Not fair, when you first posted it, it said "Insert your headline here", now you gave it your own headline.

Yea, I know it's part of your boiler plate, but I caught it before you updated it.

Ha ha, Tom, it's still funny PS I want to do that line thing-y too, ha, I did!

Just to keep it straight, Tom, there really have only been 3 people you can hold a claim to being tops in the polling among the GOP candidates:

1. Mitt Romney

2. Herman Cain

3. Uh...um...uh...oops.

Talk about off topic.

Silberman is comparing apples to a horse. Appointed by Reagan or no....he's wrong on this one and after a 5-4 decision Obamascare will be no more.

http://www.freep.com/article/20111111/BUSINESS06/111110345/Stryker-cut-5-workforce?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|s

Yay! Obama......he sucks

???????

I bet they settle on a Romney / Cain ticket........

if the SCOTUS rules it is unconstitutional to have Government mandate that citizen pay for insurance .. will we be able to drop our Auto insurance ... will we be able to drop Medicare part D .. or maybe even SS and Medicare .. will that be a good thing

@Doug - how is healthcare reform 'guaranteed' to be ruled unconstitutional? My understanding of the taxation issue is that the Supremes on numerous occasions, have upheld the power of the federal government to levy taxes. At its most fundamental, healthcare reform is a matter of taxation - if you don't buy health insurance, you are taxed; if your income is below a certain level, you get tax benefits (credits, deductions, etc.) for the purchase of health insurance; and, and, and.

Am I missing something?

The Supreme Courts take an Oath along with All three branches of our government, the Military, all Law Enforcement, all Heads of the States, all federal employees are required to take an oath to support and defend the Constitution and not an individual leader, ruler, office, or entity to get into the Office or Position they want; and they must keep it until they leave office to be able to stay in that position.

Domestic enemies pursue legislation, programs against the powers of the Constitution; destroys and weakens the Rights of the people guaranteed by the Constitution; and create laws, amendments, etc that goes against the restraint on the 3 branches of our government by the Constitution.

The Supreme court justices take two Oaths to be able to get into (and must keep them to be able to stay in) those positions. "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

and ""I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

WE do have Domestic Enemies with all three branches of the USA. They are not here to make our country stronger, but to destroy it from within. They attack our Constitution, our Freedoms, Destroy our economy, etc.

It is up to "We the people.." to see that these people are arrested and prosecuted; replace their positions with someone who will actually represent America's interests, her peoples interests.

Great link Doug to another example of Obama's kill our jobs plans. This week Stryker and also Keystone which cost Americans 20,000 shovel-ready jobs. Damn oil with global warming and all. Never mind that we will not burn any less. Instead Canada will send it off to China in Tankers burning more fuel while we buy more from fuel burning tankers shipping it from our enemies. He is on a roll sending Americans to the unemployment lines for his "progressive" agenda.

Leaving -

Because the money collected for not buying health insurance is not being classed as a tax. They changed the term in the final version to penalty instead of tax because they could not get the debacle passed by the democrats unless they did. This means that the laws about taxes do not hold for the issue. It also makes it unconstitutional.

Krine, they swear to uphold the Constitution, not YOUR interpretation of it. Other people have other opinions. Arresting them for it would be against the Constitution you claim to hold so dear.

Regarding Stryker's supposed workforce reduction due to a 2.3% excise tax, let us do the math.

"Stryker Corporation has a Profit Margin of 16.10%" - ycharts.com/companies/SYK/profit_margin

"Stryker Corporation has a Gross Profit Margin of 67.06%" - ycharts.com/companies/SYK/gross_profit_margin

Let's take the first number, profits after expenses and taxes. A 2.3% excise tax on sales would roughly reduce that 16.1% by 2.3% to 13.8% profit margin.

Hmmm. So Stryker, now facing a 13.8% profit margin instead of a 16.1% profit margin has decided that they would rather reduce output and make even less.

And, how does that make sense?

knone .. if it was the job of the SCOTUS to uphold the constitution there would be no debate .. the job of the SCOTUS is to interpret the constitution ... your views of what is and isnt constitutional is just that "YOUR VIEW" to say anyone with a different view or disagrees with your views should go to prison is fascism not democracy ... if were up to me all fascist would go to prison ..but im not on the SC

Comment off topic re;

"Stryker, the Kalamazoo-based maker of artificial hips and knees, will cut 5% of its global workforce by the end of next year to reduce costs in the face of new fees on device makers required by the U.S. health care law."

Here is a basic economic principle that everyone knows. A company has customers that want the product but they are getting behind in being able to supply it. So they higher a person who works for two weeks, building and selling the product. The customers pay for the product at each sale. The company collects those sales. Then, at the end of the two weeks, the company pays the employee. You see how that works? The company collects the money first, then they pay the employee. They do not, and never have, paid the employee first then made the sales.

Now that we agree on that, let us look at what the tax does.

"Stryker Corporation has a Profit Margin of 16.10%" - ycharts.com/companies/SYK/profit_margin

"Stryker Corporation has a Gross Profit Margin of 67.06%" - ycharts.com/companies/SYK/gross_profit_margin

The health care reconciliation act imposes a 2.3% excise tax on device manufacture sales.

Let's take the first number, profits after expenses and taxes. A 2.3% excise tax on sales would roughly reduce that 16.1% by 2.3% to 16.1-2.3 = 13.8.

So, faced with a 13.8% profit margin instead of a 16.1% profit, Stryker decides to reduce output and sales by another 5% and make even less money? Non-sense.

Who said, "in the face of new fees"? What exactly is "global workforce"? You mean those workers in other countries?

Another basic rule of economics is simply that increases in costs are basically split between the supplier and he customer. That is how it works, that is how it has always worked. So, what Stryker would do is raise the price by like 1.15%, which reduces there effective tax to 1.15%. So, there profit margin is actually higher, like 15% after the excise tax kicks in.

Oh, and, insurance now caps their expenses to 15% of their receipts. That means that they are now spending more of their premiums on things like artificial hips and knees. So, basically, that 1.15% is covered by the insurance company.

So pray tell, which article or amendment does the Affordable Care Act supposedly violate?

Go on.

Firts off, get rid of the auto insurance argument, that's a STATE law, and they can do that.

As far as taxation laws, Obama insisted several times that this was "not a tax" which is odd, since he's supposed to be a "constitutional Scholar", and certainly taxation is the right of the Federal Govt.

