"If the government can do this, what else can it not do?"

That's Justice Scalia, getting to the core constitutional issue in the Obamacare law. The answer is there is nothing that government could not do, and all Americans would conduct their lives in the shadow of a federal government that could intervene in those lives at its whimsy whenever it so chose. From a constitutional (as well as an ideological) perspective, that prospect is anathema to conservatives and anyone else with a brain who values their individual liberty.

But to the left, that prospect is an outcome to be embraced and not feared. To the left, the notion that a person enters the health insurance market from the moment of birth validates their preferred vision of a government that manages our lives from cradle to grave. So tag 'em on the wrist the instant they're born, tag 'em on the toe when they're gone, tag 'em upside the head every year in between. Withdrawing from the collective is not an option, resistance to these left wing Borg is futile.

Fortunately, resistance is decidedly not futile. The judicial process presents an avenue to challenge the overreach of government in this matter. And should the Supreme Court (inexplicably) uphold Obamacare, elections provide another avenue that can lead to repeal. The process is time consuming and messy, but at the end of the day the left cannot impose its vision on the rest of us – unless the rest of us acquiesce.

That's why complacency is unacceptable, and right thinking Americans must continue to oppose those who would make a mockery of freedom with all the vigor we can muster.

By all accounts Barry’s Solicitor General took a beating during oral arguments on the individual mandate yesterday. Even the swing vote, Justice Kennedy, was beating him with very difficult questions including one about how finding the individual mandate constitutional would “change the relationship of the federal government to the individual in the very fundamental way.”

Regardless, the bottom line is that Kennedy will be the swing vote and, if he votes to strike down the individual mandate, it will be a 5-4 decision with CJ John Roberts likely writing the majority opinion.

If Kennedy wrongly votes to uphold the individual mandate, it could cause an unusual situation under the SC rules that define which Justice writes the majority opinion. When the CJ is in the majority, he decides who writes the opinion. When the CJ is not in the majority, the senior Justice decides who writes the opinion. In a 5-4 decision to uphold, Kennedy would control who writes the opinion. CJ John Roberts might just join a 6-3 majority to uphold in order to control who writes the opinion, assigning it to himself. That would be a major consolation prize for conservatives if Kennedy makes the wrong decision, because Roberts is sure to write a very narrow, restrictive opinion that would limit this unprecedented expansion of Congresses Commerce Clause powers as much as possible to this case’s specific circumstances.

Just a terrible day yesterday for Obama and ObamaCare. The individual mandate, which Obama was so against when he campaigned in 2008, and which he signed into law with ACA, was beaten like a rented mule by the justices from beginning to end yesterday. Even some of the Liberal judges were skeptical of how far reaching this legislation goes into everyone's personal lives.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg inadvertently called Social Security what it is, nothing but a wealth transfer from the young to the old, which is the same thing the ACA legislation is set up to be. Of course the joke is on the young in that they have to pay for both SS and the ACA, plus the massive debt Obama has run up. And to further the fun, when the young get old and need those services, there will be no money to support those programs. I guess we coulde call the ACA a "War on the Young".

Jeffrey Toobin, a legal analyst for CNN, on Monday said that the ACA would pass the Supreme Court on a 6-3, or even a 7-2 vote. Jeff changed his tune after listening to the arguments from Tuesday. He now believes ObamaCare had a "trainwreck for the Obama administration" type of day in court and there is little chance of ACA getting passed the Supreme Court.

Source: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/218427-toobin-obama-healthcare-reform-law-in-grave-grave-trouble

That's the funny thing about our system of our government and our court system. Once you get inside that court, and especially the Supreme Court, the truth always comes out. The truth certainly came out yesterday.

When this worthless ACA legislation is finally thrown out, can we expect Joey Biden to revert to his "This is a big f*cking deal!!" phrase of days past?

A 4-5 decision would have the same effect. Whats your intent or agenda with this article MSNBC?

I hope the Supreme Court does the right thing and upholds the Affordable Care Act. I'm disappointed that the Solicitor General did such a poor job in the arguments but hope that the supporters of ACA on the Court are more persuasive in the Court's private discussions.

I wonder though how people will feel about the ACA act if it is declared unconstitutional and they are denied coverage for a pre-existing condition. Or when their young adult family members aren't permitted to stay on their plans at group rates. I wouldn't expect insurance companies to subsidize those coverages---it is a for-profit system after all and that is what the conservatives want. Good luck with that.

Obama in 2012.

I want to know if Clarence Thomas has a vote? The man defrauded America of taxes for $700,000. earned by his wife who works for the KOCH brothers Heritage Foundation! Why isn't he in prison? Why is he still serving on the highest court of the land?

This is soooo wrong on several different levels. A member of the SCOTUS is a criminal...

Does anyone else find this absolutely repugnant?

So ACA is just like Social Security. This means that there is no constitutional question when a future government mandates that everyone must buy a 401(k) from a private company.

Right? Now that precedent has been set there can be no challenge to the constitutionally of privatizing Social Security.

I wonder though how people will feel about the ACA act if it is declared unconstitutional and they are denied coverage for a pre-existing condition. Or when their young adult family members aren't permitted to stay on their plans at group rates. I wouldn't expect insurance companies to subsidize those coverages---it is a for-profit system after all and that is what the conservatives want. Good luck with that.

The pre-existing conditions requirement is the one in danger if the mandate is struck down. Children under 26 staying on their parents insurance will not be changed, and is already being charged for in current premiums. That's what I was told by my company when the rates went up last year.

Dear Righties,

We're not wringing our hands over this. But you may be before it's over. It could be upheld 6-3. You never know.

Well said JoAnnaSmith1!

You've got to be kidding me. Only a bipedal dullard could think Smiff made a good point.

SF: I'm disappointed that the Solicitor General did such a poor job in the arguments

He sure did. The man was incoherent at times. But he really didn't have much to work with for his arguments. It's clear most of the SC justices feel that Obama and the Democrats overreached when legislating ACA and that makes the SG's job to convince them otherwise nearly impossible to accomplish.

My speech teacher told me back in High School that the key to giving a good presentation was a firm belief in the Material that you are presenting and to ALWAYS be prepared.

She told me that if you are telling the truth, you don't have to think very hard about what you are saying.

It was clear that Verrilli was either unprepared or nervous and really didn't believe the crap that he had been ordered to shovel.

When your argument has to flip-flop from tax to penalty to tax in 24 hours, I guess I can see how that would be problematic.

Thanks, First Read, for pulling out this Justice Kennedy quote, which seems to ge to the heart of the issue:

(“The young person who is uninsured is uniquely, proximately, very close to affecting the rates of insurance and the costs of providing medical care in a way that is not true in other industries”),

Alan NJ - Consider this.....if the Supremes find the law unconstitutional, there's a very good possibility that Social Security and Medicare could also be found to be unconstitutional based on the same reasoning the court will give on HCA. Wouldn't that be interesting if seniors woke up one June morning to find that their checks and their healthcare insurance had stopped cold.

Smiff,

this conversation is quite complex

At least you got one thing correct.

To reenforce Chris's comments - Ronal Reagan said "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same." The libs take this so lightly and actually seem to want their liberty removed from them ... as if they are too immature and incompetent to imagine a world where they are responsible for themselves and their own family.

I hope the Supreme Court does the right thing and upholds the Affordable Care Act.

They are not there to decide if if the ACA is the "right thing". They are there to decide the constitutionality of requiring Americans to buy a product from a private company. The Justices' questions were both fair and to the point, and got to the real heart of the matter. I found several things interesting:

• When Nancy Pelosi was asked if it was constitutional, she blew it off and said, "Is that a serious question?!" The questioning from the Justices yesterday certainly answered that question. Yes, it is a VERY serious question.
• Congress could have taken a very different approach with this, but chose not to. They could vote to raise everyone's taxes (which they unquestionably have the power to do) and then install a national healthcare system. There would be no question as to constitutionality in that case. Why didn't they do that? Because they don't want to vote for what would be the largest tax increase in history.
• The left seems to be upset that the conservative justices asked frank questions about the constitutionality of the mandate. I was more upset that the liberal justices essentially CARRIED the argument for the solicitor when he faltered and did such a poor job. In essence, I felt that they were cheering so hard for this that they actually made points he didn't. They seemed far less interested in getting to the real constitutional truth than did the conservative judges.
• The supreme court right now will have a LOT of 5-4 decisions, not because they are partisan per se, but because they view the world 180 degrees from each other. Four of them favor a more european style of government where government is more involved and handles more things for the citizenry, while the other 5 see government's role as being much more limited in scope. Our country is deeply divided right now because conservatism and liberalism see the world completely different. While I can't fathom that my liberal friends actually think the things they think and see the world the way they do, I am sure they feel the same way about me. Conservatism and liberalism are almost mutually exclusive anymore. One sees government as the solution, while the other sees it as more of the problem....

laurie-480643

Alan NJ - Consider this.....if the Supremes find the law unconstitutional, there's a very good possibility that Social Security and Medicare could also be found to be unconstitutional based on the same reasoning the court will give on HCA.

Your comment is Not even close and just more scare tactics and hyperbole from the left.

In 1934 when FDR wanted to create Social Security, he originally wanted it to be a "Mandated Savings Program." Henry Marganthau, Jr. ( Roosevelt's Secretary of the Treasury for his entire 12 years in office and the Architect of how to fund Social Security) told him that it would never withstand a legal challenge as envisioned. Morganthau suggested that FDR have it funded by a Tax rather than mandate of either a purchased or required savings program. Because Morganthau's suggestion was followed, there has never been a successful challenge to the Social Security.

Congress has the right under Article I Section 8 to Tax for damned near anything they want to (even if you don't like it such as War). The problem is that congress did not have the intestinal fortitude to do their job or the courage of their convictions to make it a TAX as FDR, Morganthau, and Johnson did. What they CANNOT do is Require me to buy something from you even for no profit to you. They can REGULATE commerce but cannot Force Commerce. Those are the issue before the court. Had congress made this a TAX there would be no legal challenge available and we would not be here discussing this.

And yet she makes mincemeat of you without breaking a sweat.

Uhhh . . . like, when? Only in your fantasy world, methinks.

Jas1 - You have no room to talk about something being beyond ones capacity...I never read anything of substance from you...it's all the same blather with no deep reasoning or intellectual prowess...just parroting right wing talking points like a puppet.

And yet I'm mandated to buy vehicle insurance? Why?

Ignorance is proudly displayed by the silver haired old TeaPeople picketing with signs 'government hands off my health care'!

OK old TeaPeople........Guess you've already opted out of MEDICARE, MEDICAID, TRICARE, etc.

Got It!

JoAnnaSmith1

The Supreme Court decision to strike down the mandate would be the best thing to happen to HCR. Then we can move on to government provided Universal HealthCare and the private healthcare insurance industry will go the way of analog TVs, eight track tape decks, and Reagan Democrats - all things that are obsolete!

You know, experience has shown me from the past, never try and guess what the Supreme Court will do. Think I shall just wait a while and see what their final decision is.

To me, the craziest thing about the ACA hearings was that the Solicitor General did such a poor job that some of the left-leaning justices were actually trying to make his arguments for him. The Supreme Court didn't just inform everyone on Friday that they were going to hear oral arguments on Monday. There has been a long time to prepare for this. The funny thing is though that we all just had ringside seats for a heavyweight title fight, Bruce Buffer just stepped into the ring to inform us that we are going to the judge's scorecards, and he will announce the winner in 3 months! Gonna be an interesting ride with lots and lots of speculation. Seems that most people are anticipating a 5-4 ruling of unconstitutional, but Justice Kennedy is never easy to predict.

Chris - Let me respectfully suggest you are wrong. FDR was lucky he was able to get rid of the majority of conservatives on the Court before they decided the challenge to SS. The only reason he was able to get it declared constitutional was his absolute good luck in getting the court appointees he wanted. Have you ever read the history of the SS Act. The same arguments against SS were put forth then as the arguments against HCA. How do YOU think SS would fair today in the Roberts Court if it was up for review. If HCA is struck down completely, it puts both SS and Medicare at risk of being ended as well. If you're going to argue with me on this point do so on the merits and give me your legal argument not your visceral opinion.

And yet I'm mandated to buy vehicle insurance? Why?

Please can we put this to rest?

1) The states have the power to enforce a mandate, that was not delegated to the federal Government. See Massachusetts.

2) When you make the choice to buy/drive a car you are taking an action. The Healthcare Mandate is enforced because you chose inaction over action.

Alan NJ - Consider this.....if the Supremes find the law unconstitutional, there's a very good possibility that Social Security and Medicare could also be found to be unconstitutional based on the same reasoning the court will give on HCA. Wouldn't that be interesting if seniors woke up one June morning to find that their checks and their healthcare insurance had stopped cold.

Except that SS/Medicare are funded trough taxes and nobody is arguing over the federal Government's power to tax. What I was arguing was that if this mandate passes, THEN there is no argument against privatizing SS and forcing people to buy a 401(k) from a private company.

Is this the road you want to travel?

laurie-480643

Jas1 - You have no room to talk about something being beyond ones capacity...I never read anything of substance from you...it's all the same blather with no deep reasoning or intellectual prowess...just parroting right wing talking points like a puppet.

---------------------------------

My, the Libbies are angry today (so what's new?), and they have a right to be. They got hurt, hurt real bad yesterday as they saw Obama's henchmen Solicitor General Donald Verrilli stumble around trying to explain how ObamaCare is constitutional. Mr. Verrilli failed badly. So now people like Jack and laurie do what they know best, lash out with their pathetic personal attacks with those they disagree with.

It's amusing to watch the Left sink into the cesspool of their own creation.

And yet I'm mandated to buy vehicle insurance? Why?

rico-3714896 - That is a state law. Congress is only has the power granted by the constitution. The constitution gives them the right to regulate commerce not force it.

If the mandate is struck down ACA should be repealed.

Not discriminating against pre-existing conditions when there is no mandate makes no sense. This would mean an increase in premiums because people would only get insurance when they get sick, then drop it again when they're healthy.

