Fesity -

Of coure, the Ohio measue was simply for show - and aimed at being a wedge issue to attract conservatives to the polls to defeat Measure 2, as well. It just didn't work in that purpose, but it has given a push to some of the darker aspects of right-wing aspirations.

Your point about Federal law is really significant. When a Federal law, such as those regulating immigration, is in place, it "supercedes" any state laws on the same subject matter. (Yes, of course in this case the Constitution reserves that authority to the national government, anyhow, I just cast about for an example.) "Pre-emption" of an area of law covers many situations, and has been upheld a great many times by Supreme Court decisions reaching back as far as John Marshall.

The Ohio referendum recalls however a more specific event - the 1832 crisis when South Carolina threatened secession over "nullification" of a Federal tariff. This particular crisis was resolved in 1833 by compromise before the South Carolina action reached the Supreme Court. It was resolved, of course, ultimately by the Civil War.

But it was one of the first serious "shots" loosed in a spreading conflict between central government, the Federal state, and states' governments over the issue of states' rights. That particular tension has never entirely abated, despite the Union victory in the Civil War. We have seen it surge back in recent years as one of the many war-cries of the Tea Party.

The Ohio referendum is a renewed attempt at "nullification." It is encouraged, to some extent, by the unfortunate practice since the Reagan Regime of turning responsibility for Federal programs over to states - for administration, and, sometimes, funding. By those practices, some sides of the political spectrum have been encouraged to take more and more of a separatist postion about services and responsibilites that truly are Federal in scope.

This referendum is, in that sense more than simply a wedge issue in Ohio. It has national import.

Certainly in the short haul, the vote in Ohio can be seen as an embarrassment to Mitt Romney. Regrettably, it will also be seen as fresh meat for the separatists and the government-haters.

John A, all that legal explanation and other psuedo intellectual BS you wrote is irrelevant. The same voters that said no to the collective bargaining law made their views known on the insurance mandate. It might not have any impact but it supports the polls that it continues to be a very unpopular bill for the valid reasons that make it unpopular. It has increased health care costs to consumers and when employers start dumping health care coverage completely because it is cheaper to pay the fine, and the remaining 85% move into exchanges which by its nature will reduce the quality of benefits currently received, talk about being unpopular. I support Obama's efforts to bring about change in the method of health care delivery its just that Obamacare will make things worse rather than better.

Kirk - all that intellectual BS you wrote is irrelevant. ACA is popular. It has not increased costs to consumers. Health insurance providers have increased premiums because they can. Where is an article, not published by the health insurance groups, that actually shows exchanges will reduce the quality of coverage? Blather, blather, blather is all I read in your post.

Reddev--what drugs are you smoking. Do you even know how medical insurance works? You obviously dont because of what your wrote. ACA has shown to be very unpopular but thats irrelevant to this discussion. Let me give you a little lesson. Lets take a corporation like McDonalds here in Illinois. It provides medical coverage to its employees through and insurance company lets say Blue Cross Blue Shield. How it works is that McDonalds looks at its total medical costs for all of its employees the previous year and lets say it was $100 million dollars and then says they are likely to increase 10% this year and then it says we pay 75% of those costs and the employees pay 25%. So they go to Blue Cross and say put us in your plan in which we will incur $110 million of medical costs, you administer the program and include our employees in your system and you charge a 25-30% administrative cost in which they will profit about 7 cents on every dollar. Blue Cross says to all of McDonalds employees here is a plan that with insurance premiums, co pays and deductibles in the aggregate, employees will pay 25% of the total costs.

So Red dev, when ACA says that you must include dependents to age 26 and you must eliminate all maximums on lifetime payouts, that increases the costs to McDonalds and obviously to the employees. This year when ACA says you must include all female contraceptives and all female wellness screening and care, that increases the costs.

Am I making sense to you yet? You actually think this is a zero sum game its not. We currently have a finite health care benefit system in which unless we add lots of doctors, hosptals and delivery sytems you cant dump 40 million new insured people into the system without dramatically increasing the cost that has to be paid by someone (a person not a corporation) and second you have to reduce benefits and care to make sure everyone gets access to care. You are correct, that maybe the exchanges will provide the same level of benefits on average that current employers provide but I doubt it and even if it does, some people will get better benefits and many mostly union employees will get lesser benefits and those people will scream anyway. I am not against changing the health care delivery system we just need to be honest about what happens when we do.

Also, don't confuse the individual components of the Affordable Care Act with the mandate. In polls, there is majority support for the components. Also, if folks remember, President Obama was against a mandate during his campaign, and why conservative use of the term "Obamacare" is incorrect. The mandate passed by congress could be struck down, but the rest of ACA would stand. Health care costs just wouldn't be as low as forecasted.