The most recent support was pretty weak... “certainly is an encroachment on individual liberty,” but, he said, it is no more so than other federal laws such as civil rights laws that require restaurants or hotels to serve all customers regardless of race." Even the most staunch supporters of the law have to admit the reasoning there is extremely faulty, since The Constitution says we are all equal, but does NOT say we all get health insurance. I find the Judges logic and reasoning shaky at best

The second most recent appeals court that affirmed the law based their decision on a war powers act involving a famer who refused to participate in the wheat exchange. Again, Veeeeery shaky logic, big difference between what went on during the WW's and what we have for a market today.

I found the most reasonable logic from the Florida Judge Vinson. If they can make you buy health insurance, they can make you buy anything. The Governments powers would be virtually unlimited under this interpetation of the Commerce Clause of The Constitution.

Look, this is typical Obama. He means well, but he fails to execute properly. That goes for just about everything he's tried to do.

Now, because this so called "Constitutional Scholar" chose to not use the word "TAX", and because He specifically wrote the bill so that the individual mandate cannot be severed (because the big pharma and insurance companies wouldn't allow it to be passed any other way. Tell me they don't have too much power.)

Anyways, because he made these poor choices, we are danger of losing the GOOD parts of the bill, like pre-existing conditions and keeping your kids on longer. The bill is specifically written so the baby and the bathwater can only be thrown out together. Foolishness from a foolish President and his foolish minions in The Senate and The House. He should have listened to us when we sent Scott Brown to take Ted Kennedy's seat. We sent him for one reason and one reason only, to break the supermajority and cast the deciding vote AGAINST a badly written bill. Instead, at midnight on Christmas eve, it was passed using an obscure legislative trick called "reconciliation". By doing this, they bypassed a vote, and he never got a chance to vote no on the bill. Shady as hell. Defying the will of the people. It reeks of arrogance.

Does anyone ever remember a good law that was passed in the dark of the night?

The thing that really bothered me the most was Pelosi saying we have to pass this bill to see what's in it.

If you don't know what's in a bill you have no business voting on it!

They should have A - Delayed the vote until they had a chance to read what was in it or B - Not taken so many vacations or C - BOTH!

If you are voting on a bill you haven't read and don't understand, you have failed in your duty to your constituents. You have failed in basic logic. You have failed at doing your job properly. You have totally failed. We pay these people a lot of money to represent us, and this is exactly the opposite. Bunch of part timers.

I also believe that if Obama hadn't made all the Democrats fall on their swords for him over this, WE WOULD STILL HAVE THE HOUSE!!!!!

@Alil Common Sense - Here is a newsvine post I made in October 2010 after the Pelosi comment was being OFTEN quoted by conservatives in their attacks.

Full quote from Nancy Pelosi was

But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy

PolitiFact Texas Article excerpt

...led us to call U.S. Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Lewisville, among a handful of physicians in Congress and an opponent to the Democrats' proposal.

Burgess told us it's often true that the ins and outs of legislation aren't widely known until after a measure passes into law; that held true, for instance, for the Republican-steered measure providing government aid toward prescription drugs for seniors.

Pelosi's "right," Burgess said, though "I don’t think that’s a good strategy (to declare as much). I wouldn’t recommend anyone actually broadcasting that."

Based on the statement by Republican Rep Burgess, we should all be confident that Pelosi, Reid, Obama and Democrats that support the President are working diligently for the American People considering ALL Interests. Special and Non Special.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2010/mar/15/republican-party-texas/texas-gop-says-speaker-nancy-pelosi-said-people-wi/

I repeat my assertion that if you don't know what's in a bill you have no business voting on it.

Fog of controversy my a$$. If you are voting on a bill and you don't know what's in it then you have failed in your duty to your constituents. You have failed in your duty to The United States. You have failed to do your job properly.

Saying that everybody does it is simply no excuse. If it does in fact happen routinely, then every person who votes in such a way is at fault, regardless of party orientation. And you fail to adress the whole reconciliation thing.

Your assertion that we can be assured they have our best interests at heart is not supported by the facts. In fact, they indicate that the exact opposite is true.

We need only ask Justice Kennedy...he's the swing vote.

Roberts, Scalia, Thomas (who should recuse himself because Mrs. Thomas is paid to lobby against HCR) and Alito will vote it unconstitutional.

Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan (who should recuse herself because she was Solicitor General) will vote it constitutional.

That leaves Kennedy.

Ed,

The universal health care law will have absolutely 0.000% effect when it comes to slowing down the increase to health insurance premiums. It's a wonderful thing to believe that government can somehow beat economic law regarding markets, but this time all they will do is drive the costs up initially.

I can't remember which economist noted it first, but one economic law is:

Any market can provide:

High Quality or
Lower Price or
High quantity

You get to choose no more than 2.

--------

the universal health care law pretends that they can enforce a lower price without reducing quality or quantity. The mostly likely initial effect is to cause a rush on doctors as more people try to take advantage of the lower price. By necessity this will either drop quality or increase wait times. We have already seen this in emergency rooms which is where the poor go for high quality, but free service. Wait times are very long, often hours. I remember having to go to an emergency room for a kidney stone and having to sit up in the waiting room in a chair for 2 hours because there were no available beds. That's something I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.

In the long run this law will fail. It attempts to violate universal laws of economics. And while its nice to pretend that governments can write theri own laws, this is one that no government can overcome. Many others have tried in the past, none have managed to avoid seeing the quality of service drop over time or having to put massive restrictions on use.

And fhor those who want to claim that any nation in Europe has "universal care" most nations in Europe only cover citizens and since they don't have birthright citizenship there are large groups who cannot get any healthcare in those nations, but this tragedy is ignored. Afterall, they aren't citizens and can't vote so they have no influence. Its a rather tricky way aournd the situation. They force these workers to pay taxes, but deny them the benefits and then claim to be virtuous.

mvargus - I completely disagree. Reducing costs does not equal reduced quality or "quantity" of physicians accepting new clients. Reducing INSURANCE Costs is achieved by SPREADING THE RISK.

HEALTHCARE COSTS are reduced by preventiative care, use of technology for data tracking/communications, advancements in medical research etc.

I am 35 yrs old. NEVER had a cavity, never had a broken bone (only lacerations), rarely get sick. RARELY see a doctor. If healthy people like myself bought health insurance then costs would go down for everyone.

That is what HCR is based on. More healthy people in. Ratio of claims per total covered individuals is reduced. Costs go down. Single payer is not viable when considering our current "Free Market" system. Obamacare as so many affectionately call it, attempt to strike a balance between supporting INSURANCE Companies (Spreading the Risk), protecting patients, and reducing the costs of healthcare using technology and preventative care.

The #1 driving factor of cost is generally ignored in this argument......availability and technology. We drive the innovation.

