opt out of social security and medicare. Likewise, individual members of religious groups, like the Amish, as members of those communities, are allowed to not be in Medicare. Therefore, there are NO religious grounds on which to object to this.

Lauries quote "JCB - It is you that is missing the point. Yes you are not forced to use Medicare but you are forced to pay for it because you are taxed each week in your paycheck for it. What is it that you don't get? Being "forced" to buy an insurance policy is that same thing....you must pay for it but you don't have to use it. You can instead not bother to go to the doctor or pay out of pocket for your services. The only thing the health care law requires is that you "pay" for a policy....same as Medicare"

My God, your just plain wrong again. OK, try to follow this. I am an investor, OK. I live of money made within the realm of the investment world. I have never had "a job". I do pay a lot of "income tax", but I do not pay FICA tax and never have. I do not pay into Social Security either. So your example about "everyone" pays FICA tax is totally untrue, eh? No one forced me to pay anything. Will I have Social Security when I turn 62, no, but will I have access to Medicare at 65, yes. Your argument just went through the floor.

God ain't there - You can certainly buy private insurance but the private insurance will only pay second if your are Medicare eligible. I know this because I am a SHIP counselor in NJ and that's the law. Once you are eligible for Medicare and no longer working, a private plan will only pay second. It's to their advantage....it saves the private insurers money so why would they pay first when by law they don't have to?

Dirp101, have you read the bill? thought not. There is NO provisions for opting out at this time. Will there be, maybe, probably, but they ARE NOT PART OF THE BILL as written at this time. Time will tell, but I'm betting this bill will never be implimented as written, but will be overhauled in various ways, then will be implimented. My wife works in the health care division of a national lawfirm, I think I have a little info on this you might not have access to, or have knowledge of.

Hi Folks,

For JCB and crowd, the religious argument is bogus, in fact debunked by your own side in their constant refrain of "Muslims" will be exempt. (they aren't by the way). There is a clause in the law that those religions recognized under the specific "religious conciouns" law to be exempt from buying health insurance. (BTW Christian Scientests are one of those, and it is extremely hard to get on that list, things like having to be in existance with that requirment observed for the entire time the religion has been in existance, and other such foibles that make it impossible to establish a "new" religion that would be exempt.).

Don't think so? here is a nice conservative blog that points it out because it's unfair to "unestablished" religions. LMAO

Brian times 3, your flat out wrong.

Fielden / Kaff just answered your reasoning.

JCB - LOL!!! The health care companies wrote this law. They like it fine the way it is.

Wives Plan, again your wrong. I've NEVER contributed to the FICA tax in my entire lifetime. That only happens if you work for a company not yourself. I am self employeed and pay income tax to the Fed's but that is it.

Laurie, I agree! To bad we have a President that caves into corporate interests instead of our "citizens" interest. ALL of US are one diagnosis from ruin. This health plans sucks. If you know enough Doctors as I do, until you take "profit" out of healthcare nothing will change. I want Medicare for all, but who gives a damn what I want, certainly no one in Washington DC gives a damn.

JCB- There is a "religious conscience" exemption found in section 1113 (d)(4)(H) of HCR allowing those already described by the IRS to avoid SSI and Medicare taxes for religious reasons not to have to have health insurance. So Brian is right, and you are wrong on this issue. And I'm glad your wife works in benefits for a law firm, but I actually AM a healthcare provider who participates with Medicare and Medicaid (as well as other insurance companies) so maybe I have a better grasp on this than you or she has.

JCB - Medicare For All ---- on that we can agree!!!! As for all the other stuff....let's agree to disagree.

dirp,

If the justices were conservative activists as you seem to indicate, they would have already taken up this issue and dismissed the law as unconstitutional. They haven't done that, which leads me to believe they are taking a non-partisan view on this one.

JCB-

How can you apply for Medicare at 65 if you don't pay into it? Just curious.

JCB- if your wife is providing you with information from her clients and you are earning all of your money as "an investor" are you trading on the information your wife is providing ?

Is your wife giving you " a little info on this you might not have access to, or have knowledge of." on which you are trading ?

I wonder if the firms partners or clients know she is giving their information to you.

Does the SEC know you are trading and that she is giving you information?

It has been a few years since I filed self employment taxes, but there use to be a 20% self employment tax, which I always believed included the normal payroll taxes. Correct me if I am wrong.

Dirp, coffee futures, oil futures don't have much to do with "health care" dude. lol

American's First, an "investor" is not a "self employed" job my friend. That's like saying trading in your IRA is a "job", it isn't. Though with this country in the dump, it's harder than ever to make money in the market. remember a thing called "capital gains tax" and "income tax"?

TRR, the same way an illegal immigrant walks over the border and gets food stamps, medicaid, or medicare. Answer your question? There are many many people, spouses, handicapped, etc.. that never have a "real job" and qualify for Medicare.

DrDrGimme, your quote "

JCB- There is a "religious conscience" exemption found in section 1113 (d)(4)(H) of HCR allowing those already described by the IRS to avoid SSI and Medicare taxes for religious reasons not to have to have health insurance. So Brian is right, and you are wrong on this issue. And I'm glad your wife works in benefits for a law firm, but I actually AM a healthcare provider who participates with Medicare and Medicaid (as well as other insurance companies) so maybe I have a better grasp on this than you or she has."

Dr.Dr. yes, you are partially correct, but just partially. Below is the "terms" of that "exemption. This bill sucks, it is a total disappointment, and i expected a much more "involved" process in this on-going debate. We are to rich of a country for such a large % of our citizens to be one diagnosis away from financial ruin, and it can be you. You just hope it never happens, as do I, but in reality bad things happen to good people everyday. We deserve a better system that this hunk of junk, period.

The health-care reform bill’s language, however, specifically states that for a sect to qualify for the religious exemption, it must fall within the definitions of section 1402(g) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. That section requires a sect to have been in constant existence since at least Dec. 31, 1950, and requires the sect to reject not only insurance but also have sworn off receiving all benefits from the U.S. Social Security system.

That looks like a loophole fix to me. How do you interpret it?

Erm.. JCB.. you do realise the Christian Scientists qualify for this right? Or are you being purposfully obstinant and are unable to actually understand facts that contradict your position?

