Like, before that ethics investigation thing catches up with us, you have to vote against Obamacare. Our income depends on it.

Followed by, would you please pass the salt honey! lol

The true test will come when, this reaches the SCOTUS and whether or not the ethically challenged Thomas recuses himself...

I won't be holding my breath...

The Sixth Circuit Court is considered a very conservative court. My great uncle
served on that court.

Talking about late breaking news: Nikki Haley vetoes funding for the South Carolina Primaries. It looks like the Tea Party can control a caucus far better than the ballot box. That's good news for Bachmann and bad news for Romney and Huntsman. It's all about politics.

Well, if Thomas and Sotomayor both recuse themselves, I guess that's a push, eh?

Oh, baby. Here we go.

Anna Molly: That comment was just for you. And you are right, Here we go.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained, Ron. ;-)

But the court said self-insuring affects interstate commerce, by shifting the costs of the un-insured to people who have insurance,

and that is the key. why am I forced to pay for those who don't have it (don't wanna have it or can't have it)? I pay extra through premiums and I pay extra through taxes...I don't have a choice so why are we worried about the rights of those who are deadbeats (and I am not talking about those who cannot have insurance due to pre-existing conditions).

Can't wait for Karen in Los Angeles to show up on this one...or perhaps she won't...lol

What people are beginning to realize is that not only is there an individual mandate in in the HRA at stake, there are precisely identical mandates in other programs equally at stake.

1) Medicare Part D has a mandate that you MUST purchase a private health insurance prescription plan at the "moment of eligibility" for Medicare Part A (which is free.) If you do not purchase it, you are fined $5,000 and 1% per month of premiums, cumulatively, with no upper cap. The fine and increased premium are collected by Social Security from pending social security checks or by the IRS is the amount of your checks is insufficient to cover it. So, when the GOP does it as in Medicare Part D, or Romney does it as a part of Massachusetts health care, it is okay. When Obama does exactly the same thing, it is unconstitutional. Good thinking there, GOP. Just don't get in any paper bags that you have to think your way out of.

2) The whole idea of requiring individuals to buy insurance is placed at risk by the GOP. This includes car insurance, performance insurance required by the federal government in contracts, and even such things as road taxes for trucks.

3) And who does the GOP want to foot the bill? The taxpayer. It's just okay with the GOP to have deadbeats who don't plan to buy insurance until they have cancer. They are the party of freeloaders, corporate welfare, tax and spend politics. It's okay for the taxpayer to pick up the tab --- the GOP will accompany it with another tax cut for the wealthy and the right will buy it as a good thing even though it is money out of their pocket.

Ron, your description of Clarence Thomas and his wife at dinner made me laugh. All I can picture is Clarence looking at his wife's drink, and asking her if that's a pubic hair in her drink.

What idiots we have on the courts! Buying wheat or growing your own wheat has nothing to do with this case. That would only apply if the choice were between buying gov't approved health insur or buying insurance that wasn't gov't approved.

This is a case of the government fining you if you do nothing!

Mark my words. If this abortion of a healthcare bill isn't repealed, there will be a nationwide protest in the form on non compliance of taxpayers refusing to tell the IRS anything about what health insurance they do or don't have. You can't hire enough IRS agents, Mr President, to track all of us down!

I do not agree with the individual mandate. Forcing someone to buy something from a private company does not sit well with me. On the other hand, hospitals and other health care providers should not be forced to treat someone who can not pay for their services. It is a double edged sword. If you want the right to not buy insurance, you can not then expect others to pick up the tab when you get sick and can not pay the bills. Other than emergency life saving measures, health care providers should be allowed to require a person to demonstrate an ability to pay before being treated.

Te example people always give of car insurance is not a good analogy for two reasons. First, in almost every state, you have the ability to post a financial responsibility bond instead of having insurance, so insurance is really not required. Also, driving a car is not a right, it is a privilege. It is not something you must do, and many people that live in cities do not even have drivers licenses, let alone cars to insure. Since living is a right, requiring people to buy health insurance just because they are alive seems to violate the constitution.

@Chris...Thats why we wont vote for Romney and you hear conservative candidates condemning him for that very thing.."Romneycare" Also I dont have to buy a car I can take the bus,bike or have my mom drive me around like yours does and never buy auto insurance. I think when we go to any hospital we should have to prove we have healthcare coverage or we dont get taken care of.Wait I as in the American citizen already have to do that. I want to make an appointment with a physician then I must give them my provider. Too bad the illegals dont have to worry about that. But according to you they or maybe not they just us citizens are required to purchase insurance and they can continue to use it for free. Cause those are the ones who are burdening(freeloading) the system.And not just hospitals but schools as well and thats you wonderful liberals crown jewel--Give it all to the illegals. And the wheat farmer being told he cant grow wheat on his own farm??!!?? Russia anyone.The courts are becoming socialist on the road to communist hacks..

Beangrinder,

All I can say is that if you or anyone else opts out and refuses to get coverage, don't come climbing into any emergency room thinking you'll get free coverage... not on MY dime. Its people like you that are arguing based on "principle"... the principle that this is Obama's bill so you want it repealed no matter what.

FeelnGoodw/Christ,

So you don't see the hypocrisy of complaining about freeloaders and illegal immigrants (where did THAT come from?), then allowing people to not carry medical insurance? You can say you won't freeload all day long, but let there be an accident and let you go to the hospital and guess what, you will become that free-loader... a freeloading hypocrite.

what no one is really addressing here is that this argument is between those that believe in shared responsibility and those who don't care about anyone else. personally I think that lincoln was right in that a government by of and for the people should be for all the people. darn that commy lincoln!!

Well, philisophically those who don't want to pay for others healthcare just because it is 'my money don't touch it,' are moronic. Its like people who think the police should only protect certain law abiding citizens, or fire departments who only put out certain citizen's fires. Basically, regardless of how those selfish and naive people feel, society isn't about that. Not any society worth living in on the planet.

Now, having said that, nobody likes supporting people who just live off 'the system.' But really, in regards to healthcare, this is a non-issue. People who 'opt out' are certainly causing stress on the medical system, since emergency room care still cannot be denied to them. Some things you pay for, no matter what, in this society, and when it comes to medicine (as with the examples of police and fire departments) you pay to live here. And if you don't like it, you'll quickly find out that you don't have many places to live in the world, at all. But if you didn't like it, you'd at least be putting your money where your mouth is if you moved to, say, Antarctica.

So if you think the gov't has the right (not we have the right anymore) to force or compel you to buy some product.. then you will love it when this shameless President forces you to buy a Government Motors piece of crap or pay a $10k fine for buying any other brand, right? Or better yet... force everyone to spend money they don't have to buy solar panels or face a $25k fine!

Sounds ridiculous but by extension that is the power you are surrendering to the Gov't by allowing this whimsical piece of legislation to exist. NO ONE has a right to health care, it's not in the bill of rights nor is it in the Constitution.

The problem with socialism is that they believe everyone is entitled to the same outcome regardless of effort or ethics. The Constitution (a document that has been trampled to death) guarantees everyone EQUALITY of OPPORTUNITY it doesn't guarantee EQUALITY of OUTCOME.

So for everyone who subjectively tries and fails (and it is subjective) is entitled to the wealth and outcome of those who try and succeed? That is what is at stake with Obamacare. Do we continue down the road of stealing from some to pay for all and how long with the "some" continue to let this happen before they finally cut their losses, take their wealth and move it and themselves to another nation who recognizes the value of hard work and wise investment?

Sad that we've come down this road at all.. Obamacare was supposed to be about reducing healthcare costs... but instead has become another tax on success and others benefits to give to those that arguably have invested little into themselves.

I like only two aspects of this new law.. insuring until 26 and no exclusions due to prior ailments. Sensible but hardly taxing...

April 12, 1861...here we go again.

Whether you like the mandate or not, this is the right decision. The appeals court rightly ruled that previous supreme court rulings set an applicable precedent. In the cited wheat case, the Supreme Court ruled that congress CAN regulate someone's decision NOT to buy something when that decision affects interstate commerce.

Period. End of Story. Unless you republicans think the Roberts court should ignore existing, established Supreme Court precedent (AGAIN!).

It would be a new day in America when that tyrannical Supreme Court can uphold any citizen's freedom, instead of the government's or corporation's self-interests. That the corruption extends over generations shows fully the extent of the despotism which controls us all, and keeps us in thrall.

Scott - That misquote of Lincoln was about the worse I've seen to date.. do us all a favor read some history, understand it and the context quotes are used and then the biggest favor of all is to not interject your opinion and justify it with someone else's quote when you obviously haven't a clue as to what they said.

A gov't for the people and by the people talks about a gov't responsive to the people. Lincoln was addressing the Civil War and nothing about economics. Arguably this gov't isn't about the people or for the people any longer. It's about power, corruption and pandering to Wall Street Brokers and their friends like Timmy Geithner, Hank Paulson and Jon Corzine. It's about Goldman Sachs and JPMorganChase and AARP and nothing to do with you or me.