As long as private insurance companies are involved, the mandate is unattractive. We already know what it's like with auto insurance, rates going up and no choice but to pay it. Personally, a FICA withholding for government administrated health care like Medicare is the only way to mandate ACA. And better yet, the providers should be non-profit if there is a mandate. Profiting from sick people is immoral.

The real news here is how "wedge" issues like demonized "Obamacare" or abortion "personhood" amendments are used to get out the conservative vote. That's all many of these propositions are--bait. Progressives should do the same thing and have propositions to end Citizens United, to tax all income, to legalize drugs, etc. and we'll see how the Teapublicans like that.

True Patriot - I like your ballot inititives - lets get them signed up! I love to watch the neocons squirm!

Kirk - What I smoke or don't smoke is really none of your business. And no, you aren't making very much sense.

I think I have a fairly good understanding of how health insurance works. It starts with the premise that goal number one is to rake in as much money as possible while providing minimal coverage, to ensure that CEOs, upper management, and stock holders make insane amounts of money. Once that is taken care of, you then review all claims to see if you can't deny coverage (thus increasing your profit margin).

You do realize that extending the coverage age to 26 is actually a boon to the insurance company industry. They get to collect premiums on that age group much longer, and yet that age group is the cheapest to cover because as a whole, they tend to be the healthiest.

I'm still trying to find out where the states have been given the right to mandate my having to buy car insurance but not life insurance or flood insurance...

No red dev that shows how little you know. Insurance companies don't make money off premiums they make it off administrating plans. That maybe one of the stupidest financial conclusions I have heard that mandating coverage to 26 actually is good financially for employers. That's the problem with people who aren't willing to critically think but just blindly believe some partisan bs they read. I would recommend you do some research and learn so you don't embarass yourself saying stuff like this in front of a boss or someone you don't want to think of you as ignorant

No Kirk, it's you who is wrong. Once it was true that insurance plans normally lost money on claims but made money on investing the premiums over time. The near extinction of mutual insurers and Wall Street's never ending demand for increasing profits has led to the end of that world. Now Insurers make SUBSTANTIAL profits on their claims as well as profiting from investment of premiums. That's why the minimum medical loss ratio provision of Affordable Care is so important...and such a big target for Republican opponents of the law.

A minimum medical loss ratio is a requirement that insurers spend, at least, a specified percentage of
premium dollars on medical care rather than on administration, marketing, and profit. If an insurer does not
spend enough on medical care to meet the minimum medical loss ratio, it must either refund consumers
or adjust its premiums accordingly for the following year. Without this requirement, insurers can charge
very high premiums to individuals and small businesses, and spend a startlingly low proportion of these
premium dollars on health care services. In interviews with insurance regulators in 19 states, Families USA
learned that insurers in the individual market sometimes maintain medical loss ratios of only 60 percent,
retaining 40 percent of premium dollars for administration, marketing, and profit.

http://www.familiesusa.org/assets/pdfs/medical-loss-ratio.pdf

Meanwhile, back to the text from our FR posts, NEVER underestimate the willingness of Conservatives to tell multiple, contradictory narratives at any given time. Conservatism isn't about consistency of thought or principle, it's about a series of independent messages designed to sell policies beneficial to the wealthy elites.

Kirk - while you making your asinine conclusions to my statement that extending the age of coverage to the 26 crowd (by the way, I never made the claim it was a boon to the employer, I said it was a boon to the insurance industry), consider educating yourself so that you don't say something stupid in front of your boss, making you look ignorant. Note this article, and if possible, try to comprehend its meaning.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/05/23/more-solid-proof-that-obamacare-is-working/

Oh wait, are you calling Forbes magazine partisan BS? If so, you can skip the article.

Great link, RDPS. Thanks for the additional information showing that the population of HEALTHY, young people covered by insurance is a beneficial change in the dynamic.

Kirk...It's you who hasn't a clue about how healthcare insurance works. Insurance is the only industry in the USA that accepts money from consumers for which consumers may or may not get what they paid for. Try that with an auto repair shop and see how fast their business will close.

I listened to HMO hawkers all day long as an office manager of 15 years. First question out of their mouths? "How many employees are employed by your company? They ask this question to determine the amount of profit their insurance company will make on employees over 25. Next question? What is the median age of employees? If the median age is over 45, they find any excuse to cut the phone call short.

HMO salaries are obscene. HMO business practices are wreckless. They have no compunctions about calling 80% of the premiums their customers are paying "profit" and then spending the other 20% on high risk investments that get them into hot water. When plan renewal time rolls around, this is how they determine which companies policies are dropped, which claims will be denied and which companies will get their plan costs increased.