If you are the second, that's great, we can gleefully ignore you now.

JCB- Yes, that is so that folks can't claim themselves a sect today and be exempt from taxes tomorrow.

And I am curious why you say this: " We are to rich of a country for such a large % of our citizens to be one diagnosis away from financial ruin, and it can be you. You just hope it never happens, as do I, but in reality bad things happen to good people everyday. We deserve a better system that this hunk of junk, period." when you are so vehemently against HCR. The new system is a big clunky, mostly due to all the compromises that had to be made to ensure the bi-partisan support that didn't materialize. BUT, the system it replaces let many more go without care, many go bankrupt due to medical bills, and affected all of us due to lowered productivity due to sick workers or those whose chronic conditions lead to chronic un- or under-employment, as well as higher medical service bills covering those who were uninsured who could not pay.

What do you propose instead?

To Roy Wilson -- And you think you have credibility? You are well known in these threads as a troll.

Regarding non-profit health care, please name a private insurance company that is currently non-profit. From Forbes:

We lost the positive aspects of affiliation health insurance starting in the 1960s and through the 1980s when Wall Street discovered there was money to be made turning nonprofit health insurers, hospitals and nursing homes into investor-owned companies. What we got was a massive conflict-of-interest--profit vs. public good--that has culminated in a dysfunctional health delivery system that has undermined our economy, reduced our national wealth and torn our social fabric. -

http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/12/public-health-insurance-personal-finance-financial-advisor-network-blue-shield.html

The only non-profit I'm aware of are a few providers (hospitals) such as Intermountain Healthcare. However, it is still expensive because the basic costs, which includes for-profit private health insurance, is still high. A non-profit provider may not charge $100 per aspirin, but they still pay medical staff per market, etc.

There are so many things that could be done to lower costs in the first place--one of which is to get medical offices to digitize records instead of being paper-based, but these doctor offices don't want to invest (give up some of their profits). If we improved the education system and made it more affordable and accessible to become a doctor or nurse, and stopped rewarding specialists with outrageous incomes over family practice, etc. that would help too.

Massachusetts is not a large population state. So right there we see a problem with the size of the "pool" of participants. But more importantly, because private health insurance (as well as auto/property insurance) is state-based and not national (truly portable), nor are health insurance companies subjected to anti-trust laws (monopoly) at all. They have had a very strong lobby, along with Big Pharm--not only in terms of campaign contributions but also writing legislation as pointed out above.

So you can't apply this to a national program (like the HCA Exchange in 2014), and if you want to criticize HCA the blame goes to Republicans who watered down the bill to the point of being only private insurance regulation. If we want true health care reform, we need to go back to a non-profit system--

Preferably government administered, and this gets back to earlier posts that entitlements are already mandated per FICA with-holdings. The difference is the amount paid in is reasonable, especially in terms of pay-out of benefits for those who make it past age 65. This is why universal/single-payer health care can only be possible if it is government administered. I don't have a problem with my FICA withholding, but I have a BIG problem with being forced to buy insurance in the private sector, including auto insurance. I wish there was a government alternative to auto insurance too.

My GOP/TP mother on Medicare will attest to the Part D penalties she is now paying, and the cost increases that is resulting from transition to private insurers already underway for Medicare. It's the absolute wrong direction, thanks to the GOP/TP--but she will probably continue to toe the Party line and vote Republican in 2012. Conservatives are in so much denial it's sad.

Non-profit isn't what you think it is. Read Deer Hunting with Jesus. A lot of the book talks about non-profit health companies how they don't have to call their profits profits. Good explanation in that book. Sort of like charities, they can be non-profit, so they don't have to pay taxes, but they can make bukoos amounts of money and pay their administrators and board of directors lots of dollars. Just like PAC's. Non-profits, big money.

congress will repeal it before scotus sees it...which will set your hair on fire!! LOL

how does it feel knowing all your precious government programs have failed?

Gee I don't know, how does it feel to know that all your republican candidates for President are either nutcases or morons or both..."Sorry about your damn luck." (I quoted a professional wrestler there so you tea party intellectuals could relate)

congress will repeal it before scotus sees it...which will set your hair on fire!! LOL

I doubt that. Just for fun, let's say you are right and congress
repeals it. Do you think the President is going to allow repeal of one of his many signature
pieces of legislation (FYI: for full repeal the sitting President needs to authorize
the repeal)? Right…that would be a no. By the way, I think your hair is on
fire. :)

Joe, you do know that the Republican-Tea Bagger tried and failed in repeal?

RED i Love how They ATTACK , Without FACT!

You Rile Them up!

I know u are LAUGHING on the OTHER End!

BILL2012 ( Debbie Riddle Texas ) I assume U Saw it! JUST incase ? ( check it out )

Bontox, the Congress won't repel anything, the Supreme Court will based on "religious" grounds, bank on it. Your going to make "Christian Scientists" buy insurance, yeah sure you will, just as soon as hell freezes over. They have already ruled that "religions" can withhold medication from children, and you think they will make a "religion" based on "non-medicine, non-medical intervention" pay for "health care insurance" they don't believe in? This bill is toast!

Hey feisty where should red heads hair be set on fire?

Nothing to be on fire about. In the jurisdictions where appeals courts have ruled against it will not be implemented, in those where it has it will be. Eventually it will go to the SC and we'll see what happens, (according to this article) probably in the fall, which will set this all up for a ruling probably mid 2012, i.e. in the middle of the election cycle. The only thing this delay is guaranteed to do is keep it in the public eye right on through the Presidential election and considering that the majority do not agree with Obamacare, perhaps you dems should stop calling people names and living on insults and instead start working on your discussions of why this is really good for your "average" American working class citizen.

Feisty Redhead.

I just love your posts,

Go get em.

YOU GO GIRL

OBAMA 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

mjl: yeah his slogan will be: High gas prices and unemployment for all!!! viva la revolucion!!

joe,

we have had this discussion on other blogs, Let me explain again. For the umpteenth time, I have faith that EVENTUALLY it will sink in.

