IMO, we need to un-couple health insurance from businesses and allow all American citizens to buy health care coverage from a pool. It doesn't have to be a Federal program. It can be privatized. Health care for American citizens should not be political at all. It is a basic human necessity. I also believe our Congress should be subject to the same rules and programs as the average American.

The Affordable Health Care Act is good in THEORY, but in reality BIG businesses continue to skirt around it. The BIG BUSINESS I retired from last year got 23 MILLION to keep premiums low for early retiree's, they used THAT MONEY for other things and OUR MEDICAL PREMIUM RATES WENT UP 300% in one year. Bottom line, there are no PROVISIONS for abuses, or regulations for companies on what they can do with the money they receive.

Health Insurance the way it is practiced today is not really health insurance. It is more like pre-paid services. Insurance properly defined is to prevent you from catastrophic bills should you get ill or have an accident.

When it became the thing to do in the late 60's early 70's, I remember in the 60's that my doctors visits weren't free, but If I needed continuing treatment, those were free. Once insurance made doctor visits paid for too, doctor's visits increased and people started going to the doctor for every itch, ache, and twitch.

Breaking the law-supported method of your employer providing the health insurance would have drastically reduced the flow of people into the pre-existing conditions delemma.

Every time you change employers, you almost always have to select new some new doctors because they are not in-network in the next placed. If you don't get a new employer supplied plan, usually you have aquired a condition that might would be termed a pre-existing condition.

The problem is that without employer help, because we haven't seen the true costs for some 40 or 50 years, you may not be able to afford your own plan.

Through government intervention, we have developed an extremely complex system of giving some free care, others severely discounted care that the true cost is severely distorted to cover for these benefits.

We have also developed extremely sophisticated (very effective) and costly procedures that drive the costs up.

We have built a system that we may not be able to replace without crashing the whole system first. If we crash the system, we may never see some of these advances again and may lose the ones we already have.

Best answer yet JT! Especially about members of congress getting the same health care they pass for everyone else. Politics doesn NOT belong in health care.

As well as religion does not belong in politics!!!!!!!!

Chris-749391 - Most people do not realize that you are required, by law, to sign up for Medicare Part D the INSTANT you become eligible for Medicare Part A.

You may be partially correct however: Eligibility for part A does not = immediate eligibility for part B C or D. Upon retirement that may be so.... and it only makes sense to participate in B and D.

For those on disability however, there is a different set of rules. Part A is automatic for anyone who has worked their 40 quarters. Part B requires a two year wait before it is enacted. Before the Part D plan (prescription drugs) there were no optons for medications other than for a few serious illnesses that generally result in death.

I am not talking for instance about pneumonia, Asian Flues, etc, but rather terminal illnesses, which were the only conditions allowed medications. For all other medical problems, Part B allowed you to go to the doctor, and maybe have some tests, but no prescriptions. That burden was placed upon the person with no income other than a disability check each month to pay for medications. Part D for that population was a significant benefit.

What good is an eye exam for example, that says, "yup, you cant see" but has no assistance for glasses to be able to see? And what good was a doctors visit for pneumonia, bronchitis or asthma that debilitates people, but no opportunity for medications to restore the person.

Retires are different, they have worked all their lives, have some ability to pay for the things they need. The person who becomes disabled, is not in that position, so part D was beneficial. Retirees whose spouses work do have better insurance coverage, Medicare is bare bones. Does that relieve the person who is better off from not participating in part B or D" No, I think not... Social Security is paid for by the people working today to care for the retirees who worked so the people who work today could have the lives they do. Those on disability are not able to work, so they were given a benefit that all pay for, whether their spouses have good insurance or not.

My spouse has good insurance too, and it supplements my medicare which I have no problem paying for... after all, they took the money out of my checks for all of my life and promised I would have coverage... They just take some of the money I already paid in and redirected it to medicare, rather than refund me the 90.00 per month with my social security. Not a really big deal in my book.

Do not confuse my acceptance of Medicare and Social Security with a belief in universal health care for all... they couldn't manage Social Security without plundering and leaving it financially destitute forcing them to sell bonds every month to cover the expenses... Imagine what they can do with all that money in universal health care!

Health insurance is not health care!

When I spent a couple months unemployed and had to purchase health insurance for my family on the open market as an individual I quickly realized that statement. I was able to get coverage very cheap, but it was not going to cover my families needs.

Gee now everyone is mandated to spend money every month on health insurance. Does that mean that those of us that buy better policies are not going to end up paying for the short falls in the other persons coverage? That is where the problem is. Those of us who pay for policies that cover our families needs completely will still be paying for the idiot that buys the cheapest policy that cost a couple hundred a month and doesn't even pay for regular doctors office visits.

Universal health care is the answer. Most of the major economic powers in the world have it. They do it better and cheaper than we do. You don't have to worry about losing your job to get medical care. Makes sense.

Wow, there sure are a lot of misconceptions still floating around about healthcare reform.

(Not surprising, since the administration has done a piss-poor job of explaining it.)

JT and USA/Canuck - the bill requires that Congress get its health coverage from the same pool that's open to everyone (beginning in 2014):

H.R. 3590: D) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE.— (i) REQUIREMENT.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are— (I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or (II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).

And, Gloryhound, the healthcare reform bill PRECISELY addresses the problem you've stated. The moaning you've heard about the minimum standards that ALL health policies will have to meet (including covering birth control)? THAT's what will keep people (and companies) from gaming the system.

Minimum services covered: Plans must cover preventive and primary care, emergency, hospital, physician, outpatient, maternity and newborn care, pediatric (including dental and vision), medical/surgical care, prescription drugs, lab, and mental health and substance abuse,effective in 2014.

It looks to me like the GOP is desperate to keep the public in the dark and to get rid of the law before it takes effect. Because once the American public realizes what it does, the GOP is sunk.

(If you want to learn more, UC Berkeley has a good summary sheet of the changes under the Act once it takes full effect.)

When the President promised to close Gitmo, he did so without preconditions. He was very emphatic about the whole thing. It sounded good at the time but like so many others it is a promise that he did not keep.

The President promised to go over the health care bill, "line by line", with my congressman and any other law maker in Washington who requested it and that all proceedings regarding the health care law would be broadcast on CSPAN. I am sure that this going over of the health care bill, "line by line", as the President promised and accompanying analysis will help clear up any misgivings that the public may have about the law. Does anyone know when the broadcasts are scheduled to begin?

Will Haas - it is Congress' job to pass legislation. It is the President's job to sign or veto it.

If your Congressman was waiting for the President to read him a bill before Congress, he doesn't understand his job, and you should seriously think about replacing him (unless you want to continue to pay him NOT to do his job).

The recent bruhaha over contraception and the demands made by HHS secretary Sebelius will be just the first of many dustups coming out of the Pandora's Box known as the ACA.

'Newsweek' or 'Time' just ran a long article on how the Catholic Church was just basically told to kiss the White House's buttcheeks on their issue, as rules get determined on the fly by Ms. Sebelius.

Expect more issues like this as each mystery about health care reform gets revealed. And that is the problem...it's not the 'hypocricy' the article suggests...it is the absolute mystery of what's inside the 3000 pages of the law and it's amendments as well as the fact that the mystery is no better understood by the president whose name is on the law than it is understood by the rest of us.