Explain how a 1500 dollar stress test can be significantly reduced? Someone will pay for it.

If more people have health insurance, then MRI/CAT scan imaging companies like EPIC Imaging will have more customers. More VOLUME. Hopefully they can graciously offer "discounted" prices when their for-profit coffers are full.

http://www.epicimaging.com/

Say you've got a casino. It's a small, pathetic little casino, so it only has about 100 desperate gamblers in it at any given moment. Now say it's possible for one guy on his last dime to win $10,000. This is a 1% probability. In order for your pathetic little casino to avoid bankruptcy in the case this happens, each of those 100 patrons needs to lose at least $100.00 at the tables (pass the loaded dice).

But, what if two gamblers win $10,000? Well, the casino is still screwed. In order to avoid the casino going under if that happens, each patron needs to shell out at least $200.

But say that you've got one of those really cool, swanky casinos that have tame lions or topless servers or something. This casino has 10,000 gamblers at any given moment, each losing, say $110.00. Now if 100 of them (1%) win $10,000, since the casino has already earned $1,100,000, paying out $1,000,000 isn't a problem. Even if 105 people win $10,000, your casino is sill laughing since the total payout is still below $1,100,000. So, by increasing the number of patrons, the casino can spread the risk of paying out 10 grand in the event more people win than anticipated (a 1% probability).

http://open.salon.com/blog/kanuk/2009/05/21/lets_spread_the_risk_i_mean_health_care_not_flu

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/01/07/edsa0107.htm

Adidas,

Incorrect! You are right that HCR is supposed to force a spreading of the cost by making everyone purchase insurance, but it doesn't work that way.

RomneyCase in Massachucets is a wonderful object lesson for those who believe that you can mandate something and not have "unintended consequences". Mass has a mandate that everyone get health insurance and yet the insurance rates there have gone up FASTER than the rest of the nation.

You are still trying to get 3 things at the same time when the three things are diametrically opposed, and more importantly you ignored how it works.

Say that your mandate works 100% and everyone somehow gets insurance so they can see a doctor for any reason. (It didn't in Mass and there is absolutely no reason to beleive it will work nationally, but let's pretend since you obviously believe it will work.) Ok, by liberal estimates that's some 15-20 million more insured people.

Find me the doctors to treat them. Quick, where are they?

Think the current system will work. I'm in a very good and large HMO insurnace plan and it can take 3 weeks to see my docotor now. Many doctors in the group don't take new patients unless one of their current patients moves out or dies. Heck Medicare which is used as an example for much of new policies in the HCR has more than 40% of the doctors in the nation refusing to accept them as patients. It doesn't pay enough.

Is the government going to magically reduce the cost of medical school so that doctors don't graduate with six figure student loan debts to pay off? Is the government going to take action to reduce the frequency of malpractice suits so that doctors can pay less in insurance against this (in many states it can be $100K per year or more in some specialties) Those are 2 of the biggest drivers in costs, and increasing the insurance pool isn't going to reduce these costs.

That's what you forget. someone still has to pay the bill, and there has to be someone to take the money. Spreading the cost to the insurnace company is nice, but it doesn't mean that the cost of a procedure drops, just that the money the insurance company pays out is covered by a larger pool of paying insured citizens.

But that doesn't mean there will be any more doctors. To have more doctors, the insurance companies would have to offer better reimbursement rates, but HCR is all about reducing the reimbursement rates.

It looks like you are aiming for the low cost and low availaiblity variant. The cost will be low, just like Canada or the UK, but good luck finding doctors. They will happily move elsewhere if they need to. In fact there is a growing industry where sick people from Europe fly to India because there are doctors there who are set up to treat European patients quickly and at a reasonable cost. The doctors are happy because they get far more money than they would in the European medical systems and the tourist patients are ahppy because they don';t have to wait in line behind the thousands of others trapped in health systems that do not adequately reward their medical professionals and therefore have a constant shortage of doctors and nurses.

mvargus, point taken. The doctor shortage problem, specifically General Family Physicians/Practitioners, has been a trend for many years now. Especially in RURAL AREAS. IMO i believe it is related to the shortage of Mathameticians and Scientists.

Being in the "Public Sector" is now frowned upon. No longer do young high school girls wish to be marine biologists working with Dolphins. Math? Science? Being a social worker HELPING people? No thats lame! THERE IS NO MONEY in those fields.

No just as the perception of women is skewed by magazines and the fashion industry, young americans are being taught that they must be in BUSINESS MAKING CASH!

Same goes for Doctors. Being a Family Physician is BORING. A plastic surgeon or nuerosurgeon is so glamorous. Now i dont fault an indivdual for wanting to choose an exciting speciality in Medicine or Business but we all need to start stressing the importance of Biologists, Hydrologists, Social Workers, and other LESS LUCRATIVE occupations.

Mvargus, please explain why countries with universal health care do it better and cheaper than the US.

Actually, Noid, Kagan should recuse herself as she has a definite conflict of interest - directly and personally - since she either helped to write it or argued for it for the Obama administration before she became a Justice. Thomas' wife being involved with the TEA party is hardly a conflict of interest on Thomas' part as it is his wife who is involved and not him. Besides, the TEA party does not have the political clout th really effect the change that you seem to be so afraid of.

Just because more people have coverage doesn't mean more people will get sick period.....That fundemental arguement of the greed class doesn't hold water that there will not be enough doctors...No matter how many are covered the same amount of people will be sick...there I typed it again like fox and friends ( if you say it enough it becomes true)......What will happen is people will go to the doctors office instead of the ER so there will be a shift on where business gets done..that's all...And the drs. office doesn't have quite the overhead of the ER so therefore it will be cheaper...There is the cost going down...Now that is just one example of the debate..But what you fox viewers must take into account is you are not experts in any or all of the fields that have the authority to debate this issue and did and it was passed by our goverment by a majority and agreed upon by a majority of the experts... The only things that would make it better are a public option or forget the whole thing and goto a single payor universal healthcare IE; Medi-care for all....But the GOP ( Greedy old pricks) will have none of that and they have enough power to stop it for now.....My prediction is that the supremes rule against parts of HR but the dems win a super majority in the near future and we goto single payor to get our credit rating back....HMMMM..I wonder how much employers public and private would be able to pay in salary without having to pay insurance companies...With large salary increases and foriegn owned capital draining insurance companies gone the economy will boom...

mvargus ... it works in Canada and the economists there say it saves individual canadians and the Canadian Gov $$$millions each year ... the GAO has repeatedly said the health care reform act will not increase the deficit

mvargus...You have some good points, but you also forgot to mention that patients here, in the USA, are ALSO flying to India and Mexico to get cheaper, quallity care. I read in the paper over a year ago that a private insurance company in Oregon flew, at it's expense, a patient to Mexico for a hip replacement. The patient enjoyed tremendous, quality care in a clean, modern hospital with doctors and nurses who all spoke English, and much more personalized service than he could ever get here. Upon coming home he raved about his new hip and was thouroughly satisfied. Oh, I forgot to mention, the insurance company also paid to fly his wife down to Mexico with her husband, put her up in a quality hotel, and they picked up the tab for all of this. (The husband jokingly complained that his wife bought back a whole houseful of trinkets and do-dads bought in the local markets!). And all this was accomplished at a lower rate than having the procedure done here in the USA! The article didn't say, but I think it implied that the doctors/nurses in Mexico were paid salary, and fee-for-service; if that makes any difference at all. So the whole issue gets very complicated...........