Alan NJ - When you choose not to be health insurance you are taking an action that affects the entire market for health care. So your argument doesn't quite hold up. When you don't buy broccoli you are only affecting yourself. Oh and btw if everyone is mandated to buy broccoli, the price of broccoli goes up based on supply and demand. If everyone buys health insurance the price of health insurance goes down because many more people are in the market both healthy and unhealthy.

Bill, Fairfax VA

"If the government can do this, what else can it not do?"

It the government can pass Medicare, what else can it not do? Ronnie Raygun warned it would lead to slavery. Do you feel enslaved by Medicare, Bill?

The government can do all kinds of things, and sometimes it does incredibly stupid things. That's why we have elections. If people don't like the Affordable Care Act after it's fully implemented, the law can be repealed or changed. Most major laws ARE changed. What we don't need is the radical Roberts Court legislating from the bench.

I read the transcripts of yesterday's proceedings, and was struck by a few things:

Justice Kagan clearly forgot which side of the bench she was on. Those who questioned her impartiality were correct- she has already made up her mind.

Verrelli clearly did not believe what he was arguing. Certainly this man did not attain his position because he was an incoherent mess when he argued in Court. That leaves you with the conclusion that even he is not buying his own argument.

Alito's burial insurance question was spot on. We are all going to die. If the government can force us to purchase health insurance, it can certainly force us to buy burial insurance. I only hope he did not give Obama and the democrats a new idea.

Justice Sotomayor seems to be a wild card. Her questions to Verrilli seemed to further undermine an already weak argument.

Just my take. . .

Jas1 - Wow! It didn't take you long to prove my point......defensive are we??

Alan NJ - I see your point and that's a possibility but there's also a very real possibility that striking down the HCA law on constitutional grounds puts SS and Medicare at risk. I say that because the penality is being rendered through the IRS on a individuals tax return so the tax argument can go both ways. I agree that what you state is a possibility if the law is upheld but that would require an act of Congress. If Supremes strike down HCA on constitutional grounds it could affect SS and Medicare without Congressional action.

no joe - That buriel insurance argument doesn't hold water because if I decide not to buy burial insurance it only affects me and possibly my family but it doesn't affect the guy down the street and his ability or lack thereof to buy burial insurance or be buried for that matter. Additionally when that guy dies the cemetary isn't obligated to bury him and charge the guy down the street the cost to do so.

Amy: The Supreme Court decision to strike down the mandate would be the best thing to happen to HCR. Then we can move on to government provided Universal HealthCare and the private healthcare insurance industry will go the way of analog TVs, eight track tape decks, and Reagan Democrats - all things that are obsolete!

Sweet Amy.

You forgot to put Obama in your obsolete bin Amy. His signature legislation in tatters. Gas at $4+/gal. Massive unemployment. Massive debt. Not exactly a great re-election itinerary.

My, the Libbies are angry today (so what's new?),

I'm not angry, I'm happy. Polls show the GOP is underwater in the swing states. Voters recognize the Republicans' only agenda is to protect the wealthiest at the expense of the entire country. They have seen overpaid lobbyists masquerading as Republican candidates for the Presidency. The more voters see of Romney, the less they like him. 52% of Mainers disapprove of Tea Party governor LePage and want to see the state legislature go to Democratic control. It's a promising day.

If the ACA is stuck down.

I want the law that says I have to pay for others trips to the ER repealed.

Make them pay for their health care.

Obama 2012

Gas at $4+/gal.

If you believe Obama is responsible for this, you need to educate yourself on the global oil market.

Amy B - I agree...I am also not angry. I think Jas1 has no credible argument so she grasps at straws. You make some great points...keep up the good work. :)

Conservatives have long wanted and tried to eliminate medicare, social security and medicaid. Paul Ryan's budgets two years in a row have that goal in mind. If the Supreme Court rules against ACA, prepare for the same GOP-state led efforts to challenge medicare, social security and medicaid. Be forewarned, this has been the conservative goal for decades and a ruling against ACA will set their next step in motion.

Yesterday, I posted a comment that the 2012 election will be a choice between a President who wants this country to have a heart and soul and a GOP candidate who favors those who already have. The GOP lost its heart and soul around the second Reagan term. I often read here Reagan's quote about the loss of freedom being only one generation away. What kind of freedom will we have in this country if those who are poor, disabled, elderly are tossed aside as disposable, collateral damage in the ever increasing quest for more money, more tax cuts, more benefits for the wealthy while everyone else, the 98% of Americans, is sacrificed because greed is good, you're on your own. I'm 65 and for the last 30 years, I have watched conservative politics shift to selfishness and indifference toward the pain and suffering of others--I've got mine, go get your own and don't ask me to give you a hand up let alone a hand out. It was not always this way.

Watching Lawrence O’Donnell, Jonathan Capeheart & Charles Blow eviscerate George Zimmerman’s supposed BFF last night, was like watching a ballet!

BFF indeed - he was nothing more then a co-worker...

We have probably heard the last out of him & his charade!

As an encore, Willard was on Leno last night and confirmed by long held suspicion, he is as phony as a bushel full of counterfeit hundred dollar bills! lol

Everyone, yes everyone currently has access to healthcare in this country. The cost is bourne by those of us that pay for health insurance. The GOP and Romney thought that a mandate on every American to share - and therefore lower - the cost was a good thing. Until Obama adopted it. Now it is an evil thing.

If Obama decided to drill everywhere and use the money to make this a tax-free country, how long would it take Romney and the right to vehemently oppose the idea?

Jody Iowa - Very profound arguments and spot on as well. I've been worried about this as well. We can see Paul Ryan's recent budget the beginnings of dismantling of Medicare. It won't be a very big step to do the same for SS. Republicans will use a decison to strike down as unconstitutional HCA as an argument to restructure and "privatize" both SS and Medicare and dissolve the guarenteed benefit and guarenteed security that both programs bring to the elderly. There's much more at stake here then healthcare....I only hope that the American people can see the end game and vote Republicans out of office in November.

x

Alan NJ - When you choose not to be health insurance you are taking an action that affects the entire market for health care. So your argument doesn't quite hold up. When you don't buy broccoli you are only affecting yourself. Oh and btw if everyone is mandated to buy broccoli, the price of broccoli goes up based on supply and demand. If everyone buys health insurance the price of health insurance goes down because many more people are in the market both healthy and unhealthy.

Your reasoning is suspect at best. The cost of health insurance is directly related to the cost of health care. If the demand for health care goes up, because of additional demand (30m - 50m), it follows that the cost of health insurance will follow that price increase. Why do you think there is a difference in the economics of the broccoli market and the health care market?

BTW I actually think a better example is guns, due to the emotive factor. The Republicans should counter with an argument that for the General Welfare of the population they have concluded that if every citizen carried a gun to reduce crime. the argument can be made that those who do not carry a gun are less safe and therefore cost everyone more due to the requirement for additional police officers to maintain public safety. It is therefore mandated that all citizens purchase a personal firearm from a private company.

And this argument is not as far fetched as you may think. Our own government actually has a law already on the books.

In the United States, the United States Congress has enacted two individual mandates, the first was never federally enforced, while the second is not scheduled to take effect until 2014. The Militia Acts of 1792, based on the Constitution's militia clause (in addition to its affirmative authorization to raise an army and a navy), would have required every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45, with a few occupational exceptions, to "provide himself" a weapon and ammunition;^[1] however, its constitutionality was never litigated.^[2]

On the "broccoli" argument against the individual mandate. Could Congress require everyone to buy broccoli because it's good for them? Sure, why not? Next election, every idiot who voted for a law that ridiculous would be voted out of office. If democracy can't handle issues like that without the Supreme Court intervening, democracy isn't really good for much.

If the government could force people to take the positive action of joining the army and getting killed in the senseless Vietnam war, it certainly has the authority to require people to purchase health insurance. That's a lot less of an inconvenience than dying in a Southeast Asian jungle.

Uh. Laurie? What do you suppose happens to the bodies of people who die with no assets? Whose families are so poor they cannot afford the burial?

We-all of us- pay for it. Yes, that includes the guy down the street.

What about struggling families who lose a family member? Funeral costs average $6000. What do they have to sacrifice to come up with that, often insurmountable, amount of cash?

I wonder how many people declare bankruptcy because of an unexpected death in the family!

After all, you enter into the inevitability of death the instant you are born. So, why does not the government, under the heading of forcing you to provide for yourself, force you to buy burial insurance?

The government can do all kinds of things, and sometimes it does incredibly stupid things. That's why we have elections.

_____________________________________________

No. That's why we have a Constitution that grants only certain limited powers to the federal govt and a Supreme Court that decides when the federal govt has exceeded those limited powers. What the lefty liberals are now seeing and whining about is the Constitution working as it was intended.

You know, anyone here complaining about that scary big government in our lives taking over everything needs to step back and look at the rest of the what is going on these days. You can't have it both ways. You can't have vaginal and abdominal probes, ultrasounds, lists of lies doctors are forced to read to patients, intrusion into women's health issues, attempts to defund health care for woman and children, voter suppression that isn't even based on facts, and all the efforts to stop gays from legally marrying or even have basic rights, and still complain that this idea that people need to have health care is intrusion into private matters and personal freedoms. I see people here complaining ALL the time about how people don't take responsibility for themselves, but when we have something come up that says people need to have health insurance the same people complain. I could list many other concepts that fit this same scenario.

You either get out of the doctors' offices and private medical consultations, out of everyone's bedrooms and away from the courthouse when two consenting adults want to marry, you get out of trying to suppress votes with more government intervention, or you stop complaining about people having to have health insurance. Seriously, be honest. This isn't because of freedoms being taken away...people who want to preserve freedom so much seem often to have no problem taking away the freedoms of those whose ideas you don't agree with. It's because it is this particular bill associated with this particular president that makes it so objectionable in part at least.

I would like to see a single payer system and I agree that the health care bill has some serious flaws. The biggest one is that for-profit insurance crooks companies are still in control of everyone's health care, but if you truly believe in personal responsibility then this mandate is right up your alley anyway. The health care bill WILL help a lot of people when it fully takes effect, but of course some would rather take that away and let sick people do without. Yes, it is a slippery slope regarding personal freedoms when the government mandates anything...regulations (yeah, businesses really are great at policing themselves and staying honest without regulations...hah) and laws that affect personal choices.

But people can complain about big government all day while they drive on maintained roads, use all the other government services, and get protected by laws that are enforced to protect them. I don't like big government either, but you can't have that both ways either. If you want freedoms then leave other peoples' freedoms alone. I keep seeing so many of you complaining about "Obama's" health care plan and gloating about how cool it would be if it went down the tubes. This isn't really about Obama, but is about real people who are being cheated and stolen from by insurance companies or have no insurance. They suffer and they die, and all some people can do is call it "Obama's" bill and have fun playing politics. Go ahead and gloat, but how about stepping back and seeing reality? This is about people and illness and suffering and people using their whole checks for health insurance that covers little or nothing, or those who have no insurance despite working hard and doing their best. It isn't about beating Obama or getting one over on Republicans. How about we focus on helping people stay well and leave the politics and gotcha! points out of this? I'm not saying people don't have the right to gloat or complain, but what if we all worked together and actually helped the situation?

The individual mandate should be found unconstitutional. The government has no right to force someone to do business with a private company. With the individual mandate struck down, the entire law will go down. This is because the law was deliberately passed without a severability clause to prevent this. The reason for the lack of the severability clause is because of the provision that prevents insurance companies from denying coverage for preexisting conditions. Without the mandate, having the provision against not covering preexisting conditions would mean that people could just wait until they got sick to by insurance. This would result in an end to our current insurance system since it would either bankrupt the insurance companies or drive premiums to where no one could afford them. The only way the current insurance system works is that those that are ill are subsidized by those who have insurance but are healthy. The theory is that insurance protects against the risk of a huge expense that most will never see. If only sick people bought insurance, the system would never work.

Congress intentionally did not put a severability clause in the health care law because it was seen as an all or nothing proposition by them due to the intertwined nature of the provisions and the need for the law to be revenue neutral. The Supreme Court should not start deciding which parts can be severed and which can not. The law as written requires that if any part is struck down the entire law goes down and the Supreme Court should honor that. For the court to do otherwise would result in the court violating the separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches by essentially rewriting the law. This is not their job, their job in this case is simply to determine whether or not the parts of the law being challenged are constitutional or not.

For those who try and equate this to car insurance, your analogy is flawed. There is no requirement nor right that you own and drive a car. The decision to own and operate a car is yours, and so therefor is the need to buy insurance. Also, you do not have to buy car insurance. You have the option of posting a financial responsibility bond with the state if you do not wish to carry car insurance.

This was bad, no, horrible legislation from the start. Too bad it ever passed in the first place. remember all the bribes and arm twisting needed to get it through, even then, just barely. Once this thing is thrown out, maybe just once both sides can come together and pass a law that actually will make health care affordable, which the current law NEVER DID. Making health care providers compete for patients will quickly reverse the trend to higher health care costs.

Houston! - Great point!!

Alan NJ - If the insurance market is made up of healthy young people, the costs go down because the healthy and young are in the market to stabilize the costs for the older sicker people. This fact needs to be considered as well...the broccoli argument is not germane to the argument at hand.

Bill Fairfax: I’m sure your error was inadvertent, you can thank me later for fixing it.

Careful Bill, you don't want to have laurie's ire directed at you. She whines about talking points from the right, but never points out what they are. Then she uses the Lefts talking points like in post 1.53.

laurie really struggles to be consistent.

If someone does not buy a plot or prepay a funeral, or does not have the money to bury a family member or oneself, the State buries the person. Thus meaning the rest of us pay the cost for those who cannot afford it or opt out of it. Health insurance and health care deals with life and the quality of life. When one dies, he/she isn't likely to notice the unmarked grave or the spot where buried by the State.

no joe - That buriel insurance argument doesn't hold water because if I decide not to buy burial insurance it only affects me and possibly my family but it doesn't affect the guy down the street and his ability or lack thereof to buy burial insurance or be buried for that matter. Additionally when that guy dies the cemetary isn't obligated to bury him and charge the guy down the street the cost to do so.