The President said, many times, that all proceedings regarding the health care bill will be broadcast on CSPAN. Without conditions, the President latter offered to go over the health care bill, "line by line", with every law maker in Washington who requested it. My congressman was one of those who formally took the President up on his offer. I even saw an interview of my congressman on TV regarding this matter. At that time my congressman was waiting for a reply from the White House. This has nothing to do with reading a bill before Congress. I want what the President promised on health care. That includes going over the health care bill, "line by line", on CSPAN as he said that he would. If the President tells the public that he is going to do something, I expect that it will be done. After all, he is the President of the United States of America.

"Hypocrisy on All Sides." I nominate that for the headline of the year. And, it can be repeatedly re-used.

Spin this however you want it is freaking hilarious. The republicans should run this on TV daily. They wouldn't have to speak just point.

Hmm, it's almost as though the President became privy to more empirical data, took it into consideration, and refined his conclusions based on that!

Tony-the Catholic Church was not told to kiss the White House's butt cheeks. They were simply told to be fair with their employees. I'm a Catholic, and I find NO problem with the original plan. If the Catholic Church has the right to accept benefits from the government (protection, tax breaks, etc), they ought to do something in return. Covering contraception in their healthcare plans (like it is in the private sector and mandated by the law) should be it. No institution, even a religious one, should be given a free pass when it comes to the law. The law is universal; a priest must abide by the same rules as his flock. It's as simple as that.

And Will Haas, the President may have wanted to close Gitmo, but Congress refused. In a democracy, its one thing to say something; its another to do it, mainly because of the legislature. Comprende???

Freshieee, the President did not just want to close Gitmo. Without conditions, he promised very emphatically that within one year of his becoming President, Gitmo would be closed. His promise to the American people was not conditional on anything, let alone any action of congress. The President has the habit of making promises that he cannot keep. He says things that sound good at the time but in reality have no meaning. For example, the President said that the White House dog would be a "mutt like me" from a shelter yet the dog that they got was a purebred that has never set foot in a shelter. The President of the United States is suppose to be the most powerful man in the free world. It is hard to believe that a man with that much power cannot come through on something as trivial as the White House dog. The President just does not seem to care. The President made a lot of promises regarding the health care law which are not being kept. I want what the President promised on health care.

First Read journalists seem to have difficulty telling the difference between the compromises Obama had to make in order to govern and the lies that Mitt Romney tells in order to get elected.

Obama wanted a health care law with a public option during the campaign, but he settled for the individual mandate because it was a choice between it and nothing. There was no chance a public option would make it through Congress. Romney lies that he never supported using the individual mandate at the federal level when he wrote an op-ed for USA Today arguing exactly that in 2009.

DB, this may be the first time I have agreed with your post and its the first time I have seen a republican try to address the complexity of the situation. Withdrawing government funds would crash the system, you are right, the costs are prohibitive to the majority of people affording it on their own, and supporting the elderly without government intervention at this point. I don't know of any good answers but this is at least trying to start address the overwhelming problems within that system.

Will Haas, I don't know what fantasy land your living in but when Romney promises to take out Obamacare his first day or promises to attack Iran, do you really think he can do those things? They all lie. Gitmo he was very naive about, no doubt. The countries didn't want those people back.

The alternative to the individual mandate is a single source payer, i.e. the gummint.

Mandatory health insurance, the Swiss model, is the free market alternative to government-managed health care (which is the model used by the rest of western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan).

Currently, the US pays one and a half times per capita what the Swiss do for medical care, and double what the rest of western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan pay.

And the US gets health care that is no better, and arguably worse.

When Obama tried to get consensus by pulling in ideas from the right, like Romney-care, the right just moved farther right and claimed it was socialism. Which it would not be if done identically at the state level. Wow.

And on virtually EVERY other subject, Obama moved to center to try to gain bipartisanship, only to watch the same people that supported those identical notions before, move away from him and farther right. They were so intent on "making him fail" that they lost all direction and reason... they grew more and more dysfunctional on a daily basis.

SO now here we are. The right is so far right we can barely understand them anymore. They don't even recognize words like hypocrisy. Their memory of what they used to support seems to be erased. Any notion of compassion, empathy, understanding, or inclusion is disappearing before our very eyes.

When will it end? WILL it end?

The countries didn't want those people back.

Not only that, when he tried to place the Gitmo prisoners in American prisons all hell broke loose. They even protested trying them in American courts so he really had no choice but to leave them there until whenever.

@Will Haas

Why don't you tell us who your congressman is so we can understand why there was a problem with him getting an audience with the president or if it is just political grandstanding over nothing. I agree with Real American First that it is not the president's job to explain a bill to a congressman. If he has a reading comprehension problem he should be voted out so someone that can understand what they read can take his place. It sounds like grandstanding and without knowing the name of the congressman we can't Google up any information as to whether the president did or did not offer an audience. Personally I believe it would be fruitless anyway to explain anything to any congressman that is dead set on voting against the bill which sounds like your congressman. Otherwise he would not need to hear anything from the president since he would get all the information he needed from his caucus.

Jan; I did not say anything about Romney.

Larry; The President offered to go over the health care bill with every law maker in Washington, "line by line". My congressman is a law maker in Washington. My congressman was one of several who took him up on his offer. It does not matter who my congressman is. He was not seeking an audience with the President. He was trying to respond in a favorable way to an offer that the President made. Because the President made the offer I felt that all law makers, especially those most loyal to the President should have taken him up on his offer just like my congressman and several others did. Later the President complained that the public did not understand the health care law. Of course if the President actually did what he said that he was going to do, the public would understand it a lot better. I want what the President promised on health care. When the President is going over the health care bill, "line by line", with my congressman, on CSPAN, as he promised that he would, I want the President to show how the health care bill will fulfill all of the promises that the President made about the health care bill.

Why not do away with insurance companies entirely?

2000 plus pages written behind closed doors in secret locations by the most liberal members of the Democratic Party proves ObamaCare was anything but compromise. It was rammed through congress and rushed to the presidents desk without anyone knowing what it actually contained. ObamaCare was and is a constant reminder of how badly government can fail to reach a compromise that is in the best interest of the country.

They passed a piece of legislation that takes over 1/6th of the US economy for problems that face less then 10% of the population. It was a Washington power grab of the worst kind, and it will fail just as both Medicare and Social Security are failing. Washington creates problems, they do not solve any. But we had to pass the bill before we could find out what was in it, and ObamaCare is the disaster that just keeps getting bigger and bigger.

Real,

It doesn't list what the maximum Co-pay is, or the maximum deductible, or the minimum % of the bill they have to cover. They have 70/30 plans out right now. The insurance company pays 70% while you pay 30%. No where does it say the plan has to cover 100% of everything you list, it just says the plan has to offer some kind of coverage in those areas.

mygirl...

Right...."do away with insurance companies entirely" and have the government run the entire health care system of the United States of America.

Ever hear of the United States Postal Service ??? Not doing too well, is it. How's the state you live in doing...backlogged with pension funding that's not keeping pace with government union retirees monthly checks ???

If you want to live under a government that will handle every facet of your life, move to China.

"You have to pass the bill in order to find out what's in the bill!" - Pelosi....that statement alone should have scared everyone away from this monstrosity!!!

jwilson...

Ol' Putty Face was correct...as evidenced by the dispute with the Catholic Church as rules were made on the fly, as dictated by an 'appointee', the Secretary of Health & Human Services. It's surely won't be the last time.

Why bother with any specifics when drawing up a 3000 page law !

Gloryhound, having health insurance covering routine office visits makes as much sense as auto insurance covering oil changes and new tires. The whole idea of insurance is to cover exceptional, not routine, occurrences. (It's a fair question though why a routine office visit costs $300.)

Regardless, I don't think younger folks are going to want to pay for the care that I and 50 million other older folks are going to be demanding. Hope it all works out, but if the past is any guide....