Eric, Independent Jim,

Both of you basically asked the same question. You challenged me claiming that nations with "universal health care" currently are offering better care than the US.

I think if you actually real all the studies and not just the ones slanted to make universal health care sound good you'll find that the real story is that these services rely heavily on a number of outside factors that allow them to look good, while actually offering sub-par care.

I'll start with Canada where there have been a multitude of stories about the problems with the health care system.

1) a judge in Canada actually issued a legal verdict that declared their entire system a violation of human rights because it failed to get people in front of doctors in a timely manner. The basics of the case were that a man needing surgery got stuck on a wait list that was months long. The judge ruled that access to a wait list is not access to care. Canada's wait list issues are legion and actually very well documents.

2) I believe it was 2 winters ago that a famous actress crashed while skiing in Canada just North of the New York/Canada border. She was taken to a Canadian hospital and given the best treatment that hospital could give based on the equipment available. Unfortunately no CAT scan equipment was available and the extent of her head injury could not be checked. She would die in the hospital a few hours later. the missing equipment is standard in just about every US hospital, but fewer than 1 in 10 in Canada have the scanner. This again is common and waits for CAT scans and MRIs can be weeks or months in Canada. In the US its usually done the day the doctor calls for one. I know that when I went to the hospital for a kidney stone they had me undergoing a CAT scan within 2 hours of actually admitting me. (the 2 hours I spent in agony in the emergency room waiting area I dont' count as that is a whole other issue.)

And that's just the 2 immediate items about Canada.

The UK also has several known issues. They are infamous for shunting pregnant women from one hospital to another due to a lack of beds even during labor. They are another with long wait lists and a severe restriction on access to medicines and care. Recently a woman basically volunteered to spend her own money to get her hands on a recently introduced cancer fighting drug. The UK medical system actually took her to court to prevent her from spending her own money on her care. She volunteered because the UK had pulled its approval for this life-sustaining drug. It had been approved and was approved in other nations around the world, but the UK was unable to get the company making it to bring down the price to what they demanded to they refused to allow it to be sold in their nation. The citizens suffered in order to keep the price of care down.

As for the rest of the nations claiming that their service is great. I've seen the raw statistics as well as the hidden tricks nations play to hide the real numbers

Were you aware that just about every nation in Europe with a Universal Health Care system does not count a child as being born "alive" unless the pregnancy was 37 weeks or longer. If a child is premature some nations won't even bother trying to save it, and then record the child as a miscarriage. Several studies used the difference in "infant mortality rates" to say that universal health care is better. Well its easy to have a lower rate when you don't count or try to save premature children. The US does and counts any live birth, even ones at 22-25 weeks as living. Unfortunately many premature babies don't leave the hospital despite the very high quality of care the US provides, so some people believe the US has a lower quality of care.

The best way to see which nations truly have the best care is to see where the wealthy go when they are sick. You never hear of a Bill Gates or Warren Buffett traveling to Europe for medical treatment. Heck, even European politicians will come to the US for treatment when they can. The US medical system provides the best service in the world.

It also has to provide service for the most diverse population on the planet, over a territory that's larger than any of the nations you'll point out to as having "better universal care", and with a population that's much higher than any of them as well.

Its easy for a nation like Sweden to offer universal health care to its citizens (but not the immigrant workers who after 3 generations are still not citizens even though they pay taxes.) There aren't that many of them, they live relatively close together and they are willing to accept a system that offers very few choices compared to the US. If someone from Sweden doesn't like the choices, they can travel to India or the US if they have the money, or they get to suffer.

The question of "will universal health care work in the US" is extremely complex and shoud never have been demagogued about the way it has. Neither side has all the answers, but I worry that we aren't even asking the right questions are are dooming ourselves to a terrible disappointment if we rush forward with the current plan. The economics aren't right, and that's before we consider the doctor shortage we already have.

mvargus, yes there have been a multitude of stories about about health care in Canada but as usual they are BS similar to yours. 85% of Canadians like their health care although they may admit that there is room for improvement. The famous actress ski story is a complete lie as they had prompt medical attention with a helecopter available but refused the sevice as they considered it not necessary. At least that is what they said when questioned later about the service that they received. I can see people whinning if they had to wait in line but the actress story as most stories is bogus.

adrift -

I personally know of an individual - a friend - who waited for over a year to get knee replacement surgery. They kept pushing her to the back of the line, normally because there was no budget for the surgery, whenever she got close to the top of the list. She couldn't even walk without a walker!

Believe what you will, you are lying to yourself if you think universal care will work here.

Mvargus and Tammy, I don't know what it is with Republicans that they believe that only the wealthy should have health care, and that the US health care is the best in the world when its not.

"Of the top 50 countries that offer the highest quality healthcare in the world, the U.S. ranks 37th. Due to rising healthcare costs and the number of uninsured Americans, doctors and hospitals are under pressure to discharge and release patients from their care as quickly as possible. While this cuts medical bills for insurance companies and medicare and medicaid, it also comes with some extremely adverse effects on the quality of healthcare. Competent health administrators with their MHA degrees are in high demand now, as healthcare costs continue to rise as quality suffers."

I've lived in two countries with Universal Health Care, I never waited in line, not even for stitches. My sister in law, after giving birth to my niece, had a home health nurse come to her home daily for two weeks. Neither of you know what your talking about.

However, if universal health care were to become a Republican idea, you two would be for it right away.

Nvaras, sure you can. You can define healthcare as a social service which is exactly what it is. You can open the doors to Doctors, nurses, careworkers from around the world who are interested in "healing the sick". You can offer Federally subsidized tuition for students from around the world who wish to pursue a career in healthcare social work across the board. You can offer a single payer system whereby everyone has access to healthcare. You remove the business aspect as one would do say for the military. The military isn't a business per se (it is but it isn't). So, in regards to healthcare, you most certainly can remove it from a P/L statement. So, let's not bleat about "unconstitutional". Let's talk about getting a healthcare system that works.