Actually, one could equally argue that the reason why funerals cost so much is because the funeral homes never get paid for a large number of people they provide their services to (just as in healthcare). So you and I pay more in funeral expenses in part because we are subsidizing those who do not pay. Therefore, if everyone had burial insurance, we would not be subsidizing the deadbeats and therefore the cost would drop... That would be the logic anyway.

If this isn't scrapped, you will see a long list of lobbies lining up to be the NEXT mandated product we have to buy.

On the "broccoli" argument against the individual mandate. Could Congress require everyone to buy broccoli because it's good for them? Sure, why not? Next election, every idiot who voted for a law that ridiculous would be voted out of office. If democracy can't handle issues like that without the Supreme Court intervening, democracy isn't really good for much.

You mean like in 2010?

If this isn't scrapped, you will see a long list of lobbies lining up to be the NEXT mandated product we have to buy.

So true. And within healthcare every lobby attempting to get their needs mandated into the standard policy.

I would be shocked to learn that the vote would be anything other than 5-4.

Until such time as we actually had 9 judges on the SC that were unbiased to politics, this is almost certainly the way things will continue.

Houston and ram, great points. laurie, thanks and great job yourself.

nomoresameo, I've heard Constitutional law professors argue that we need more than nine justices simply because of the number of 5-4, 4-5 decisions; the more voices need to be part of the process. Sometimes I agree with the notion that the more voices making the argument, the more balanced it might be. Sometimes I think because of the politicized selection process, we'd simply end up with 6-5, 5-6 or 7-6, 6-7 decisions.

laurie-480643

no joe - That buriel insurance argument doesn't hold water because if I decide not to buy burial insurance it only affects me and possibly my family but it doesn't affect the guy down the street and his ability or lack thereof to buy burial insurance or be buried for that matter. Additionally when that guy dies the cemetary isn't obligated to bury him and charge the guy down the street the cost to do so.

Then........

Jody, Iowa
If someone does not buy a plot or prepay a funeral, or does not have the money to bury a family member or oneself, the State buries the person.

Two Liberals with two diffrent opinions 180 degrees apart!....lol

No wonder this thing is going down the drain. You guys can't get your stories straight.

This is to laurie in reference to her post 1.19

You madam could not be more wrong, as anybody may be finding that social security and medicare unconstitutional! I don't know where you're getting your information,from but that could not be farther from the truth!

You have choices on social security,one you don't collect it if you choose not to work.You may also not get it if you do not collect enough credits towards it if you do not work long enough.So yes madam you have a choices!

Then there's medicare,I have news for you.You can opt out of medicare if you choose.Nobody is forcing that down your throat.You also will not get it if there is not enough credits towards medicare. So that being said,it is not unconstitutional like that Disaster that is being argued in front of the Supreme court today!

Social Security and medicare are not shoved down your throat, like this Obama Disaster,which by the way I loath!You do have choices in those two other entities.

So stop spreading information out there that is bogus!

NoJo,

Your comparison is weak: Heath insurance and burial insurance.

One difference is that DEATH is a one time event.

And to further complicate the argument, on Morning Joe they were talking about examples of a new healthcare model where the patient deals directly with the doctor (a GP), no insurance company involved.

They brought up the possibility of a car crash but you can see how a more efficient model could be developed where by basic health care is paid for on a direct basis and an individual would only buy catastrophic coverage.

The other point of this argument is that you now have the case where a citizen may never require catastrophic coverage and therefore not part of a specified market.

The ACA will destroy this model.

So true. And within healthcare every lobby attempting to get their needs mandated into the standard policy.

There's one difference though:

An ER has to serve me whether I can pay or not. So mandating everyone to carry insurance so they can pay sort of makes sense here.

So far the Right has helped Obama towards his re-election bid and this will be no different, this will be seen as partisanship and only anger the voters more, every time one of the GOP candidates open their mouth it seems a foot goes in it, well they always boast how smart they all think they are we shall see in the up coming elections ......... I'm not saying I'm against striking the health care down I don't like being forced to do anything, I don't like being forced to pay SS or Medicaid I'm just saying what this will look like to the voters. OBAMA 2012

And you know what, Feisty? All this because Jeb Bush wanted to please the NRA. No one was asking for this law, except the NRA and ALEC. And Jeb Bush being a true Bush, complied. Just like that. How easily the millionaires and billionaires in this country can manipulate the Bush family. At the cost of lives.

Jeb Bush should be called to testify about this law, if there is a trial.

laurie-480643

Chris - Let me respectfully suggest you are wrong. FDR was lucky he was able to get rid of the majority of conservatives on the Court before they decided the challenge to SS.

Actually, No, that is not the case. Please read your history of the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937. The bill not only failed, but it cost FDR and the Democrats losses in both the house and senate in the 1938 elections. Roosevelt eventually did get a court sympathetic to him, only because of the retirements of Van Devanter, Sutherlan, Butler, and Cardozo all due to health reasons (heart attacks, strokes)>

Have you ever read the history of the SS Act. The same arguments against SS were put forth then as the arguments against HCA.

Actually, yes. Try reading Henry Morganthau, Jr.: The Remarkable Life of FDR's Secretary of the Treasury, by Dr. Henry Levy, you might find it enlightening. there is an entire chapter devoted to the behind the scenes work that was done to create, fund, and derail legal challenges to this cornerstone program for FDR.

How do YOU think SS would fair today in the Roberts Court if it was up for review.

The same way that it was ruled under the Hughes, Vinson, Warren, and Burger Courts; that it is Perfectly Legal since it was established with a TAX and Congress, under Article I Section 8 has the right to tax for any damned thing they want to as long as they have stones enough to do it and take the consequences for it.

If you're going to argue with me on this point do so on the merits and give me your legal argument not your visceral opinion.

Ah, Yes, the typical liberal response; you don't agree with something so it is "visceral", of no value or wrong because YOU are, after all, the sole repository of "right". Did I get that right? If you want my "Legal Argument", try post 1.16. But, please tell me where your "Legal Argument"is any more than a "Visceral opinion" other than the fact that you, in your own mind, "Know" more than everyone else on the planet.

And you are more informed by virtue of what? Or, is it a touch of the "Epicurean Intelligentsia" leaking out? After all, you are the only one that knows good from bad and right from wrong. I take it that your opinion has been blessed by some almighty deity (Allah, Buddha, God, Yahweh, or the Great Pumpkin) and everyone else's is invalid. Who is lecturing about the law now? Did the Great Pumpkin rise out of the patch, put its vine on you shoulder, and declare you to have the only right opinion? I must have missed the memo.

Perhaps it is that direct genetic relationship to Adam Weishaupt and the Bavarian Illuminati that is coming to the surface. After all, liberals are the only enlightened ones and everyone else that does not agree with their stance is either stupid, evil, uneducated, mean, greedy, or just "Trailer Trash." It is that pomposity that exudes from every post that subliminally states "We are the enlightened; We know what is best for you, so just sit down, shut up, and do what we say".

It isn't that you don't have some good ideas or that you don't want to do right, but the over gown sense that "We Liberals are the ONLY ones with good ideas" that has turned the term "liberal" into a pejorative in the eyes of many people like me.

Pat,

The NRA also contributed and influenced a lot the legislators at the state house. Everyone knew this was simply a NRA feel good law.

And folks, everytime someone tries to predict what the supreme court will do, 9 times out of 10, that person is wrong. Oral arguments tell nothing.

rico-3714896 - You are not mandated to buy vehicle insurance if you don't drive. If you don't want to buy vehicle insurance just don't drive.

This ACA mandate says that you must buy life insurance just to be alive. So if you don't want to buy it you must die.

I would rather just not drive.

You are absolutely correct Jody when you said: ( I've heard Constitutional law professors argue that we need more than nine justices simply because of the number of 5-4, 4-5 decisions; the more voices need to be part of the process. Sometimes I agree with the notion that the more voices making the argument, the more balanced it might be. Sometimes I think because of the politicized selection process, we'd simply end up with 6-5, 5-6 or 7-6, 6-7 decisions.)

We've had fewer and larger numbers on the bench in our history. The problem still exists that the judges appointed were chosen by the president at the time. Presidents can say what they want, but it is doubtful that any are appointing a judge that will not help their cause or later causes that their political platform represents. In the end, the appointed judges favor the party views of the president who appointed them. This may be justice, but it is politically motivated justice at the very least.

The same way that it was ruled under the Hughes, Vinson, Warren, and Burger Courts; that it is Perfectly Legal since it was established with a TAX and Congress, under Article I Section 8 has the right to tax for any damned thing they want to as long as they have stones enough to do it and take the consequences for it.

So would that mean a nationalized health-care system would actually be constitutional if it was paid for by a tax?

The only thing very certain is that the four liberal judges will march in lockstep (goosestep?) with Obama. But that's not political?

Unconstitutional.....Unconstitutional.....Unconstitutional.

End of story !!!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/28/opinion/friedman-elephants-down-under.html?src=me&ref=general

An ER has to serve me whether I can pay or not. So mandating everyone to carry insurance so they can pay sort of makes sense here.

From all the figures I can find this argument doesn't hold water. The cost for the uninsured in 2008 was around 50B a year. The ACA is projected to cost 1.7T over 10 years, or 170B a year. This money has to come from somewhere. There is a multitude of studies showing that people with private insurance use more health care than the uninsured so by logical extension when the uninsured become the insured the demand for health care is going is going triple.

I am not arguing the morals of the bill but economic argument you make is not true.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/27/5/w399.full.pdf+html

So would that mean a nationalized health-care system would actually be constitutional if it was paid for by a tax?

Yes.

The Democrats could have even made insurance premiums the same as mortgage interest and it would be constitutional. They could have allowed premiums to be deducted so that it would have been cost neutral and made it an incentive in the tax code, but didn't.

Alan: No, I think your logic is suspect.

"Your reasoning is suspect at best. The cost of health insurance is directly related to the cost of health care. If the demand for health care goes up, because of additional demand (30m - 50m), it follows that the cost of health insurance will follow that price increase. Why do you think there is a difference in the economics of the broccoli market and the health care market?"

As we've been trying to explain for months now, one cannot turn away someone in need of healthcare. The market for healthcare is absolutely different. How could you think otherwise or are you just ignorant in this area? People who need drugs get them, surgeries, x-rays, ultrasounds, etc etc etc. These are incredibly expensive because there are so many people who come to the hospital (mostly the ER) and receive services without ever paying for them.

There is no way to track them down and make them pay. Therefore, doctors refuse to eat these costs (as do the hospital and their staff and the people who sell the equipment they use, drug companies etc) so they pass them on to those that will pay. Aka the government (Medicare and Medicaid) and health insurance companies. It is a moral problem in the medical world because doctors have to take something called the hippocratic oath. Also, ERs do not REQUIRE payment at the time of treatment. If they did, there would be WAY fewer people in the ER every day. You can't run an ER like that, trust me because I used to work in the only Trauma level 1 ER in a huge area.

You're right the administration could have used a tax instead but then everyone would be screaming universal health care and it never would have passed the legislative branch. This was the best way to do it and I hope the SC upholds the mandate because it's the only way to get health care costs manageable again.

No Joe,

That is a silly analogy to make because burial is one fee and you can do it cheaper than $6000 but even if it was $6000 it can't compare to a hospital bill that is $100,000 and growing because your mother came down with some mysterious illness and no one knows what it is. 15 tests (expensive) later you find out it's cancer so now you have to pay for those treatments. Don't speak about which you know little to nothing!

JAS1 is once again drunk on vinegar, reeking, her stench is vile to all but a few tunnel dwellers it appears.

FYI JAS1 -- This democrat is happy that ACA is before the Court. Whatever happens we will have a clearer path forward on finding solutions to the healthcare crisis we face in this Country.

Ruken

So would that mean a nationalized health-care system would actually be constitutional if it was paid for by a tax?

If they make it a tax, they can use the tax to pay for whatever they want. Nationalized healthcare is another issue. They would have to nationalize health care first. Can they do it? Sure. Would they all be voted out of office? No question, so they won't do it. If they did nationalize it, they could pay for it with a tax, and there isn't much anyone can say about it.

Look at your Paycheck. PICA and Medicare are both extracted as Taxes. Congress can do that. What they cannot do is require me to buy something from you at any price under penalty of law. The Constitution gives them the right to Regulate Commerce but not to Force Commerce.

@Alan-NJ

Of course the insured use more health-care. They can afford to go to doctors for anything they want.

The thing is the uninsured don't go because they don't want to pay. This is fine, until they get into a car wreck or something else catastrophic not of their choosing, and now they have to pay. Since there's no way an average person could pay bills like that out of pocket, they declare bankruptcy and stick us all with the check.

I'm sorry, but saying "they use less health-care" doesn't appease me. They should be paying or using none.

@Chris - ####s

The Constitution gives them the right to Regulate Commerce but not to Force Commerce.

Wasn't there a Supreme Court case back in the depression where Congress was forcing farmers to destroy crops in an effort to raise prices? I thought I heard someone talking about something like that the other day.

"5+4=Unconstitutional"

"The GOP/TP Health care plan is don't get sick and if you do its death"

Ruken

Wasn't there a Supreme Court case back in the depression where Congress was forcing farmers to destroy crops in an effort to raise prices? I thought I heard someone talking about something like that the other day.

Yes, there was. But I think it was a poultry company that brought the suit. I believe it was ruled against the administration, but the "damage" had already been done. By the time it worked it's way through the courts, there was no need to do it any more.

A biased Supreme Court long since demonstrated what it is capable of with the Dred Scott Decision.

If they cared so little for the lives of former slaves they sure as hell could give a rats azz about

the 30 million uninsured americans that will be adversely affected by the reversal of ACA.

Black people are still recovering from being cast as "having no rights the white man has to respect."

155 years later the wounds have not healed.

Thanks, SCOTUS!

@MGates73

I read your post and it makes no logical sense. I make the argument, with references, that an additional 50m patients added to the healthcare system will raise the price of insurance. You retort with some references to in-elasticity of the health care market and issues of Accounts Receivable and debt-follow up issues.