Yep, its a Republican idea, and they were all for it until Obama was for it (even though he wasn't).

When will politicians do something for the American people instead of play politics.

Gotta love Republicans that want to deny 30 million people health care.

This will be overturned for many reasons, but the simple answer is the "government" can't through force make you "buy" anything. It's not like car insurance which is a privilege, not a "right". Just try to force a person like a Christian Scientist that they MUST buy something that their religion prohibits, just try. Buy it or we will fine you. Yeah sure. The only way this will work is Medicare for ALL, that is the only answer. If it is "given" to you that's one thing, making you buy it is totally another. Single payer is the only way this "health care" will be universal, making people pay will never work, and it's just plain wrong. No government force against it's own citizens, you want care for all, then PROVIDE IT !

This is better than Rev Al's Blueberry Pie story.

The Republicans forced me to include the individual mandate by not voting for it.

The reason car insurance was mandated (by the states) is because uninsured motorists caused accidents and could not pay. This increased the costs for everyone!!!

Sound familiar?? This is the same thing that is happening in health care. Uninsured people using the system and paying nothing. That leaves their bill to you and I. We pay more!!!

Eric,

You need to be realistic about this. The devil is in the implementation details and the insurance industry is heavily involved in it.

The ACA does not give health care to anyone. It requires everyone purchase a product from the predatory health insurance industry that may give them access to health care.

Healthcare and health insurance are 2 completely different things. You can have health insurance with deductibles and co-pays that are so high (some of the plans approved by the MA Connector meet this description) that you cant afford to use it to obtain health care. If there arent enough primary care providers you will not be able to obtain health care. If providers are so tied up with insurance company red tape that they limit how many people they take you will not be able to obtain health care. The ACA does not address many of these issues and may make some of these problems worse.

There is a time bomb in this law that may actually make accessing health care more difficult for millions of Americans. When the Cadillac tax goes off in 2018 it may wipe out employer provided insurance in many states especially those with a high cost of living.

This law will most likely create a massively expensive mess with very high administrative costs that will not meet the original objective to deliver health care to Americans. The argument made is that this is a start. The insurance industry owns many politicians in Washington. As they wrote much of this they will not allow this to be changed so we will have to live with this for a very long time. The only solution to the problem is single payer. The ACA will only prolong the misery.

"Conservative think tank" is an oxymoron!

So did Harry Truman. O'l "buck stops here" wanted some form of universal health care back in the late 40s and early 50's so the idea is nothing new. Then, like now the insurance moguls had something to say about it.

We are closer now than ever before to a true affordable healthcare system.

Auntie...."liberal logic" is the ultimate oxymoron.

@Rev, I concede that single payer would be better. However, Republicans have labeled that "socialism" and it won't come to fruition. In fact, they are still touting (even in these posts) that ACA is "government health care" which it isn't as it uses private insurance and private doctors. You can also read the "15 member panel is a death panel" which was politifact's lie of the year for 2010.

In short, it's the best start. Everyone uses healthcare and a fine of $95 a year for someone not purchasing insurance is cheap if they needed health care.

This is about health care not the government forcing you to buy a car.

"Arizona justice" or "Arizona wisdom" is the ultimate oxymoron.

Eric...I think you forgot the "6" in front of the 95. The fine is $695. Or it's 2.5% of your income, whichever is higher. How does this help the poor? So if you make $50,000 a year and do not buy health insurance, the fine is $1250 a tax time. OUCH! This is bad news man.

How does this help the poor?

The poor get enough damn help.

"Compassionate Conservatism" is the ultimate oxymoron!

Ruken...I agree. I am saying the liberals are for helping the poor yet want to gouge them of a $700 fine if they can't find health insurance they can afford. Now they will be out $700 and STILL have no insurance. BIG help liberals!

Ruken...I agree. I am saying the liberals are for helping the poor yet want to gouge them of a $700 fine if they can't find health insurance they can afford. Now they will be out $700 and STILL have no insurance. BIG help liberals!

I think if you make up to 133% of the poverty line you get free / reduced cost insurance and / or Medicare. Been some time since I looked at ACA's provisions.

If you make more than 133% and you don't have insurance, you deserve the fine; because this means you have your financial priorities messed up.

"Compassionate Conservatism" is the ultimate oxymoron!

Do you really believe all these liberal programs like welfare and food stamps and endless unemployment aid "help" anyone? Here we are 50 years and trillions of dollars later and the poor are still poor. They've fostered generational welfare recipients dependent on government. Cities across the country are becoming "Detroited" because of liberal policies. I would say a dose of tough love is in order or else the country will be bankrupt real soon. If the poor would ever rise out of their predicament, the Democrats would cease to exist. Good reason to keep the poor poor and to keep adding to their ranks, eh?

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

That right there is the problem in the USA.

Do you really believe all these liberal programs like welfare and food stamps and endless unemployment aid "help" anyone?

True. We should just let them starve. Enemployed and can't afford food? Tough!

The answer is "yes" it does help in a time where all your friends in business used the economic downturn- another Bush created boondoggle in addition 2 unfunded wars and the Bush Tax Cuts for the rich- as an excuse to eliminate American jobs while sending them overseas. Then the snakes from the right try to use revisionist history to blame it all on Democrats. C'mon, nobody's buying that crap! Your heroes like Bush and Cheney did what they could to destroy America with their policies that the GOP presidential 'candidates' and The Party of NO keep trying to sell unsuccessfully!

Hey, if those policies now advocated to starve government, and indirectly the citizens of basic necessities, worked so well, then why is Europe making your Wall Street buddies so nervous? It's because that Teabagger's cry of cut, cut, cut isn't working over there, that's why! That's proof, what do you have? I have 24 months of increasing American job numbers (except where Boehner, Cantor and McConnell got their coveted job cuts in government: teachers, police and firemen who are there to help people) proves that it is working better than what you propose.

By the way: where were you when Wall Street got TARP funds from Henry Paulson from the Bush Administration with no strings attached? Why aren't there any alligator tears for them to return the money? Instead of whining about the hundreds given to the unemployed, why not scream about where is the billions given away by Republican George W. Bush? What, a bit of selective memory??

True. We should just let them starve. Enemployed and can't afford food? Tough!

Except we are making it more profitable for them to stay on food stamps, etc. even when jobs do open up. See my 'welfare trap' link in the last post.

Az, well I guess you are clueless then. I am white, college educated, owned a house and made lots of money and fell on hard times (some a minor mistake on my part, but at a bad time-Sept 11th). I was able to secure a room somewhere when I lost my house for next to nothing (through family), however they would not pay my other needs. I was able to get on food stamps and that helped tremendously. I did not buy steaks, etc. They do not let you buy alcohol, etc. Where would I have been without this assistance? Well, I was on it for 9 mos and then found a job in my normal industry and got a new car, etc. I am back paying rent and my own food, etc. The right has only one view that "Liberal" programs are abused at the 100% level. People from both parties rely on this in tough times. Not everyone stays on permanently. Not all are abusing minorities who "live" on welfare because its so attractive. Do you know how little you get? You think its changri-la time on welfare? No, I did not have children, so I was not making the "big" money. Are there abusers, uh heck yeah there is. But there are abusers in business too, on the "rich" side of things. Our goal is to try to reduce all abuses, private and corporate. The Democrats like to keep the poor poor for votes? Cmon! Thats like saying the Repubs like to keep the rich rich for votes. I personally dont favor either as I'm independent, but I am sure happy that my country supported me during tough times or I might have been on the street. Then you Superior types could have passed me on the street and say "what a loser' when I may have accomplished more than you overall, but hit a tough patch and had to start all over. But then, to most of the right, nobody worth a crap would ever let themselves struggle. Right?