Research who has gotten exemptions from Obamacare (heard or equal protection under the law?) or the people making billions from it.. all friends of the President all contributors to his campaign. Greed and avaricious are alive and well in D.C.

As for the argument how much it costs us for the uninsured.. consider what it will cost a bankrupt gov't to insure them? Now they will go to the Doc for every cough they get. Look to England and how their own ex-director of HHS just died waiting for surgery! Or how foreign dignitaries come here for surgery and elect to skip their own concocted gov't medical care. Why is that? So the rich will get the best care and now the middle class will get the same care the uninsured get? That is Obamacare.

Hmmmmm....

So we tell everyone that they have to buy their own insurance OR we have to pay for the healthcare of the uninsured.

Sorry, but I would rather a deadbeat pay for his own insurance instead of requiring ME to pay for it.

THAT is the issue. Hospitals WILL NOT turn away people in need . . . it WILL NOT HAPPEN. I don't care what the GOP says, or how much the argue, they will not change that fact. Hospitals WILL help those in need, insurance or not.

So you either require everyone to get insurance, or you pay for the lazy GOPers that don't want to get insurance. Sorry GOP, but you will not force me to PAY for you . . . it's time for you to be personally responsible.

No one likes mandates, including auto insurance. The difference is being forced to buy from the for-profit private sector versus participation in a non-profit government administered program like Medicare (via FICA with-holdings). This is why single-payer health care is what we need if there's to be a mandate.

Another difference is basic need (health care) versus transportation. The argument, however, that you don't have to drive is a joke because most of America is rural, and even urban centers don't have public transportation at a sufficient level to go without a car. How about this one -- We have to pay taxes to provide public schools. Is education in the Constitution, is education more of a basic need than health care? There are a lot of comparisons to be made.

Voice of Reason - The problem with socialism is that they believe everyone is entitled to the same outcome regardless of effort or ethics.

You're confusing socialism with communism regarding efforts or ethics. Socialism is government programs, but it is based on contribution. The amount of a Social Security check is based on contribution--it's not the same amount for everyone. And Medicare is a fee-for-service program--it's not free if you want to use it. Once again, we all pay taxes to provide public education (regardless of whether a person has kids or the same number of kids). Everyone is guaranteed equal access to K-12 regardless of contribution. That's more like communism.

If you don't have your health, than you don't have anything. What's wrong with you people. We need a better system. We need single-payer.

So if I grow my own vegetables in my own garden, the government can take me to court to stop it because it might affect 'interstate commerce'?

Give me a break. The Filbert decision was under a declared federal emergency (WW2), when rationing might have been justified, but should hardly apply to open markets today. In fact, I think it was wrong even then. If the government can 'require' you to purchase something from a 'for profit' company, where does it stop? Can they also 'require' us to buy a car from GM? We should have the right to self-insure if we choose, rather than paying a profit to some insurance company. If this is allowed to stand, then there is no 'freedom' that the government cannot take away from us. Scary.

This should be an interesting Supreme Court decision - when it finally gets there.

I hope to heck this does reach the SCOTUS soon. This was a proper ruling given precedents and stare decisis, you know, those things liberals wet their panties over? But, really, is there much logic to this if it's based upon an opinion about growing wheat or not?

Do YOU want to live in a country where the government can make you buy something you do not want to? Think of the logic here...First, we give tax breaks to third-party payer plans. Second, because of the resulting influx of money, costs skyrocket. Third, because costs skyrocket we decide we have to have the government pay for the care of many people. Fourth, because costs continue to skyrocket the government says you have to act how they want, not how you want. Fifth, after none of this works to resolve the pricing problem the government then decides how much care you can have and when you can have it. And all of this is valid based upon the weird idea that the USSC 60 years ago decided a farmer couldn't grow his own wheat because it hurt the US wheat market.

Enjoy your freedom. And your bread and circus.

When this gets the USSC I hope they toss out the entire circus, reverse their previously idiotic opinion, and allow freedom to increase. This necessarily means that liberals lose as liberty and liberalism share no common ground but for five letters. Androloma has it right--we live in despotic times where the constitution means absolutely nothing to most Americans. One outcome, and only one outcome can result--serfdom.

Those who whine about the mandate and having to pay taxes to cover health care coverage for the poor don't seem to have a fundamental understanding of how insurance works.

Take bayllie, for example, with a highly rated comment that seems to say that people with standard health insurance pay all their own health care costs. Sometimes, yes. But sometimes, no.

Suppose, for example, that you have family coverage that costs $1500 a month, or $18,000 per year. Now suppose, for example, that your child gets leukemia, or you have a heart attack and need multiple by-pass surgery. How far do you think $18,000 a year goes toward that, much less toward the additional health care costs of your other family members?

Well, then, how does that work, you ask? In reality, insurance is about spreading risk out among populations. That's what the mandate is all about. By requiring the poor to have insurance, it allows them to get lower-cost care through the conventional health care system, instead of, as explained by others above, having to use more costly emergency room services, for which bayllie as a taxpayer is already paying. If it all worked out, bayllie might even save money herself because of the mandate.

Now, even after this explanation, bayllie may still resent having to pay for anyone else's health care costs ... that is, until the day she is left on her own, because her employer drops its insurance program, to pay for her own kidney dialysis.

And then we'll see how bayllie feels about it.

I wonder how they plan to 'force' illegal immigrants to purchase health insurance when they cannot afford it?

Probably just another case of ignoring enforcement of the laws against illegal immigrants.

What we need is universal health care, like every other industrialized country in the world. Somehow they manage to cover everyone, at about half of the cost per person that we pay.

Rich -

Do YOU want to live in a country where the government can make you buy something you do not want to?

The government makes ME pay for the education of YOUR kids . . . even though I don't want to. I think they are completely worthless, mouth-breathing, drains on society. Yet I have to pay for them to be educated. Is that fair? Why should I have to pay for the education of your mistakes? I didn't want you to have kids, it was not my decision.

and allow freedom to increase.

Like the freedom to do whatever we want with our own bodies? Oh wait . . . no, you want to take that away.

What about the freedom to get into a legal contract with anyone we want? This contract will combine out assets, provide a tax break, and require the more financially stable party to contribute monetarily upon termination of said contract. You support that freedom, right? Oh wait . . . no, you want to tell us who we can and can not sign a contract with (marriage).

Yes, you definitely represent the party of freedom.

I wonder what the government will decide that we must 'buy' from private companies next? Perhaps we will be required to purchase solar panels for our houses because it will affect 'interstate commerce' (electricity prices) if we don't - accompanied by a $25,000 fine for anyone that refuses. Or perhaps the government will require that we buy nothing but hybrid cars, since it will affect gasoline prices if we don't, along with a hefty fine.

That would make just about as much sense as this law.

Where does it end when the government gets to decide virtually everything that we can and cannot do, and fine us if we refuse to do it, or not do it.

This will perhaps be the most important Supreme Court decision in the history of our country.

The legal question is easy.

If "Interstate Commerce" applies to all Commerce, then what would "Intrastate Commerce" apply to?

In another way: Why would they have used the word "Interstate" in the Constitution if they really just meant "Commerce" (All Commerce)?

If a court can't answer what commerce is not interstate, then they cannot define what is interstate.

This is basic logic - and therefore way above the heads of Judges in the US.

My default opinion is that Gov't will not obey the Constitution, and will seek to usurp any power it can. And we all know where absolute power leads...

Dennis, who are you kidding . The Sixth Circuit is not conservative but not as liberal as the ninth on the west coast. This will be decided by the Supreme Court which could be considered conservative but definitely is not liberal. That is the court you need to worry about the balance in. But Democrats keep saying the American people want this bill. So from a Rasmussen poll this week. It says 55% of Americans want the law repealed. About 38% say they don't want it repealed. But of the 38%, 20% say it needs a major overhaul because there are big problems with it. Only 17% of Americans say we need to keep it as is and that it will be good for America. By the way, 7% were unsure. So what we have is a tyranny of a small minority. Why do you think the Democrats are not pushing it as an accomplishment at this point. Because the vast majority of Americans think there are huge problems with it. After passing, Pelosi, Reid, and Obama said the American people would grow to love it. But the opposite is happening.

Buying a car vs. mandatory healthcare purchase could be one of the dumbest analogies I've ever seen. I've heard intelligent arguments against the current health plan. This one doesn't rank among them.

Hi Thoughts From Cali,

I'm not sure why you'd want to insult my kids, but that says something about you I suppose. I'm not sure why, either, you'd pretend to know what I think about the topics you bring up--you are completely wrong, but this misses the point too--when you could have just asked.

On public education...There should be ZERO federal dollars and absolutely no federal control of public education. This is not in the constitution and we should follow the constitution. The only federal involvement should be for those people in the federal system, employees I mean, that the feds want to educate to do something which benefits the feds. Like paying someone in the military, or FBI, or whatever, to get a degree or certificate to help improve the military, or FBI, or whatever. That is an employer option.