GW had lost thousands of jobs by the time he left office,

Put our deficit at 11.3 Trillion dollars

Got us into a financial melt down

This is hard for TP'er /Repubs to admit,

But admitting to the TRUETH is a way to recovery, then move on.

I have blogged information to support all of this.

So ask What has the GOP done for ME?

Zip/Zap/Nada/but they HAVE gone down the pathway of destruction of middleclass and America.

If my religion forbade me to have car insurance, would I then be excused from buying car insurance to? Their religion does not forbid them from having medical insurance, it forbids them from using doctors and medicine. Having medical insurance is not a violation of their religion. Using the medical insurance at a medical facility would be violation of their religion. The HCR does not force anybody to go to the doctor. You are grasping at straws with this religous freedom arguement. If that works then you could use that excuse for any law. My religion forbids me from paying taxes, I guess I can stop paying taxes to. My religion forbids me from not shooting people that offend me. I guess I can go and start shooting people to. I thought we lived in a country with a seperation of church and state but you are saying that this HCR will be repealed based on 1 groups religous beliefs. Really?

MJL:

the democrats were running congress at the time...and government programs CRA fannie freddie caused the economic crash.

as far as GM goldman sachs...LET THEM FAIL...there is no reason to prop up companies with taxpayer money...all the hysteria was just that hysteria.

lets look at YOUR programs...gas was 1,84 when your savior took office..unemployment was around 7%...remember the 5% unemployment under bush?? hmmmm?? until the democrats took over congress...

remember spending that TRILLION dollars on union thugs on the failed promise it would hold unemployment down?

how about the 3.5 TRILLION obma has added to the debt? or the 5 trillion that was added while bela pelosi ran congress?

try the truth for a change.

why should the GOP do anything for you? take care of yourself, and stop expecting the rest of us to take care of you.

The high gas prices and unemployment are kept in place by the Republicans. Their slogan should be VIVA LA PRISONS, as that is where they want us to end up.

No health care, no educations, no good jobs, no retirement, hunger rampant and prisons already busting at the seams. We already have a higher percentage of our country in prisons than any other country in the world, even the countries we consider evil.

What are the Republicans and TP's worried about, tax cuts to the rich. During world war II, tax cuts to the rich would have been Unamerican and the people who introduced the tax cuts would have been considered traitors to our country.

Guess what, they are still traitors.

So if think it was true love when the women drove her babies to die into the lake and that it was good.

You will be happy to know it is the same kind of true love to drive America in the lake to die for tax cuts to rich. We can afford wars all over the world and tax cuts to the rich, but can not take care of our own people. Thank God we are such a Christian country or things could really be bad.

in 2009 Governor PERRY TEXAS !

Saved it's $9.1 BILLION Rainy Day FUND!

by BALANCING it's BUDGET with OBAMA'S ( STIMULUS MONEY ) !

On the VERY SAME DAY PERRY Applied for STIMULUS FUNDS!

He Signed a Petition ENTITLED ( No GOVERNMENT BAIL OUTS ) !

This is The CONSERVATIVE ( UTOPIA )

GOP == FAILURE STATE!

$22 BILLION 2 Year DEFICIT ! ( The GOP ) Change it With BUSH FUZZY MATH!

This is Why The NATIONAL DEBT is SOOO High Under GOP ( LYING & BLAMING ) !

For the ( No NEW TAXES ) for WEALTHY Only !

american traitor: you really are brainwashed. look at detroit for your failed policies....its what you want for the entire country. hoax and chains.

The who caused what in the downturn is a self licking ice cream cone. BOTH sides played a part in bringing this country to the financial state we are now in. It was a Republican Congress and a Democrat President who balanced the budget, each of them kicking and screaming all the way. It was a combination of Democrats and Republicans who after that decided to spend the so-called surplus, which only existed on paper as predictions, expecting predictions to match reality which in DC never happens. The ongoing sound bite rhetoric just demonstrates many on both sides still continue to want to fight the battles of the past the way they were fought in the past. The bottom line on our financial situation is the government spends WAY too much money and when they can't even agree that "Cowboy Poetry" is something we can afford to eliminate when we're steadily going deeper in debt, that is a good sign that ANYONE who has been in office more than about 6 years needs to go.

Term limits and no lifetime pensions.Talk about entitlements,all [both sides of the aisle] vote themselves entitlements almost on a daily basis

cooch - I agree. Max of 12 years in DC no matter how they combine House or Senate time, then no lifetime pension after that. Add their salaries to their Social Security calculations just like anyone in any other job. If we had been doing that for the last 50 years or so maybe they wouldn't have been so quick to raid the SS "lock box".

You Rile Them up!

Thanks OLD GOP! All I can say is, I'm glad you are on our side! ;o)

YOU GO GIRL

You BETCHA MJL-3! I LOVE the smell of right wing desperation first thing in the morning!

Hey, DMAC!!! I've read the entire HCR law, in all its incarnations as it moved through House, Senate, and reconciliation. So your statement, soooo elegantly stated, is false.

The conservatives claim all liberals do is "name call" yet just look at the names liberals have been called here. Traitors, democrappers, ojacka##ers--conservatives are all class.

Incidentally, joe numbers wonders why the GOP should do anything for us liberals--well, guess what, since Ronald Reagan came alone, the GOP has never done anything for the USA but they sure have done a lot for the rich and famous and folks like old joe numbers don't even realize it's their middle class paychecks that subsidize wealth for the wealthy. Just check the facts, they support this statement which has absolutely nothing to do with being liberal or conservative or something else.

Joe, yes just look at Detroit.

That is where the Kill Americans First hit the unions. They destroyed middle class in Detroit and then moved their factories to Mexico. They got a tax break for moving jobs out of our country. How Christian American. We should all care as much as the corporations do for our country.

Wow, thats a total waste of time! I just paid my medical and legal people read it for me. Neither of them liked it, which is why we hired over 4,000 people in EMEA/AP and LA. Its the major cause/effect for the employment issues in the US. Hell we even hired more people in Canada in the last 2 years. Business's need to depend on advisors and ours have been spot on and accurate. Unless you want to play craps and roll the dice.

americans: you really are delusional....detroit is a product of the union thugs and democrat policies...who has been running the city for decades?? hmmm?? oh yeah democrats...get a clue.