First of all TARP was not unattached, it was a loan, loans that have been largely paid back with interest. Don't remember Obama takin credit for all the money the government made on these loans? You think you know me by saying who MY heroes are? I have no love for Bush and Cheney, but I would take them over these idiots anytime. The Democrats had control of Congress in 2007. Then it wasn't til 18 months later this country went to pot. Now they can't even pass a budget.

Bush tax cuts were across the board. I certainly benefited from them. So this only for the rich baloney is a tiresome argument. The policies of the liberals are what is bringing this country to its knees. Cuomo forced banks to make loans to subprime lenders. The Democrats like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd championed legislation to gives loans to anyone and everyone regardless of income. Bush, to his credit, tried a couple times to reign in the mortgage industry only to be filibustered by the Democrats saying the mortgage industry is "fine." Selective memory you say? Hold up a mirror.

Matt...congratulations on turning your life around. I truly mean that. I am not talking about temporary uses of these benefits. That is how they are designed. I am talking about generational welfare. You know, years and years and years. There is a big difference between your story and the story I am giving. The clueless one is you in this case. And for the record, I am always donating to charity and Goodwill and I give a few bucks or food to the beggars on the side of the freeway ramps all the time. Thats because charity is how I believe it should be done, not government taking from the worker and giving it to the lazy.

The Bush tax cuts aren't tiring to anything except our economy- the Congressional Budget Office has stated they will add trillions to the budget. So be tired- no one cares! Giving a pittance to those at the lower end of the scale when the wealthy get a landslide of money is the core issue of this time in America, or haven't you noticed? If there needs to be any tax cuts it definitely should only go to the middle class. That's what every poll including Rasmussen has said for years now.

You have no proof all the TARP funds have been paid back- nice Commieservative talking point, though! It's totally wrong, the only ones who paid it back were the ones who wanted no government interference- so they could do the same thing again! They would have had a news conference to applaud themselves for paying it back- haven't seen one of those yet! Lots of that money went back to China and other overseas investors never to be seen again- didn't do a damn thing for America. Proven fact: policies of no regulation of derivatives led to the collapse of Wall Street and cost so many Americans jobs, not liberal policies! They traded rubber stamped bundled mortgages with no collateral where we took all the risk, and the banks took the money. Wish I could borrow money without any attachments and no risks if I don't pay it back! Only the true Fox Noise watchers get that one wrong!

Another point about TARP: Why would Paulson want congress to approve a 3 page contract he'd written to absolve himself of any wrongdoing that was rejected if he thought TARP was in the best interests of America? Only the truly unintelligent wouldn't see what was up with TARP!

Just an FYI: Fox Noise watchers have been proven to be the lowest informed people in America. Change channels once in a while!

If the poor would ever rise out of their predicament, the Democrats would cease to exist.

So how do the poor "rise out of their predicament?" How do they do that? I'm truely interested in your solution.

So how do the poor "rise out of their predicament?" How do they do that? I'm truely interested in your solution.

Grants for college / trade school education. Make themselves more marketable.

Except those are abused as well. This is because the grant money goes into the hands of the student who can spend it on whatever they wish. Federal grants need to be reformed so that they go directly to the school, and never into the hands of the student.

Hell, people who already have those skills and who have experience now aren't finding jobs. And yet the GOP is concentrating on contraception and gay marriage.

And government grants are few and far between currently. Most of the trade school students I know (I have a friend who teaches automotive service) are paying for their schooling through loans. and when they graduate they not only can't find a job, they also have loan payments to make.

Cities across the country are becoming "Detroited" because of liberal policies.

You, have no idea of anything related to Detroit, so stop pretending you do. The problems of that city are far more intertwined and multi-layered then your simple diagnosis of poverty run wild.

Stick with simple minded right-wing talking points. Don't stray from the golden brick road, or you might get called on it.

The problems of that city are far more intertwined and multi-layered then your simple diagnosis of poverty run wild.

HAHAHA....Translation: We know the liberal policies have failed us, we can't come up with an excuse that works, so we'll just call it "intertwined" and "multi-layered". LMFAO

@Ruken:

What are your words for the grads who do not have jobs right now, or are significantly underemployed (despite intensive job hunting). The jobs for college grads just don't exist in the quantities that we need them, compared to the people who have them.

As for the grants going directly to the school instead of the student, how is the student supposed to pay for books, food, housing, utility bills, etc. It would cost more to force them to live in the dorms than to be allowed to get their own apartments and live on ramen and dried beans, and getting a job can only cover part of that (rent is often inflated in college areas and few college jobs pay much more than minimum wage; plus books can easily cost $500+ per term and book stores aren't always property of the university).

Its too bad republicans are turning off women with their stupid social issues, I know you all like to think you have control of your women folk enough to get their votes to republicans but they are looking at states that are trying to make victims of rape inconsequential and their daughters. They will be voting the republicans out of office, this constant overreach by churches is driving people away. That and the fact that republicans spout off about cutting spending and do the opposite. They have one real plan, cut taxes to their wealthy interests. Screw the rest of America and for kicks and giggles, lets make sure women are dehumanized.

You need to stop watching television ads run by 'Media Matters' and "moveon.org" and be a bit more discerning about what you choose to believe.

Exactly right!

I disagree with your order. The public option would be before individual mandate.

There would be other options before the third one on your list including socialized health care.

Unfortunately the President cannot rule by decree, regardless of the fact that the GOP and the right claim Obama is doing exactly that.

Obama has kept 173 promises to date and only broken 63.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/

Eric, when one, especially the President of the United States of America makes promises, he should keep all of them. If he cannot keep his promises then he should not be making them.

Will, are you that naive as an adult or are you 12?

Shellie, I am an adult with high expectations for the President of the United States of America. I do not like being lied too, especially by the President. Just because others have lied in the past it is not OK for our current President to lie. Breaking promises is akin to not telling the truth. America needs a President that we can trust.

And Obama's is as close to the most optimal president in terms of trust as we'll ever get. And breaking promises does not seem very similar to lying. Lying is to deliberately say something false. Breaking a promise could be either on purpose OR on accident.

Nobody is arguing against the goal of universal health care. It's what it means and how it is achieved. Here is the clip of David Walker, ex-comptroller of the Federal Government. Tell me he does not make sense and that ACA as currently structured does not meet his three criteria?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/ns/msnbc_tv-morning_joe/#46854400

The Supreme Court will of course rule on a partisan basis. There are questions that must be answered after that, and they will ignore them. If the Federal Government cannot impose a mandate, how can the state of Mass do so? Where in the Constitution is a state awarded authority that exceeds that of the National government? What exactly is the Medicare Prescription Drug requirement if not a mandate? And the final one; why should Justice Thomas, whose wife received $600K in lobbying fees for fighting the ACA not recuse himself? No conflict of interest? Tell us another fairy tale....

Health care is not a right. You have to pay for it. If you are too poor to afford it, Medicaid is there for you. No one has a right to filet mignon...if you need food, you get food stamps.

This is not that hard. I know Doctor's and their most challenging patients are Medicare and Medicaid. It's free to them so they go in for every single problem. Watch that explode when we add more folks to the rolls.

A stupid solution to a problem that again, goes to personal responsibility.

This is not that hard. I know Doctor's and their most challenging patients are Medicare and Medicaid. It's free to them so they go in for every single problem.

And I know doctors who no longer accept Madidaid/ Medicare patients because the reimbursement is too low.