Time for the geniuses who know it all to fess up. HMOs need far stricter regulations than just allowing them a handful and then helping themselves to fat salaries and spending on high risk investments in real estate and other idiocy.

Actually I probably know more about how employer provided medical insurance than all of you combined. You cant compare it to auto or life insurance as there is really no risk shifting (except slightly with HMOs). With employer provided medical, the employers always pays the actual medical expenses of its employees through various pricing mechanisms including experience rating if its a smaller employer. What is purchased from the insurance company is access to their network and administration of the plans designed or picked out by the employer. The insurance company makes money on the administration not on the medical care or procedures themselves. I never said insurance companies werent profit making but I clearly think its debatable whether the government could administer plans better and more cost effectively.

I also never said that Obamacare didnt provide access to the uninsured, go back and read my posts, its at what cost and whether it was the most cost effective method of delivering care. I also think it will reduce everyones benefits over time and I think that view is pretty much shared by virtually all objective experts. Your article doesnt address that the mandates and inclusion doesnt carry with it additional burden on employers and by that it means on its employees. You guys have no ability to be objective and weigh the facts you just blindly follow your partisan conclusions no matter what the facts.

John your views and comments dont apply to medical insurance. Premiums received by employer provided medical benefits are always put in trust or in an account for their benefit so money earned on those accounts go to the employer. Thats not the case for auto and life insurance and by the way for those types its regulated and statutory reserves for future claims so they have good years and bad years. Not sure your point on that. Of course Obamacare is going to make insurance companies more money because you are including more people in the plans for which they can charge an administrative fee. Their profits are about 7 cents on every dollar and on an absolute dollar basis they will continue to rise as you ad more people thats just simple math. We are comparing apples and oranges. If you want to replace insurance companies with the government to administer plans that is a totally different discussion from employer costs related to Obamacare and how it works. But thanks for having an open ear on this issue

Looking at this for what it is.....the voting population of the state of Ohio have clearly stated where they fall on the whole concept of mandatory health insurance, whether it be on a federal or state level. Yes, the gesture might be completely symbolic, but it does represent a clear majority of all those who are active participants through expressing their views with their votes. As more and more states approach this issue from differing legal perspectives. I think it is wise for our Washington power brokers to pay closer attention to what "voters" do and don't agree with as opposed to what they thing we should agree with or what they assume that we want. We all know what happens when you assume something.

John your views and comments dont apply to medical insurance. Premiums received by employer provided medical benefits are always put in trust or in an account for their benefit so money earned on those accounts go to the employer.

Remember when I told you I've been in management for nearly 20 years? That includes participation in health plan selection at times. At no point was money from that employer EVER put in trust for the employer, because that was a small company. Your statement applies specifically and ONLY to very large companies that can self insure.

Oh, and I also worked in small group underwriting for a major insurance company.

Thanks for your condescension though, We can always rely on you for that.

John B, stop whining you condescend to me in every post just go back and read your own claims. No it doesnt just apply to large corporations because if you read my post it said trust or bank account. In addition, if your small enough, it economically works the same way through a process called experience rating. If you really know this from your work experience, you wouldnt be fighting me on this. I assume then you must agree with me. By the way participating in health plan selection doesnt mean anything nor grant you special knowledge unless you truly understand how it works. Most people think when they are paying or having something called insurance premiums deducted from their paycheck that they are really just giving money over to an insurance company which provides them medical benefits and their employer is just collecting the money. They dont understand that what they are really doing is just paying for a small percentage of the overall health care expenses. People think insurance companies have an economic incentive to say no or turn you down etc when unless they are in an HMO, the insurance company is only administering the plans the employer selects and the benefits they are providing.

So if you worked for that insurance company and really were in management understanding benefit selection, payment etc are you going to apologize and tell me I was correct? Didnt think so because you have no ability to be objective and have an intellectual conversation without your political partisan views kicking in.

No, Kirk, because here you are for about the hundredth time with no proof, only outlandish statements that have little connection to reality, denying all facts that are offered, even those with backing.

You've pretended to be an expert in large corporate finance because you're a big company consultant.

You've pretended to be an expert in housing finance because that's your area of work.

You've pretended to be an expert in running small business because that's where your family is centered.

Now you're pretending to be an expert in how all insurance works because...just because you said so.

An in each and every case you refuse to present or back up any facts, either telling us to go find them ourselves or just believe your incredible expertise based on your say so.

You refuse to believe facts presented by anyone else because they conflict with what you assure us is your expert opinion.

So I'm not going to apologize, I'm going to continue your argument as fraudulent when it suits me and ignore you the rest of the time, as does most of the FR community.