The current cost of cost shifting, which I hope is what you are referring to, is around 50B a year. The cost under the ACA is projected to be 170B. That money has to come from somewhere. The argument being made is that the fact that Medicaid, where many of these new patients will be placed, does not compensate providers enough to cover costs, and ADDITIONAL cost shifting from private insurance will occur to make up the difference. Hence, insurance premiums offered by private companies will be even higher to absorb this cost.

JoAnnaSmith1

Just a terrible day yesterday for Obama and ObamaCare. The individual mandate, which Obama was so against when he campaigned in 2008, and which he signed into law with ACA, was beaten like a rented mule by the justices from beginning to end yesterday.

What's terrible is that the Republicans have no problem forcing women to undergo vaginal probing but they cry violation of their freedom when it comes to making people be responsible for paying for their medical bills so the rest of us don't have to pick up their tab.

What's terrible is examples like Ron Paul's aid's $400,000 unpaid ,medical bill he left us with because he could get insurance due to his preexisting condition.

What's terrible is the fact that Republicans supported individual mandate until Obama did. Mitt Romney backed the GOP's individual mandate in 1994. Gingrich supported the individual mandate in the '90's, again in 2005, then again in 2007, then again in 2009. A former Republican President (Bush1) supported an individual mandate. So they were for it before they were against it.

Next election, every idiot who voted for a law that ridiculous would be voted out of office

Sort of like the thrashing the Dems took in 2010 because....well, because of that ridiculous Obamacare law.

It's always the unpaid ER costs. . . . . What about MRI machines sitting around unused, but still being paid on, or manicured "campuses", and building and building. What are the numbers in the construction of hospital additions and expansions? Off campus clinics with a full spectrum of expensive machines? Really, why is it always the unpaid ER costs?

Alan, NJ

I disagree with your premise @ 1.35. Life saving medical care is REQUIRED by law to be performed to ANYONE seeking it - so the ruse that a 'choice' to drive (your metaphor) is being made is unequivalent. There are no laws requiring transportation!

As the justice stated,...insurance is UNIQUE in its status,...throw old metaphors out the window,...on some level.

OR - change the hospital care laws? Which is a NO WIN for everyone,...if eligibility for treatment is required PRIOR to treatment - how many will die needlessly because they can't prove their coverage?

Once society determined that CARE is expected,...it stands to reason that PAYING for that care is also EXPECTED - no matter YOUR belief in your immortality. Kind of like registering for Selective Service? But not really,...someone else is deciding that a date certain you must register,...

Not my best example - but to the larger point. I am swamped and K to be filed on Friday, so I can't get in the mud "full body".

"The GOP/TPigs said anyone with a Pre-Existing Condition can Drop dead"

@Clara

I disagree with your premise @ 1.35. Life saving medical care is REQUIRED by law to be performed to ANYONE seeking it - so the ruse that a 'choice' to drive (your metaphor) is being made is unequivalent. There are no laws requiring transportation!

My post 1.35 was in response as to why mandated vehicle insurance and mandated medical insurance is not the same.

DCIA,

FYI JAS1 -- This democrat is happy that ACA is before the Court. Whatever happens we will have a clearer path forward on finding solutions to the healthcare crisis we face in this Country.

I couldn't agree more. Eventually we will arrive at the only obvious solution: a single payer system.

Chris 1.78 - I have NEVER read such an accurate description of the liberal mindset. And not a single one has even tried to refute it. Smackdown!

It really doesn't matter because you and I have our voices taking away pretty much every day by those who have connections. Not a conspiracy theorist....China is a thousand times worse. Most other countries are. But the one thing that matters in this country is, or rather, was, voting. Its the thing every Republican and Democrat in office wants to get rid of. The best way to do that is to either drown out voices in money, or make sure every decision gets made by a non-elected official.

No, voting for a President who picks a lifetime court appointment is not voting for a judge. Its voting for someone who tells you what you want to hear, then does what he wants to do anyway, and sticks them on a bench forever.

The last 3 appointments have all been dousche bags in one way or another. Sotomayor, Alito, and Roberts. And if you think one of those judges is any better than the other, you live a lie nobody can talk you out of.

Enjoy your 9 person tyranny. At least we can die fat, which they can't do in Somalia.

One day out of three in the Supreme Court argument. Conservatives are all over the board telling us how the administration took a beating yesterday. But the decision is months away.

Conservatives telling us how the government cannot force us to buy anything. Ignoring Social Security, Medicare, forced ultrasounds.

Conservatives telling us that our freedoms are in danger. Forgetting that they are eroding the freedom of religion, freedom to marry whoever one wants, freedom of choice over personal medical decisions.

Conservatives argue about broccoli and burials, but deny arguments about car insurance.

Conservatives argue that corporations are people but can't see that people themselves are people, worthy of medical care and stability, compassion, equal treatment.

Wow!

Actually, if you watched MSNBC this morning, the lefties said the same thing..

Belfast Lad, thanks for the Friedman link. Really interesting read that resonates significantly in this discussion.

Also check out Robert Reich's Monday column at robertreich.org

Fielden, Perhaps if you would read the transcripts from yesterday's hearing you would get a better understanding of what went on in the court instead of depending on pundits from both sides. In your post 1.105 above, you mention medicare and social security. The court addressed those and it appears since they are a tax and not penalties they are constitutional and within congressional authority because congress has the right to raise taxes. Had the ACA contained the word taxes instead of penalty it might have more standing.

The rest of your post is just garbage. But then that is expected from someone who thinks the government should be responsible for everyone from cradle to grave.

Michael1969

laurie-480643

no joe - That buriel insurance argument doesn't hold water because if I decide not to buy burial insurance it only affects me and possibly my family but it doesn't affect the guy down the street and his ability or lack thereof to buy burial insurance or be buried for that matter. Additionally when that guy dies the cemetary isn't obligated to bury him and charge the guy down the street the cost to do so.

Then........

Jody, Iowa
If someone does not buy a plot or prepay a funeral, or does not have the money to bury a family member or oneself, the State buries the person.

Two Liberals with two diffrent opinions 180 degrees apart!....lol

No wonder this thing is going down the drain. You guys can't get your stories straight.

Not really 180 degrees apart. If the state has to pay for your burial, you're not going to get an Egyptian pharaoh's treatment. You'll get a pine box, not a golden casket. The cost to taxpayers for a pauper's funeral is nothing compared to what the cost can be to people having insurance for the treatment of a person with no insurance who ends up in the emergency room.

If the ACA is stuck down.

I want the law that says I have to pay for others trips to the ER repealed.

Make them pay for their health care.

My hairdresser cut her finger at work and had three stitches in the ER. The bill? $800

Funny how Republicans wanted health care reform until the moment Obama was elected. Now it's just another issue for them to obstruct.

The insane cost of medical care hurts all of us, especially small businesses which are the main engine for job growth in the U.S.

It was CNN that coined the phrase, "An absolute train wreck" for the administration. When I switched to Fox News, they were much more guarded in their reporting. For that one brief moment, I could have gotten them mixed up!

Alan, I understand your argument about the cost, but do not understand why you dismiss the claim of cost going down.

I think it is unfair that you speak down of Laurie's claim and announce your's almost as if its absolute. Even if more probable it is unfair, especially since you are basing your claims off what appears to be econmic supply and demand which we all know is not that easily predicted.

You are ignoring or omitting other forces that may bring down that cost gap.

The contribution of those who were not insured now being insured is real. Yes this may increase "demand" for healthcare like you said in the short run but at that same time I could claim in the long run a reduced cost of more serious health issues that may be prevented due to the short run spike? Neither of those are presently measurable so you have no true evidence to claim one idea superior. I am not saying it is correct, just saying what happens when you hold guesses(no matter how well founded they may be) as absolutes.

And again whether this will even in fact increase demand is a guess. Those who do not want to pay for healthcare because they don't want to use it may still not use it. Economics are derived off rational people, in the real world people are not rational.

The most negatively effected are those people who can afford insurance but think they are healthy and do not need insurance. These people in most cases are a cost to us and that is simply unafair. Many of them are the one's claiming that we are stripping them of their freedoms and how they should only have to provide for their own. If that is the case why is it that we have to provide for them? At the end of the day I truly do not understand why this isn't a bi-partisain issue. (That last remark was not meant for you btw Alan, I have seen your idea of HCR and know you simply want to see something better. Though we belive in different approaches I cannot hold that as unfair.)

The Supreme Court has completely undermined it's own institution - it is nothing more than a political tool of the right following Gore v Bush, Citizens United and now striking down the health care bill (the one that was created after Republicans refused single-payer financing and negotiated for the "individual mandate" that they now use their supreme court cronies to strike down). Nothing but political theater.

Alan, Actually my retort was to another post but it was posted under your more recent one because I'm at work and can't refresh my page every few minutes. Anyhoo, those with Medicaid get the lowest possible treatment at the hospital anyway. This analysis that you posted didn't look into the under insured who presumably chew up lots of cost at the hospital and are unable to pay. Also, Medicaid currently covers those with preexisting conditions that are "uninsurable" under the current system we have now. My hope, and the hope of many others I'm sure, is that more insurance companies will be created due to the individual mandate because demand will go up (once and if the mandate is upheld) which will aide the supply side of the argument and force prices down. It's not a silver bullet and I concede that people will have problems adhering to the mandate due to financial situations but what is your solution. I'm not calling you a republican but it seems that you too have absolutely no idea what to do about it. This will medicate not cure the problem but will anything besides universal health care that everyone is so against (we're the only industrialized country in the world without universal health care).

You have to laugh at those screaming a 5-4 decision proves the court is partisan. It is not partisan if they win, but it is partisan if they lose. The fact is the court should return a unanimous decision against the mandate, as this clearly is not covered in anyway shape or form by the constitution. Upholding it would set an all options on the table precedent for government intrusion into our lives, and don't fool yourself that it won't.

If we had gotten legislation that didn't need to be passed before everyone could find out what was in it, maybe we would have gotten a bill that could have avoided a Supreme Court challenge. Any bill written behind closed doors in secret locations by the most liberal members of just one political party never should have passed out of principle for the corrupt nature of the process that produced a 2000 plus page fiasco. There should be higher moral and ethical standards applied to governing.

Obama made this his signature piece of legislation. You might wonder why he didn't demand a better bill. But instead Obama left the entire bill up to Pelosi and Reid, and he deserves the fallout for having such blind faith. Congress has not done much of anything right for this country in a long time, and this is just another example of how poorly it functions for the good of the nation. It works wonders for the members. But yet, everyone is getting set to blame the Supreme Court, how convenient for all of you.

Bravo, chris, @ 1.79. Spot on regarding the state of liberalism.

Obama made this his signature piece of legislation. You might wonder why he didn't demand a better bill.

____________________________________________________

Especially since he's supposed to be a "constitutional law professor"!!!!!

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

Watching Lawrence O’Donnell, Jonathan Capeheart & Charles Blow eviscerate George Zimmerman’s supposed BFF last night, was like watching a ballet!

BFF indeed - he was nothing more then a co-worker...

I watched it to and I loved how Lawrence ripped him a new one! The guy was a total fraud - pretended to be a friend but knew nothing about Zimmerman. C'mon, "gut feeling" my a$$. Anyone who calls 911 forty something times has issues...but I guess "gut feeling" trumps it.

I love Lawrence - he is a smart guy that know how to ask the right questions!

I used to work in the billing department of the ER. ER cost walking through the door $800. If you use the Trauma team/room: $5,000. If they have to care fly the patient $2,000 at lift off not counting the miles travelled. These are all base costs without even talking about medication (EXPENSIVE) and procedure. If you are care flown you WILL use the Trauma Team/Room and you (most likely) will be staying at least one night (which I'm not sure but is in the neighborhood of $2000. If you need any type MRI or brain scan you'll be in the $1000 region just for the test. Someone has to read said test and give you their opinion. It's just insane, that's why we always talk about ER visits. This is mainly because of the people in the Trauma room that never end up paying for any of it. Many of them die uninsured and the family (if there is one) can't afford all of the bills.

@Akeem/MGates

Lets start by saying I am for universal coverage. I have many issues with the way this bill tries to achieve this goal.

Firstly, on the economics of cost shifting. The simple fact that more people are being brought into the system is not going to lower the cost. Ignore the morals of the argument and just go with the numbers. Currently, around 1m uninsured are treated at a cost of 50B. The estimate, from the CBO, is that these numbers will go up, I don't have a number for the numbers who will now be treated, but the cost of treatment will be around 170B a year. Even though there are taxes to be implemented it will still not cover providers costs, and so the expectations are that there will be greater cost shifting from private insurance to Medicaid recipients to cover the difference. All I am pointing out here is that the argument that premiums will be reduced because of a reduction in cost shifting is unlikely to happen, and in fact the opposite is predicted.

Second, the problem I have with the individual mandate is that there is no limiting clause. As another poster said, if this passes constitutional muster then there will be a line lobbyists attempting to get their product mandated by the government. And, as Kennedy said yesterday is is fundamental change in the relationship between the individual and the government.

Third, the current system sucks. My wife was recently ill and the paperwork I had to deal with was ridiculous. Bills came in late, they were wrong, some were dealt with by insurance, some were sent directly to me. What does this bill do to change that system? Nothing. We currently pay more in healthcare than any other country and have worse outcomes. So what does the government propose as a solution. Spend another 1.7T on the same system. Why? Please justify it.

Fourth, the basic issue with health care (not insurance) is cost. A poster wrote above that it cost $800 fro stitches. Now I don't know if this is true but for the sake of argument lets accept it. What in this bill will reduce that cost. Why is it so high. It is not simple the 15% - 20% that an insurance companies costs. There was a comment this week that seniors were saving 1B or 2B on drug costs. No they weren't. There were no savings. There was just a shift in who was paying for the drugs.

Five, medical care is a limited resource with an almost unlimited demand. There has to be rationing, and any plan to reform health care must start with that premise and get a majority of citizens on board. If the plan is transparent and is open about the benefits and costs then we can have an argument over what benefits should be in plan and what amount we are willing to pay for those benefits. The current Medicare system is unsustainable in my view because everybody loves the benefits but there is still enough money to hide the true costs.