And as far as "every single problem," how do you know that it's indigestion or a heart attack? A simple skin mole, or skin cancer? I'd rather see a doctor about a headache than wait and find out it was really a stroke.

THAT is exactly the problem....you view healthcare as a "right". How is it your RIGHT? Just because you were born? How about this: PAY YOUR OWN WAY! There should be a safety net for those that are physically/mentally unable to pay their way. The rest should be helped out with charitable donation. More effective.

That is exactly what the individual mandate seeks to accomplish....folks paying their own way. Sooner or later we are all going to need health care. The problem is that those who do not purchase health insurance pass the cost of THEIR care to the rest of us. That is why Republicans originally WANTED the individual mandate. The only reason they are now fighting it is because they don't want Obama to get the credit for reforming the system.

If the SC rules against ACA then they must also rule against SS and Medicare. Both ofwhich are "mandated". Wonder how all those teabaggers toting signs that say "keep you government hands off my medicare" will feel about that? Careful what you wish for folks. You just may get it!

And if you want to get really technical, the "mandate" requiring me to pay a tax to keep the military, public roads, the public water supply, the electricity grid and many more things afloat is also a "mandate". No one asked me if I wanted to pay for all that. Goodie, I can pick and choose right?

"Where in the Constitution is a state awarded authority that exceeds that of the National government? "

The Constitution doesn't directly say it anywhere. When you take the whole document into account, the States and the people have far more power than the national government, intentionally. It is clearly written in the text.

There are powers that the President, Congress, and the Judiciary have are specifically laid out in the articles of the Constitution. Certain powers are expressly prohibited to the States. This is all laid out in the articles of the Constitution. Then, the first nine amendments of the Constitution (of the ten known as the Bill of Rights) lists what the government may NOT do or is required to provide in certain circumstances. The tenth amendment then says this:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Essentially this says that any power that the United States [government] has not been specifically given in the Constitution are reserved to the States or to the people. Like it or not, this left the majority of the power to the States and to the people and was very much done on purpose because the Founders, given their recent experiences with Great Britain did not see it fit to establish a powerful central government. Who can blame them knowing what they had been through?

The fact is the Constitution is written as such that the United States government has only the powers it is told it has (enumerated or specified powers and powers directly prohibited to the States) and that the States and the People have the rest of the power.

I should mention, too, that the Necessary and Proper clause in the Constitution was included so that Congress could make necessary laws/take actions that aid in the exercise of enumerated powers, not to expand its powers beyond those it was originally given.

This is why Massachusetts can have a health care mandate and it be within its power. That healthcare mandate is not one of the enumerated powers and the Constitution does not prohibit the states from doing this, therefore Massachusetts is within its legal power.

The federal government cannot do the same because such a mandate is not within their enumerated powers and is not prohibited of the states so the tenth amendment clearly states that such a thing is within the power of the States and the People, therefore not within the powers of the federal government.

The federal government is trying to skirt this by saying the penalty is under their power to tax, but then claiming it is not a tax. That's fine, so the penalty is under the government's power to tax, but the mandate is not. So are they trying to say that they can collect a penalty for a mandate that they cannot legally make because it is within their power to tax. What good is a penalty without a mandate? When will you ever collect?

Those who composed Obamacare have created this problem for themselves. They're rolling the dice that the Supreme Court will ignore parts of the Constitution to allow them to do this and they are asking for it to blow up in their faces. The Court is politically motivated no doubt...and I sadly don't put it beyond them to ignore what is supposed to be the highest law of the land to accomplish their political ends.

Dave,

Can you name me three nations that worked relatively well with a decentralized government???? I cannot find any. Simply because people in state governments tend to put their state's needs above those of the rest of the nation. That is personally why I think the national government should have more power than the states; so they can put national needs above those of the individual states'.

And by the way, since when does the Constitution say that the states are more powerful than the feds???? They would never have been able to craft something like that because it would be too similar to the Articles of Confederation, which was a disaster. Back then, there weren't a lot of things that a government could do, unlike now, because America was mostly a nation of farmers and small businesses. There were no large, monolithic industries to regulate, nor any concern for environmental protection, nor any viable health services and precautions. All the federal government did was provide defense, print money, and manage diplomacy. The states had other things, but not that much. Essentially, both types of government had very little to do then compared to now. And the Founding Fathers may have disliked the tyranny under the strong British central government, but neither did they enjoy the decentralized system under the Articles of Confederation. They sought a balance between the states and the feds to ensure tranquility and to make sure that neither the feds NOR the states would become more powerful than the other.

Amazing how the race card is played for every issue. Pathetic.

I don't like the fact my healthcare is continues to go up. I just don't think the government should force me to buy Health Insurance. It scares me to think what the government will mandate you to buy if this goes through. I wish people, before opposing it, had a plan set up as an alternative. I think tort reform, opening up commerce to inter-state competition. Competition is what keeps prices lower, not being able to sue for an unlimited amount, would keep prices lower. Mal-practice has Doctor's so frightened they order unnecessary tests, just to make sure. I am sure there is also the corporate position on that too, hey if you use our 100 million dollar machine we will give you whatever kickback. It is ridiculous and out of control over all. I am just afraid of what can happen with this mandate.

Bob, That has always been and always will be the left wingers answer to everything when you can't make a rational response play the race card.

Bob in Virginia, the home of Thomas Jefferson the slave breeder. That's because we live in a country where a large number of white men who have been priviliged in this land since before it became a country can not accept a black man as President of "their" country. It doesn't matter that he may have forgotten more than they will ever know and that he is more than capable of doing the job. He is black and black men are inherently inferior to white men. It may surprise you but people really do have these beliefs in 2012. Do we need to go to Stanford florida for an example? These people are being exploited and encouraged in there beliefs by people who want to gain their support for returning to power.

That is why I was for expanded Medicare or a Single Payor option because THIS is what the ACA did for ME: My medical insurance premiums went up for 2012 by 300%. Even THOUGH the company I retired from received 23 MILLION to keep Early Retiree's Premiums DOWN. They used the money for other things! Not enough regulation on HOW or WHAT a company had to use it on!!!!!!!!!! THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN REGULATIONS ON COMPANIES!

Bravo, Scott. I don't hear people complaining that their children can now have coverage through age 26 or that they can't be denied due to pre-existing coverage. Did they think the insurance companies were giving up profits? It is a risk-based pool and getting more people paying into it spreads the risk among the entire population. Beats playing Russian roulette with health coverage.

Actually Steeler Fan-380417 the pre-existing option only is available to children under 18, it doesn't take effect for adults until 2013. People ARE still falling through the system.

No one seems to notice that we've had death panels for years. In fact, every insurance company has their own. That is how they make money by denying coverage for alleged pre-exsisting conditions or payment for treatments they do not approve. Frankly, I would rather have the government that I help elect making these decisions than some faceless accountant who works for United Healthcare and whose bonus is based on how much money he saves his company.

I would rather have the government that I help elect making these decisions than some faceless accountant who works for United Healthcare and whose bonus is based on how much money he saves his company.

Funny you should say that......Just last year Washington State had a Firefighter die while WAITING for approval from his health care insurer. They had denied him twice and kept dragging their feet..........the day AFTER he died they approved his procedure......... Do you think this was intentional?

Denali, the reason the government should make you buy health insurance is so that I don't have to pay for your care when you present yourself to the emergency room after not buying health insurance! For a bunch of folks who harp about individual responsibility, it is interesting to see Republicans explain why they should be free to eschew responsibility and make the rest of us pay for their care!