I don't think thugs are particularly selective in who they work for, be they unions or corporations.

John A., great post, still the Repubs are stamping their feet, holding their breath, and screaming foul because they are not getting their way with the courts. Greta V., from Faux News, was screaming this afternoon that the "Justices were not doing their job, going on a three month summer vaca., while they should be fast tracking this "unconstitutional" law. I nearly fell off the couch laughing, as our "famous" Congress is on their 5th. vaca. since Jan. That's 6 weeks since Jan. 21st. Talk about hypocrite, she wins today's daily drawing. I've never had 6 weeks of vaca. in 4 mos. in my life, guess I took the wrong career path.

"Its the major cause/effect for the employment issues in the US."

Oh, come on. Really??? HCR caused the economic meltdown in 2008? It caused all the outsourcing from 2000 to present? It caused the housing market collapse? Come on.

the liberals want it to fail so they can implement single payer...and everyone can dr. PLIARS for a dentist....hoax and chains.

I sure hope we can expand on the new health care system. Also, I wish it would have taken effect more quickly...or sooner rather than later. Myself and my family can't afford to keep paying such ridiculous fees for health care much longer.....and hope that it won't be cancelled by the greedy insurance companies. Everyone seems to forget that we don't have health care yet....and won't for a few years......Help! Help!

What is going to be said if the healthcare system doesn't fail?

because they have no other silver linings to hope for. This is all this failed President and the liberals have left.

Some judges found it unconstitutional. However, more judges found it constitutional.

lvingvarefoot: OK, THREE cases the law was found constitutional, 2 not, I guess it continues to be implemented until the SC rules.

And you know, the more parts of it that get implemented, the more people are realinzing that it is a pretty good law. Particularly those who don't care to be dropped from their insurance when they start to make claims.

It is a terrible open ended piece of crap that gives power to one person, which I said all along.

I thought liberals loved regulators. You morons do not even realize when you put the government in charge of your life, you have no regulators. Such a zero logic group of people!

No two sates against

Three states for

Two other state not sure,

That means 43 state aren't touching this.

This healthcare WILL become law.

MJL, what else would you want Congress require you to buy, but not there friends? Who is going to regulate this? What happens when greedy R's are in charge of your healthcare.

You people that think the government should run things are a joke! Their job is to regulate and preserve the greatest equalizer in the world, capitalism! Not destroy it!

The Affordable Health Care will not be RUN by GOP.

We already know what they would do

They want to end SSI/Medicare/Medicaid/Vet Adm/Education/Child food programs

They hate

Women

Children

Elderly

Vets

Unemployed

Middleclass

Poor

Blacks

Hispanic

White/that aren't rich

the list goes on and on,.

REPUBS are handling MY HEALTH OR SOCIAL SECURITY

your failed PONZI schemes of ss and medicare are coming to an end...we're bankrupt thanks to your failed socialist policies...

and you democrats obviously hate minorities and the poor...detroit anyone? its what you want to turn the entire country into.

Gallup's latest three-day tracking numbers, just out, put Obama's job approval numbers at
51-43, a five-point jump in the past week. A separate Gallup poll
released yesterday found that 49 percent of Americans believe passage of health
care reform was a good thing, while 40 percent say it was a bad thing.

Another poll shows 43% of REPUBLICAN/TP'ers disaprove, not 43% of all.

Trump HELPED!

His LYING Gets EXPOSED Almost iMMEDIATELY !

Any IDIOT can GOOGLE his LIES!

Not according to the polls they showed on MTP yesterday!

Realclearpolitics shows the poll average as 45.6 Obama approval, 49.0 disapprove. Healthcare reform is 50.2 repeal, 42.2 oppose repeal. I've always found the conglomeration of polls when put together to be much more accurate than a single poll.

It depends on the week. If Fox News or Rasmussen has more than one poll within the week, it tends to skew the results.

joe-3041821 considers S.S. and medicare a ponzi scheme. I have yet to see him post a viable alternative to the draconian ideas the GOP wants to force on the poor, the elderly, and the disabled. I for one will not take him seriously until he learns the difference between mocking people and a serious debate.

oh yeah I remember that..the civil war....where the DEMOCRATS fought for slavery...opression and racism!!

Yes jeff, there is this thing called rule of law and so long as a law has been challenged and has not yet been decided, it is not yet the law of the land.

Those Democrats if they were alive today would be Republicans, so what is your point.

Now Joe, surely you're not saying the Democrats of the south in the Civil War are the same Democrats of Obama? Read a little history...There was this shift where the Republicans became the conservatives and the Democrats became the liberals. Actually, it's happened more than once...Again, history isn't as simple as Beck and Fox News want you to believe.

On the other hand, JJMurray, I agree with you that it's not the law of the land until the Supreme Court clears up this mess. I never said it was the law of the land, although a lot of posts here are saying that. We're a long way from that being determined. I do believe that it will be harder for the Republicans to repeal it then they think. If you really want to end Obama's health care law, you should probably look to the Supreme Court, not the Tea Party.

really Jeff? you mean like joe 'clean and articulate' biden? or hairy 'ne gro dialect' reid? or SHEETS BYRD???

jeff - Never said you called it the law of the land...and yes a lot of other people have been saying that. Repeal of ANY bill passed by Congress is a terribly difficult act and I agree the SCOTUS is the most likely place for it to either stand or fall. What I do find interesting is the bipartisan support that can be drummed up for eliminating parts of it, like they did with the 1099 requirement. Personally i think Obamacare is a solution in search of a problem. It has nothing to do with the actual cost of healthcare and instead attacks the cost of insurance. Well, simple economics dictate that the more expensive something is the more expensive the insurance for that will be no matter if covered by private companies or the government. This bill adds tons of regulations, laws, committees, overseers, etc. into a system already choked with bureaucrats which all cost and typical of any government entity will only grow bigger and more bloated in the future. What this country needs is a real debate on how to bring down the cost of care. Bring that down and the cost of insurance will go down with it, especially if you let companies compete across state lines.