Banana lady so if you don't work you don't have income and if you don't have income you don't pay the medicare tax but you can still be covered. We already have that and illegals and freeloaders are bankrupting it. Thats the problem liberals don't understand free isn't free it is paid for by someone else. But barry said the he77 with that pay anyway its the law. F@$#%&* barry and his healthcare.

TO: Bob Jones-3591206 who wrote:

"Banana lady so if you don't work you don't have income and if you don't have income you don't pay the medicare tax but you can still be covered. We already have that and illegals and freeloaders are bankrupting it..."

I don't think so. I'm more inclined to believe, after listening to a WHOLE LOT of Republicans complaining, that Republicans figured out a long time ago how to scam the system, i.e., how to keep their earnings off the books and under the table, and "still be covered" like Michelle Bachmann for example who is an expert at scamming the system while she "claims" to be an "ultra-conservative".

Michelle Bachmann gets 23 welfare checks EVERY month, one for each of the 23 foster kids she has which she doesn't adopt because then she won't get the welfare checks, the food stamps, etc. She gets Farm Aid paid for by we American Taxpayers, and she gets hundreds of thousands of dollars EVERY YEAR in Medicaid payments.

Waste, fraud and abuse -- all going to Republicans who make a huge living by scamming the American Taxpayers AND the Federal Government.

Ana - I couldn't agree with you more. Open up medicare for all, giving us universal coverage. There are numerous examples of successful coverage systems world-wide. It is time for the US to step up to the plate and drag us from 4th world health coverage to first rate coverage. ACA almost has us there, but it needs one final push.

RedDev nothing is stopping you from paying more into Medicare so more people can be covered, do what you think is right. My employer has a Employee Assistance Program which they with hold from my and my wifes paycheck. Also we pay a substanial amount in taxes every year. So help all you want but don't try and force me to purchase anything

Employee Assistance Program is to Medicare???????????? How is that related to anything? And as far as forcing you to purchase anything, I think all Americans should be forced to buy insurance. I get tired of the drag of paying the medical bills for the uninsured. Now if you want to talk about an opt out of a universal medical insurance program, I could go for that. If you opt out of medical insurance, you must also opt out of all other social programs, so that if you get cancer while uninsured, lose your job, go into bankruptcy, you may not take on food stamps, unemployment, or any other state/federal welfare programs.

RedDev -- how about you back up the bluster with some real numbers? Tell us all how much you personally have paid toward the medical bills of the uninsured. I mean, really. You must know how much money you personally are out to be this spun up. So come on. No pseudo-intellectual argle-bargle and no redneck ranting, just real dollars and cents. How much money was taken from you for other peoples' medical bills?

AC

Another .. since google is difficult for you, here is a writeup from wikipedia:

The costs of treating the uninsured must often be absorbed by providers as charity care, passed on to the insured via cost shifting and higher health insurance premiums, or paid by taxpayers through higher taxes.^[123] However, hospitals and other providers are reimbursed for the cost of providing uncompensated care via a federal matching fund program.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States

Since I am a taxpayer, yes, I am responsible for non-payment of medical bills by the uninsured.

Would it be too pseudo-intellectual of me to suggest that you read the question before you answer it? I asked for real numbers. I'll even make it clearer. Out of all the taxes, Federal, State and Local, that you paid in 2010 (I'm assuming, rightly, I hope, that you know how many dollars and cents you paid in taxes) How many dollars and cents went to paying other peoples' medical bills? $10.00? $150.00? A zillion dollars and 35 cents? If you don't know, admit it. Lots of people don't know, and if they did maybe the whole dialogue would change. But I have to tell you, the arrogant, dismissive tone you've taken here has seriously eroded your credibility and made it difficult if not impossible to consider any worthwhile contribution you may have to make, so how about dropping it for just long enough to answer a simple question? You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar ---

AC

If your beef is "arrogant, dismissive tone", then I ask what was this from you?

So come on. No pseudo-intellectual argle-bargle and no redneck ranting

You see, I tend respond in kind. And if you are going to cry about my tone to Kirk, also take note of his first line to John A. Sounds like you need to follow your own advice "you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar". Now go take your vinegar and go play in some other yard. You are on permanent ignore. And no, I am not going to answer your simple-minded question.

Simple-minded. Hmmm. I guess I'm not in Kansas anymore. I thought asking someone who seems to have a larger view than the rest of us for a clue as to the real impact of this on real people was a relatively smart thing to do. You see, where I live there's a big difference between chipping in a couple of bucks and being hijacked for 10 or 20 percent of my income just so one of my fellow Americans can keep from being drowned by the private sector. It sets the point that the neighborly thing to do becomes the required thing to do, which as we all know, Americans resent and refuse.