The reason so many seek treatment in emergency rooms is because they just can't afford the high costs of insurance premiums. Private insurance companies aren't about to lower the premiums so for those folks at the emergency room to be able to get care without said emergency room they need AFFORDABLE health insurance. People don't realize that this isn't FREE insurance but AFFORDABLE that AHA is all about.

As for the mandate, I don't like the idea of being forced to buy insurance. It should be one of the options one has. The options, simply are (1) commercial insurance, (2) universal healthcare or very affordable plan using means testing, (3) Allow one to opt out of any insurance but to sign a waver putting up all they own to pay for their healthcare. Or we could go with something like they have in UK or Canada.

It should be one of the options one has. The options, simply are (1) commercial insurance, (2) universal healthcare or very affordable plan using means testing, (3) Allow one to opt out of any insurance but to sign a waver putting up all they own to pay for their healthcare

I agree with most of your post BUT Affordable Health care is NOT affordable. Someone who is earning minimum wage and has NO company sponsored insurance available simply CANNOT afford 300 a month for a high deductible insurance. PERIOD. We need a single payor option or something that IS reasonable. Obama's health care provisions DID NOT GO FAR ENOUGH. And, I do understand the opposition to it, BUT the fact is, if everyone was covered and PRIVATE HEALTH INSURERs had competition, people would stop going to the ER because they have no where else to go.

no one will force you to buy anything. Feel free not to. You will just have to pay a tax penalty if you "choose" not to.

Yes, EMD I do not understand the problem with a public option or universal care. I would certainly purchase insurance through a public option vs. individual insurance any day. I do not want it for free... I said purchase.

When we allowed health insurance companies to be "for Profit" and make billions in profits is when health care began to be rationed in this county. They make more money by denying services or making it so confusing to patients that you do not know what they should have paid on your behalf.

Several reasons.

Single-payer is anti-job. How many people currently working for health insurance companies would lose their jobs?

Single-payer is anti-business. What happens to the health insurance companies when they have their customer base pulled out from under them?

Single-payer is un-American. What happened to that old fashoned principle that everyone should take care of themselves and not rely on anyone else to take care of them?

The bottom line is that single-payer is part of the socialist conspiracy.

Anyone can get all the healthcare they can afford. That's the American way.

Yeah, let the poor and uninsured die while the rich (like Chaney the heartless) can get heart transplants that we all donate organs for! Sounds fair (not)!

Single-payer is anti-job. How many people currently working for health insurance companies would lose their jobs?

Single-payer is anti-business. What happens to the health insurance companies when they have their customer base pulled out from under them?

Ideally, they would go away. They are useless industries when it comes to providing standard healthcare. If a single payer system existed, it would force these greedy corporate entities to either become competitive, and when they can't (or won't), cater to specialty services such as cosmetic insurance.

The bottom line is that single-payer is part of the socialist conspiracy.

Completely lost your credibility there. Put you tin hat back on and head back on over to Fox.

Ideally, they would go away.

Which is why the neo-cons hate the idea. As I said above they claim it's "anti-business."

Agreed - and a fundamental difference between the neo-cons and the more liberal view. Access to health care should be available to all, and not subject to the capitalist ideals that make and market the Etch-A-Sketch.

Single-payer is un-American. What happened to that old fashoned principle that everyone should take care of themselves and not rely on anyone else to take care of them?

Single Payer is NOT un-American. For example: My brother in law recently had a heart attack and was admitted through the ER for over a week, had open heart surgery and was in ICU. He has NO health insurance. He is married with 4 kids and still works the same job he did in high school. Why? Because he likes it there. (Code for they put up with his BS)

Right now, my father in law is working to pay for the hospital bills because his son is too lazy to get a job that has health insurance. He has a degree and could easily change jobs but is too lazy to do so. He has been/will be off work for 8 weeks and it won't cost him a dime! Meanwhile, what my father in law doesn't pay off will be transferred to everyone else who has insurance by making their bills higher.

Every American uses health care at some point in their lives, they should have health care that will cover them when they need it!

Not sure what your point is, Chris. My post was a sarcastic mocking of the neo-con position that everyone who doesn't take care of themselves 100% is a lazy sponging bum who doesn't deserve any help. That if someone can't afford healthcare they don't deserve it.

Actually, the insurance companies would probably land on their feet, but just as much smaller entities. Here in Ontario, we have OHIP (single payer plan run by the province) for major medical stuff: doctor's visits, procedures, surgery, hospitals, etc.

There are many private insurers as well that offer supplemental policies that cover things that the government plan doesn't: prescriptions, physical therapy, medical devices, private hospital room coverage, dental, vision, etc. People either pay for this out of pocket, or get it as a benefit through an employer. My guess is that the US insurance companies would still have a market, to cover whatever a US single payer plan didn't.

Severed said:

"

Single-payer is un-American. What happened to that old fashoned principle that everyone should take care of themselves and not rely on anyone else to take care of them?

The bottom line is that single-payer is part of the socialist conspiracy."

Let's apply your thinking to other "socialist" concepts like a federal defense department, highway system, FDA, EPA, etc.

Why aren't you out defending our borders or conducting war on foreign enemies who would threaten you? (Have you lost your old-fashioned values of taking care of yourself?) Don't worry, our socialized defense department will protect you.

Have you built your own interstate highways yet? Roll up those good old-fashioned American sleeves and grab a shovel and steamroller, pal. That socialized highway system just doesn't have that old-timey feel!

Now if you work too long out in the rain, and catch a cold, don't worry, I'm sure your in-home drug-testing labs will certify any OTC medicines you take. Wash it down with some pure, clean water, that you personally ensured wasn't polluted. Just like your pappy and grandpappy did before you.

You "socialism" people just crack me up.

Chris- So, let me get this straight..your brother has the same job he's had since high school, apparently isn't a great employee by your account, decided to have four kids, but can't afford health insurance...and, that is my problem, why? I'm all for helping those less fortunate, but he made choices to put himself in his current predictiment...

And your father-in-law's son? Well, who do you think will pay in a single payer? All the taxpayers.

That's the point. Why do people that actually play by the rules, make good choices, live healthy, don't buy homes they can afford, have to pay for everyone else. Again, the truly needy, no problem. But, the poor in this country make a living out of it and live better than 90% of the population of the rest of the world. And, you wonder why we are $15 trillion in debt ($50k per person).

DE-2027468

My bad. I should have hung a /sarc/ tag on the end. I just didn't think anyone would take me seriously.

SevHead - you've obviously never heard of SSDD (subtle sarcasm detection disorder), which is hopefully covered under the new health plan, 'cuz apparently I have it! :-)

But the individual mandate would make the person with four kids buy insurance which would be a good thing, right?

Severed Head in a Jar

With the amount of people who seriously believe in what was said in your original post it's difficult to separate the sarcasm from the lunacy around here.

Insurance companies compete with the government? Are you joking? How does anyone think that any variety of commercial business (bound to follow government-imposed rules) could compete with government? This is akin to saying a sports team could play against the referees who are in control of the game.

In theory, single-payer healthcare could technically work in tandem with much (not all) of the private healthcare industry. People who invest time and money into developing or manufacturing new drugs or medical equipment can be contracted by the government. The government may control and fund the construction of roads, but I have yet to see a government employee pouring asphalt. Much of the work is done with the private sector, but the costs are managed by the government. In addition, medical industries could manage things that the government won't cover, such as cosmetic insurance, or prescription drugs. Having a single-payer healthcare plan doesn't necessarily mean the death of the private healthcare industry.