Some Republicans like myself still think like Lincoln. I voted for John Mccain in the 2008 primary. It was a choice between him and Mike Huckabee. And for Barack Obama in November . I hope I'm not the only Lincoln republican who posts in the News Vine.

I hope I'm not the only Lincoln republican who posts in the News Vine.

Me either! ;o)

I truly feel sorry for you Lincoln republicans...

I vote independent and with the left when I vote Fiesty. Except in primaries in Florida when I must vote GOP. I am going to college with a doctorate in political science. I am determined to see the GOP either non-existent or more of centrist body by the time I pass on. I want the GOP to be a party Lincoln would be proud of if he were alive today.

Thank You for the feedback Wade - It wasn't until 'W' that I lost ALL respedt for what's left of the Republican party!

I actually voted for Regaen in my first election in 1980! lol

And THANK YOU for VOTING regardless of affiliation!

Prove it? What a moronic statement, that was the ruling! So it was proved in a court of law.

lvingbare,

You do know two judges found it unconstitutional, and three judges found it constitutional?

This article is discussing Virginia, which found it to be unconstitutional.

lvingbarefoot

Prove it? What a moronic statement, that was the ruling! So it was proved in a court of law.

Idiot, read it again. I'm not a legal person but I read. -- it's about the SC. Furthermore, the reluctance of the SC to fast track Cucillinelli, 3-2 victory, and the world knowing t-baggers are nuts doesn't sound very promising to me. More importantly, since it is a mixed bag of states neither you or I can say it is unconstitutional. Then, again when you're a t=bagger things get lost in translation.

I like the way you think Old GOP.

I know the Republicans have done everything they could to kill hope and stood in the way of any good changes.

We will still be here as America means something to us, while others biggest goal seems to be killing America and especially the American Dream. Which side are you on?

Old argument that doesn't hold up. No one requires you to own a car and a lot of people in NYC for example do not and they therefore are not required to buy car insurance. Also, car insurance is mandated at the State level, not Federal. The individual mandate is both federal and requires ALL citizens to purchase. You want a discussion point you might consider comparing this to Social Security and Medicare instead in which all "working" Americans are forced to participate.

1) Does the federal government require you to buy car insurance? 2) Do you need to buy car insurance if you don't own a car?

You don't have to buy car insurance, you just wont be able to drive if you don't get it. You will have to pay and have medical insurance or else you will get a fine/tax that you have to pay. That is the problem with the bill, the requirement that you buy insurance for yourself or they fine/tax you.

The analogy to the "don't drive?- Don't buy car insurance" is a good one. It needs to be taken to the next logical place:

"don't want to buy health insurance?- That's fine. BUT- carry a card or ID bracelet that says 'in case you find me on the road suffering injuries from a car accident, do NOT take me to an ER or other care-giving place. Let me suffer or die. This was MY choice".

drive-by-observer - That is not actually a logical step. The whole "people use the ER instead of a regular Doctor" is a red herring. The majority of people do not use the ER unless they are in extremis even if they do not have insurance. The ones using the ER as a regular doctor are actually those with Medicaid because they don't want to wait for an appointment or simply don't want to make one. If your doctor takes Medicaid ask them which group of people most often don't show up for their appointments?

If you don't want to buy insurance then you will be stuck under the bills. Will people wind up declaring bankruptcy over this? Quite possibly, they do today as well. The problem isn't "insurance" it's the cost of care. Nothing in this bill addresses bringing down the actual cost of an aspirin in the hospital or a CAT scan. You want to bring down the cost of insurance, that's easy. All you have to do is open the borders and let companies compete across state lines. The only regulation on that you need is to keep them from doing what cable companies have done, i.e. slice the country up between them and not go into each others' markets. You want to bring down the cost of actual care, that involves malpractice insurance and liability reform, reducing time from R&D to market and other factors, again, none of which are addressed in the current bill.

No one is required to have auto insurance.

In fact there are many people who do not own a car.

Their choice. No insurance.

It would be unconstitutional to require them to purchase auto insurance.

Also, there is no federal requirement to purchase auto insurance. That is a state requirement. Until recently it was not a requirement in TN.

Opening the borders and hoping the insurance companies will do the right thing is not enough JJ. Health insurance companies have gotten rich by being able to exclude people they felt were a bad risk. Why would they allow people they deem to be bad risks in other states on their plans? Obviously there has to be a penalty in place to deny any insurance firm the option of excluding people due to preexisting conditions.

The most aggravating thing about the SC in the past few decades is their narrow focus. Even when they say in their own rulings that there are broader issues that will require rulings in the future they will not touch them unless a very specific case is brought to them. When they know there are broader issues they should deal with those and make a decision instead of waiting for more and more cases to wend their expensive ways through the courts.

The problem with the SCOTUS is that long ago they stopped interpreting the constition and laws like the founding fathers would have and started to interpret it the way they saw it. What this means is that everyone can have their own view and opinion and laws can virtually go anyway depending upon the people involved.

That long time ago was when FDR threatened to add more justices to the SC who would find constitutionality in all aspects of the New Deal. Instead of allowing the size of the court to grow, the SC changed their prior rulings regarding the laws. From that point forward, precedence has been set for future rulings.

Ronfromflorida

One man is blocking this case from being heard.

Wow it is amazing how little some of you people know or understand the legal workings of this country. The president can't block the SCOTUS!!!! Some of the comments by you repubs just show how out of touch and ignorant you folks really are......Keep on hating you hypocritical supposed Christians.

They have tried and failed.

job: and you think they won't try again? LOL

Who knows what 2012 will bring.

They don't want a Black Man telling them.

job: you need someone to tell you what to do and take care of you, since you don't have the intellect to take care of yourself, obviously.

Driving is not a right .....it is a Privialage that comes with responsibility......liability insurance.

you are comparing apples to oranges

Job1........that asinine

Rob - Take just a moment to think next time before you post. The Federal government doesn't require every citizen in the US to have car insurance. If you don't own a car you don't have to buy it, ask any of the several million people in NYC who don't own cars. Also, car insurance is mandated at the State level, not the Federal level. Hopefully this has brought you just a bit of enlightenment and your next post will reflect a clearer view on reality.

This whole "You don't have to own a car" argument is vapid, at best.