On what you should be able to do with your own body...you should. I favor legalizing all drugs. If you want to kill yourself because you are stupid then kill yourself. But don't ask me to pay for your hospitalization or treatment. If you want to smoke, or eat bad food, then you should, but again don't ask for me and others to help bail you out of your decisions.

The larger problem in all of this is your first response. You are convinced you know everyone and what they think, when in fact you are entirely condescending and arrogant, setting up straw men arguments so you can bravely knock them over to prove your...what? point? Which is what? That we should all pay for things not authorized in the constitution because people like you have had your way with the federal government and have disobeyed constitutional limitations for decades? Brilliant my friend.

You REALLY should enjoy your serfdom.

Derek, in business law they are equal. They are still commerce. Driving an auto is a privilege granted by the state which can be revoked. Their is no right under health care which the government has a right to revoke. Yes, the government has the right to regulate commerce. But they do not have the right to mandate or require commerce. We have always had the right to say no to the purchase of anything.

I wonder, as well, where it will stop. By the logic and the precedent being used, it would not be much of a stretch for the government to tell citizens that they cannot grow their own food in their gardens, but must purchase it from the stores. Either that or they will be forced to buy the GM "terminator " seeds, etc. so that they are forced to pay the big Agcorps every year for new seeds, etc. (to support the economy you know). It would also not be a very big stretch for the government to "fix" the economy and unemployment by telling students what careers they will have when they graduate, instead of all the "waste" in letting them take years to decide what they want to do. The government might create an office that is in charge of matching a student's test scores against available jobs - if they're lucky, they'll get a job they like, but there are a lot of low-paying 'Mcjobs' out there to fill, and many students will get pigeonholed in them just because "somebody has to do it" - kind of the same way the military "lets you pick what they want you to be". In the interests of "Interstate Commerce", the government could also decide that too much of certain "talent" was going to too few states (which isn't fair, because it upsets interstate commerce and favors certain states), and decide they need to regulate how many people of a particular skill set or job type should be allowed to live in each state (to make it "fair and balanced" for interstate commerce, you know). Once the limit is reached, people in that category would have to check with the government to see which states they could move to in order to help fill the quotas. This could all be argued as being done "for the sake of the economy, and/or interstate commerce". I know this sounds extreme, but my point is that once they start "stretching the boundaries" of what falls under their jurisdiction of "commerce", it can (and just may) get way out of control.

-- A fondness for power is implanted, in most men, and it is natural to abuse
it, when acquired.

Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, February 23, 1775

Hi Kozmonot,

There is little for me to disagree with you about but for one thing...this idea that we are waiting for federal power to get out of control. The article we are all responding to identifies 1942 as the year in with the USSC ruled that a private person, a farmer, could be forced to NOT grow wheat so as to not upset the wheat market in the USA. And that decision has evolving precedents leading up to it. The question to me isn't whether our federal government is out of control, but rather when, for most people, they realized it.

If a ruling like this, which is ENTIRELY legal and logical given precedent, is allowed to stand, then all we've done is march further towards despotism. Better, imo, for justices to quit paying homage to bad decisions of the past. Too bad for us all that it tends to take many decades--see Plessy for instance, before the court finally acknowledges it was wrong.

Ryan in Texas,

Congratulations for your post #1.32! This is one of the most tortured posts I have EVER had the misfortune of reading. For starters, try to read and UNDERSTAND Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution. Next, take a basic logic course at your local college or university. It may help you understand the word, and how to construct a syllogisism. Maybe even try deductive reasoning or inductive reasoning! Please try ANYTHING but rationalization and 'poppycock'!

Government, local, county state or whatever, can impose itself in given situations to mandate acts that protect the common good. During times of extreme weather or hazardous conditions, the government can impose mandatory evacuation, or orders to stay indoors, to prevent others from coming into risk or harm. In the same way, if people refuse to try to get health insurance and insist on being a burden to the common good by falling back on county and private medical health care facilities at an extreme cost to those providers, then the government should have the right to impose mandates where applicable and sensible goals can be sought for to solve those burdens upon society.

Not just Obama, but several previous administrations have pushed for national health care, exemplified by working and successful version in other nations across the face of our planet. However, attempts to cure this growing need for "Fair Health Care" have always been stumped and trampled by lobbyists and complainers. Wise up people!

The main point is, not whether or not national health care is constitutional, but what is the government proposing for "affordable" health care and "affordable" insurance? If they think that low income families are going to be able to afford $300 a month insurance, they've lost perspective and are merely serving the powers that be in the form of health insurance corporations.

Most low income or poverty level families don't spend that much in monthly health or medical care as it is, without insurance, riding out colds and flues with over the counter meds. Most low income or poverty level families haven't seen a dentist in years, especially since dentists no longer are allowed by their insurance companies to perform even simple extractions in the office due to liability claims, referring patients to oral surgeons at hundreds of times the cost to medical plans.

People whining and complaining about the legality of a mandated national insurance program are barking up the wrong tree. It's not a point of being enslaved to the national demand for health insurance, its the enslavement to an over priced out of control medical society and insurance demons that should worry people as to what hell masters they are serving.

We have needed a national health care plan for decades, and people whining about its constitutionality are merely impeding a much needed service. If half the lazy asses that complain actually got out and voted, if half of the complainers lobbied for "Vote American!" or a similar program to try to get 70% at the polls to help decide WHO is making your laws, we would have less to complain about.

Leaving decisions in legislature to be lobbied by the rich and the financial and corporate powers is far more a sin than is our government trying to build a national health care project.

We should lobby against the amount of power that large insurance corporations have in molding our laws. We should lobby for stricter laws governing insider deals between senators and congressional personas that make under the table trades to promote legislature that leans to the will of money and not the common people.

We should lobby for stricter controls on pharmaceutical companies and the prices they charge for their products which are basically life giving sources at exuberant prices.

Insurance companies lobby for control against high end law suits and seek caps on claims, when the truth is, those insurance claims are far less a burden on insurance companies than what is paid out yearly to pharmacies for meds and procedures, and that's a fact. They are merely trying to get votes and legislation passed against their financial responsibility.

When we learn to quit bitching just to bitch, and unify for the common good, and get off our lazy asses, we will see a better government. For now, we can be controlled under the guise of good government, as long as we sit contentedly behind our computer desks and exercise nothing other than our fingertips in protest, a weak and worthless people.

Rich -

It's quite simply, really . . . your party constantly complains about "paying for others" while you happily allow the government to pay for yourself. Now you may say that we "should" not pay into education, but we do. What we "should" do, and what actually happens are completely different things.

Now I will commend you for sticking to your principles, you are perhaps the only conservative I have met that can do that. You want the government out of everything, including our bodies, marriages, etc. Thank you. Unfortunately the rest of your hypocritical party does not agree.

From an ideological perspective, I agree with you. I hate paying to educate the worthless children of other people, I hate spending money to try and "help" or incarcerate drug users, I hate funding a government department who is responsible to make sure a boob is not shown on TV because parents are too f***ing lazy to actually change the channel, and I hate paying the medical bills of those who refuse to get insurance. Personally, I don't think we should spend money on any of these things. Unfortunately, we do . . . and that will continue.

So if the debate is centered around being "forced" to pay for things you don't want, well there are A LOT of things the family-values party wants to force us to pay for (primarily centered around their damn kids). So when they stop "forcing" the country to pay for their programs, I will support their stance on healthcare. Until that point, they are merely hypocrites.

Scrambolo - Nothing could be more simple.

The Federal Gov't asserts that "Interstate" Commerce includes all Commerce.

But that doesn't explain why they would use the word "Interstate" when they really just meant "Commerce".

Clearly the Constitution was written to limit Gov't power - so tell me how they were given power over all commerce - which would be unlimited power since they define Commerce as things you do AND DON'T DO.

If this legal "interpretation" were to stand - then the Gov't has unlimited power.

Many of us would take up arms against a Gov't that has unlimited power. This is the sort of thing people fight and die for.

My basic assertion is that since the Gov't cannot define what isn't interstate commerce then they can't define what is interstate commerce.

That is basic logic.

You can't define what is green without defining what isn't green.

Again, I can't make it more simple.

If that is too much for you - please do yourself a favor and stop posting and start thinking. It's not near as painful as many would have you believe.

Actually, not true on the right to not buy stuff.

You don't have the right to not buy auto insurance. And not for dissimilar reasons. You don't have the right to not pay your taxes, which is paying for municipalities, social security, medicare, etc. Now I agree, to some end, that there might be a better way to work the health plan, but the analogy to covering those in need of medicine to autos is silly. A better way to say it is to simply ask how much is justifiable to spend on those who need medical care and yet can't afford it. The answer to me is not zero dollars.