You know, now that I think about it, maybe simple-minded isn't such an insult after all. It's all the complexity, the pseudo-intellectual argle-bargle and redneck ranting (that I never accused you of, by the way) that has kept these things so hard to understand. Simple-minded folks aren't so easy to distract and are happy to keep asking the same simple question again and again until the Blowers of Smoke either actually answer or, as in your case, run off in a big old huff because they can't (nobody wants to be caught wearing the crown when the kid yells "Hey! Look! The Emperor's naked!").

Cheers!

AC

Hermie is a groping, sexually abusing serial liar. PLEASE, nominate him so we can have a good laugh as you fools lose the general election in another landslide.

Bob, don't slander the man, you want him to win on his high moral standards and intellect. Right

nisl, I would LOVE to see Republicans give a black guy the Republican Nomination so that all the ultra-right-wing-conservatives will have to vote for is one black guy or the other? THAT would really be something to see.

With several lawsuits and 2 bankruptcies against her, I believe the Gloria Allred sponsered accuser is a serial lier, after all, promising to pay back debt and failing to do so is a lie. Of course for a bunch moonbats I'm sure she is a gold star democrat. I mean heck thats taking it to those rich people that loaned you money right. By golly show them don't pay it back

BobJones: "the Gloria Allred sponsered accuser is a serial lier"

Gloria Allred was seen at the '08 Dem Convention handing out her cards.

She was recruited to help the Dems win the Govenorship for J.Brown.

She's the worst kind of hack.

Not sure how putting limits on government unions is anti democratic given the cronyism inherent in the system and how because of this they have slowly bankrupted California, Illinois and NY. Its just a matter of time before the money runs out so I thinks its more about fiscal discipline and economic reality than antidemocratic.

AnaBanana Macho man--most of us dont want medicare for all thats the point. Since 85% of us are already covered by some health care coverage via employers, its really about how health care is delivered most effectively to the other 15%. Currently its delivered via medicaid or emergency room expensive treatment with poor preventive and wellness care. What Obamacare does is attempt to provide similar but not totally the same care as the other 85% are getting and mandating certain expensive other care to the 85%. So all Obamacare has done in the short term is drive up costs. In the longer term, it will by its nature, reduce the quality of benefits the current 85% are getting in order to pay for the 15%. It does nothing to reduce cost or face the fact that we want to eventually change the method of health care delivery. Its definitely not universal care. The only issue I have with universal care is that I am not sure the current 85% understand that under universal care, the quality of benefits will be dramatically reduced to ensure the same delivery to everyone. The very wealthy will still have access to the best care because they will pay for it out of pocket but the rest of us will get government provided care that will be fine but when you take the profit motive out of behavior you will get lower quality

Reducing the quality of benefits is only one possibility, the easiest one for the government. What other countries with private insurance-based universal healthcare (Switzerland is a good example) have done, has been to keep overhead at about the level of our Medicare system (which is administered by private insurers, usually BC/BS), or 6-7%. That's versus the 35-40% overhead of our private system. Allowing the sale of policy "add-ons" without any regulatory requirements which limit overhead keeps the insurers happy there. But we have a hard time regulating private business - even when its something as obvious as regulating hedge funds, or raising the margin requirements for oil futures to the level of other futures to reduce the speculation that keeps prices so high right now, or end the use of ethanol which is costing us millions and destroying fuel systems while the world works on a usable fuel alcohol (butanol). So who knows if we can do it?

Kirk, your arguments about health care don't hold water.

How can you claim that providing health care to the 15 percent that don't have it will "dramatically" lower overall quality?

And anyone who is in the health care field for the profit motive should be somewhere else. That is the crux of the problem with health care. It is about health, not about profit. Read the Hippocratic Oath.

Fred, I agree but one of our problems is the diverse both ethnically and economically in our system. The swiss are much happier with the class system where there is very little upward mobility and everyone is happy with the status quo. In our american dream society everyone wants to think they can be the next Steve Jobs, Albert Pujols or Lady Gaga and doesnt want to settle for less than what they think is the best health care. But if we would be willing to standardize care like the Swiss and having a more regulatory environment more akin to the old utility regulatory environment where rates were set at each layer, maybe it could work.