Six, a single payer plan may meet the criteria I've listed above but single payer is a slogan that could mean anything. I want specifics before I'm willing to give up what I have now, and I will be one of ones who will have to give something. I have a pretty good employer based plan and I know under a universal system I will have to accept less, so I want to see what is being offered first before anything gets my vote.

This surprises who?

Right after President Obama was able to get Universal Healthcare, The Republican't Party ordered Chief Judicial Activist John Roberts to declare it Unconstitutional so that they could use this as the October Surprise.

Yes ladies and gentlemen, the Republican't October Surprise is their plotted and planned declaration that Needed healthcare is unconstitutional. They are hoping this causes Obama to be defeated. They care not about the people who depend upon Universal Healtcare, all the Republican'ts and Chief Judicial Activist John Roberts and his gang of 4 thugs care about is making Obama a One Term President.

If we had a Congress with a working majority of Democrats, Chief Judicial Activist John Roberts might be handling things differently (Beginning with the time of this trial, he might had moved it to after the National Elections.) However, its very clear the Republican't Majority Supreme Court is very partisan and very unfair. Just look at Citizens United hearing.

If we had a properly functioning Congress, Chief Judicial Activist John Roberts would had been long since impeached and in Jail.

And thats my Opinion.

I hate tp break this to you kaybee....., but the A.C.A. does nothing to control costs, in fact it drives them up.

Alan, I can understand and respect where you're coming from but I have to tell you that I think you're buying into the wrong statistical analysis because you're not considering the underinsured who use insurance almost like the uninsured. They may pay just a little more than the uninsured but still not enough to cover their costs. You're not including those that are born with or quickly develop life-long disabilities. Making insurance companies cover people they wouldn't normally, assures that these people are paid for in full (unlike under the current system i.e. Medicaid). These people use the most health care out of any of the rest of us and they use the ER (and the hospitals in general) more often than anyone else (including pregnant women).

Do you know that the mentally ill have to go through the ER as well before they can be placed in a psychiatric ward or get treated for their problem. There is no way around the ER. This law does not change that either (and I would really like to see that change along with pregnant women going into labor having to first go through the ER before they can be placed in a labor ward). This puts undue strain on the system and overworks the already overworked in the ER employees. It forces a full hospital to send people away.

I don't like the idea of rationing but there's a bit of that already because people whose cases are more severe are seen first so if more severe cases than you keep showing up, you keep being pushed to the back of the line if they're seen at all. Most of them just leave. Although, it's really disgusting to see someone come into the ER for a sore throat or some other kind of stupid problem that doesn't require an $800 bill to clear up. They know they're not going to pay it so they don't care.

There is no perfect system out there but to throw out the entire legislation would be a mistake I think. I like the idea of an individual mandate but I would prefer something more along the lines of universal health care honestly. As long as the right is as far right as they are now, we will not get our way. I'm terrified to get sick and that my husband will get sick because of the paperwork and the bills (aside from the worry of what would be wrong with him). I've been down that road recently and I didn't like it! It's not bad enough that you're being gouged but then there's all the extra stress of billing (which is just unimaginable).

@MGates

I don't like the individual mandate because I don't like where it can lead and it just rubs me up the wrong way that the government can tell me what to buy. There are other ways to persuade people to get health insurance, assuming they can afford it and choose not to.

1) Fixed enrollment period similar to the way private companies administer their plans.

2) Pre-existing condition cannot be used for denial providing you can show continuous coverage.

3) Cover all kids under 18 with a 'Medicare for Kids' program.

I've heard the argument we can improve the current bill but I honestly don't see how. The problem with an entitlement bill is that the recipients of any part of it won't give up what they're getting. So now you have a vested interest in keeping it all.

I knew about the other cost of ERs, where insured people use them because they're too lazy to make a regular appointment. Now that is a great example of the wrong incentives. If the ER wasn't paid for treating non-emergencies, or insurance didn't cover and ER non-emergency then it wouldn't happen. But it is the providers interest and the patients interest to categorize as an emergency as they bost benefit. In the UK, where the NHS has a budget, they simply wouldn't treat those people and I do know of non-emergencies being turned away from the ER.

It is so difficult for me to believe that 40 million American's do not have health insurance in America. It makes so much sense as to why insurance premiums have sky rocketed the way they have. It has come to the point where people literally can not afford health insurance. As much as people want to blame illegal immigrants for the rising costs of insurance it is way obvious it is American.s that have been contributing to the expense. Trying to solve this problem is WAY overdue.

This whole issue is insane. American's don't want to be forced to take health insurance but want to contribute to the rising costs on those currently paying? American's don't want another tax to pay for people who are being treated at hospitals at the expense of those paying health insurance because they consider it socialized medicine? So what is the answer here? Should people die if they do not have money to pay for their health care? Is that the answer?

Rubytuesday57

So what is the answer here? Should people die if they do not have money to pay for their health care? Is that the answer?

No, the answer is to fix the health care distribution system completely. The problem (outside of the overstepping of the bounds and restrictions on congress) is that it only attempted to fix one side of the equation. I gave greater access to insurance, bet it did nothing to fix the distribution model. It did nothing to fix the for profit hospital model. It did nothing to fix the prescription drug issues. It did nothing to address the Specialist vs the "Marcus Welby" physician model. It did nothing about Tort Reform. It did nothing about the cost of a medical education and it did nothing about the professional organizations that refuse to police their own.

You can't fix a problem if you fix only a piece of the problem and leave the rest to fester. If you don't address it all you address nothing. The AHCA was like having 6 holes in the bottom if your boat while at sea. The politicians stuck a rag in one of the holes and then walked away declaring victory. I hate to break it to you, but we are still sinking. The AHCA gave politicians a way to look like they had done something while doing absolutely nothing and patting each other on the back for nothing.

Gee, so many opinions - so many arguments. Yet the brightest minds in the country are ignoring the fundamental issue.

Is health care a commodity? Is receiving health care equivalent to commerce for broccoli?

Anyone can be denied opportunity to participate in the economy if they do not submit to receiving health care. An employer can require a physical examination as a condition of employment. A school can also require a physical examination in order to participate in school sponsored activities, such as athletics. A person will be denied a permit to operate a motor vehicle if their uncorrected vision is inadequate - they must seek a health service to obtain an operator's permit. Routine vaccinations are required to attend school, to pursue certain occupations. Obtaining a visa to travel may require inoculation against certain diseases.

In order to participate in the economy - any of us may be arbitrarily required to seek health care - at our cost. Participation in the 'marketplace' for health care is not voluntary unless, of course, a person is willing to forego an equitable opportunity to participate in the economy and in society.

No matter how the SCOTUS rules on the ACA law, the fundamental question will remain. Is health care a commodity?

Dennis,

Please explain to me how insurance costs are going to come down if the ACA remains in place? The cost for 10 years has now been estimated at 1.7T. I understand that taxes are in place to cover the cost but it does divert from the fact that an additional 170B a year is now being spent on Health Care. It also hit the argument that we will save money through cost shifting. If the current cost of the uninsured is around 60B a year, and under the new plan it will cost roughly three times that amount, then the cost shifting has also just tripled. The only difference is that now it paid for through additional taxes. This is the logical result of adding 30m new patients to the system. The idea that this could be done while lowering costs was ridiculous.

It's like the post a couple of days ago that Seniors were saving under the new Medicare-D. It's simply being paid for by new borrowing.

The costs is not goind to go down it just won't go up as fast.

The costs is not goind to go down it just won't go up as fast.

Ahh, the stimulus argument that can't be proven.

It's always darkest before the dawn. Keep the faith.

Obama in 2012.

Dennis, you are right. Whatever the decision, one political party's base or the other will be energized. What is beyond me is how health care for Americans has become a political wedge issue. Improving the system was once a bi-partisan goal; something repubican and democratic presidents since Truman have tried to do. The mandate was determined a conservative free-market principle by the conservative Heritage Foundation and it was embraced by the very republicans who now lambast it but worse, who lie about it to the very people who would benefit from it by calling health care mandate an infringement on their liberty and calling it a government takeover of health care ignoring it remains in the private sector. One can't have liberty and freedom without being healthy; one can't have liberty and freedom for health care if some decide to participate only when they become ill and the rest of our liberty and freedom pays for it.

As for how ACA lowers costs, there are numerous independent reports which discuss it. Those of us who have insurance pay an average of $1000 per year in our premiums and co-pays to cover the medical costs of those who do not. It's that simple. The ACA focuses on wellness care, prevention care rather than strictly sickness care. Even though ACA is not fully implemented, medical care providers are now being rewarded for quality of care not quantity. Over time, this also lowers the cost of medical care for everyone. Preventing serious and treatable illnesses before they happen lowers costs for everyone.

Jody, our Maine Tea Party governor sought to cut 65,000 people from Medicaid recently - among them, some of my Republican-voting relatives.Turns out, electing Tea Party candidates has been very bad for the Party's actual base: rural Mainers have been the hardest hit by Tea Party initiatives, while the urban residents are doing quite well. Will ironies never cease?

As for how ACA lowers costs, there are numerous independent reports which discuss it. Those of us who have insurance pay an average of $1000 per year in our premiums and co-pays to cover the medical costs of those who do not. It's that simple.

Except that's it not. There are also numerous studies showing that because most of the new patients are covered by Medicaid, and Medicaid does not compensate providers enough. So to make up the costs, providers will cost shift on to private insurance. 15m more people getting medical services, rather than the 1m uninsured who are treated annually will cause a lot more cost shifting and therefore higher private insurance premiums.

Even steeper rises in the cost of private insurance are possible, due to Obamacare’s reductions in Medicare payment rates and its expansion of the Medicaid program. PWC writes, “Hospitals and health plan executives agree that when Medicare and Medicaid pay less than costs, private payers must make up the difference.” The new law will cut provider payment rates across the board, which Medicare’s Chief Actuary warns could cause 15 percent of hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and home health agencies to become unprofitable by 2019. As more Americans enroll in Medicaid in place of other forms of coverage, providers will face lower reimbursement for a greater number of patients. According to the report, the impact of these changes will likely mean greater cost-shifting to privately insured patients—indirectly increasing premiums.

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/05/26/new-study-shows-higher-health-care-costs-under-obamacare/

I just don't see how the court can vote in favor of the mandate. There is nothing in the Constitution that remotely gives them the power to force commerce. As good an idea as everyone having health insurance is this simply isn't the way to go about it. Mandate laws will have to be passed by the states not the federal government.

Alan, NJ

The costs is not goind to go down it just won't go up as fast.

Ahh, the stimulus argument that can't be proven.

There is nothing that can be proven except mathematical theorems. But lots of stuff can be DISproven, as the Republican Party demonstrates repeatedly by being proven wrong:

The Clinton tax increases would destroy the US economy. WRONG.

Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. WRONG.

Mitt Romney never advised the federal government to use Massachusetts as a model for health care. WRONG.

The Obama stimulus failed. WRONG. The recession ended 5 months after it was passed and nonpartisan economists say the stimulus was partly responsible for the recovery from the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression.

Micky 69 -

You think your so funny. You would see racism in it. You must be a racist then. Figures.

Dingbat.

@Skup

The current law mandates I pay for others ER trips.

Dennis, let's just face it. Americans are stupid.

This is why people of the trailer park continue to vote for people of the elite.

Republicans to avg unemployed family guy on SNAP: We need to stop taxing millionaires, cancel medicaidadd urine tests to unemployment insurance and cancel food stamps. He agrees and votes. Then he loses his home and his kids starve and stay sick. Who's fault? Obamacare.

An elderly man pops a Medicare sponsored pill in the morning. He gets out his recently social security filled debit card to put gas in his car. Then he drives free on federally sponsored highways to a federally subsidized community center. He is there to say he wants government gone. If he gets what he wants: The roads will look like they did when he was young; his pills will run out and so will he; his social security check will stop and his pro-Republican kids can now pay for them. And when they die, they can pay for that too.

The Clinton tax increases would destroy the US economy. WRONG.

Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. WRONG.

These two statements have empirical evidence to back them up. The fact that the recession officially ended 5 months after the stimulus passed proves what? How much had been spent by the stimulus at that point? Did unemployment continue rise during the stimulus? Did unemployment spike in 2010 as stimulus money to local government run out proving that the jobs created were not sustainable (empirical evidence)? Was there not talk all through the second half of 2010 regarding the possibility of a double-dip recession? Did the President not propose a second stimulus to deal with this possibility (AJA)? But what happened? The economy did not go into a double-dip and we are now being told that the President is responsible for the up-swing....but the President did nothing...

So, again how do prove a negative when you don't have empirical evidence.

...and by the way the stimulus argument I was referring to was the one where the Administration claims there would have a recession/depression without the stimulus. A statement that caonnot be proved.

Houston,

This is a pretty lame response. But I'll correct you on the WMD comment. Both R and D believed this, even Hillary stated this on a committee she sat on. Never heard about the other two you mentioned.

Now do you really think the recession is over? Let me ask you this, are you better off now than 4 years ago?

Who are the 4 Justices who would rob us of our Constitutional guaranteed Freedoms is the Question everyone should be asking? They are there to uphold Constitutional Law, not to play political games. I believe, we the people have the right to know which Justices do not take their oaths to Uphold The Constitution of this United States seriously. Bending to their own narcissistic whims is devoid of Honor and Integrity. If the highest court in the land is not Honorable, how can there ever be any respect or pride in our country's government? This is not a question of those wanting someone else to pay for their health care. Has anyone ever heard that someone died because a hospital failed to treat them because of money? NOT happening. No one is ever told by an Emergency Room physician, "Oh, you have no insurance, no money, go hit the street and die." We are falsely led to believe that is the case. No money, no insurance, die, sucker simply has never happened. There are existing laws that prevent that from ever happening. There are laws that prevent a hospital from transferring a patient whom they deny treatment to, to another hospital, if they have the ability to treat themselves.

There are ways to improve the Healthcare of the nation without destroying our Constitutional rights with this mega document that Obama and his czars threw together and crammed down our throats. It's sorta' like his shovel ready jobs. Every American has one of those don't they?

"Kenney & Roberts know their answers weeks ago so stop with the Etch A Sketch Bull$h!t, the American people are not blind" The 5 Conservatives-justices are the power switch for the GOP/TP.