Who pays for your health insurance now? Here is a hint; it is not you, unless you print your own money. All insurance is paid from monies given to you by someone else. Never once was I asked if I wanted to contribute to the health insurance of the employees of any product I bought. Whenever possible I buy from companies that do not provide health care for their employees because they most often provide the cheapest price. Those bleeding heart liberal companies that provide health care for their employees charge too much for their product. I just wish that my state had a check box to opt out of paying for health care for state employees when I have to pay my state taxes. We should have congress pass a law that all products must carry a label if the company provides health care for their employees. That would help me make informed purchases. Being in business for myself, if I need more money to pay for health insurance, I just charge my customers more. If you think about it, Local, State and Federal Governments should not provide health care insurance for public workers because so many public businesses do not provide health insurance. The way I see it, the government should level the playing field when it comes to health care because it is so important to a quality life. Either everyone has it provided for them, or no one has it as a benefit. That would be fair, it would get rid of the ‘I have mine, just try to get yours mentality’.

One example of part of the "medical care" problem is this: We expect and/or demand that doctors and hospitals have drugs on hand to treat whatever malady we come in with, but certain conditions are relatively rare enough such as black widow and scorpion envenomations, that US drug companies decide it's too expensive to keep making antidotes because so little of it is actually used every year. their choice is to keep making the relatively small quantities and charge tons of money to those who actually use them, or stop making them and hope someone else picks up that market. We, the consumers are outraged if we have to pay exorbitant prices for a drug that relatively few people actually use, but if we end up one of those that gets envenomated, we also expect/demand that the doctor we go to should have it on hand to treat us. Apparently, the current line of thought is either, "Well, the drug companies should have to make it and sell it cheap (to me) - eating the losses themselves (as a "public service")." - or, "The drug companies should continue to make it and provide it cheap (to me), and let everyone else in the country "pick up the tab" for the cost."

blah blah blah blah bottom line is and I quote " by shifting the costs of the un-insured to people who have insurance" I have daughters who are critical care nurses and they come home from work so disgusted at the people they HAVE to care for - knowing full well what they (and me) have to not only pay for our premiums, but the cost of that xray that person with no insurance was passed on to us. You can't drive without car insurance (including medical) and you shouldn't be able to go to a dr, hospital, or clinic without insurance. So for those that don't want to buy insurance, fine - make sure it is in the law that you WILL be turned away if you break a leg or your kid gets sick. Fix thyself.

Some of us would rather go to prison than let the government tell us what to do.

How can a person be fined for not making a purchase?

If the fine is less than the purchase price he will benefit by not making the purchase... and

If the fine is equal to or greater than the purchase price... the goods should be delivered.

Health insurance is the biggest scam ever devised.

If you want lower costs for health CARE... make health insurance illegal... and watch the prices fall like a knife.

djdrew-

"Low income or poor people don't spend much on healthcare." Duh, they're not paying anything. Taxpayers are.

What exactly is common good? If common is to mean, "of or relating to the public at large," then why is there a healthcare plan at all? If only 30-40 million people are without insurance in the US, then only 10% of people are uninsured which means that the "common good" only applies to those getting the benefit and excludes those paying for it. A common good would be the US military who protects all citizens of the US, the justice system who provides everyone a trial by a jury of their peers, or a municipal water supply whereby 95% of the people of a community get their water.

And to use the argument of lobbyists and the wealthy to support the case for Obamacare; you are certainly missing the point that the mandate requires the purchase of insurance from a private insurance company.

Finally to MSN...how about passing articles through an editor. Wickard v Filburn, not Filbert. Or are you rewriting history again?

Derek -

Actually, we do have the right to not buy auto insurance. It's just that most states require it to drive a car. If you don't want to drive, you are not required to have auto insurance. Also, even though it's getting harder to do in the "computer age" (where insurance companies and DMV's can compare records) , there are still plenty of drivers on the road who choose to risk driving without insurance. I think some people are arguing, "If I choose to not go to the doctor, I shouldn't be required to pay for medical insurance, or at least be able to choose my own insurance company/policy without being 'penalized'."

The US Supreme Court has examined 15 rulings from the 6th Circuit since 2008 and has thrown out every single one of them.

As a native Ohioan, I have my fingers crossed that this time in particular the 6th will continue their streak and get overturned once again. Because if this dumba$$ law gets upheld at the highest level, the only payment they'll get from me is in lead. (And I don't mean the old lead pennies!!!)

AtlasWillShrug

missing the point? Naw, actually have it in the light quite openly. Don't make it sound right jsut to prove your point, politicians have that market handled.

To the common good? Of course! Those 10%, those 30 to 40 million, are costing "YOU AND ME!" in the way our health insurance premiums are figured, in the way we have to pay taxes into a system that is increasingly burdened financially by those 40 million.

But lets get it back into perspective here. We can't call low income and poverty level, the leeches of the system and that just isn't so. You will see more "leeching" by people who DO have insurance that run to the doctor for any little piece of "woe is me" "what is that?" medical worry they have. Or the one's that lick their lips and just WAIT for a doc or nurse to slip up.

That's what drives your insurance up. Defeating insurance practices like dropping you from your policy when it is time to renew because you ARE sick are one of the benefits of having Obama Care in force.

And also, anytime you want to throw proposed stats at us, think about it. We have 9% unemployment and just Wiki it as far as poverty level:

Poverty in the United States is cyclical in nature with roughly 13 to 17% of Americans living below the federal poverty line at any given point in time, and roughly 40% falling below the poverty line at some point within a 10-year time spa

now given the fact that not ALL the working class that ARE working in the US have medical insurance at any point of regularity, re-evaluate for us if you would, just what percent adn how many people you REALLY wish to claim are uninsured.

The burden is not merely because poor people are going into emergency rooms instead of clinics if they were insured. Especially since 1998, it includes everyday normal people like you and me.

Since that overall financial burden is paid for in one form or another, by one and all in society, either by increased rates or medical costs or taxes, then yes....

it IS a matter of the common good.

Please make more realistic and factual observations as the issue is already quite blinded by many who insist their opinions are right, when they are merely rejecting and fighting against authority once again, even if it is detrimental to the common good.

Lefty:

You can't drive without car insurance (including medical)

Not true! Liability is all that is required. In the base medical coverage that is wrapped into the liability portion of auto insurance, the medical is for those YOU harm in an accident. Not for you, yourself. Go read your policy...

When doctors started out, they took the Hippocratic Oath; "Do no harm". Now we got a bunch of money grubbers, bean counters and pencil pushers who only see the profit end of the equation. The doctors & nurses are going broke, while "people" like you are more concerned about the money/payment rather than the people. (If you and yours are so disgusted by helping you fellow man, maybe they shouldn't be in that industry...) Besides, you don't even take into account those who would rather pay for their care directly, as well as all the subsidies that hospitals already get. (How many hospitals do you see closing their doors???) If this is the way your truly feel, I have a different "F" word you can do to thyself...

Said it before, and i'll say it again. Don't want to carry insurance? Fine. Just sign a waiver removing all rights, including lawsuits, pertaining to the government or any of it's agencies. In other words, you are completely on your own. When you get that bill, you'll be drowning in your tears. I can't believe how stupid people are.

To use VP Biden's words, "It's just a bump in the road." It will be appealed to the full court, which is very Conservative will change the decision, if not it will be appealed to the United States Supreme Court. This decision is nothing to get giddy about or upset about, it's a long way from being over.

Hi Thoughts From Cali,

It would help the debate if you didn't continually ascribe to everyone but yourself despicable character traits, but this might be indicative of a larger social trend, not just your own failings. I would agree with you that most Americans want their "share" of free stuff, and that this (you didn't say this part) poses an existential threat to the USA. But I don't agree at all that "my party" is full of hypocrites anymore than I would argue most democrats are hypocrites. People don't tend to argue that what they want from the government is improper to get, and that is what would be needed to speak about hypocrisy.

No, the problem isn't hypocrisy, or even your brand of arrogance, condescension, or flat-out hatred. The problem is most of us don't care about limiting government except for other people. That isn't quite right either. That is more a symptom than the problem itself. Economic and civic illiteracy runs rampant in the USA--our public schools are working flawlessly btw--so that people, for instance you in the case of health care, think that somehow if only the federal government could get involved in it, control it, finance it, make it fair, and so on, that we'd be one more step towards utopia.

There is no government-created utopia. At some level the government, when it stops promoting the common welfare (like with defense or the post office or coining money) begins to promote class warfare, despotic rule, and serfdom. We now have what might be a majority of the people that believe their success is tied to governmental largess. Obama spoke about this as if it were a good thing, but he, like you, are totally wrong about both the history and the lesson to be learned. America became great, and Americans became free, because of a limited government.

Perhaps the hypocrisy that matters, to the extent it exists, is yours: You think that the opposite of what made the USA great and you free is the way towards greater prosperity, greater liberty, and a better life. It's a hypocrisy of values though, not of "stuff" per se.

djdrew,

I am wholly in agreement that anyone using the ER for non-emergency treatment is raising costs on everyone. However, you are looking for a government-provided solution to a government-caused problem. The hospitals did not voluntarily offer non-emergent care for all-comers regardless of ability to pay. The government mandated that little gem. So, when the government mandates that hospitals cannot refuse treatment, regardless of ability to pay, you have people who have no intention of paying going to the ER for coughs, colds, and hangnails. Eliminate the government mandate on hospitals and healthcare costs drop overnight.