I remember that story about the actress. If memory serves me, she refused medical transport from the ski resort. It wasn't until later when she was in her hotel that she had symptoms and was transported to the hospital. If I remember the story correctly, it was the fact she waited several hours before going ot the hospital that contributed to her death, not a failure of the hospital.

That being said, I agree there is some triage in the canadian system. My understanding is people with minor conditions sometimes have to wait, even months, to be seen. But I have never heard of anyone being denied emergency or urgent care.

Eric -

There you go assuming again...

First off, I'm not republican. I do happen to be conservative in my fiscal views, but that does not make me a republican - whether you wish it so or not.

You really need to do some soul-searching. Why are you so threatened by republicans? Were your parent republicans? Perhaps you should seek help...

He didn't say you were a republican he stated he didn't know why republicans felt that way.....So stop with all the nanny-nanny-boo-boo I know you are but what am I.............

@vargas, Sorry to blow your "canadian death warehouse" scenario out of the water but...

From ABC News:

She initially appeared fine and joked about the fall, but the ski patrol insisted she see a doctor. Richardson declined, the resort said in a statement Tuesday.

Thursday, ABC News learned more details about what happened between when Richardson fell and when she sought medical attention. At 12:43 p.m. Monday, the first call to the paramedics was made. An ambulance arrived at 1 p.m. and transported Richardson from the foot of the mountain to the infirmary by sleigh.

Richardson thought she was fine and didn't want to stay at the infirmary. At 1:10 p.m., Richardson signed hospital waiver paperwork and walked 300 yards to hotel along with her ski instructor. She was back in her room by 1:30 p.m.

At 2:59 p.m., paramedics received a second call for help. An ambulance showed up at the hotel exactly ten minutes later. Richardson was conscious but showing signs that made paramedics call the hematology department at the Centre Hospitalier Laurentien in Ste-Agathe, where the ambulance took her.

On Wednesday, a Canadian newspaper confirmed that an ambulance was dispatched to the resort right after the accident, but the paramedics were told they were not needed and left.

"They never saw the patient," Yves Coderre, the operations manager for the ambulance service, told the Globe and Mail. "So they turned around."

Regardless, people die every day because they have NO access TO health care. That apparently doesn't bother you now! You all are simply worried about the poor doctors who will have to work on Friday instead of spending the afternoon on the links or the rich actress who gets treated like a "normal" person. Waaaaaa!

See "Medicaid". Good lord, do you idiots even know what all options are out there now?

HIPAA plans, high risk pools ( state run )... we already HAVE options for everyone. And sorry to burst your bubble, but adding more people to the pool won't make it less expensive. You would THINK it would, but it doesn't work that way in the real world. And that's the problem, the idiots proposing this law have never BEEN in the real world.

Medicare is insolvent. It is broke. The payouts are substantially more than the money taken in.

How can we afford to expand a broken system?!?

One of the biggest issues with Medicare is the amount paid for patients during their last 60 days or so. We as a society, led by the religious right, are so fearful of death that we continue extreme treatments, hospitalizations etc with patients that really belong in hospice. It was atttempted to address this in the health care legislation with the idea that Doctors and patients should sit down ahead of time and calmly, rationally discuss THEIR PERSONAL desires concerning end of life. Sarah and friends labeled this "death panels" as, for some bizarre religious reason, they want all people to live as long as possible regardless of quality of life. This situation does not exist to the same degree for the general population as it does for the elderly.

Pay attention to what Ble cat 55 says.

About 75% of all health care dollars are spent inthe last 6 months of life accoridng to medicare statistics.And the amount climbs exponentiallyinthe last 60 days of life.

If one is at all serious about cutting medical costs -the end of life issues have to be revisited again.Otherwise no one is serous about cutting medical costs.

Blue Cat & Arlin Carlson.. So what are you saying? Is it that certain patients at the end of their life should not have access to every possible medical procedure or treatment that is available to them because it will cost too much. Who decides what procedure is given to what patient then? Who makes the decision that a 75 year old man doesn't get the cancer treatment he needs to extend his life versus being put in hospice to die? That should be a decision for the patient and their family only, not a government bureaucrat that says "Sorry but your too old and this medication costs too much for the other taxpayers so you can't have it." That is the problem with universal health care, it takes puts the final decision on who recieves what treatment into the hands of the government.

Stlmike the answer to your question is what Palin already told you " DEATH PANELS." AAAAAAAHHHHHHHH... You peeps are so comical...As the legislation was written and exactly like that poster explained it is the decision of the patient period....No not the family and other loved ones like you say....Now that is truly scary what you people want...You say you don't want a government agency deciding well no one ever said that but Palin and you...And we don't want sad family members deciding either we want the patient to make the decision ahead of time period...Not some crying loved one keeping you alive when you are in a coma or serious pain just because they can't let go and as a side point it costs way more for care at that point...Any rational person sees that ...But fox news viewers are a different breed..And not all that watch it are..I watch it too just so I can know the wagons of bull they are feeding our dimbulbs.....There will be no death panels..........

Download the Federal Budget and read it. Go to the Medicare website and read the reports yourself.

Medicare is not insolvent. Medicare will never be insolvent. Medicare runs on FICA taxes. It is self sufficient. Medicare has a surplus. Unlike the much of the government, it saved money in a tru

What do you suppose can be accomplished in 12 years?

A big reason that Medicare is spending the savings is because health care costs are is higher than economically necessary. That is the reason that HR 3962 was created, because we need to reduce health care costs so that we can continue taking care of grandma.

Another is that unemployment is high. Last year, the projected date of the trust fund exhaustion was 2029. Before the economy tanked, it was even further out.

Whom ever said that Medicare IS insolvent was flat out lying.

Here is an interesting thing. With 15 million unemployed Americans, there are a lot of people to work in health care. With them working in health care, that is more people paying FICA tax for SSI and Medicare. That is also a larger supply of medical professionals which brings prices down. Also, the Medicare tax is cheap, only 1.45%. A small adjustment will eliminate the problem.

Unless we want to let old people just die, then it will never be insolvent.

You don't want to kill grandma, do you? Seems that Republicans do, well... not their grandma, just yours.

Oops, something got cut off.

Medicare is projected to deplete the trust fund in 2024.

You can read the "A SUMMARY OF THE 2011 ANNUAL REPORTS" at

Even then, Medicare will not be insolvent. That is simply because Medicare always collects fund. The worse case is that Medicare will simply provide less service.