Yes, the ownership of a car is a voluntary decision which, in turn, requires the car owner to carry valid insurance. The states have mandated auto insurance to ensure that personal property and injury are compensated in the event of an accident where the driver injures / damages another party. I agree that through the desicion to buy a car the buyer is assuming responsibility to cary insurance.

However, humans are very limited in their decisions to stay healthy. they can eat right exercise all day, living a very healthy lifestyle, and still end up in a catastrophic medical situation.

People don't have a choice whether or not to be born, to be alive. And, in some cases, have not ability to prevent catastrophic medical events.

You can choose to drive. You can not CHOOSE to live. Since We have no choice about being born, all American's should be required to carry health insurance to ensure that their health costs are not shifted to the community at large.

Job1

"They don't want a Black Man telling them."

Why are the elitist leftist so obsessed with race? Or is that just the standard tactic once they run out of counter arguments? Obama had the majority of popular vote, which required the white votes to get, and was actually elected by the white electoral college. The fact that he is half black never entered the equation except for the elitist left. The issue now is not his racial mix, its his socialist agenda.

Ted - The problem is I don't want government any more in control of "how" I live than necessary. Yes, you don't have the choice of if you live (well, actually you do but suicide is illegal) nor if you get catastrophically sick, but you DO have the choice if you want to have insurance to help you if you do...for now. This is a basic risk assessment in your life, just like deciding to buy or not buy flood insurance. A person should have the freedom to weigh the risks and benefits of spending the money on health insurance not have that decision mandated for them. If they decide not to buy insurance and they wind up needing expensive care then they made a bad assessment and they (or their estate) should pay the consequences.

I hear you argument JJ and agree in part; A responsible adult should have these choices.

The issue is, however, that not everyone making this decision is responsible. You're absolutely right, It's a risk assessment. Many people, especially young adults, will take the risk of not carrying insurance. Then catastophy! These people are in the ER getting care on OUR dimes. I don't know about you, but I don't know many young adults (the group most likely to take the risk of not carrying insurance) carry a couple hundred grand in the bank in case of a catastrphic health issue. They may be upstanding people and pay over time. or, they may not. when they don't these costs are shifted to us in higher prices.

The mandate is the only way to protect everyone from everyone elses poor decisions.

Thanks for the thoughful reply....

Ted - Agree and disagree too. :-) Sure, some people are not responsible and will make bad decisions or simply run into bad luck. Some of their costs will be shifted to the rest of us true, but then that is the case in everything when there is a large group. Uninsured drivers, people without proper home owners insurance, shoplifters, the rest of the people who consume products pick up the loss they cause. I am not in favor of forcing them to be responsible by making them purchase insurance because 1) I am more in favor of making them pay when they cost the system, and 2) This will continue under this bill because you know there will be plenty of the same irresponsible people who will pay the much smaller fine than get insurance thus continuing a pool of people passing their costs on to us. Along those lines, without bringing down the cost of care (vice attacking the cost of insurance), the number of people paying the fine will only increase over time as the cost of even government insurance will be forced to go up to keep the system from going bankrupt in a very short time. We could actually wind up creating a large group of people without insurance this way.

Dennis I was one of the southern white men to vote for Obama in 2008. Now that he is showing a spine I will vote for him again even if I have to write his name on the Ballot in Tampa.

jollyoldsoul1

Just the fact that Fiesty and Bev are riled up is good enough for me. I love to see those panties all tied up in a wad of knots

That's because you're a freak

and looking like monkey bread!

Monkey bread??

Troll the world knows the T-baggers are sociopaths and nuts. Free"Dumb"works is dwindling

How the international media is covering the Tea Party. The Horror, The Horror... and the Pity

[snip]

the Tea Party has risen in tandem with the "Ground-Zero-inspired Muslim baiting frenzy" and is driven largely by the "bigoted rabble-rouser" Glenn Beck

Argentinian newspaper Clarin dispatched its correspondent to cover Christine O'Donnell's campaign in Delaware, they were clearly flabbergasted by what was taking place in the United States. Their correspondent wrote about hoping to figure out how someone who is "uneducated, unemployed, having a history of tax evasion, who used to practice witchcraft when she was young, who militantly fought masturbation, and who now defends creationism, could unseat the incumbent Republican.

China Daily: Tea Party as a "polarizing groundswell .

Der Spiegel's takes particular note of Beck's warnings against European-style socialism and allusions to Hitler and Stalin, making the case that the Tea Party is a movement of "blue-collar workers with posters of pin-up girls in their lockers.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/10/26/how_the_world_sees_the_tea_party?page=0,1

Yes, you , T-bagger , need to take a look at

1. your numbers are going down

2. you are a video of American screw balls going badly by the world and rational Americans.

If you dont know what Monkey Bread is....... you certainly are not very handy in the kitchen. Although Im the Chief Network engineer for a global manf. corp, my degree is in Culinary arts specializing in baked goods and Eurasian foods. What I meant to say is that I am and have been an Independent since I started voting at 18 and well through my 10 years in the military. I actually voted for Mr. Carter and Mr. Clinton, but royal quad of this blog keeps me in stitches, your exactly what drives me as a valid Independent absolutely in the other direction. You, Fiesty, navyboy (still think he was a BM in the deck crew) and a selection of others (the Maine nut and Jody) make me think of the old Felix the cat cartoon where he bought all his friends. All they could say was "Hello Fiesty (felix) my good pal, my good buddy, my good friend!"

If you think they are running you life now, let the Republicans have complete control of the office of President and both Houses. You ain't seen anything yet. That’s when the corporations will be in charge.

you mean the government will give boatloads of cash to companies, like obama did with GM, chrysler, goldman sachs, aig, etc?

Which is being paid back. Also, remember the money that W. Bush gave at the end of his term to save the country from going down the tubes.

LOL sure it is...keep dreaming.

the country wasn't going down the tubes...bush was an idiot.....they manufacured a crisis to grab more power for the government.

Joe, you must have been somewhere else.

job: CRA...fannie...freddie...ring a bell?