Yeah, and watch mortality rates skyrocket as the people with chronic conditions that can't afford to go to a doctor or a specialist keel over since now the hospital won't take them either.

Once again, the "compassionate conservative" speaks - something straight out of Dickens. "Better that they die, and decrease the surplus population."

Kozmonot, STILL not getting what I am saying. Your point only proves mine, and because everyone uses the hospital, everyone thus is required to own insurance or pay for it. If you were forced to drive a car, you'd have to pay car insurance. You simply aren't enforced to drive a car because your life doesn't depend on it. Your health, however does. And therefore, yes, you get to pay, like it or not.

What ever you want to call this:obama-care,romney-care,obamney-care.....WE need this,it's a start,NO MORE "STARVE THE BEAST".Instead let's take care of our own. Obama/Biden 2012

Anna Molly

Take bayllie, for example, with a highly rated comment that seems to say that people with standard health insurance pay all their own health care costs. Sometimes, yes. But sometimes, no.

You totally misread what I was saying. I am complaining because RIGHT NOW the only choice I have is paying for private health insurance. The premium includes paying for those who are uninsured (whether by choice ot not)

1. I made it very clear that I am not including those whop CANNOT get the insurance because they cut into the companies’ profits.

2. I am for change because the system we have now is failing and soon only selected few will be able to afford the standard health insurance.

3. I made clear that I disagree with those hypocrites who say that have the RIGHT not to have insurance and then expect the taxpayer to fund their operation (because I highly doubt that they can just write their check to cover that bill).

4. I am for the “ObamaCare” for many reasons and one of them is the fact that today children (and later adults) cannot be denied health insurance because their pre-existing conditions just don’t fit into the greedy companies’ profit margin.

5. I am scared that someday I will end up with no health insurance because, while premiums (and co-pays, deductibles, and out-of-pockets) keep going up, the number of services covered are going down.

Ryan in Texas,

First, the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) states ABSOLUTELY that the federal government has the power and authority to regulate ALL COMMERCE! The federal government DOES NOT assert anything regarding the commerce clause. The Constitution states this, very clearly. Please see below, direct from the U.S. Constitution!

http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Constitution.html

Second, the U.S. federal government (Congress) as well as some state governments (state legislatures) DO have the power to pass laws and may, if they wish, have TOTAL OR COMPLETE control over such matters as taxes, eminent domain, speed limits, etc. In short government does have absolute power vested in elected officials by "we the people". These laws and decisions ARE subject to review by the judicial branch, but if upheld as they often are, they become ABSOLUTE Law! To state otherwise is foolish babble!

Third: In your post #1.42 you state, and I quote directly: "You cannot define green without FIRST defining what isn't green," Your statement is NOT reasonable or rational (logical), To believe that in order to define anything you must first define what it is NOT is completely false! To say that would mean that in order to arrive at a definition of a dog you would first have to say a dog is not a cat, monkey, or cow, etc. Very foolish and not good logic, or even close to being solid logical thought. If you feel strongly that the government does not have absolute power, with the law to back them, just tell the IRS you are NOT going to pay your taxes because they do not have absolute power to collect taxes from you! That's just a foolish wish! Finally, you can make your statements correct. I am not asking you to be more simple, just to be reasoned, factual, and LOGICAL! PLEASE, Read Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution and then 'spout' all those great things about the difference between interstate commerce, intrastate commerce and commerce. WHAT DOES THE U.S. CONSTITUTION ACTUALLY SAY? Good Luck and have a GREAT holiday weekend!

Ryan in Texas "The legal question is easy...In another way: Why would they have used the word "Interstate" in the Constitution if they really just meant "Commerce" (All Commerce)?"

Logic is not one of a liberal judge's strong suits - but 'twisted' logic is. The Filbert case is a classic example. Filbert's wheat was not even commerce to begin with, because he was growing wheat for his own consumption - not to sell. The Court said that raising his own wheat for his own consumption 'affected' Interstate Commerce because he was not 'buying' wheat on the open market, thus his decision affected prices on the open (Interstate Commerce) market.

That's the same twisted logic being used in the health care debate - By not 'buying' insurance, the uninsured are affecting prices in the open (Interstate) market. The Appeals court in Ohio followed the 'twisted' logic of the Filbert case because it was the legal precedent - Only the Supreme Court can overturn that legal precedent.

If they don't overturn this law, there will be no limit to what the government can make you do, such as forbidding you from growing your own vegetables because it might affect "Interstate Commerce" (ala Filbert), or even force you to buy products or services that you do not want. Technically, they could also force you to buy solar panels for your house, even if the sun seldom shines in your part of the country, and fine you if you refuse, because your refusal to buy solar panels might affect the "Commerce" price of electricity.

This will not be overturned

Get used to the idea

feisty as always trying to hamstring the court. If Thomas recuses himself so should Kagan. Like you I won't hold my breath. Keep your biased mind closed as this huge financial busting bill take over happens. And when others predictions come to fruition it will be to late and we will all regret it. Always remember that a government that can give you everything can also TAKE it away.

Of course it won't Ursula. Anna Molly will have filed her ethical challenge and Thomas will have been removed well before then, right?

He is so Changeable, it will surely be a done deal by then, right libbies?

Huh, say AM how is that challenge coming? Or is it straight up impeachment? Well whichever, his wrongs are so bad, and so clear cut it is a done deal.

Right gang? Sure it is.

Not my problem, Spanky. It's HIS problem. He's supposed to regulate himself.

What's the matter? Too much to expect from a Supreme Court justice?

At least THIS one.

By the way, any time you're ready to give us full chapter-and-verse as to why all the extant facts about Clarence Thomas's business dealings, relationships with parties in cases before the Court, and marriage to a lobbyist on an issue that will now no doubt come before the Court do NOT violate judicial ethics standards, including that one about the "appearance of conflict," I'm sure we'll all be fascinated to read it.

But, please, before you do that, get that spellchecker fixed, okay?

Anna Molly---it is the "appearance of impropriety" that is troubling to me.

Speaking of "appearance of impropriety"---any news from the Wisconsin Supreme Court?

Just that the investigation continues, and that conservatives whined until they got the Sheriff to remove himself from it because they were afraid the Sheriff would be biased against Prosser.

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_a954e5de-a1b4-11e0-8419-001cc4c03286.html

Why the heck should that be? Just because Prosser cast the deciding vote in destroying the collective bargaining rights of Wisconsin public workers? I mean, really. Who would be so petty?

"Paranoia strikes deep ... into your life it will creep"

... when you behave like creeps.

Yes, Anna, "Something is Happening Here". It is very clear to many of us who feel life is not a joke, and it is our duty to educate and inform those with diminished capacities.

I propose a cyber Quicksilver Messenger Service.

What are they "going to about me", when our numbers keep growing? besides "poison our sweet water and cut down our green trees, and the food they give our children is the cause of their disease . . . "

So now a homeless or jobless person (inactivity) can be regulated by congress because they affect everyone else (activity). So congress can make them work or make them do anything they want or even plug them into the Matrix for the benifit of the many. The days of this once great nation are coming to an end right before our eyes. The government is now rejecting the liberties given us under the constitution and placing the yolk of slavery and debt on us. The ironic thing is that even the elite pulling the strings are placing themselves under the same system. This is an epic battle of good and evil. Freedom comes from God and slavery and opression are evil. Pick your side, but you will live with the consequences of your choice.

A quote from Billy Madison comes to mind about your post, Steve. You'll know which one it is.

I'm so sick of hearing the Right bemoan the "days of this once great nation are coming to an end right before our eyes". Get a grip. We live in a society that does not leave sick and dying people to fend for themselves and I, for one of hundreds of millions, are happy about that. BUT we all must recognize that the burden (like tax burdens, you GOP types) must be shared by all. We will all use medical services some day and it is not an option, unlike choosing to walk instead of drive a car, to not have insurance to cover the costs. The Right loves to talk about government "intrusion" as if we were living in 19th century America. Times are different, and in this way - and COUNTLESS others - far better than before. We CAN afford this, but changes need to be made in how we pay and how we tax. Thank goodness for Obama's leadership on this.

Thomas' problem because his wife worked for repeal is far less of a problem than the problem of Justice Kagen, who a solicitor general, argued for the law in a couple of initial cases. Under those ground rules the general ABA position has always been for the judge to recuse him or her self.