Instead on listening to fear mongers who scream "insolvent" and "death panels", go read the report. Also, go read HR 3962 at

and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act at

One point about the comment that "HCR has more than 40% of the doctors in the nation refusing to accept them as patients. It doesn't pay enough."

Well, that would be 60% that do. See how that works?

I suppose that Conrad Murray, Michael Jackson's doctor, didn't take Medicare and Medicaid either. That is how the free market works. There is a spread of costs and incomes. Raley's costs more than Food Max. Arco costs less than Shell. A BMW costs more than a Ford Focus. There are high end restaurants and there are fast food restaurants.

I think that 60% of the doctors can care for the less fortunate 60% of earners. 60% of the doctors is more than enough to care for the 16% that are uninsured and still give them plenty of consumer choice. And, then the remaining 40% can take care of the "upper" 40% of Americans who want to pay for those "Cadillac" health plans.

So, that 60% of doctors say they won't take HCR just means it is a free market solution. That is what we wanted, isn't it? A uniquely American, free market, solution.

It is so obvious, I just have to wonder if the statement is made to mislead people or the person making it is just dumb.

LOL...GOP (Greedy Old Pricks) still get thier info from FAUX NEWS...and refuse to listen to anyone but Rush L.

real facts just get in the way...lol

Insurance rates have skyrocketed for one reason.... they are STOCK companies. That's about it.

This is the stupidest statement I have ever seen.

It's like saying the government should tell you what you have to eat. And if you consider that government overreach you should promise to never eat again.

jw12: You need to rethink who is making the stupidest statement. It is already mandatory that you have auto liability coverage insurance. It is a fact that medical costs are far higher than what the vast majority of people can afford and the vast majority of people who have medical insurance don't have adequate coverage when they need it. There is no reason why this country cannot have a single payer system that works. Why aren't you complaining about the insurance companies that are profit driven and are making billions? Health care in this country is out of control and has become nothing but big business. Mandated health insurance is only a part of health care reform. Billions are lost each year to Medicare fraud perpetrated by the hospitals. The whole industry needs to be turned upside down.

realityseeker-3039813

jw12: You need to rethink who is making the stupidest statement. It is already mandatory that you have auto liability coverage insurance.

Sorry, but you are simply wrong. There is no law that mandates every citizen must have auto liability coverage. It only mandates it when you own a car. If you do not own a car and do not drive, you do not have to have th coverage. In addition, the coverage only serves to protect others against from you, not themselves. With liability coverage, if you cause and accident, the insurance company only pays out damages caused to the other person's property or person, you get no money, no replacement of your car, and no coverage for your own injuries. You can avoid having to buy auto insurace by chosing not to own a car.

In contrast, the health care mandate requires you to buy insurance simply by being a citizens in the United States or pay a fine. You cannot avoid it and therefore it infringes on your right to chose how you live your life and take care of yourself. If the government can mandate you to purchase a product under the reasoning that it prevents higer costs to the entire population, what's to prevent the government from stepping in and mandating everyone must buy a gym membership to remain healthy and lower costs for everyone, or to buy a certain type of vehicle so that everyone in the country has can afford to buy a car, or buy a certain type of home, so everyone in the country has a right to a home? Once the precedent has been set that the government can force its citizens to buy one type of product, this leaves the door open for other mandated purchases, which will ultimately infringe on your rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

Mike you are wrong every citizen will not have to buy health insurance....I will not explain that if you can't figure out the millions that won't on your own and the millions that won't have to pay any penalty for not than you will not believe me anyway.........................You will only understand if hannity and oreilly beat it in your head

Oh and by the way..I see how you like to use analogies chew on this one....The government already forces parents to buy a product either you send your kids to public school or pay for private or pay for accredited home schooling courses and testing.....The same now applies to health-care either your income entitles you too medi-care medi-caid or your employer provides or you buy it yourself or you will have to pay a penalty...It is your responsibilty to take care of yourself just like the ER has to treat you therefore if you have means we don't have to pay your ER bill anymore.....We do not live in an anarchial society get used to it there will be other laws you don't like...Just stay in and watch Greta and whine...

Hey, I bought a goddamn war that I didn't want! That IS the way it works in the US.

horse -

FYI- It was a nearly unanimous vote in the House and Senate, democrat and republican. Blame your democratic Congressmen for going to war as Congress is the only government entity allowed to declare war, not the President!

...Well, until Obama disobeyed the Constitution and the War Powers Act and went into Libya...

Tammy lol sigh... you are criticizing Obama for framing Libya as a UN Mission where the US played a supporting role (rather than "declare war") yet you gleefully accept the fact that America invaded Iraq un-necessarily because everyone voted for it?

Why was their a "nearly unanimous vote" (or your idea of unanimous) for the Iraq War Powers Act?

Democrats were split, with 29 voting for the resolution and 21 against it. Also voting against it were Republican Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and independent James Jeffords of Vermont.

If the Bush administration hadn't of SOLD the American Public a FLIMSY case for war against Iraq then Saddam, Uday and Qusay would have ran the country into the ground and eventually been overthrown.

Have you ever watched Colin Powell's speech to the UN making the case for invading Iraq? On Satellite Images he pointed out Mobile Chemical Weapon Labs and WMD Facilities.... whereas in reality... there were none.

The whole Iraq situation was BS. Neglected Afgan War and well lets not get into it. Anyways here are the videos. Let me know if you are saddened, or think TSK TSK or fu€kme as much as I did.

CNN production: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYBA9JD5oW4

CSPAN Speech Part 2 - Go to timestamp 5 minutes and Colin shows WMD storage depots (says there are 65 sites total)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpsP_flmdqA

CSPAN Speech Part 4 - Description of sources and Mobile Weapons Labs - Timestamp 1 minute for Mobile Weapons diagrams

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMQu3hpF1ro

The movie Green Zone is looking more like a true story watching these videos again...

STLMike:

There is no law that mandates every citizen must have auto liability coverage. It only mandates it when you own a car. If you do not own a car and do not drive, you do not have to have the coverage.

Correct, you only have to buy car insurance if choose to drive but by that argument the only way a person should be exempt from buying health insurance is if they can guarantee with certainty they will never, ever get sick, need glasses, have a cavity filled, break a bone ... But that can happen to any of us and hospitals are currently required to provide treatment even to the uninsured. If we're all potential consumers at one end of the system we'd all better pay into it at the other.