Fielden--not sure what you mean as I dont think what I am saying is controversial or not understood by everyone in the industry or politics. First the 15% that dont have health insurance are currently getting health care provided to them just not at the levels in terms of quality and cost effectiveness as the other 85%. So the problem is delivering better quality health care at a cost effective price to this 15%. ACA is not that. It drops the other 15% into our current system without addressing any of the drivers of cost and actually adds to the overall burden by prescribing mandates for everyone. However, it does start the evolution towards universal care with the exchanges and fines that will incent employers to drop health coverage and pay the fine. I suppose I was possibly being overly aggressive with the word dramatically lower overall quality but my gut says it will lower it to a degree that will make everyone very upset especially unions when they lose their cadillac plans.

As for profit motive not sure what you mean, Are you saying we dont want to incent the best and brightest people to become doctors so they will keep us healthy? Are you saying you dont want to incent the best and brightest to become researchers to develop new drugs and products to improve the quality of care? So you want to remove the profit motive so we would become a third world country in terms of health care systems and delivery? Not sure what you mean by profit motive? Where do you want it eliminated? You want to remove the 7 cents on every dollar that insurance companies get for administering plans? You want to reduce doctors salaries so we get average IQ doctors? Or move our pharmcy jobs and medical supply and equipment companies overseas where they can make a profit and give our foreighn competitors all of those jobs? Where is the profit you want to eliminate?

Felden - I agree, healthcare should be non-for profit, I work for a non-for profit healthcare organization, we are the absolute best in our area, people come from several states away because we are the best and in some cases the only people doing what we do. I make it a point - never, ever go to a for profit doctor or facility, when I did so in the past the care was absolutely awful and the people they hire to do regular work, like checking you in or taking your x-ray's are very unhappy because they know they don't get paid the big bucks like those in administration or the NP's or doctors. I've worked in for profit healthcare, I konw how badly they treat their employees, so I'll always work for non-for profit healthcare and I'll always have my medical needs taken care of by non-for profit providers. As far as insurance companies and banks go - well joe walsh is just extremely economically stupid and selfish, wonder how much stock he owns in each? That would explain his frustration as to why the working class detest both.

fielden,

15% of 300,000,000 people is 45,000,000. That means that we will have to find primary care providers for the additional 45 million folks, which means that overall quality of care will suffer to a certain extent.

If you truly believe that the health care providers (doctors) are in the field because they simply want to help people, then I appreciate your sense of optimism, but I'd have to respectfully disagree. Unless these folks are all independently wealthy, they aren't going to med school just to help, they're going because they see the ability to make a serious paycheck as a result of becoming a doctor. Besides, how can you blame them for wanting to be able to pay back the enormous loans that they've taken out to become doctors? It's not free, yet.

Really? If a market becomes larger quality automatically becomes worse? Did the invisible hand of the free market say that?

John B, with finite scarce resources of course thats the case until supply catches up with demand. That also assumes that supply will be properly incented to-ie profit motives-to create the supply. Plus, no one is saying quality of care, we are saying reduced benefits. For example, its virtually impossible for union medical plans to remain as rich as they are under Obamacare. Doesnt necessarily mean the quality of your brain surgery or knee replacement will be different but it does mean that maybe your knee replacement is scheduled 9 months later than it is today or all the procedures that are covered today are covered 100% etc. John, you act as if you cant give an inch on something that is not that hard to grasp and is pretty well understood by objective experts. Do you have an ounce of objectivity left in you or if Obama told you the sky was red, you would call us every name in the book as you described the sky as red.

Kirk -- Plus, no one is saying quality of care, we are saying reduced benefits.

Wrong as usual, Kirk.

Living in L A -- overall quality of care will suffer to a certain extent.

Good job of proving it as usual.

Reminder - Gingrich was ran out of the Republican party for being scum.

Romney ( or another Repub) will win in 2012, no matter how you Liberals try to "spin it", because Obama is a HYPOCRITE:

Read Joe Scarborough :

"... Obama seems capable of effortlessly floating between demonizing Wall Street gambling one day and profiting from it the next. The audacity is breathtaking. The president has raised more money from Wall Street through the Democratic National Committee and his campaign account than any politician in American history. This year alone, he has raked in more cash from bank employees, hedge fund managers and financial services companies than all Republican candidates combined."

"Even poor Mitt Romney was outraised by the Obama money machine at his former employer, Bain Capital, by a margin of 2 to 1."

"It is a campaign operation whose wheels are greased by Wall Street bundlers like MF Global former chief, Jon Corzine . These financiers are so good at what they do that the Center for Responsive Politics reports that Obama's Wall Street fundraising will "far surpass 2008 in terms of raw dollars and as a percentage of what he raises overall."

"That's saying a lot considering that Obama's "Hope and Change" campaign in 2008 raised more money from the financial community than any other politician in American history."