Oh and to those who say that Obama wants to overreach the Constitution; he wanted to do something else. He originally had a public option in the bill, but removed it when it became apparent that the GOP didn't even want to hear about government-run healthcare (otherwise known as "socialized medicine").

We're going to be a country that cares about every citizen in the country, or we're going to be a teapublican libertarian selfish I-got-mine-f-u country.

Looking more and more like Option B.

Sorry, but under the new system, everyone's health will still affect everyone's premiums as well. The difference is, everyone has to pay in. It's actually the only way it can work, by forcing everyone to pay in; to provide enough premium from the young and the healthier-living people to balance out the old/unhealthy living people.

But thry're, gasp!, socialist countries. That automatically negates any and all positives.

Alot of those countries, like Canada, are trying to undo this nationalized healthcare. It's a nightmare. That is why Canada voted in a conservative supermajority.

Besides, why the rush to be like them? Notice they aren't doing so hot. We became the best on the world doing it our way, the individual spirit, and not relying on government to take care of you.

Alot of those countries, like Canada, are trying to undo this nationalized healthcare. It's a nightmare. That is why Canada voted in a conservative supermajority.

Every Canadian I talk to likes their health-care.

AZChzhd,

That is not true. You ask all the citizens of those countries and the one health care they will not mimic is the United States. It is almost universal.

AZ- Got some facts to back that up? My sister-in law's whole family lives in Canada, and they love the healthcare! The administration cost's run about 1%.

My relatives live in Canada and they can't stand it. Neither can their neighbors and my very own Canadian neighbor here in AZ. I have heard NO ONE like it. So whom do you believe? I will believe the conservatives who ran in Canada on undoing their nationalized healthcare and winning the supermajority. That tells me much more than I ever needed to know.

AZChzhd

Apparently you're in favor of the current for-profit system. I'll admit it's an effective way to thin the herd.

Now if we eliminate SS, Medicaid, and Medicare it'll speed the process. Let individualism rule.

Actually I had the priviledge of hosting two foreign exchange students, and the FIRST THING THEY ASKED was about our health care and what the deal was? They both were required to buy EXPENSIVE HEALTH INSURANCE, that pays NOTHING except coverage for catastrophic injury.

One came from Denmark and the other from Taiwan. They said in BOTH of their countries health insurance, medical care AND college was all paid for FOR ALL CITIZENS. And, "what was wrong with America"?

The effective way to thin the herd is to appoint 15 bureaucrats in charge of making decisions. Liberals are already whining about Dick Cheney being too old for a heart transplant. There you have it.

The effective way to thin the herd is to appoint 15 bureaucrats in charge of making decisions

I thought it was actual physicians (or in some way related) and all they do is point out where redundant costs are. They don't make choices for actual patients.

"

Actually I had the priviledge of hosting two foreign exchange students, and the FIRST THING THEY ASKED was about our health care and what the deal was? They both were required to buy EXPENSIVE HEALTH INSURANCE, that pays NOTHING except coverage for catastrophic injury.

One came from Denmark and the other from Taiwan. They said in BOTH of their countries health insurance, medical care AND college was all paid for FOR ALL CITIZENS. And, "what was wrong with America"?"

More people live in New York City alone than in the entire country of Denmark. What can work for 5 million people doesn't work for 300 million. And the personal tax rates in Denmark range from 36% to 55%.

AZ Chad -- I'll bite.

I moved to Ontario from Wisconsin five years ago, and have been living under the big, bad, scary socialist healthcare ever since. What I've found is that most Canadians don't actually understand the American system. Once you start to explain premiums, deductibles, co-pays, pre-existing conditions, and how it's tied to employment, they CANNOT BELIEVE that anyone would live under that system.

I don't have any trouble with the system here. I can get in to see my doctor the same day if I need to. Wait times for emergency rooms aren't any different than I've experienced at home. (And the hospital is just as nice.) My doctor's clinic is a bit less fancy, but hey, I'm willing to trade a palatial waiting room for a small, neat medical suite that is available to me no matter my employment status.

As far as people electing conservatives to dismantle health care: I call BS. The conservative government won a majority with less than 40% of the vote, because the liberals and New Democrats (the extra super duper liberals) split the other 60% of the vote. The quickest way for the Harper government to lose their majority would be to attack health care. (Which wouldn't make sense anyway, since it's provided at the provincial level, not the federal.) Seriously, there would be riots if it were attempted.

AZ Chad ... I am usually not this blunt but when it comes to Canada's Healthcare System, you are full of crap. I have lived with the system up here since its inception and according to stats I should outlive you by over a year.

But remember, it's a matter of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY! Everyone should be responsibile for taking care of themselves.

Can't afford a doctor visit? Too bad; you should have thought about that before you got sick.

Next up: personal roads, electricity, schooling, clean water...

A nationalized system would be the best way imo. But we need to make sure that it would be paid for by all. Not 50%, not 60%, everyone who makes more than the poverty line should pay.

But since I don't see a nationalized system happening anytime soon, a mandate would be the next way to do it. This would stop us from paying for many of the freeloaders that just go to ERs and don't pay.

Thirdly (and kind of heartlessly) is to let hospitals turn away those that don't have insurance. This would stop the freeloading and urge personal responsibility. But this will almost certainly (and probably for the best) not happen.

Most of the "freeloaders" who go to the emergency room can't pay. Just because the hospital has to treat you doesn't mean they won't bill you. And they'll charge you 2 or 3 times what they charge someone who has insurance.

Sometimes they'll be willing to accept payments or adjust the amount of the final bill, but usually they just send it to a collection agency.

I got to experience that a while back, when the insurance agent I'd used to get individual health insurance simply pocketed the premiums and never actually got me coverage.

A month later I had to go to an emergency room because of an injury, and was shocked to get an $11,000 bill. More shocked because I'd paid for insurance.

Fortunately the insurance company finally agreed to cover the bill because it was their agent and I'd acted in good faith, but I still ended up paying the hospital a little over $1,200 before it was straightened out. And of course I never saw that money again.

Most of the "freeloaders" who go to the emergency room can't pay.

Yea, but a surprising number of them can pay for cable / satellite TV service, smartphones, and other things. This is why earlier I referenced those that have their financial priorities screwed up need to learn responsibility. There is a large number of people who don't get insurance simply because they think they don't need it. Then they get into a car wreck, and all hell breaks loose and we end up footing the bill.

Not all who go to ERs are freeloaders, many have been rejected by insurance companies for having pre-existing conditions, many have lost their jobs through no fault of there own, many are retirees younger than 65 whose companies ask them to take early retirement then the company files for bankrupts. They want to be responsible citizens but with an employer-based system it's impossible. And the real kickers are no regular doctor will see them and if they do get treated in an ER they are charged full rate not the lower negotiated rate the government or the insurance companies pay. Since 85% of us have health coverage, the hypocrits are those who have health insurance but fight for both not forcing people into the pool and for the right of insurers to keep people out of the pool. This law is the first step in moving us away from a convoluted employer-based system, which we have because companies skirted aroung wage-freeze laws.

There is a large number of people who don't get insurance simply because they think they don't need it. Then they get into a car wreck, and all hell breaks loose and we end up footing the bill.

And there's a compelling argument for the individual mandate right there.

And in the grand scheme of things what's a $100 smartphone if you owe for a $35,000 emergency room visit?

And yes, hospitals will charge you full inflated costs to make up the discount they give to the insurance companies, and yes, they collection agencies will pursue you, and yes, they will garnish your pay, and yes, they will take you to court.

It isn't easy being a freeloader.