Reality check: The entire point of insurance is NOT that it's a commodity that you buy with the intent of using it. After all, do you look forward to a house fire so you can "get your money's worth" from your home insurance policy? The best explanation I ever heard was from a professor in a long-ago econ class: "Insurance is the only bet you make in the hope that you will lose it."

I'd be more than willing to support an opt-out clause to the individual mandate if it were applied to receipt of care as well as to payment for it. Something like, "I, [name here], agree that I will self-fund any and all health insurance and care that I may need now or in the future. If I am unable to obtain insurance and/or pay for such care as may be required, I will seek out private sources of funds including but not limited to relatives, friends, and private charities. Under no circumstances will I accept any money provided by any government-sponsored program be it at the local, state, or national level. Should funding be unavailable, I agree to be sent home with no more than palliative care."

I'm waiting for all on the far right to line up with pens in hand ...
and waiting ...

@dan, Brilliantly stated.

I'd be more than willing to support an opt-out clause to the individual mandate if it were applied to receipt of care as well as to payment for it.

I'd support that as well.

paying or not paying is not the point its the way there trying to do it .........

Ed,

If the individuals you mentioned were working, but elected to not carry insurance, they should be on the hook, not the taxpayers. This is a non issue, the hospital should sue them and do whatever is necessary to recoup their losses. There are only free bees, as you call them, if these individuals don't pay. It's hard to feel sorry for someone that is not responsible enough to take care of themselves

You did not answer the question as to why healthcare is so expensive.

Using your numbers - $1,000,000 / (4 people x 40 days) = $6250 per day per person

So why is it that it costs that much per day? Obamacare does nothing to reduce the cost of healthcare in this nation. It is just another entitlement.

JW:

Most states have laws the require care givers to provide services regardless of ones ability to pay. You can't get money out of one that has no assets or money.

Therefore, the care providers have to right their books and the only way for that is for the State to contribute funds, or increase costs passed on to cash or insured patients (i.e insurance carriers)

Thus the point, as a cash or insured patient you are in the long run paying for the uninsured.

You are correct in that actual care giver charges will not go down, most likely up, but charges assesed individual care patients will go down because care givers will not have to eat the costs of non payers.

What is driving you individual insurance cost at this time is Greed, and the insurers need to get additional revenue to keep up with those costs assessed their current insured expenses.

THe only way to correct this issue is to have everone insured.

Hospitals are only required to provide "stabilizing care", not continuous care.

And it is a federal mandate, not a state mandate - as a condition for receiving any federal monies, like medicare payments.

Personally, I think many hospitals would be able to do better for themselves if they refused to accept federal monies.

Federal, state, local mandate..........word it anywhich way you like. We pay anyways. We pay for our disgrace of a healthcare business. We are not patients but customers. We are the only Western Nation that makes a social service a business. And hey, we're rated 37th in the World Health Organization rankings but Number 1 in costs. Champion! So, would you buy a car that is 37th rated? Come folks, its time. A complete revamp of the healthcare industry is in order. Forget the fact that we pay for the 50,000,000 who do not have health insurance. Why? Cause its good for business. By putting your head in the sand and waving a flag will not change this. Blaming people because they don't have healthcare insuranced is a bit like Mr. Cain saying; If you're poor, too bad. Its your fault. He might as well have said, if you're poor, don't be. If you don't have healthcare, get some. Easy huh?!!!!

How is the ACA not "regulation?" You went into a long-winded argument about this whole thing, but managed to ignore the most important part. That's called a "red herring," Steve.

Regulations and Laws are not the same. Regulations can be self imposed, and apply narrowly. Laws are created and must apply to all equally.

The Healthcare Reform Act as a law, applies equally to all, which means that every person must comply with the law without exception. If not, then the law is not Constitutional.

While the 5th and 14th amendment provides equal protection under the law and due process, the one aspect of equal protection that applies to the Healthcare Reform Act because this law infringes upon the liberty of individuals, is that of "strict scrutiny". Strict scrutiny says "compelling governmental interest, narrowly taylored, and least restrictive when a law infringed upon a person's liberty.

The act of the government compelling an individual to purchase a product from a private business infringes upon a person's individual liberty. Because the Healthcare Reform Act is not narrowly taylored and does not meet least restrictive [because waivers have been granted], the law does not meet this criteria to allow the goverment to infringe upon an individual's liberty [Liberty defined as both positive AND negative liberty]

Regulations, on the other hand, as first mentioned, are not laws because they can be self imposed without government action, and do not and are not required to apply equally to all.

An Example of regulatory actions is the Interstate Commerce Clause of the US Constitution which grants the Federal Goverment the right to regulate, that is regulate interstate commerce, but it is not law in which all must adhere to. If one does not conduct interstate commerce, they are not subject to interstate regulation progmulated by the Federal Goverment.

The Healthcare Reform Act seeks to use both regulatory AND legislative powers to imposed a law upon all individuals AND restrictions upon liberty of individuals by requiring through coersion of a penalty / Tax, those individuals to purchase a product from a private business because it's in the government's interest that all citizens buy healthcare insurance to reduce the government's costs to pay for healthcare insurance.

Strict Scrutiny to the Healthcare Reform law, does not meet the narrow definition and the least restrictive definition.

You can use all the big words you want, but you still need to prove your point. You just keep moving the goalposts to avoid answering for the real issue in your post.

And so Dave, the healthcare industry is working just fine is it? Costs are reasonable and healthcare is a privilige not a right? So, you don't like President Obama. So what?! You haven't offered any answers just dislike of the President. Well, here's one for you; I don't like our healthcare industry and what something done about it. I don't like paying for 37th rated business. I don't like paying number 1 in costs. I believe the only answer to this social service is the fair methold of "single payer". So, Obama, Mitt, Crazy Rick, Crazy Michelle, Squirmy Herman and the rest, its gonna change cause it has to change. That's it. That's the story.

So sayeth the Socialist.

Dave, if health insurance is socialism (do you know what socialism is, other than yet another "naughty word"?) please don't drive on an interstate highway, visit a national park, fly on an airline that uses federal traffic controllers, mail a letter, breathe any air or drink any water that meets EPA standards, take any medicines approved by the FDA, or a host of other activities. We all pay into these because at some point or another most of us benefit. Maybe not every day and maybe not directly but we do benefit regardless of what you hear on Fox or read in Ayn Rand.

Fact check: Our wonderful fragmented, overlapping, inconsistent health care "system" wastes about 30¢ out of every dollar spent (source: The Wall Street Journal) and incurs per-capita costs about twice those in any other major nation while leaving millions without coverage. If we're going to debate "isms", does American Exceptionalism mean being in favor of spending more money so we can be sicker than other countries' citizens?