Alan: A statement that cannot be proved

Or disproved.

Paul: But I'll correct you on the WMD comment. Both R and D believed this

Because the administration lied and fabricated evidence. Yellow cake, anyone?

Damage - don't forget Zimmerman is a "white" hispanic.

Those are the one's we need to keep an eye on according to the libbies.

Rob in ma: Some nitwit House Rep from her home state was tossed from the House Floor today for wearing a hoodie and sunglasses.

Rep. Bobby Rush, (Socialist-IL) and co-founded of the Illinois chapter of the Black Panthers, you know, the organization that has a bounty out for George Zimmerman.

It's amazing how cretins like that can get elected to office these days.

There is no Obamacare "mandate" to buy health insurance. Obamacare only requires that if you don't purchase insurance that you pay a tax penalty. (Since you are penalizing the rest of us by running around seeking health care without insurance, which makes our premiums higher.)

Does the government have the right to impose a tax penalty on it's citizens? Ask the Congress, the Supreme Court in previous decisions, and the IRS that question...Of course it does...only Ron Paul hallucinates otherwise...

Damage - Regarding your post 2.22. You on the right have made this a racial issue. I am neither a white or a black liberal. As a latino who looks a lot more like Zimmerman than Martin, I feel this is bringing out the worst in everybody, including you and your kind.

This tradegy shouldn't be about race or skin color. Not much good can or will come out of this, but if anything this will at least show that a concealed carry, 'Stand your ground' rule should be repealed. If that NRA dream legislation is justifiably repealed it will be at a high cost (death of a teenager). Jeb Bush and his acolytes in the state legislature should have listened to the police and law enforcement prior to toeing the party line and passing this law.

This should be about realizing that Zimmerman should have been arrested and should have had a grand jury determine if he should be charged/tried. Instead we have this non sensical Old west style of Law. It is not about race at least it should not be. You and Spike Lee, the Black Panthers etc get it wrong. It shouldn't be about race. It should be about what happened when this vigilante cop wanna be stalked Martin.

Instead, the right smear the deceased by leaking unrelated information about school expulsions and supposed dope usage - all information, if even true, should not be considered here. It is called character assination. You will probably call it a left smear job, but reports came out recently showing that Zimmerman had prior police confrontations and felonies. Should that be considered in this case?

Did Martin punch Zimmerman out of self defense was he afraid for his life as this stalker was tracking him down? Was that supposed punch deserving of a fatal shot? Only one person knows what happened and I am not willing to take the words of Zimmerman at face value as he is trying to save his skin.

Any adult who doesn't want to buy health insurance is not a responsible adult, but instead a leach who wants to have the tax payers pay for their medical bills.

So, we can say any adult who doesn't want health care is not only a fool, but is pretty darn stupid.

Paul-Florida

Houston,

This is a pretty lame response. But I'll correct you on the WMD comment. Both R and D believed this, even Hillary stated this on a committee she sat on. Never heard about the other two you mentioned.

They believed it because that's what they were being told by the Bush administration, which KNEW the intelligence they were getting from sources like "Curveball" was as dubious as the name implies.

If you never heard about the Republicans dire predictions about what the Clinton tax hikes would do to the economy, you must have been pretty young back in the 1990s. How did you become so old and bitter so quickly?

Now do you really think the recession is over? Let me ask you this, are you better off now than 4 years ago?

When I compare my 401K now after the Obama Recovery to what it was at the end of 2008 during the depths of the Bush Recession, I can honestly say "YOU BETCHA I'M BETTER OFF".

I can honestly say "YOU BETCHA I'M BETTER OFF".

Hey I'm happy for you Houston. That's great. Just know that only one in five americans (20%) recently polled agree with you that they are better off. Not a good number for Obama.

Rob in ma-3189632

Hey I'm happy for you Houston. That's great. Just know that only one in five americans (20%) recently polled agree with you that they are better off. Not a good number for Obama.

How typical of a RWNJ to toss poll numbers around without even mentioning the poll. Well, here's one that will make you very unhappy:

U.S. Weekly Economic Confidence Breaks Four-Year Ceiling

http://www.gallup.com/poll/153467/Weekly-Economic-Confidence-Breaks-Four-Year-Ceiling.aspx

Of course, the 20% or so of the public who despise President Obama and claim he's a Muslim Marxist born in Kenya will always be unhappy as long as he's in office there's always going to be much unhappiness, not to mention wailing and gnashing of teeth while Obama is president.

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/293296/mere-80-say-theyre-not-better-four-years-ago

Here you go Houston. Again, congrats on being 1 in 5!

Rob in Ma - and yet, Obama is liked by the majority of people over both the GOP candidates and is hands down more popular than Congress. Go figure. All the hate of the GOP is flying right back on them - well deserved!

"Brace yourself for another 5-4 decision"

Correct - It should be 9-0 against Obamacare, but with 4 liberal activist Justices who think there should be no limit to the power of the Federal Government to dictate to us - that States should not have any rights, that's almost impossible now.

Interestingly, I wonder if one or more of the liberal Justices might actually vote against the individual mandate, since it clearly places too much power in a central government, which is what the original American Revolution and Constitution was all about.

Houston and Seeking Sanity--lets keep things in perspective. I am a huge Clinton fan and voted for him both times but try not to let facts get in the way with this debate. Clinton was a pragmatist not an indeologue like Obama. Yes he raised the top tax rate but he also at the same time lowered the capital gains rate which created the largest source of tax revenue during the internet investment boom. He also fundamentally changed for the worse CEO compensation which even he in hindsight didnt see the unintended consequences of his actions by changing the tax law to prevent executive compensation above a million dollars that wasnt performance based not deductible. This caused corporations to provide their executives huge stock option grants vastly increasing their pay. Also dont forget Clinton was willing to work with Gingrich and reform welfare making it pay for work and setting time limits and remember all the democrats saying how it was going to put millions on the street? Guess what happened-Clinton and Gingrich were right and they were wrong. Well Obama is falling into that same nanny state trap.

Seeking Sanity--dont forget those low opinion polls for Congress apply to the democratic congress members too and people always tend to blame everyone else but their congressional representative. Look at all the idiotic things Durbin has done in Illinois and he continues to get voted in over and over. Even his strongest supporters here know his IQ is probably equivalent of an ant but as long as has tenure and brings home the pork he continues to get reelected. Its hard to see anyone really saying they are better off than they were 4 years ago although not sure you can blame Obama for that. But he certainly isnt very good at improving things.

The funny thing about all of the argument about the mandate is that the entire controversy could have been avoided if the Congress had followed the required semantics of the Constitution. Enact a tax, give credit for insurance paid, give refundable credits to those who are poor, make sure there are penalties.

All of this controversy is because the Congress is afraid of using the word TAX.

Dennis, Columbus, Ohio

If the court determines the individual mandate to be unconstitutional especially if it another 5-4 decision then this will be win for Democrats come November. It will energize their base as they recall Citizens United, Bush v Gore and blame the Roberts court as politically motivated.

But the real problem will be when health insurance costs surge and those increases will be owned by the Republicans and the Tea Party.

On the flip side if the court upholds the mandate that decision will energize the Conservative base.

Let me guess, gosh darn, this is a tough one..... but, I assume your a liberal.

So tell me, my Ins. premiums have increased significantly since Obamacare was made Law.... more than any other time since I've signed with my particular carrier (10 yrs. ago).... Who owns that blame? let me guess that one for you too.... uuuuhmmm G.W. Bush's fault.

Rob in ma-3189632

Here you go Houston. Again, congrats on being 1 in 5!

So, only 20% of the population has any retirement accounts? Few people who have investments of any kind would say that they are not better off now than they were at the depths of the Bush Recession. Maybe some of the other 80% are responsible for their own lack of improvement due to their failure to plan for the future.

Kirk - amazing that you should bring up Durbin. Let's talk about Joe Walsh - the GOP congressman who is dodging his child support payments. Believe me Durbin can walk circles around most of the GOP senators. Yes the low polls for Congress apply to both but I think you'll be surprised to see who takes the House back in November. The GOP is anti- everything but right wing beliefs. That just doesn't fly with intelligent voters.

Kirk-2957282

Houston and Seeking Sanity--lets keep things in perspective. I am a huge Clinton fan and voted for him both times but try not to let facts get in the way with this debate.

You're doing a good job of that.

Clinton was a pragmatist not an indeologue like Obama.

How do you explain an "ideologue like Obama" enacting the CONSERVATIVE individual mandate as part of health insurance reform? Hmm???? Or is that one of those facts that you don't want to let get in the way of the debate?

Houston - it was done to appease the GOP - like anything could help the GOP. I love that Republicans started whining about how they had a great plan for heathcare right after Obama presented his. Still haven't seen anything of their great program, hmmmmmmmmm

clark-3144812 "No one is ever told by an Emergency Room physician, "Oh, you have no insurance, no money, go hit the street and die." We are falsely led to believe that is the case. No money, no insurance, die, sucker simply has never happened. There are existing laws that prevent that from ever happening"

Exactly right. Since hospitals are forbidden to even ask for proof of ability to pay before treatment, people's impressions of the intent of Obamacare are totally misplaced. It's not to provide medical CARE for all residents (legal and illegal), it's to find people to PAY for it. Here are some realities;

- The 'poor' get free medical care (Medicaid) and the taxpayers pay for it.

- The illegal immigrants get free medical care (they ignore the bill) and the taxpayers pay for it.

- About 85% of Americans get insurance through their employers.

- The remainder without insurance are primarily young, healthy people who don't think they need it.

- People over age 65 get Medicare.

The only thing Obamacare changed is making young people pay for expensive coverage to subsidize everyone else, and the young people are too immature to realize that they are the 'patsies'.

The poor still get Medicaid coverage, the employers still pay for insurance for most people, the elderly still get Medicare.

California Tom

We are keeping the faith. Faith in the wisdom of our forefathers who set up a three part government to insure that no one branch could grab power beyond what was outlined in the Constitition. This Executive branch did just that and SCOTUS is obligated to fix it. Nobama 2012. No Dream act for Illegal immigrants, no Socialism for America.

clark-3144812

Who are the 4 Justices who would rob us of our Constitutional guaranteed Freedoms is the Question everyone should be asking?

Yes, we should be asking this question -- Of the right-wing justices! Why? Because these jagoffs (Thomas and scandal including his anti-Obamacare Teabagger wife, really?!) have already set precedence with Bush v Gore and Citizen's United = proof of legislating from the bench.

When the SCOTUS ruled on Bush v Gore, I still believed in the court's neutrality and dedication to ruling based on the law. Later, we learned that in fact Gore had won the popular vote including Florida. And even that small victory was suspicious due to Jeb Bush being the governor of Florida at that time. Come on, can any conservative really believe this was not fishy? Go back and look at footage of Dubya being sworn in -- you can see it in his face -- the wonderment of actually becoming POTUS when he knew he didn't really win it with merit.

After seeing the right-wing Citizen's United ruling, followed by Alito's inappropriate partisan behavior during the State of the Union speech, there was no more doubt in my mind that politics was being played by the SCOTUS and that this branch could no longer be trusted for having integrity.

As for ruling on ACA, the justices know very well that if they rule against the mandate, this could result in loss of benefits already in place, will likely destroy savings to reduce the deficit, and most of all will force the cost of health care upon the insured and the tax payers per the status quo. Four of those justices are so partisan and hateful of the president they will do this to the American people. Kennedy has a lot of reflection to do as to his place in history on this matter.

If for only this reason, it is VERY important that people get out the vote to reelect President Obama, and then in 2016 elect the Democratic candidate to ensure that no more right-wing appointments are made to the Supreme Court. Throw the Teapublicans out -- Obama/Biden - 2012!

I love how all the Conservatives scream about the Individual Mandate "imposing on there rights" and "requiring them to pay for something they don't want" and yet they have no problems with Republican led State Legislatures requiring mandatory sonograms and vaginal probe sonograms on women seeking abortions...and requiring them to pay for it! What hypocrites! If the Individual Mandate is overturned I can't wait to see all the lawsuits crop up to strike down these demeaning and sexist laws

By the way, since most of you folks who watch Faux news don't actually understand the American Healthcare Act and probably never will, the law promotes access to Health Insurance and curtails Insurance Company's from gauging customers by requiring 80% of revenue must be paid or they must rebate the excess to customers..So that actually would save consumers.

MkeMike

Does the government have the right to impose a tax penalty on it's citizens?

This is one of the problems I have with a mandate. I don't believe there should not be ANY criteria related to taxation other than income for income taxes, with the rest (sales tax, etc.) per usage. I don't believe we should be taxed based on lifestyle choices. With this said, if conservatives were consistent and were in favor of ending tax credits, including the $1,000 per child, property tax write-offs etc., which are carrot and stick manipulation just the same as the mandate, then they might have a case.

And this problem of hypocrisy we see repeatedly -- Wanting to mandate unnecessary medical procedures against a person's will, from drug tests to ultrasounds, and making the citizen victim pay for that unnecessary procedure on top of it all. And then they have the audacity to b!tch about the ACA mandate (and they do it in crazy Teabagger costumes--what's with that?), against their own best interests of having improved access to affordable health care.

The bottom line is that all of us are already paying for health care, whether in insurance premiums, in taxes (for the Charity Fund), or out-of-pocket, and we are doing so at a much higher cost than ACA, and could save even more with single-payer. Someone please, explain the right-wing lack of reason to me, because I don't understand the stupidity (or the stupid costumes).

Correction for my post above and the double negative -- I don't believe there should be any criteria other than income in determining income taxation (and on all income, including capital gains, dividends, etc.)

bethany-2876865 -- We were posting at the same time, with similar thoughts. However you point out the silliness of the right-wing regarding regulation of the insurance industry, which is way past due for regulation in view of the many abuses.

Even from the perspective of capitalism, is there anyone who would argue against anti-trust regulations to prevent monopoly? The most far-right Libertarian understands the need for competition to bring down costs. Where are these conservatives, and discussion thereof?