Uh, Joe the crisis was manufactured not for the goverment, but the corporations to gain more power. You are being used every way but right.

right sure it was...banks always want to loan money to people they know can't repay them...let me guess you think the banks were behind Obama sueing them on behalf of ACORN right??? LOL

Joe answer me one thing. Who gained the power from the meltdown? Did one corporation go to jail, no they got billions in taxpayer money and gave themselves big bonuses. Who got the tax breaks? The same people, I am so surprised.

Downsizing the goverment is the push for corporations to take over. Is this really to the government and the peoples benefit to kill America? If this was the government grab for power, they failed.

As much as you would like to believe the poor robbed America of all the billions it was Wall Street.

the government did...more regulations and rules to *save* us all!! and gullible people like you think thats what government is for.

please demonizing others is what democrats do so gullible and easily led people will scapegoat them and blame others for their own problems...we've seen it before especially with fascists

oh please the corporations taking over...don't like a corporation?? don't buy their product...you can't do that with the government....get a clue.

job1 - Just to clear something up here. The money which is getting paid back by those evil Wall Street companies was part of the TARP plan passed under Bush, as was $13.4B of the GM bailout. I still disagree with it, especially since the government now is pushing to sell their GM stock at a loss, but quite simply it was supposed to act like a loan. The stimulus on the other hand under Obama had no provisions for paying anything back and was a direct hand out.

Then why would there be an appeal? Jim do you have any education?

Obviously livingbarefoot you don't have an education... Appeal is the normal way to challenge a law, until it's heard by the US Supreme Court it remains constitutional

Jim - in the Federal Court that covers VA it was found unconstitutional, thus the appeal to the next higher court and eventually to the Supreme Court. It really is a simple system, but one apparently beyond your grasp.

No, the lower courts ruling is in effect until overturned by a higher court.

lvingbare,

You do know two judges found it unconstitutional, and three judges found it constitutional in the lower courts?

Job1 - It isn't like a baseball score you know. The guy who gets the most district judges to side with him doesn't win the game. The ruling of one district judge does not affect a different district.

That's right. However, it doesn't make sense for one side to declare that there has been a ruling that the health care law is unconstitutional. No so.

Job1 - The point here is that with an unconstitutional ruling this law can be held up from being implemented because once a judge makes that decision and unless they put a stay on that decision, it IS unconstitutional in that district. So, considering this article was about Virginia and as best I can find out the judge in this case did not put a stay, for that district it is unconstitutional and can be kept from being implemented.

Judge Henry Hudson of VA only ruled that part of the law was unconstitutional. Plus he ruled that the part that is unconstitutional did not invalidate the rest of the law. To cap it off he did not grant an injunction on the law. Therefore the Federal government can continue down the road of Heath Care Reform and Virginia has to go along as well as the other 49 states and other territories as well. Since two other Federal Judges ruled differently than Judge Hudson that is one of the reasons this will eventually make it to the Supreme Court.

The ruling was like the one for the AZ immigration law where a Federal Judge ruled parts of it were illegal. But the parts that were illegal did not invalidate the entire law. That Federal Judge also put an injunction on the parts he felt were illegal and therefore those parts can not be enforced by AZ.

Seriously, you have no clue what you're talking about. You do understand that insurance companies including Medicare and Medicaid ALREADY set the prices they will pay for every code and procedure, right? There is nothing in HCR that will dictate what you can make beyond that. And if you really want to go into medicine to help people (rather than just those with good incomes/good insurance), you would see the benefit of more people being able to afford healthcare, including preventative healthcare, instead of having to use the ER and pass the cost on to the rest of us in higher costs or reduced productivity. You might want to check into what the law really contains instead of some of the false stuff you're quoting. For instance, nobody's going to jail over HCR. See here: http://www.factcheck.org/2010/10/health-care-spin-again/

DrDrGimmetheNews

Great Post.

Get ready for medical hell. I am currently in a country praised for its wonderful socialised medcal program. The typical scenerio is: You go to the local clinic (private practise family doctors are rare and take months for appointment), you sit for a minimum of 2 hours for whatever doctor is available (they are restricted to a maximum of 50 patients a shift). You get a maximum of 15 minutes with a doctor who may or may not look at your chart to see what tests and medication has been prescribed already. If the problem is worse than a cold you may be referred to a hospital, take a fistful of coins because there is no free parking there, even the emergency room requires paid parking. If you are prescribed medicine be ready to pay full price, no more $5.00 co-pay for medicine. If a test is required it will take a minimum of a month to get(heart in my case), one of mine is taking 6 months to get(the liver function). When the test is done and there is a treatment if you have the thousands of dollars great, if you dont just slowly die. Kind of sound like the local county emergency room? Its worse believe me. At christmas time there is a pot next to the salvation army pot so local hospitals can get needed equipment and materials. Want decent care? all you have to do is get supplimental insurance and you can get insurance comparable to the level of insurance through work but it will cost more than your used to now. If obama was serious about health care the BEST thing he could do is work on jobs for Americans, but that would be doing his job and would not appease the slaves of the state who think they are getting something for nothing.

Dennis, I am waiting for some one to challenged you on your post, to see what they say. I have employees in just about every emea country and most Asian countries. The ones that have socialized medicine have lots of issues. My people in the UK hate it, not the people being treated for free (welfare people) but the people who are and have been always working. Spain is worse, France is even worse. I dont think anyone is going to be able to rebut your statements. Not many liberals on here have never lived in another county, yet the spew because they have read travel books!

Dennis,

Real medical hell, no two hour wait, actually no doctor visit at all. If you want any test at all you pay full price and if you can not afford it no test. All doctor visits and medications cost full price. Actually you can not afford to get sick at all. DayQuil works real well for going to work sick as you have a job with no sick days.

Attention DrDrgimmethenews,

read the government will not put you in prison immediately. However, failure to pay your "fees" will and can result in sever fines ($695 per person, with a maximum penalty of $2,085 for a family, or 2.5 percent of income, whichever is greater). The government can then acquire the "owed funds" by confiscating any PFD's, tax returns and up to and including leaning on wages. If those measurments fail, a maximum 25,000 dollar fine is in order and prison time, not to exceed 1 year, can be utilized. Though the government would avoid this, you cost more in prison then outside prison, it is possible.