ALL YOU LIBERALS........GO AHEAD AND DEMONIZE THE "FAT CATS" , JUST LIKE OBAMA (HYPOCRITES ONE AND ALL)

LEONA: (Sacrborough): "... Obama seems capable of effortlessly floating between demonizing Wall Street gambling one day and profiting from it the next. The audacity is breathtaking."

You won't see that story in the very liberal FR, but you will have them make the comparison to what Ohio voted for regarding ObamaCare and how it fits with Romney's past. In fact, you won't see the story in the MSM at all. They're too busy lynching Cain to pay attention to the hypocrisy of Obama's bi-polar relationship with Wall Street.

the fact that some rich people agree with obama and liberals doesnt mean he's a hypocrit for asking more out of the wealthy people in this country. They finance his campaigns because they agree with his platform, not because he seaks to fatten their wallets like the republicans.

Wall st making bad decisions was the reason for the housing crisis. Deregulation was the reason for the housing crisis... the sooner the conservatives realize this we can make progress

JoAnna,

"Lynching Cain" , as you say, is the MSM's way of diverting away from Obama's abysmal record.

What really fascinates me is the way the liberal lemmings read the LIES ( slogans like "fat cats" , "millionaires and billionaires"), then lap it up, and repeat it over the internet to each other, as if it's the truth. LOL

drewv,

Rich people do NOT "agree with Obama" but they do line his pockets so that they will get FAVORS later.

It's called PAYBACK.

BTW.............what happened to "there will be NO lobbyists in my White House?!" That's just another Obama LIE.

"...the hypocrisy of Obama's bi-polar relationship with Wall Street"

Yes, I DID see something the other day, saying Obama has gotten more from Wall St than Bush did. Funny how that full-blown 'socialism' thing works, isn't it??

Leona, the republicans offer wealthy people much more favors not only in backdoor dealings which happens all across washington, but directly through the policys they advocate everyday. Accept that the world is not as extremely conservative as youa re

dewr: the fact that some rich people agree with obama and liberals doesnt mean he's a hypocrit for asking more out of the wealthy people in this country. They finance his campaigns because they agree with his platform,

Wall Street definitely agrees with Obama's platform. They know what Obama says and what he does are two different things. Wall Street doesn't mind taking a little verbal abuse from Obama, they know he doesn't mean it and he will be there for them when they need him. MF Global gave millions to Obama and the Democrats to make sure the federal regulators looked the other way. That one didn't work out so well, but other Wall Streeters do the same. It's just the price of doing business for Wall Street.

Joanna, id have to see some proof that federal regulators "looked the other way" under the orders of Obama. Deregulation happened under broad bipartisan support but democrats were the ones who wanted to reregulate it the banks with Dodd-Frank while republicans hate it today

drewv: Joanna, id have to see some proof that federal regulators "looked the other way" under the orders of Obama.

It was a fairly easy one to see drewv. MF Global was leveraged 40:1, and betting it all on the European economy, just the thing Dodd/Frank was designed to detect/prevent, but somehow managed not to. I'm certain there will be a Congressional investigation, Corzine will be called to testify, and just like with the Solyndra execs, will take the 5th. The Dems will blame the GOP, the GOP will blame the Dems, and it will be done, after which we can get back to lynching Cain while Congress and the Prez can continue to collect campaign donations from Wall Street.

Because that's how it works.

JoAnna: "Dems will blame the GOP, the GOP will blame the Dems, and it will be done, after which we can get back to lynching Cain"

HAHA

ain't that the truth !

Leona: is that like the Repubspeak where "not raising taxes= no closing of loopholes for the rich and connected" or like I heard last night from every candidate when asked about if they repealed the ACA what would they replace it with. Every clone repeated the mantra " I want healthcare between a patient and doctor" whatever that is supposed to mean.

At least Romney said he wanted people to be able to purchase their own healthcare in the market. Really!!! Isn't that why the government had to get involved in the first place? I guess it's been longer than 15 minutes, so you've forgotten the denial of claims that went on prior the the healthcare laws for "pre-existing conditions" like acne in your teens allowing the insurance carries to deny coverage when you got sick later in life.

Perhaps you are of the mindset: Let them die and decrease the surplus population cadre. Lots of luck when you get sick.

there's no comparison to be made here.

Well CR, I assume if you volunteer to pay for universal health care coverage and at the same time agree to reduce your current level of benefits by 25% and you ask 85% of the people who have employer provided coverage to do the same and they agree, shouldnt be a problem. Ask any union member about his health care coverage and then say we are going to take your cadillac plan away in which you only pay 10% or less towards and replace it with an expanded Obamacare or payroll or some medical insurance tax that will be far more than you currently pay and the benefits you get are much less than your union plan, thats the problem. Its not a GOP versus democrat issue, its how do you pay for it and explain to the vast majority of the people that you need to pay more and get less in order for us to make sure that the delivery of health care to the other 15% is better than it is today. I just think thats a tall order. You cant get the wealthiest segment in this country our seniors to take even the slightest haircut in social security benefits so you really think you are going to get americans to pay more and get less in a brand new entitlement? Think again

Again...lawmakers want to provide subsidies for rural areas to have internet access via taxes paid by ALL, but we can't have subsidies to cover the uninsured to pay for healthcare?