But then these same conservatives don't get the need for regulation of Wall Street either, and the sad fact that there is still no prevention of "too big to fail" in place. Both the insurance and financial industries are Private Sector Gone Wild movies we've already seen, and we'll see it again if left unchecked -- It's only a matter of time. And when it happens, I'm not going to say I told you so, I'm going to go bucknuttyand kick some conservative arses (starting with the ones in costumes wearing tricot hats).

Seeking Sanity--you could be right and idiocy is not specific to a political party and your inability to see it in both sides is your issue. I dont know Walsh and if what you say is true, then he is a scumbag and hopefully his constituents will vote him out. Doesnt make Durbin a great senator nor with an IQ higher than an ant. I am not blindly loyal to a certain party. The GOP is not anti everything but right wing beliefs anymore than the democrats are anti anything but loony leftwing beliefs. Its your political partisanship. Both sides preen and posture and but for every right wing crazy notion there is a left wing nanny state concept from the left. Its not like the GOP doesnt have health care plans. Paul Ryan has put forth several proposals you just dont like them because they come from the wrong party.

Houston--not sure how that concept changes Obama's fundamental beliefs. For one, economically I agree with the individual mandate so I am not against it just because its in Obamacare but I certainly recognize the constitutional problems with it. Second, my issue with ACA isnt all the goodies nor the idea that universal care is a bad thing, its two reasons. First it either didnt go far enough as it really isnt universal care (which he doesnt want to tackle nor do the GOP because there is no way to add 40 million people to the same method of health care delivery that 85% of us get from our employers without dramatically increasing costs or reducing the benefits to the 85% (what many people refer to as rationing) they currently receive. Thats the equivalent of telling our wealthy seniors that the young can no longer support your social security under the current program--that conversation needs to take place but its a political hot potato. Second ACA does nothing to reduce the cost of our health care delivery system regardless of what people say and Obama knows it which is why he tried to front load the benefits to get people hooked on it. It just didnt work.

I see that Brianb, er uh Kirk, is posting from a different computer today.

Bethany and True Patriot--maybe you guys should learn some additional aspects of the constitution. There is a difference between a state mandating and the federal government. Second, if the law had required individuals to pay a tax that was used to fund the provision of such health care, there wouldnt be this debate. What is at issue is requiring someone to buy private insurance from a profit making private company or incur a fine. If you look at it from the prism of what the federal government is requiring rather than your political partisanship, you might get a little more scared giving the federal government that kind of power when the party in office is different than your views. I economically like the individual mandate but understand the constitutional issues with it.

Bethany and True Patriot--you both need to understand how health care insurance works. Insurance companies earn a profit from administering the plans not providing health care. Employers and employees actually pay for the health care via premiums, co pays, deductibles etc. The split is usually 80/20 employers to employees unless a union plan then the employees pay 5-7%. Reducing insurance company costs doesnt change the actual quality of the health care delivery or the benefits you get from your employer designed plan. Just makes it harder for insurance companies to administer the plans and offer plans to smaller employers. So that rule is actually stupid. There is nothing in ACA that is going to reduce the costs of health care delivery in fact it only increases it at the moment. ACA deals more with inclusion and who pays not the expense side of things.

True Patriot--on your other rants--sometimes you just read that stuff and say wow just wow--is there really someone that believes what you write? It scares me that we have citizens in this country that could actually believe that so I hope you really just rant and truly know and understand the stuff better than that. You sound like the guys down on some southern farm that believes the jews control the banks and media and creates bible based rhetoric to support your loony martian thoughts.

Sorry TP, but I am not Brianb. I dont agree with some of what he writes. I am not socially conservative but socially moderate to liberal and my guess he wouldnt have voted for Clinton twice which I did. TP, so far you have never been able nor tried to dispute or explain where I am wrong on a post, so until you do, you have no credibility except to those who already smoke the same crack.

Paul-Florida

Houston,

This is a pretty lame response. But I'll correct you on the WMD comment. Both R and D believed this, even Hillary stated this on a committee she sat on. Never heard about the other two you mentioned.

And asks yourself why they thought so - because the President told them that he had proof. So the only thing that these Congressmen (both R and D - who voted in favor) are guilty of is taking the president's word. But I guess you have to because (1) it's the president, and (2) they did not have access to the kind of intelligence that the president is privilaged to, and they were limited to knowing what they were allowed to know.

Bayllie - You are aware that President Clinton has also said that he believed Iraq had WMD and during his time as President stated that Iraq was a threat to the U.S. and it's allies. Many members of congress also believed that Iraq had WMD, in fact they was proof that Iraq used WMD against his own people (the Kurds) after Bush 1 pushed him out of Kuwait. IMO, the biggest mistake the US made was not finishing off the Iraqi government when we had the chance with Bush 1.

Odd....the Huffington Post doesn't seem to have ANY problem posting comments regarding the question of WHY Clarence Thomas is even allowed to vote. I've posted the same question in several MSNBC articles and my entire comment just disappears!

Go to CREDO and sign a petition to have Justice Thomas step aside from voting on this issue.

WHY DO MY COMMENTS COMPLETELY DISAPPEAR FROM MSNBC?

sfcret

Bayllie - You are aware that President Clinton has also said that he believed Iraq had WMD

yes, said but didn't make Congress vote to go to war.

IR,

Good summation. I agree with your premises that (a) it's not a foregone conclusion that the Mandate will be struck down, and (b) it could take another 20 years to get something done if the Act itself is struck down.

The Obama administration and Congress should have just gone for broke at the outset and tried to pass a single-payer system. Fiscally and morally, it's the only one that really makes sense.

IR,

Your post set the scene for today's arguments.

Medicaid which began in 1965 is indeed a fed/state partnership. Currently the Feds pick up 57% of state medicaid costs.

Under the AHC, people below the 138% of poverty line( single person=$10,890) will be included under Medicaid and the Federal government will pay 100% in 2014 and 90% by 2020.

Rico-3714896

In reguards to Clarance Thomas :he claimed the IRS form was too complicated to understand.

The form asked spouse earnings and he stated none.

In an interview on 60 Minutes when asked why he never asked any questions, he stated "It's better to have been thought a fool than open ones mouth and proved it"

When Scalia dies this parasite will find a new host and attach himself to it.

He is there for life!

IR

As I see it the mandate is critical to any chance the AHC actually has of succeeding. From my understanding ACH does not fundamentally change the existing health-care system, but increases people's access to that system. Without everyone "chipping in" how can costs not escalate? Sever the mandate and ACH is dead.

- The Legislative Branch would then be able to act quickly to pass this additional legislation to make the Act viable rather than starting the whole argument from scratch which could take another twenty years to get something done.

As supported by recent events I have little confidence in our Legislative Branch to act quickly on anything!

My two-cents worth here is strictly based upon what I presently know of the AHC Act. Continuing to learn.

Oh, and politics schmolotics! Just found out the Magic Johnson group won the auction to buy the Dodgers!!! Wooohoooo!!!!

"Look at what the US Supreme Court did in 2000, they helped "W" steel the Election"

Jack -- Depending, you never know what options may be put back on the table. And that's my optimistic two cents for today.

Mark -- I'm still learning too!

Mark. I'm trying to look at the glass as half full. While I agree with you that the chances of anything good happening if the Mandate is declared null and void are slim and none I did feel compelled to hold out the possibility. Stranger things have happened maybe some folks will have an epiphany and start to work on behalf of We the People instead of this constant food fight we are now saddled with. There are ways to make it work without the Mandate the question is do we have the will to implement them.

DCIA,

Right. I just agreed with you elsewhere.

The question of what we're going to do about health care isn't going away--no matter what the Supreme Court decides. The ACA is not the end-all, be-all of what we're facing these days. It was always a first step. And that's why you and Amy and Clara and I (and others) do not feel it was "a terrible day yesterday for Obama and ObamaCare", as Smiff put it. The Righties don't get it.

How many of us can fit on the same page Jack? May it be in the millions. ; )

Anyone know why it is going to take till June till the SCOTUS publishes their rulling? My boiler point question in case I'm not around.

By the way, despite my misgivings on the smorgasborg and methods put in place, I'm hoping that the court calls it constitutional. It will be terrible if even after all the compromise and capitulation HCR turned out to be, that this isn't given a chance to go forward.

I hope the Justices use their knowledge and understanding of the Constitution, using previous law precedents to make a NON political decision. It would be shameful if even the supposed final, non partisan arbiters, get in the mud with the rest of the politicians.

Yellowdog: if this were the only case the Court was working on, they probably could issue an opinion in about 2 weeks. However, there are several other cases being heard as well.

This one has the most political implications, but all of them are equally as important, otherwise they would not be heard.

If you are truly interested in the process the Court goes through in deciding cases, there are several hundred books available, including some written by retired Justices, which discuss the inner workings of the Court in great detail. If you are a legal junky, some of them are fascinating.

If Thomas can't understand the IRS form then what the heck is he doing sitting on our Supreme Court?

The Medicaid portion of the law is also unconstitutional since the Federal Government is not allowed the power to blackmail the states into accepting additional spending they do not want and cannot afford. The Federal Government is not in control of our country. The states and ultimately the people are. Since this would be outside the appropriate power of the Federal Government and would put an undue burden on both the states and the citizens within the states who pay taxes, it must be struck down, just as the remainder of the law should be struck down because it puts an undue burden on both the insurance companies and on the tax payers to pick up the additional cost of health insurance mandated under this law. I have never been prouder of our forefathers and the system they established for our One Nation Under God.

Actually, from what I heard of yesterday's debate, the Justices seem pretty critical of the federal government forcing people to buy insurance. Maybe a worse loss than 5-4? Not a prediction, because I understand Justices tend to ask harsh questions of both sides, just to get to the heart of each attorney's argument. But it sounded bad.

And here's a thought. If the federal government can't force people to buy insurance, how is social security constitutional? The original authorization act used insurance language in establishing the program. It was called the Old Age and Survivors Insurance Act, or something like that. Pretty sure the word insurance was in the name. Has that question ever come up in the Court?

The fallout of this could be something to see.

Paul,

It could even be argued next that the income tax is unconstitutional. Seriously.

Seriously, the income tax was declared unconstitutional five different times.

Wilson got the great idea of adding it as an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That fixed that problem.

One of the things that has been argued is that the amendment was added unconstitutionally, as it did not follow the prescribed method for adding- or repealing, for that matter- amendments.

At this late date, that argument is moot.

They're simply being tough on it the first day just like the earlier Federal D.C. circuit court which eventually ruled in favor of Obamacare..

"I hope the US Supreme Court doesn't make another mistake like they did in 2000 with "W"

Paul -- Some of fallout you talk about may apply to the plans the Republicans have for Medicare, IMO.

Damage, with people like you in this country, it's quite easy for me to like Rev. Al Sharpton. Very easy actually.

We all look forward to Damage's nastiness, bitterness and wholesale spewing of insults every morning. Step back people, it's coming out of every orifice.

You are a fine human being Damage. Not.

Pat, last evening on Countdown with Keith O, he mentioned that Zimmermans' dad is a retired Federal Judge, somewhere in Virginia.

Perhaps, if true, that explains the protections he's receiving by the Sanford police.

Disgusting to say the least!

Hi Tom. Perhaps if people like Damage stood up for Trayvon Martin, our country wouldn't need Rev. Al. Perhaps if our country strived on justice, we wouldn't need civil rights anything.

Unfortunately, people like Damage will do nothing for justice involving kids like Trayvon. Damage has Fox, he has Rush, he has Sarah Palin, he has the NRA and all sorts of places where he can get people to side with the likes of him.

The Trayvons of the world cannot. We need Rev. Al.

Damage's whole being involves hate and divisiveness. At least here on First Read.

chilled, it is truly disgusting. I read that a police officer in New Orleans (?) was just fired for writing some pretty nasty stuff about Trayvon Martin on line. I think he called Trayvon a thug or something like that.

Pat, it's in true right-wing form to destroy a person/victim with personal attacks.

Pat---it has been troubling to me that the police in Florida have given at least the appearance of a cover-up in this tragic situation. Where is the in-depth investigation? How could this have been mis-handled? It may be that Zimmerman is entitled to assert self-defense but how was it that the documentation of all the facts is so muddy?

yup chilled. They should seriously think about looking in the mirror but they won't. They've never had to, nor do they want to. Hell, there is nothing wrong with them they truly believe. So what if they hate everybody? It's all they know how to do. They deserve nothing - not respect, not dignity, not anything.

Murdoch hopefully will go to jail. You would think the real journalists over there would quit. But as we all know, there are no real journalists over there. They're just there to try and start wars and divide the country even further. It's what they excel at. And they have a willing audience.

America. Electing President Obama has brought it all back to the surface. The haters are back in full force for all to see.

Steeler Fan, there is an investigation going on now because of push back from Trayvon's family and activists. Can you imagine that they left him alone in the morgue for three days? They had his cell phone in custody but never even attempted to contact his parents to tell them about the death of their son. It's unimaginable. No one deserves that kind of treatment. No one.

I might add that the real journalists in this country are playing a huge role as well. They are asking questions and not settling for BS answers, especially Lawrence O'Donnell in his interview with Oliver. Last night we saw journalism. REAL HONEST TO GOODNESS JOURNALISM.

Hi Pat,

Having had technical difficulties this morning, I am late to the party - see my comment #1.51 on our man Larry O'!

It was a thing of beauty - reminded me of the good old days when journalists asked the tough questions!

Pat, Boston, excellent post! I remember McCain's comment; it was hard to believe he actually said it.

Feisty, I did so enjoy Lawrence O and friends last night. While I have no proof, I could not help wondering who was paying Joe Oliver to hit the airways or at least what's in this for him.

Damage, what have you to say about this Stand Your Ground law? Jeb Bush did the bidding of the NRA. Doesn't this bother you?

As far as black on black crime, I have no answers. People gave up on the cities generations ago. People don't care. Blacks fight our wars. Blacks love our country. And what do they get in return? Hate. They always have and always will, especially when we have someone like President Obama in the White House.

Where's his birth certificate. That's the respect he received from people like you. There is a whole lot of white on white crime, by the millionaires and billionaires. Look at Romney's recent statement about pre-existing conditions and health care coverage. He's having elevators put in his house for his cars, yet vetoed elevators here in MA for the disabled when he was the governor. He was for the Iraq war, but didn't send his white photographic kids.