I wonder if Steve realizes that the bible doesn't prohibit slavery? the fact is this isn't a simple world, and if by crumbling steve means that we are no longer a country where white wealthy land owners are the only voters and if you weren't a man of a certain color you weren't encouraged to learn how to read. I have to say i get very tired of conservatives talking about america falling apart. The founding fathers not perfect (most were slave owners) but what they did was to put together a framework to start a nation. they never intended that framework to be anything other than that. also please stop using words that you don't understand (like socialism). socialism is an economicp philosophy that deals with the ownership of the means of production. not the choice to do work. and it did not exist at the time of our founding so don't be silly and talk about the founding fathers having anything to say about it

Bruce, very good post. I agree. I listened to Pres. Obama's speech, and his reasoned ideas and solutions for jobs, the debt ceiling, the budget, and thought he did a great job. The Repubs. come right out, immediately and say, NO. I truly am beginning to hate them, and their shameless pandering to their rich corp. masters. It makes me ill.

Bruce1234179, scott baker, and Michelle-1073610

Your posts are true and to the point. It is indeed unfortunate that the "far-right" and others of lesser intelligence will not and/or cannot reason and see the facts, logic, and wisdom of your collective words. The "battle" for progress and enlightenment is never an easy victory and is seldom short in duration. However, it is well worth the effort and energy! Truth and Reality ALWAYS prevail, eventually!

scrabolo, yes, we must keep our chins up and keep on truckin', "We shall overcome, someday." Patience has never been one of my best virtues, however. ha ha

Will Kagan recuse herself as Solicitor General she must and so we are back to where we started.

Bruce and Scott turning 1/6 of the nations business over to the federal government is SOCIALISM. If you want national health care go to Canada, Spain, Greece or any number of failing countries. But do not destroy the VERY fabric of this once great nation. And it is not grate leaders but the old House and Senate that wrote and passed this creepy pile of mess. Health care reform most assuredly but this NEVER. And Michelle as for pandering let's see grate leader counts GE, Google, and Facebook as a few of HIS corporate buddies and he is doing all he can to enrich them as they send jobs overseas. This dim witted knuckle dragger just see what is plainly visible and calls it out. But you lib/prog folks are so SMART that the simplicity of what your handlers are doing escapes you. If this bill is SO WONDERFUL why didn't grate leader and his family, along with all members of the cabinet, and Congress drop the taxpayer health care they enjoy and sign on to this. Oh yea because we are paying for it BUT it is not available until 2014. Also why has Barrack Hussein Obama granted hundreds to thousands of waivers to corporations for this bill? Just saying it is so plain your cannot comprehend it. Good is Good and bad is terrible.

What?

That is just such a silly statement, in general, particularly with this case. Not like there are not already conflicting opinions.

So which decision are you talking about Pietro? Cause you know this was not brought by sovereign states. Perhaps we should give the 26 states in the Commonwealth of Virginia a shot first. no?

Pietro, Columbus, Ohio

The appeals courts are setting precedence that the Affordable Care Act, aka 'Obamacare', will remain the law of the land for years to come.

Our Court system is NOT like shopping for the best prices ( or in this case a verdict you want ) All it takes is ONE court to find it unconstitutional and the process has two choices. Push it up to a higher court ( in this case it should go straight to the S.C.) or follow the court order and scrap the law.

Push it up, and they'll say it's not judicially ripe yet until the other two circuits have weighed in. That could be 12-18 months from now, and a lot can happen in that time.

Jeremy - notice I posted 'setting precedence'. How can you compare that with 'shopping for the best prices'???

The issue is this - you do not like the law, I do. You are hoping the Supreme Court will take the case because you think you will prevail.

I do not agree.

With a majority of the lower courts agreeing that this Law is Constitutional, it MAY be hard toget this Law in front if the Supreme Court like you want. I could be wrong, but it is NOT looking good for your hope, Jeremy, when a MAJORITY of the Lower Courts - and now this Appeals Court, which is VERY conservative - agrees that the Law is Constitutional.

Pietro, this is not a president. The liberal court up north say it is OK. Then the more conservative courts say it is unconstitutional down south. It is only precedent when not appealed. If it were true the 9th circuit would be setting precedent constantly. Instead the 9th circuit is overruled by the Supreme Court almost 85% of the time. The final say so will be the Supreme Court. The appeals courts are just steps on the way to the Supreme Court. If you think the individual mandate is going to be welcomed by this high court, I would like to bet some money on it. By the way, no one can make Thomas step aside on this case.

Law of the Land? Will they arrest anyone that does not have Healthcare? Write them a ticket?

Nothing is going to change. The hospital will not refuse care. What is going to happen when some person from Japan is visiting the US and has to go to the ER? No insurance....ticket them?

Unenforceable law.

Yep, screw the corporations and the jobs they provide. We don't need them or their jobs anyway now that the Democrats are going to take care of us.

Lanikai Ron

Yep, screw the corporations and the jobs they provide.

if we left it up to the corporations, they would get rid of providing the health insurance all together...and vacation time, pee breaks, OT, safety, etc...

Corporations in Mexico, or China, or Russia provide jobs, too. If you want those standards because you FEEL bad for the POOR corporations, move there. I wonder, too what the profit margin for a company is in Mexico vs US.

You know what the companies want? Make their product in China (cheap labor) but sell it to Americans (higher prices). Nice set up, isn't it?

Yep, if the corporations take American jobs overseas, screw um. Oh yeah, they already did that didn't they? Deny Corporations access to American markets if they don't employ a certain percentage of Americans... I think that's pretty simple...

Yep, if the corporations take American jobs overseas, screw um. Oh yeah, they already did that didn't they? Deny Corporations access to American markets if they don't employ a certain percentage of Americans... I think that's pretty simple...

Your thinking is too simple. The US provides 5% of the total consumer base throughout the world. Corporations don't need the US to survive. Oops.

Like I said Bayllie, now that the Democrats are going to take care of all of us, who cares. I've been employed all of my adult life and I'm 63. For the last 10-years, I've owned and operated a union general contracting company and bust my butt twice as hard as anybody that works for me to keep this company profitable. Our expertise is commercial construction for corporations and businesses. My employees and I along with our families are very thankful to those businesses and corporations that have employed us. But it's good to know that when the corporations no longer provide us with work, our government will step up to the plate and take care of us off the backs of those still lucky enough to be working for a living.

Ignorance is not bliss laurie.

SS/Medicare was funded through the use of the Taxation clause.

EVERY judge has stated that Obamacare provides a penalty, and is not a use of that clause. The only clauses that Obamacare has been found valid in so far has been through the Commerce clause.

Read up on constitutional history behind SS/Medicare. Two vastly different clauses are protecting those than the HCR bill.

I believe that is debatable. However, I cannot foresee any serious obstacle in regards to the HCR bill not be inacted in regards to the SC decision making process.

Atlas:

5% consumer base and 47% of the total revenue. A new Nissan Pathfinder Philippines = 11,000 USD. Same vehicle USA 40,000 USD. The US gouges people so much it is VERY profitable to sell here. Go price your staples for food in other countries and you will find they are 10-20% of what they cost here. Selling in the US is HUGE.

As for repealing SS that is unconstitutional unless they repay with interest all people that have paid in. There was a constitutional law piece today I watched talking about if it is constitutional to defualt on international debt....it appears that it is against the constitution.

The government will not provide it. The Teapublicans filibustered the public option, remember?

"YellaHammer

Let me get this strait. The law requires me to get health insurance, and if I don't, the Government will provide it and charge me their rates to be collected by the IRS???......Where does that leave the Unemployed??"

No, you will have to buy your health insurance from a private health insurance company. Good luck with that.

You would have gotten a better deal on premiums and coverage with the public option, but you won't, thanks to the party of NO.

ya'll are missing the point....I pay pay good money for my insurance, but I'm asking on the behalf of the unemployed......to hell w/ tea party this, tea party that, public option this or public option that.....

how can the law FORCE unemployed people to pay, "tea" or "free"

You should realize that the Emergency Room care the left loves to yell as the active reason why HCR is "different" is not really valid. Hospitals must only accept the uninsured if they wish to receive Medicare funding. Keep cutting Medicare funding, as the HCR bill does by 500 million, and you will start to see more Hospitals opt out of Medicare and thus the requirement to accept the uninsured.

HCR makes cuts to Medicare Advantage. You know, the private, supplemental insurance that people get to cover things that Medicare doesn't cover. There's a lot of waste in the Medicare Advantage program because it is profit-seeking.

"Jesse-Az

You should realize that the Emergency Room care the left loves to yell as the active reason why HCR is "different" is not really valid. Hospitals must only accept the uninsured if they wish to receive Medicare funding. Keep cutting Medicare funding, as the HCR bill does by 500 million, and you will start to see more Hospitals opt out of Medicare and thus the requirement to accept the uninsured."

Not true. It's not a matter of the hospital accepting an emergency room patient. If the patient doesn't pay the bill, the taxpayer gets stuck with it, unless medicare or medicaid picks up the tab.

Conservatives would tell you that the bum should be turned away from the ER if he doesn't have insurance. He should go to a clinic or hospital that is run by a charity so that the taxpayers do not have to pay for his health care. A liberal congress determined that hospitals need to treat this bum at the ER on the taxpayer's dime.