Because the current vested interests (insurance companies) imposed their own requirements on the proposed system until it resembled Frankenstein's monster.

Think: really expensive lobbyists.

That's because the GOP was too busy feeding the military industrial system by conducting two wars, cutting taxes for all their rich buddies, de-regulating corporate requirements, and reducing benefits for the poor.

All the more reason to rule this unconstitutional or if it is upheld then to repeal it. Lawyers are the biggest leaches out there and they support the Democrats by a wide margin. Lawyers are one, if not the biggest, contributors to Obama's campaign.

Close to 60% of the country want Obamacare repealed. A majority of the country never wanted this law in the first place but the Democrats in a very despicable way managed to pass the law. The Democrats know very well that the mandate is more than just for healthcare but a serpentine way to give them more power over the people. Imagine what could some politician in both parties do if they could force the people to buy something. Also many people know the ABA has a liberal/Democratic bias so what they say is suspect.

sfcret and Jorge, you are certainly pessimistic.

This isn't about lawyers, the Supreme Court, Democrats or Republicans. It is about people like you and me. It is about having workable affordable healthcare for everyone in this country. Are you really against that?!

Jorge, your 60% number includes those that oppose ACA because they don't think it goes far enough. But don't let the facts get in your way.

Jorge-1517624 You are wrong. Close to 80% wanted a Single Payor option or Universal Health Care, and because of the GOP OBSTRUCTION we got a a dissected and watered down version that wasn't half as good.

Fielden, Regardless of why people don't like the ACA the fact is 60% of the people want it over ruled. So don't let the facts get in your way. The whole ACA needs to be over ruled or repealed and start over.

sfcret, go back and read the poll. Not every one of those 60% wants ACA repealed.

As I stated in my post above, I am not happy with AHA, not because of an individual mandate or that I believe it to be unconstitutional. It didnt go far enough to fix our healthcare crisis in America. It kept the PROFIT in the system. We need single payer Universal coverage.

By no means doI want this repealed or ruled unconstitutional. I want it used as a starting point to get to Universal coverage. Sooner, not later. So if you were to include my opinion in a poll, yes I would say I dont like AHA in its present form.... But that I LIKE it as a first step.

Jorge: The Democrats know very well that the mandate is more than just for healthcare but a serpentine way to give them more power over the people.

Yes, the great secret power grab theory. A year's worth of congressional debate / wrangling, a mid-term election that cost some Dems their seats, an open system of court systems where states are suing the federal government, culminating in a binding constitutional review by a politically untouchable body in the public forum. Those sneaky socialists will stop at nothing to destroy our freedoms!

the ABA has a liberal/Democratic bias so what they say is suspect.

So anything contrary to your bias is suspect?

Without a cap the mandate only lines the pockets of the healthcare insurance industry to the detriment of the American citizen.

But that was the whole point. The healthcare insurance industry called the shots.

The 30 million figure represents those who currently have no health care at all. The rest are either medicare, medicaid, employer sponsored insurance, or privately purchased insurance. Insurance companies largely started out being non-profit cooperatives "owned" by their members. They were called "Mutual" insurance companies. They should have stayed that way but we will continue to fight these battles as long as half the country believes that profit is everything and human wellbeing is held subservient.

Hope you choose to not have insurance, then get hit with a $500,000 medical bill. I want to watch.

Hope you choose to not have insurance, then get hit with a $500,000 medical bill. I want to watch.

He'll just declare bankruptcy and the rest of us will get stuck with the check.

common man, that is the problem. Those of us trying to take care of ourselves are paying for everyone that will not. Doctors now charge $250 in order to collect $75 from the insurance companies or from those of us that pay in order to make up for the freeloaders. We are all paying more because of them.

I do not think the health care law if perfect, far from it, but it is a start.

Undoubtedly.

Common man, are you saying that you are a heart surgeon? And an orthopedic surgeon? And you can write your own prescriptions? And you will operate on yourself?

I dont get where this idea of every man for himself came from. When this country was founded, the Founding Fathers pledged their Lives, Fortunes and Sacred Honor. One of them even quipped that they must all hang together or they would surely all hang separately. The states of MA & VA (among others) are technically Commonwealths. The Preamble to the Constitution talks about Providing for the Common Defence and Promoting the General Welfare.

Let's get back to our roots and care for the country as a whole, not just ourselves.

Let's get back to our roots and care for the country as a whole, not just ourselves.

I'd love to. But I am not interested in helping people who refuse to help themselves.

But I bet your the first in line with your hand out when you need help. that's usualy how you "responsible" people operate.

Well, Billy, he said he didn't want the individual mandate because he wanted the single-payer model. He accepted the individual mandate becuase it was all he could get, and it was better than nothing.

But of course facts aren't important here, only talking points.

If you have tried to buy individual insurance in this country you know how difficult and expensive it is to buy. My son was denied coverage on our policy when he was 16 due to his having an illness when he was 5 years old. (cancer) Yes, the cancer is gone but he was still uninsurable. Imagine that. Insurance companies that won't insure kids. That is no longer possible under the health care law. We had to get him a separate policy provided to "high risk" people from the state when this happened. He only got insurance after being on this policy for several years and of course, at the highest rate possible.

They still denied putting him on my family policy this year and he is under 26 years old and his employer does not offer health care. But that is the insurance business for you.

But that is the insurance business for you.

The key word is "business." If it impacts the bottom line...

Angie, If your from Kentucky, you do know that the state has a high risk pool available for it's residents don't you. He might want to check that out...

Don't know about Kentucky, but in Texas my brother was looking at the high-risk pool because he couldn't get insurance due to a pre-existing condition. Would have cost him $1,700 a month and a $10,000 deductable.

I checked it out the Ky one few years ago. I'm diabetic and of course high risk...It was reasonable at around 450/month...don't remember how much the deductible was though..

The Democratic Party can go to he**. They only care for feeding Big Government and tht awill be their undoing.

Bob, I sure hope you aren't supporting Romney.

Governor Romney created more Government jobs than private sector jobs during his term.

It will be interesting watching the Wisconsin vote. If Romney wins, it means Wisconsin likes ObamaCare (aka, RomneyCare). It also means that Romney will have to explain his editorial promoting the mandate on a National level in 2009, but now arguing against it.

Should be interesting watching Republicans holding their nose and voting. It's usually the Democrats who are forced to do that (Kerry, Gore, Dukakis). Shocking that Republicans prefer Romney over all other candidates. Knowing that McCain used video of Romney saying one thing at noon and by 5pm, saying the exact opposite in another city.

I'm guessing Bob is a Ron Paul fan.

Newsflash for you: Etch a Sketch has been going on for elections long before Romney, including the last one, despite the excuses being made for the current President's campaign utterances and previous voting records (or lack thereof) in the Senate and in Illinois. It would be forgivable that Guantanamo isnt closed if the Presidnet hadnt thundered and raged about it and he didnt have a democratic majority in congress who also had soaked every bit of moral outrage from it.

Spoken like a true Nanny State worshipper. The liberal God is Government; libs truly think we are all helpless worthless dependent poodles, and everything we get is a gift from Government.

Bob,

You ever use the interstate system?

You ever use the interstate system?

That's unconstitutional according to Ron Paul.

But of course everything he says is totally sane.

Spoken like a true Nanny State worshipper. The liberal God is Government; libs truly think we are all helpless worthless dependent poodles, and everything we get is a gift from Government.

Spoken like a true Libertarian. "I got got what I need; the rest of you are on your own."

Bob: The liberal God is Government

Considering what your Government in Virginia just passed, Bob, you have a lot of nerve being critical.