I guess SCOTUS got it right. Corporations are people too where businesses have more rights than human beings.

Anytime you do not have a choice you do not have freedom.

I agree Totally Bali they "Tea Party Members in Government that had no Democrats on the committee that wrote this Ballot Issue wrote the Issue very Misleading".

I live in Ohio and vote here. I can tell you this we the people of Ohio were so focused on Repealing SB5 (issue2) that no one payed much attention to (issue 3) and the wording on the ballot stated "If you support Health care and would like to maintain Health care in Ohio Vote yes if you would not want Health Care vote no." This was more misleading in the wording by the republican group that wrote it Lead by the Tea party and does nothing but was a last ditch effort to try to get people to polls in hope they would vote Yes on Issue 2. People were smart enough to see through the Lies of Issue two Because it was out there everyday and people were Hammered with AD's and Lies about Issue 2 being good. When we educated ourselves we voted no Because we knew this was a bogus BS Bill and was wrong.

The Issue 3 Bill was not in the spotlight was misleading in its wording made up Solely by Republicans Tea Party members in Government and so people thought they were actually supporting Health Care when they voted for it. The good Thing was that Issue 2 got the spotlight and was repealing overwhelmingly the Bad was issue 3 fell by the wayside people didn't know what it was and people thought they were supporting Health Care and voted for it. I spoke to many many people who later recounted "They didn't know what it was and thought they were Supporting Health care by voting for it. Regardless this being a Federal mandate being above State Law Like Say Medicare, SS, And Medicaid are mandate and they work when they are funded and not raided by government the same would happen when Health Care is Enacted and enforced. The Number one reason Health Care providers say Increase in premiums Occur is the UNINSURED Health Care would ensure by Mediate we are covered and lower the rates but the Lobbyist are Crazy about losing all that revenue and been pushing back with Lies about it.

LyingRepublicans: ".....we the people of Ohio were so focused on Repealing SB5 (issue2) that no one payed much attention to (issue 3)..."

Wow, you are good at "spin".

You should go to work for Msnbc ( where the "M"stands for Misleading)

LOL

MSNBC reports the story as they come in Unlike FAux Fake Cartoon news who makes it up for the Uneducated and those who want to be mislead like sheep who Watch Hanity.

LyingRepublicans: ".....we the people of Ohio were so focused on Repealing SB5 (issue2) that no one payed much attention to (issue 3)..."

Wow, you are good at "spin".

You should go to work for Msnbc ( where the "M"stands for Misleading)

LOL

MkeMike,

It sounds like your imagination is playing tricks on you.

LOL

In what way, Leona?

Your GOP consistently complains about health insurance mandates on one hand, and then you whine about people that don't act responsibly on the other hand.

Is it responsible for people to walk around without health insurance, expecting the rest of us to pick up the tab if they get sick? Or, is it responsible for us to ignore the fact that some people will do this? Are we prepared to let adults and even children die on the hospital door steps because we didn't require them to purchase insurance and so they didn't? Won't the costs to all of us go up if some people are allowed to "opt out" of their personal responsibility? Health insurance is cheaper and costs can be maintained better when more people participate? Isn't that the insurance industry's big claim to fame? That's sure what they tell my six employee company...

You don't like Obama's plan because it's Obama's. If it was Romney's, you'd be all over it. Guess what, they're the same thing. The private health care industry and private health insurance companies have failed to keep the costs down and make insurance affordable to the average American. This can only be done by requiring everyone to participate to help reduce the average cost. That requires a mandate, because as you GOP types are so willing to point out, not everyone is responsible.

Instead of one line inane comments, try to contribute something to the debate, or else just be quiet.

MkeMike: "Is it responsible for people to walk around without health insurance, expecting the rest of us to pick up the tab ..."

Guess who will "pick up the tab" either way you slice it ??????????

Answer: The Tax payer. The tax payer. The tax payer.

We pay now because they have NO insurance..... and we will pay if they are given insurance.

It's all on the tax payers backs.

Or maybe you believe in a magic fairy who will pay for Obamacare?

Well said, Babina. It's a key part of the death spiral of the health insurance industry that made the Affordable Care Act necessary in the first place.