Not to mention, "In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure." This does sound nice and appealing, however, Obama openly states that there will be penalties and they must be sever enough to motivate people to "follow the rules of the system", Not to mention obama was asked that question three times and each time he deflected the question. Sorry, but when the president won't, right out in the open, say there will be no jail time what so ever and that no legal action will take place against those who refuse/can't pay then there is the possibility of jail time existing and sever penalties, it's just that the loop hole for it hasn't been revealed yet or some new amendment hasn't been added. Just wait and see, when enough people refuse/can't pay the governmet will find a way to "motivate" them.

All The MAJOR Medical Center CHAINS Stock Did Not Fold !

All Medical INSURANCE Stock ( GOP ) Went UP !

Obama ( Watered it DOWN for the ( BLUE / Corporate = ( GOP ) GREEDY PIGS!

With The GOP Handing Washington to CORPORATIONS Since REAGAN Began it!

That is What OBAMA had to COMPROMISE with!

It is NOT Single PAYER! ( GOP ) CRY like it IS! ( NO PLEASING ) u FOXED UP FOOLS!

Thankfully with GOP Goal of ( EVERYBODY Living on MINIMUM Wage) or ILLEGAL SERVANTS=TEXAS 2012

It is a Start and Hopefully Will Be IMPROVED after 2012 GOP / SELF DESTRUCTION!

( Remember ) They CLAIMED OBAMA was TAKING to MUCH ON ????????

The GOP & TEA- BAGGERS ( FEAR & SMEAR & HATE ) is BLOWING up in THIER FACES!

The reason for all of the exemptions is because these are limited benefit plans that don't meet the new standards of plan requirements. Without the limited benefit plans, employers will either pay the fines and not offer coverage or will offer coverage and fire many employees or the final option is offer the required coverage and raise their prices to cover the costs.

Ya'll must still believe in Santa Claus too..............This will raise cost for every business and stop new hiring.

We heard This SINCE REAGAN!

The DEBT is NOT Getting CORRECTED by GOP!

The OLD GOP LIE / Business Will MOVE is CRAP !

They DID Anyway !

Wow! Old gop is one hysterical mess! Dude, the nodules on your prostrate must be yelling at each other.

jollyoldsoul1

Kill any puppies today? Looks like you are on a role.

Ummm Im not one to be picky......but the correct spelling would be Roll. As in "thats the way I roll!" Lmao...... my 3 yorkies are going to tear you up! See you would have spelled it tare!

bookemdanno - The unions with exemptions do not have limited benefit plans in many cases, nor do plenty of the others. But even if they did....the consequences you mentioned will still be there when the waiver runs out, which means that's another problem this bill is causing/will cause.

Thanks, JJ. I should have been more clear. Many of the exemptions are being given to the likes of McDonalds and other companies with a relatively fluid work force.

The unions were, from my recollection, exempt from the provisions directly in the law and were not special exemptions like those for McDonalds.

Booken Danno - Actually plenty of unions are in the exemption list either in or out of the bill which still begs the question of what will happen when the exemptions expire? The same thing as if it would happen today, just a couple years later. So why the exemptions? Are they either 1) expecting them to continue ad infinitum or 2) is this just a way to keep people from seeing something that might make them like the bill even less?

No, exemption in this case, means a one-year extension until the rest of the law kicks in, including the insurance pools.

Danno

Close to 2000 now and growing daily.........THE POINT IS......What Idiot/group of Idiots would write and pass a law with no concept of how it would effect businesses and jobs. More proof not a single Democrat cared enough to read the bill before they voted yes. Nancy was right " you have to pass it to find out what's in it"

What 45 percent is that Dennis, the people below the poverty line, the elderly, the disabled? And your solution is what? I'm listening though I do not promise to agree.

I can see your level of thinking reflected in your name. I suppose next you will be posting fart jokes?

Yet Mike7, if the TP'ers and repubs have their way,

Only the rich will be the new Hitler's

mj: notice how your savior has taken over the banks, car companies and insurance companies? crony capitalis (ie fascism) anyone?

Joe,,, How come they are all still privately owned? Get off the old rhetoric dude

Jim: how privately owned is any company anymore when the government tells them where they can build plants...and they have to hire union thugs (boeing) hmmmmm?

Uh, joe, they tell them where they cannot build plants when they are breaking the law. See here: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/business/21boeing.html?_r=2

oh yes breaking the law...what law? oh yeah the decrees of your union thug in chief...

so much for freedom and democracy.

Breaking the law is something this regime does on a daily basis. 0bama will get thumped in 2012 just like those who followed his agenda did in 2010.

I think that Obama is very rich. He made 7.5 million last year. Thats a darn good wage I wasn't aware presidents were paid so well. How's the food stamps holding out for you America? Democrats have your back now.

If the a,s,s,h,o,l,e republicans would do their job there would be plenty of jobs binging in plenty of tax dollars. But no they just keep looking for ways to make the rich richer and screw the middle class.It becomes less likely they will control anything in 2012 including the house.

People listen, look, shake their heads,laugh, and vote against them they just dont have it together and are out of touch with mainstream America.

People are having a hard time caring for their own family's and now they want you to provide for your parents to even though the government sole 2.5 trillion dollars from S.S.

@Joe, 25.2, 25.4, 25.6 more unsupported lies and mockery. Do you torment animals too?

Jim: what facts have you ever used? how about the fact that we're bankrupt thanks to your failed socialist policies?

Joe, You make no sense. It's like you are reading from an old Republican 2008 play book.

"Socialism" again Joe? No, this nation isn't bankrupt --- I'll bet you think the moon is made out of green cheese, don't you?

Jim: of course it isn't bankrupt...that 14 TRILLION of debt is just monopoly money!!!

are you on drugs?

Job: you haven't noticed we can't pay for those failed PONZI schemes of social security and medicare? where are we gonna get all that money from?? hmmm?? 75 TRILLION or so of unfunded liability?

Social security and Medicare are here to stay. They work great.

uh sure they do....all ponzi schemes work great until the pyramid tips over...and thats whats happening now...how are we going to pay for that 75 TRILLION of so of unfunded liability? hmmmm???