It's important to note that nobody will be fined. If you carry health insurance, you will get a small tax credit. But no, you won't have to pay a penalty for being denied. If you can't get any insurance company to carry you because of some high-risk condition, you will be able to enter the high-risk pool.

However, if you are currently being denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition, the insurance companies will no longer be able to deny you coverage (nor will they be permitted to charge an exhorbitant premium for your condition.)

You can start to see, though, why we need either socialized medicine so everyone has minimum coverage; or a government option, without all the bells and whistles, to compete with the premium, private insurance companies.

thank you Clotho and Daryl. I tend to get annoyed when I see some people posting comments that basically imply that everyone who does not have health insurance is doing so by choice (like we are all trying to bilk the system or be some kind of burden on society). That is not the case, at least for me. I'm genuinely trying to get a policy but can't.

Blah blah blah.............the answer to the question is single payer. It always was and is. The great constitutional debate is not on whether the government forces you to purchase healthcare but more so along the lines of "I ain't contributing to nobody". That's the issue. However, you are contributing whether you like it or not via ER healthcare. So, make a conscious decision to something on your own behalf. This problem isn't going to go away. You pay, I pay, we all pay one way or the other. So, let's forego the noise and the nonsense. Let's get a HCR bill that works on our behalf and that is based in reality. We've got to acknowledge the problem and find a solution that works for all. That's the answer. I believe it to be single payer.

Couldn't have said it better, Skip. Thank you.....

I guess I will have to log on to Pacer and get the decision myself.

I DON'T TRUST ANY NBC/MSNBC REPORTER TO GET THE FACTS STRAIGHT.

I am looking for what the Appeals Court ACTUALLY SAID, not Pete Williams' comments on it.

Karen, please come back and report to us as soon as you get your facts. Unfortunately, if if you don't like what you read, we won't hear from you.

Hyperbole much?

Go USA - You shouldn't be allowed to make a decision about your own insurance or lack thereof that affects me or other people. That's the difference. If you decide to not get insurance and then get run over by a bus, the rest of us have to pay for your health care. Because of that, I believe it's totally valid for the government to require an individual to have insurance. Now if the government passes a law that says if you don't have insurance and you don't have any money then you don't get care, then no problem, the mandate isn't necesssary.

People said the exact same thing about social security; medicare; welfare; minimum wage; the civil rights act; mixed marriage.

I think we can weather the storm of affordable health insurance for almost everyone.

........If they don't, then Congress has unlimited power and we have lost all individual freedom. A person who isn't free to choose what to spend their own money on isn't free.......

Tell that to women, they are loosing their rights state by state.

"Go USA-851295

The health care law is not like Social Security or Medicare. Social Security and Medicare were passed as taxes. HCR was not. In fact, the Obama administration repeatedly stated that the bill, now law, was not a tax. I believe that the SCOTUS will overturn this law. If they don't, then Congress has unlimited power and we have lost all individual freedom. A person who isn't free to choose what to spend their own money on isn't free. They are beholden to the person or government who tells them what to purchase."

By the time the HCR debate comes back to congress, the congress will be controlled by Democrats. Hopefully, they will stop all of the nonsense that the Republicans are doing on health care and pass the public option, so we can start saving money on health care, as the CBO suggests.

GO USA

A person who isn't free to choose what to spend their own money on isn't free. They are beholden to the person or government who tells them what to purchase.

That's similar to what Ronnie Ray Gun said about Medicare when he was spokesman for the right wingers who were trying to kill Medicare before it was born. He said that older people would have to tell their children what it was like before Medicare, when people were free. But strangely enough, we still are living in a free country where people are free to vote out any politician foolish enough to mess with Medicare. And they are likely to exercise that freedom if the Republicans insist on Paul Ryan's voucher care. If the Affordable Care Act is allowed to take full effect, I suspect that it will become the new "third rail" that most Republicans won't dare to touch. That's why the Republicans are desperate to kill the health reform act in its infancy.

If forcing someone to buy something makes us all completely unfree then we've been unfree since George Washington. He made all militia members buy firearms in the Second Militia Act of 1792. Where in the Constitution does it say the government can force someone to buy a gun? Apparently your personal interpretation of the Constitution doesn't jive with what Washington thought.

He's probably just wrong.

Straw man argument. You can do better than that.

Daryl...u should throw in "people who post remarks here" into that statement

"Bob Spade

I believe everyone has a right to color tv and cable. Let's make the government pay for that also."

I will agree with you when acquiring color tv or cable becomes a matter of life and death.

Bob Spade - You cannot compare health care to buying a color t.v. What a ridiculous statement.

Right, so healthcare of the nation is exactly the same as a color tv. How about women's rights, civil rights. Do you like paying for ER healthcare? You must because you do. I prefer to offer the right of healthcare to the nation. I'm not in favor of giving you a tv, a car, a holiday or anything of the sort. However, in regards to healthcare, I am willing to participate for the simple fact that I'm going to pay anyways. The difference is, I believe that healthcare is a right. It defines a society. Not everything is subject to the "market". Its very easy to lump everything into what you don't want to contribute to for the whole. Not a very strong argument me thinks.

It is refreshing that this judge was able to put aside any personal feelings and look at the merits of the arguments being made.

Rhenson...I wonder if Nancy Pelosi has finally taken the time to readh the FULL bill? Have YOU read the full bill?

ROBIN: Name me a Republican who has read every page of any bill??? It doesn't happen.

"Rhenson

Awesome! It's great that there is a judge who is willing to be unbiased and look at the law for what it is -- the law -- not someone's opinion of what the law should be! And to the person, who worried about the unemployed, please take time to read the full bill. There's a provision for persons unemployed. That's how fear spreads -- through being un-informed, ignorance of facts and lies. Yes we can make a positive difference in our nation!!!!!!"

What next? Pulling the plug on Grandma and death panels? Small businesses are going to go bankrupt?

I think I've seen this movie before.

Now, that's the Republican platform I thought I knew. So, we're all in it together alone. So, do you have children? I don't. Therefore, why should I have to pay for your children. I am against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't think I should have to pay for it. I feel that the FDA, FAA, FCC are all regulatory agencies that inhibit my right to do as I please. I don't drive so why should I pay for roads, bridges. I don't read so why should I have to pay for public libraries? So, if you can't afford it, do without. Do you represent society at large or are you on it on your own?

@Steve, TX

Yay, compassionate conservatism!

@daryl, this is good to know. I figured they were going to have some provisions in place but wasn't sure what those were and if they were already in place. I've just recently been shopping for individual plans since going to a job where I am basically self-employed (1099). I guess they are going to wait until 2014 to implement everything (it looks like). Anyway, I rarely go to the doctor and usually just go to the Urgent care if I have anything to be seen about. For the amount of times I go to a doctor in a year, it's cheaper for me than paying exorbitant premiums on a monthly basis. Personally, I'd be fine with some type of catastrophic care coverage plan and just paying for routine stuff out of pocket.

Heather...yes, you say that now...what happens when you get really sick? Nobody ever EXPECTS those things to happen. My 30 year old daughter was diagnosed with breast cancer last year. She had no previous health problems and we have no family history of it. If she didn't have health insurance she would have been financially devastated. We're all already emotionally devastated but the point is...don't think it can never happen to you.

TRMSfan56, I can't tell if you are actually reading my posts or not. I'm saying that I am trying to get an insurance policy but am being denied by several providers. This is NOT a matter of me not wanting to purchase a policy, but rather the fact that I am not being given a CHOICE to purchase one. That is a completely different issue than what you are implying above.

"Anyway, I rarely go to the doctor and usually just go to the Urgent care if I have anything to be seen about. For the amount of times I go to a doctor in a year, it's cheaper for me than paying exorbitant premiums on a monthly basis. Personally, I'd be fine with some type of catastrophic care coverage plan and just paying for routine stuff out of pocket."

Heather...I only read the bold part. I did miss an important sentence in your post...the one about catastrophic care. ..my apologies. Also, I didn't intend my comment to sound antagonistic. I was only trying to point out that many people think they don't need it and are later very sorry they didn't have it.

This is the issue. I had a good job, with good insurance, then my daughter (she was 5 at the time) got diagnosed with something serious. Then I got laid off -- no reason, spotless performance and relationship record, just cost-cutting. I got offered a job in another state, new insurance company wouldn't accept her pre-existing conditions. Had to turn the job down so we could stay on my wife's policy, making about 1/3 of what I would have made, so my daughter could get her coverage. Fortunately, 6 months later, my daughter was past her medical needs, i was able to get that job in another state and this time the insurance company accepted her. Cost us a LOT of money. Under the AHCA, I could have moved immediately and my family would have been far better off. It has taken us 3 years to recover financially, and we aren't there yet.

This is what the naysayers don't understand -- the AHCA is there to protect families who would otherwise be devastated by random acts of illness. If the new law is repealed, they had better hope they never need it.