It will be declared constitutional or unconstitutional based on the beliefs of each justice. They could argue with the elastic clause ("necessary and proper") or they could argue with a ton of individual freedom clauses.

Dan Webster

So sayeth another Socialist

If your fact check is accurate and current health care wastes 30%, just imagine how much will be wasted if the Government gets its' hands on it. Brrrrr

Ah, yes, "Keep the government's hands off my Medicare!". Medicare and the VA, ARE run by the government and for all their faults spend between 2 and 4 percent of their funds on administration.

And you have no clue what "socialist" means. By your 'definition' all of those federal programs that benefit most of society in some way are "socialist" because they're shared. Methinks you do only know it's a naughty name for something you disagree with, maybe a step up from "you have cooties" - ??

Right. So, public schools were not intended by our Forefathers? So many things didn't enter into the founders mentality as those situations didn't exist. Free? Public school isn't free. Nothing's free. You're right. All things have to paid for one way or the other. Healthcare like public schools need to be paid for by the very people that live in that society. You and me. He and she. Why? Because, its the right thing to do. Just like Civil Rights was the right thing to do. Just like repeal of DADT was the right thing to do. Sometimes, we have to do the right thing whether we like it or not. How about water? I own water. But you can buy it from me. If you don't the money...........tough. You should have thought about that. Air? How about the air? I own the air and you're not included nor is anyone in your family because you just don't have the money. Now we have a Death Panel don't we? Whew, too many flags, whistles, bells, and costumes and not enough We the People you people bleat on about.

Public schools were meant by our forefathers (Northwest Ordinance of 1787, square 16, google it). The people who cannot afford health insurance get medicaid. If they don't get medicaid because they make too much, they are wasting the money somewhere else, and risking it.

Truthteller: So you think it is all right that 35% of the people don't pay their medical bills. Thats part of the problem.

Stop believing the propaganda you talk about rights well I do not wanna give up my right to a trial by jury you do because someone or should I say something " the box or the TV"......Yes there are frivolous suits but if you think the hot coffee at mcdonalds was one you need to read the book " Hot coffee" or watch the movie...People have a right to a jury for damages there is no other way to get some of your life back since the dollar drives everthing.....People scream about government in there lives cramming stuff down their throat but then advocate that goverment get between them and a jury of their peers......Noone but a jury and judge should decide those matters...That is what the constitution states in so many words...But you are quick to wanna change that because of propaganda...Read and I bet your mind is swayed...Make up your own mind don't let it be made up for you....And don't try to trick others with falsities...

Unions support Obama, just like Unions support Socialism (and Communism).

I agree that the law as written is flawed but it at least tries to balance paying for health care with consuming it. If you want to follow your point about not being required to pay for insurance, do you also believe there should similarly be no rules requiring a hospital to treat any patient who is uninsured and/or has no other means of paying for their care? Would you say the same if, God forbid, you had a catastrophic illness but the private company that insures you decided you were too expensive to continue covering? We can't have it both ways.

You are correct. Blue Cross/Blue Shield just ran commercials advertising how they are sending their customers checks at the end of the year. That is because, major health insurance companies must spend 85% of the receipts on expenses. This is similar to CSAA, the automobile insurance in California. CSAA is a not-for-profit company. Every year, I get a check back.

So, medical insurance premiums have already come down.

HR 3692, the American Heath Care and Affordability Act is a uniquely American Solution. It addresses the economics of medical costs at the levels of supply and demand.

Higher demand can go either way, when it comes to prices. This depends of supply and the cost of production.

All other things being equal, when demand increases, price falls simply because the fixed costs are spread out over more customers. Also, when prices are lowered, more people can afford to purchase so demand increases.

Still, there are conditions where the increase in demand cuts into the available supply. This can cause the supply and demand curves to shift together. So, the thing to do is to get more doctors, nurses, etc. One provision of the health care bill is a nursing and doctor "pipeline", helping people get through medical school. This increases the supply of medical professionals.

Another issue is simply that everyone in the US does receives some medical care, if nothing else, the expense of emergency medical care. And, everyone ends up paying for this emergency care. Hospitals work it into their pricing, a virtual sales tax on those that do purchase health insurance or pay out of pocket. I have even heard of uninsured individuals calling an ambulance for dumb things like an ear ache. That costs everyone. Just getting them into basic preventative care reduces costs to the insured. And, the costs are applied where they go.

Even if Mass did see increases in pricing due to their health care law, Mass isn't isolated from the remaining economy. Observations of Mass do not qualify as a "natural experiment." With more demand and no increase in supply, costs would go up unless prices were higher than in other states to attract more doctors.

Then, "the Boston Globe reported that more than a thousand people in Massachusetts had "gamed" the mandate/penalty provision of the law since implementation by choosing to be insured only a few months a year, typically when in need of a specific medical procedure"

Then there is the issue of what you mean by "costs", individual, average, the spread? If more people see lower prices and go get more care, then costs are the same while there is more being done.

In order to say something about Mass, it is required that details be considered, not sweeping statements. I have not studied the Mass system, but a quick read of Wiki is a bit ambiguous. As always, the devil is in the details.

They don't ......You have excellent insight.

Laron -

Only one problem - Americans will not be allowed to continue to do things the way we have been! Obamacare does not allow an individual to pay their own way, it requires individuals to purchase a product from a middleman - something which is against our Constitution.

this is not the only case of the government forcing you to do something if you do not like to follow laws and rules move to a private island..the rest of us are gonna try to get along in society...rich and poor...all races...men and women...homo and hetero-sexual....some of us are tolerant of others and some are not...what a shame that the most untolerant ones are the ones that claim to follow the teachings of Christ.

No. Like Roe v. Wade to the christians they will keep chipping away with state laws and constitutional challenges until they get a constitutional amendment declaring that every egg is a human life... oh, except for people on welfare - they need to be sterilized?!... and of course illegal immigrants who have babies - they don't qualify for health care or education?! But best of all is that guy on death row who may have not committed that crime but doesn't live long enough to be vindicated by advanced scientific forensics. Conservatives have truly twisted logic!

We have universal treatment. We do not have universal insurance or payment. Anyone who receives care without insurance has their costs shifted to those of us who do have it. The whole point of requiring some form of insurance is that because everyone participates as a user of health care, everyone should participate as a payer.

OK, it may not come out 100% equitably but hardly anything in society ever does. The right wing screams that they don't want to pay for anyone else's insurance, but the fact is THEY ALREADY DO through cost-shifting, as do ALL OF US with insurance. And we're paying immorally higher rates because of the inefficiencies and inequities built into the current monstrosity we call a health-care "system".