Stuff it.

Damage - Black on black crime certainly is a problem. You know what the twin primary causes of that are? Poverty and lax gun laws. Liberals have tried for decades to address those two issues and have faced right-wing obstructionism at every turn. So maybe you're just a bit off base when you say we ignore that fact?

"The 5 GOP/TP Partisans on the US Supreme Court will Vote as instructed by the far Right Wing 1%"

it's in true right-wing form to destroy a person/victim with personal attacks.

Wrong again. What you meant to say is that it's in true left wing form to demonize the alleged perpetrator before the facts are in and even before the alleged perpetrator has been formally accused. But why wait on such trivial technicalities, let the Black Panthers make good on their bounty and save us all the trouble of due process.

Maybe some honest to goodness journalist will pursue that angle, eh?

This was a terrible tragedy and didn't need to take place. A wannabe cop took it upon himself to stalk someone. What happend after that who knows.

For all the right's anger about the media blowing this case out of proportion and chiding them and everyone else for not caring or doing anything about gun and or urban violence, I have one question.

Did they have the same anger about the fascination about Natalee Holliway the teen killed in Aruba, why was her tragic death warranted two to three years of nightly discussion? Why no outrage that countless hours were 'wasted' on her lone case, when thousands of young women are murdered.

Again, a terrible case down in Florida hopefully it will let rational people realize that 'stand your ground' laws and other lax gun laws need to be repealed. People it is all about the media and ratings, that is why everyone is talking about this case. I will grant the point that supposed journalist attention wh$%s on both sides will use this to boost their ratings.

As for me the big point is that Zimmerman should have been arrested until it was determined that it truely was self defense. The media circus going on now could have been prevented if this guy was sitting in jail or on bail waiting to see if a grand jury wanted to take it to court. I find no fault in the family for trying to get their story out, to fight for their son's memory; but now comes the "Nancy Grace" year long side show.

falconear, when was the last time the poverty rate declined? I believe 1993 - 2000. Who was in charge of congress for most of that time? Rebuplicans, remember Newt? Your statement is biased and lacks facts. Poverty rates have skyrocketed under the recent Democratic control.

Yellowdog - Mark D - Not only should Zimmerman have been arrested immediately, they should have done drug and alcohol tests on him that very night. None were done. They should not have corrected a witness who said she heard Trayvon calling for help - telling her she meant Zimmerman. They should have used everything they had available to find Trayvon's relatives. The police were so unprofessional in this case they have caused the real problems.

Va Ind - you're wrong. Don't know where you're finding your stats (fox news, maybe) but you couldn't be more wrong.

Yellow dog EXCELENT point. I usually choose not to answer the question of black on black crime because it is irrelevant when discussing the Martin case. IT is an attempt to deflect, atleast your example shows how stupid of a point it is to make.

For anyone new to the Vine, there is an old rule, don't feed the trolls. Trolls just come on, write controversial comments, and start useless arguments. If you don't respond, they go away.

Based on the comments to/from Damage, I suggest that applies to him.

Newsvine even has a method of making this easy, they allow you to automatically ignore an author. After reading commentary which adds nothing to discussions over and over and over and over and over and over, you might consider "ignoring the author." It will save you time and effort with useless arguments.

That's the great thing about free speech. You can say (or write) anything you want in this great country, but no one has to listen to (or read) what you have to say.

Stop the sexist figner-pointing.

Abortion is hardly an issue "only concerning women". Are you so arrogant to say men can't have an opinion? I believe women didn't once have suffrage, but they do now. And you can't push out other legal American citizens from having an opinion about the ethics and morality of abortion -- female or MALE.

You may very well be the opposite of a misogynist -- a misandronist.

gimmeabreakoradrink,

When men start taking responsibility for those lives they help create, we can talk, and saying that you do, is not what the majority of males do. So as probably one of your hero's, Archie Bunker, would say "Stifle it"

misandry ... from the urban dictionary
A term created by a group of straight white men who habitually confuse their "brain" with their anus

gimme...,

Good Morning,

Yes, women did get the vote in the 20th century. And in the 2008 election they respresented 52% of all voters who went to the polls.

Reread my post again. I never said that men do not have opinions and they certainly are voters too.

The poll cited only provides data that the GOP is behind with the women voters.

I added my reason why this happening.

Why do you think the GOP is losing with women voters?

gimmeabreak - until it is a male who has the possibility of dying because of pregnancy -has the possibility of developing diabetes or high blood pressure or permanent back pain among a whole host of ills from pregnancy - they can have an opinion,but they can't force a women to become just an incubator.

Burkas back from the cleaners,ladies?

Katheryn,

Nope. Mine won't be ready until forever or someplace freezes over. Drat the cleaners! LOL!

Katheryn Brandy - Great post!!! It always amazes me that men think they should have an equal and sometimes prominent voice in the decisions women make relative to their bodies, their well being, their life or death....it's utterly amazing. But you and I both know that it's not about abortion per se....it's about who actually controls women's reproductive capacity....the woman or the people in power (which has usually been men). It's an epic struggle that's been won by men for most of human's time on this earth. It's only been in the last several hundred years that women have struggled to reclaim what is rightfully theirs...autonomy over their own bodies and the ability for them and them alone to decide when, if and how many children they wish to produce.

laurie & Katheryn,

It is even deeper than that. It is all about power over women in general. I believe some men even resent the fact they cannot "discipline" the woman anymore. And given half a chance, they would probably take away our right to vote and own property.

phine -it will be interesting to see how the swing state of FL goes this Nov. - becoming quite the activist state aren't they? Do you think the seniors will be riled up if their social security and medicare look like they will be threatened?

I would not discount the oldie goldies....not quite as acquiescent as people would like to think!

Northstar -- May our voices be loud and clear this election season. ; )

"The (5) are working for the KocHeads"

The day men get pregnant, face 9 months of constant changes to their bodies, face the very real possibilty of being permanently disfigured, disabled and even dying as a result; only then can a man make a descision about the single biggest change a woman will have in her life.

Until then, they can offer opinions, even try to convince them, but no man has any RIGHT whatsoever in telling a woman she must face the possiblity of getting pregnant if she has intercourse and if she has intercourse, any pregnancy must result going full term, presumably to a live birth, regardless of the health of the mother or the offspring.

BTW, I am a man, I just love my wife, daughter and all of they other women in my life too much to believe anyone else has the RIGHT to tell them what to do.

I could make the same argument about Scalia, Alito and Thomas.

...and do you really expect the public that watches shows like American Idol and Survivor and Jersey Shore to be able to grasp by ACA is or is not constitutional?

We know there are four on the court that owe the tea people Koch republicans a favor so it won't be a surprise when they fall like lemmings ignoring what's good for the country just to favor their benefactors. Come on stormy you can do better than that. Argue the merits of the bill not the politics. See this is the problem with most of you tea people Koch republicans, you try to argue something and you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

stormerF, that's silly. I could make the same argument about Roberts and Alito owing favors to Bush and the GOP.

"The Government Controls the States and the States make you buy Auto insurance, I think that's Unconstitutional"

stormerF- ridiculous post. Thomas should not even be voting. And, Scalia, Alito and I would add Roberts will vote lock step with the GOP since they owe their appointments to them. Get a life!

He is way ahead of something......but as my grandfather used to put it......He is only ahead of the turnip cart. Which means............ he is behind the horse. I do like how much smarter some of you think you are than most people. Most independent and conservative women I know are proud to be in that role and in no way feel they are less than their male counterparts. They just dont think they need to be out front exclaiming it to the world. Some actually resent the entire push to make the right look like woman haters. I can tell you that if I tried to push my current wife (yes there have been 3 others all conservative women, one is actually currently a lesbian Conservative) does not feel like she is treated like something less than any man.

jollyoldsoul1 - President Obama is CLEARLY way ahead of anything the GOP has to offer. You obviously know few women - conservative or independent. Women overall have realized that the GOP is out to make us 2nd class citizens and want nothing more than to control women. That is why women are steadily moving to Obama over the buffoons on the right.

Jody: well said. When people lose trust in the final arbitor, the Rule of Law falls to the wayside. While there are many who indicate that the ultimate colllapse of the Republic is the direction those who have much of the power want to go; the reality is that it is difficult to determine who will ultimately succeed from the resulting chaos. Chaos, by its very nature, is not predicatable, political chaos even more so.

I predict a 6-3 or 7-2 decision, one way or the other, simply because the Court is aware of the implications of the decision and will not want to appear to be ruling purely in a partisan manner.

The Federal government has the power to make laws for the common good. The people's health is a common good for economic reasons as well as quality of life.

They can make the laws on how the insurance companies conduct themselves in the marketplace but they can not make you, as a citizen, buy it. If they can make you buy insurance, they can make you buy anything.

Unfortunately, a Bloomberg poll last week says 75% of those who responded simply do not believe that this is the case and that the Justices will decide based on politics.

(...and a 5-4 decision either way will tell those people they were correct.)

Regardless of how they decide - the Roberts Supreme Court will go down in history as one of the worst Supreme Courts. They will always be represented by the majority decision on Citizens United. Anything they have done before or after is tainted.

Katheryn,

Yep, right up there with the Taney Court!

phine -And you do know your history girl!

Wait - haven't I seen you hear before? ;~))

Katheryn - unfortunately, there is no longer anything Supreme about our Supreme Court. It seems to have been bought and paid for by the GOP and goes whichever way they want it to go. Sad. I think we need to impose term limits on our Supreme Court justices. I know - never happen!

In an odd twist, states have broad powers, whereas the federal government was defined as having limited powers. Sometimes 18th Century notions of federalism clash with the views of the modern national state. And what really throws a wrench into this is that budget constraints at the state levels make robust attention to the issues of the poor and under served very difficult. In other words, Mass. has the legal power to do what it's done, but few of even the bluest of states are looking to copy or improve (except Vermont), because their budget structures simply won't allow it. Hell, they can barely run Medicaid without yearly hand wringing.

It may not affect the Massachusetts law but it will certainly affect Mitt Romney. After all, it was he who wrote in his 2009 USA Today op-ed...

“Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages 'free riders' to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others.”

You fail to mention Thomas, who worked against and his wife worked against health care reform. total partisan post gimme. How will ending health care reform benefit you gimme?

Chief Justice Roberts dealt with that earlier this year. He did not mention either Justice Kagan or Justice Thomas (whose wife worked as a lobbyist against ACA) but he stated that he had confidence in their abilities to decide the issue objectively.

www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/us/chief-justice-backs-peers-decision-to-hear-health-law-case.html?_r=1

I've conceded that Kagan and Thomas (especially Thomas) should have recused themselves because of conflicting interest. That said, it balances out, like when two opposing hockey teams both get a fighting penalty and they leave the numbers the same because it didn't matter.

Bloomberg's poll says that 75% of those who responded believe that the Supreme Court will decide the case based on politics. A 5-4 decision will only reinforce that belief.

...and that's a 5-4 decision either way.

The federal courts have been tilted by GOP nominees since Reagan. You forget that there have been 28 years of GOP presidencies going back to Nixon, compared to only 15 years under Democrats. And yes, there are Nixon judges still serving, though few. Except for the 9th Cir., the federal bench has been conservative for close to 30 years.

Wm.-375815 - Bob from VA doesn't look for facts - just the chance to spew his opinion, based on nothing.

And republican presidents have put more conservatives justices on the bench. That dog won't hunt, Larry.

Why don't you try and explain Citizens United to us, Larry? I'm with Jody, none of your dogs will hunt.

Larry 13555 - and who was the right wing justice who hunted with Cheney before voting on an issue Cheney wanted passed, then voted to pass it? The right always cries foul when things don't go just their way! The court is totally tilted to the right because of who put Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts on the court!

As long as healthcare is for profit, it will be unfair and unavailable to all. Socialism as a form of government will fail because people are flawed and corruptible. However, it is conceivable that there may be a "socialist" program (think non-profit) that can succeed. We should emulate France - or Canada - and make healthcare 100% NON-PROFIT and available by law to every US Citizen. Anything else is unfair. Currently, healthcare is like Justice - FOR SALE. Yes, Supreme Court, I am referring to you.

That's his problem cohistorian. If he's stupid enough to through his money away more power to him.

MO - I think he DID get his money's worth. I suspect that that Adelson has been funding Gingrich (at least since this year) in the hopes of a Romney victory. It spoils the well for Santorum, who Adelson really doesn't like.

Also, M-I-Z!

Sure. Single payer would be best. But don't you get that if you throw this out nothing will be passed at all and everyone will be stuck with the old garbage? Killing this mandate isn't going to get anyone single payer...it just isn't. republicans and blue dog Dems would never let something like that pass..sigh.

The law was passed, the mandate is already in there.Makes absolutely no sense to wait on this.Either it is unconstitutional or it isn't!It's that simple!

They need to rule on it now since taxes will start being collected beginning in 2013.

...along with the expiration of the 'Bush Tax Cuts' there will be the largest increase in taxes for the US in the history of our country come Jan. 1, 2013

"5 to 4 Doesn't work, 8 should be in the Constitution."

ComradeChaos - expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts is not an increase in taxes - just letting taxes go back to where they were before. But it sounds so much better for the GOP to state it is "an increase in taxes." Usual GOP stupidity!

You nailed it Seeking...The problem is you'll never be able to convice the cement-heads on the right...

If you cut my taxes they decrease. If you add the taxes you cut from my taxes to my taxes, my taxes will increase. Oh I get it. Like saying we spend $10 this year and we really need to cut back from the $10 because we had to borrow to pay the $10. We had planned on spending $20 next year (even though we had to borrow money to pay the $10) but we tell everyone we're only going to spend $15 instead of the $20 and then we can tell everyone we cut spending. And if they're really stupid (which they are) they'll believe we cut spending. Don't know where you mutton heads went to school but you forgot to take the horse sense class.

And if it is called the 'Bush tax CUTS'. Would it then be the 'Obama tax INCREASE'? There's that damn horse sense again

That's not fair comparing right wingers to cement heads!

Cement has many useful purposes!