TRMSfan, I agree, there are too many people who can afford and have access to insurance that don't get it and I think that is foolish. You never know when something is going to happen. I don't advocate not carrying some type of coverage (at least for hospital/emergency/high dollar non-routine stuff). I'm just saying that our current system, the way it is set up with for-profit insurers providing coverage is messed up. They can deny a person for almost anything and then you are stuck with no coverage. Not everyone who is uninsured is uninsured by choice. Some of us would like to have access to some type of coverage. Anyway I think we are probably on the same page for the most part. I've also read through some of the other comments here. Another poster had a valid point, until we start addressing the cost of services, I suspect not a lot will change with premiums, etc.

As I stated earlier, I very rarely go to the doctor but found myself in the Urgent Care a few weeks back due to falling and breaking my wrist. I was lucky it didn't require surgery and am wearing a brace while it heals. The urgent care center gave me an uninsured discount. So once the bills started coming in, I probably spent around $300 +/-. That was for x-rays, orthopedic doctor, etc. Less than what a monthly premium would have been. Something is messed up with our system.

The main issue is, I do believe, if I may be forgiven for the analogy, most US citizens are basically acting like spoiled, disobedient, rebellious teenagers. They want the freebie handout when they can achieve it without admitting it openly. They DO NOT WANT authoritative oversight, or being told what to do. They WILL find as many excuses as they can muster to protest being told what is best to do for their own good. IT IS TOTALLY FUTILE TO TRY TO OPENLY EXPLAIN THINGS TO THEM!

The Health Care Reform may have several issues that need re-adjusted, scrapped, rebuilt or thought out...but that is what damn reform is folks! Its not perfected! its a genuine effort to change an imperfect system!

Complainers and whiners who abuse freedom of opinion merely hinder a forward movement towards growth.

They shout out in protest, yet many if not most haven't even taken the time to "Wiki" health care reform efforts in the past and why they have failed. All die in congress, those legislative rulers of our great country who propose laws and otherwise enjoy stalemate congressional as they vow for power plays and chess game like maneuvers, rather than build foundations that are good for our country.

The mess we are in folks is not merely the work of a single entity. It is rather by large the combined FUUK'd efforts of misaligned and misdirected rich people who do not have the good of the country necessarily in mind.

It is we the people that have to demand that we will no longer be misdirected. If you protest and resist reform, it will never happen, and the Republican motto of "It will fix itself" has kept the poor, poor and the rich richer.

We need bipartisan efforts in legislature and in our common populace.

We need to implement reform, and then if the reform needs reformed, then so be it.

But if we sit idly by or worse, if we fall for the ploys of political interests and resist reform, then we condemn our country to remain blinded to progressive reform, to rebuilding from the ashes, from going forward.

Any effort to defeat reform is unAmerican, and is far more dangerous to our nation than any threat from outside our borders.

We have needed health care reform for decades and it has been an illusive goal bad enough presented and represented by the hurdles necessarily by itself.

We cannot cockroach the approach to reform. We need to allow it to take a foothold, then fix it as we go. Talk of repealing it, and you have defeated our national health issues in one step. No action, and the medical society continues t make its billions without restraint, pharmaceuticals continue to gluttonously control and suck in their riches without regulation, resist reform and insurance industries will continue o screw the people while they scrape in the billions of dollars from YOUR pockets and then find any reason they can to not represent your policy genuinely.

If you swallow the garbage that political parties and lobbyists feed you to resist reform, and you will play right into their hands, like a stupid teenager that would rather listen to an ill entity that looks to manipulate their ignorance and stubborn resistance, and you will allow them to lead and rule your life int oblivion until some day you will wake up and see the light, too late, distasteful and bitterly late.

Federal laws that are unconstitutional do not trump anything.

Commerce clause allows the regulation of interstate commerce. It does not allow for the compelling of commerce -whether interstate or not. Congress does not have the power to make anyone purchase anything whatsoever.

Clarence Thomas doesn't have to recuse himself at all. His wife doesn't have to sacrifice any of her rights just because her husband is on the Supreme Court. They are separate people who have individual rights.

I think that this bill will ultimately found to be unconstitutional.

"Clarence Thomas doesn't have to recuse himself at all. His wife doesn't have to sacrifice any of her rights just because her husband is on the Supreme Court."

Who said anything about sacrificing her rights? She can do what she wants, but when what she does creates the perception of a conflict of interest, he must recuse himself. Just as Justice Kagan must recuse herself whenever a matter comes up that was litigated while she was Solicitor General (even if she had nothing to do with the litigation)

JACK: Know what's really "chilling"??? When you can't get medical care and die, then your body is well and truly "chilled".

"Jack Coyote

If the government can force you to buy health insurance, then essentially the government can force you into any behaviour deemed "for your own good and for the good of the country". Essentially, complete control of the people, by the people, and for the people. This is chilling. At least it should be chilling, to any freedom loving American. The Revolutionary War was started over less."

Why were John McCain and many other Republicans for the individual mandate and now they are against it? It couldn't have anything to do with Republicans trying to destroy Obama's presidency and the U.S. economy, could it?

Yo Ozzie, every country with socialized medicine is changing course due soaring costs, limited access, poor quality and lack of innovation of new procedures. What's really chilling is your goosestepping to the government control of our lives. No one denies there's a crisis of access to affordable health care, but Marxist diktats by the government is NOT the answer; and our founding fathers knew that. ObamaCare is a disaster, goes against the principles that made America great, and the sooner the SCOTUS strikes it down, the sooner we can have a real debate in this country.

I think that's called a 'draft'.

Jack Coyote, where do you get your information? I believe that my Canadian friends wouldn't want American healthcare for love nor money. I lived in the UK for 25 years and I can assure you that the NHS is alive and well albeit with changes. France has the best rated healthcare system in the world. We are 37th on the hit list and Good Old Number One in costs. How's that add up? What poor service were you refering to? Our envy of the world 37th position and every country under that? I think what you've presented is that very old "We're the best in the world in everything". Have you read we're so far down the educational level of China, India? Both have universal care. But you wouldn't believe it if it was stuck to your forehead. Bless.

fabercrombie, I think a large part of the need for reform is that there are many people who would like to be able to get Health Insurance but are denied by providers any type of coverage at all. I'm not saying that the Law in it's current state is perfect but we definitely need some kind of Health Care Reform in this country. What aggravates me is that my tax dollars go to pay for my Representatives health care coverage and various other public servant's coverage (teachers, etc.), and Medicare and Medicaid recipients. So I work to pay for all these people to have coverage yet I cannot get a plan for myself? Something is severely wrong with our current system, I'd say...

I would like your source on that fabercrombie, have heard of no such move.

FABER: Where do you get the notion that Canada and Britain want to "undo" there health care plans??? This is news to me. I know may people in the U.K. and Canada and almost all of them have good things to say about their healthcare. Frankly, they think we are insane, the way that health care is provided here.

Your simplistic notion about people getting health care is truly naive. There are 50 MILLION Americans without health insurance. Know what happens to them? They go without healtcare, they go without medication and MANY OF THEM DIE or suffer debilitating diseases. Can't get much more serious than dying.

Some things in this world should not be driven by the profit motive. Health Care is one of them.

"fabercrombie

Canada and Great Britain are trying to "undo" their socialized medical systems. Here we are moving toward their failed examples. I'm sure we look like idiots to the rest of the world. BTW, to some of you fallacy laden thinkers, this health care bill doesn't mean you get care for free; it simply means you're required to pay for it less desotution. The government can't provide you anything that you can't provide for yourself...Now, find some motivation and go obtain your own insurance plan (might include leaving mom's basement)!"

You must be suffering from amnesia, if you don't remember that Obamacare is not based on the Canadian or British health care system.

It is based on the successful Romneycare model, in Massachusetts, the one that Romney is, now, trying to run away from. Why is a politician running away from a successful and popular health care system, that has an individual mandate?

Hardly fabercrombie, I have family in Canada and Scotland and they are extremely happy with their health care. My uncle in Scotland recently had hip replacement fully covered with physical therapy included. It's a crime that only the wealthy in this country are guaranteed exceptional healthcare.

Puddleboy,

Romneycare has not been a success as the costs are 20 time the estimate and Massachusetts is broke from trying to pay for it. Romney is running away from it because of the cost.

You must love oberman and madcow, they make up facts all the time too.

"Kevin Bitz

Naw.. the real test is how much Fox/Murdoch/Journal and Koch have paid off the Supreme Court to rule for big business... of course with lifetime tenure, big salaries and the health care they get... why would they care?...."

So nice of the Koch brothers to be funding Justice Thomas's retirement fund.

"Gyrogearloose

Obama's health care package is going to be forever cursed by the one sided way it was passed."

You mean that it was passed the same way that the Bush tax cuts passed? Through the reconciliation process?

It was the right thing to do, when the Republicans did it, but it was the wrong thing to do when the Democrats did it.