I would just prefer the Obama administration butt out and stop trying to strong arm the courts. This is an important part of this country's designed checks and balances - and I would like to see these things argued and the process completed.

Yep. Just like the Arizona "show us your papers" law, it's important for legislation to pass judicial scrutiny, to protect the Constitution. I don't think the mandate to buy insurance will pass muster, they may need to add a government option instead. The important thing is health care passed; changes will be inevitable.

Poor Bill McCollum, he filed this and he still wasn't conservative enough for the Tea Ba...um, Party.

And the important news is that in their rush or because of internal strife, the Democrats put forward a bill which is all or nothing. If ANY part of this bill is struck down by the court, it all goes away, everything. Then we at least can put some thought into a solution instead of more government.

RatPoison
I would just prefer the Obama administration butt out and stop trying to strong arm the courts. This is an important part of this country's designed checks and balances - and I would like to see these things argued and the process completed.

That is not how it works. The executive branch always has to defend a law passed by congress when there is a legal challange. There is no strong arming, and it is part of the checks and balances. You say you would like to see things argued. In a court, there are two sides. The executive branch (the department of justice) in this case is one of the sides. Do you really think it could be otherwise?

I believe everyone knew this would end up in the Supreme court. The no public choice is going to be the major, major, issue.

Health care for all!!!! It's law!!! Oh boy!! here come the Tea bags with their "activist" judges (as they like to call them) to try and find a loophole to make this bill unconstitutional. Round and round we go, where we stop.... nobody knows!

To those who think that only parts of the bill will be knocked down, please read the bill. There is NO SEVERABILITY CLAUSE! If any part is knocked down, it all goes. Don't we have a wonderful Congress?

Actually True Patriot... I support competition heavily. Odd as it may seem... you could have accomplished this concept without spending a trillion dollars by simply getting rid of the preset regional competition and allowing them to go national.

But this concept was brushed off the table early in the process because it played against the spin Democrats were pushing, "that insurance companies were evil". Insurance companies are just another business, and we run businesses to make profits... and competition is what forces these businesses to refine and reduce costs (usually). But somebody decided that insurance companies should have limited competition and operate within limited boundaries... and this bill really doesn't change any of that... even with exchanges.

Health insurance companies are not the appropriate variable for the government to be screwing around with to regulate health care costs. Imagine if they had actually targeted the reasons behind health care costs being expensive... everybody would have won - even people who don't have insurance. People should have already realized that health insurance companies don't drive costs... and that will continue to sit in our face as the years continue to go by and costs keep rising.

ltjdangle : Where have you been?, Auto insurance isn't mandatory. If you buy a car and intend to operate it on a public road, then you are required by law to at least have liability insurance to cover the victims of an accident you cause. If you don't want to have to buy car insurance... don't buy a car, and/or operate it on a public road. Completely different from being mandated to buy health insurance simply because you "exist" or pay a penalty.

Clotho

Yep. Just like the Arizona "show us your papers" law

There are provisions in that law that explicitly prohibit them from asking for proof of citizenship without probable cause of a crime committed. You can't still be buying that crap. The bill is only 10 pages long. Read it if you can.

And you don't find it the least bit dishonest that MSNBC is about the only media that isn't reporting that the White House changed the terminology of the bill to be a tax? The judge was about to throw the entire thing out because it was unconstitutional unless it was a tax.

The thing is, as a tax it has to be applied to ALL - including the Muslims or any other religious group that says that gambling is a sin. So they are going to have to decide which way they want it. Either it applies to ALL as a tax or it is mandated insurance and does not apply to all. They can't say it's a tax otherwise.

True Patriot,

Mandatory auto insurance and mandatory health insurance are two different things. You are not required to have comprehensive auto insurance, only liability, as long as your car is paid 100%. Just like if you home is paid for, you do not have to have property insurance. If you get sick, hit by a bus, what ever, it does not effect any other person's property. If you do not want to spend your money on insurance, you should not be made to.

You don't need activist judges to "find a loophole"... Either it is constitutional, or it isn't. The supreme court will make that call eventually. If you deny that there is a compelling argument that this does indeed violate the constitution, you are no less fanatical than a "tea bagger" who doesn't see any validity in th argument that a case can be made it is constitutional. Anyone too far on either end of the spectrum is dangerous, and you seem to be hanging on tight to the left edge. In the end, I think it will be struck down, but I see both sides.

Fanatics are fanatics regardless of what side.

The faster this gets to the Supreme Crt the better. Only thing better would be a repeal by congress, but that won't happen. I don't mind - in fact think it proper - to offer someone a hand up. But I am sick and tired of giving people who won't take responsibility form themselves a hand out.

Rat, competition across state lines was the GOP response to a public option. If you look at the two options the public option offered much more competition (and Americans wanted it).

Eric, the public option represents as much competition as the Yugo did against the Mercedes in Europe. The publice option is not design to compete. It is design to put everyone else out of the game. Then everyone has a huge unresponsive government bureacracy which increasingly rations health care. The left wants to exchange their version of "compassion" for actual freedom. If the Democrats lose one part of any of these lawsuits, the game is up for the Health Care Reform Act.

"The healthiest individual can be hit by a bus. He cannot keep himself out of the health care market," Gershengorn said.

If the Federal government can force people to buy something that they don't want, what's to keep the government from "requiring" people to buy a GM car, on the theory that they "might" need to use it some day?

TruePatriot-445959 "Also, I wonder how precedence such as mandatory auto insurance will come into play."

That is completely different. Nobody "requires" you to drive a car, but if you choose to, reasonable requirements should apply, such as obtaining a license, paying license fees, providing proof of responsibility for possible damages, etc.

If Vinson upholds the states' challenge, he would overturn decades of law enforcing the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce, said Ian Heath Gershengorn, deputy assistant attorney general.

I want to barf when I read this. The federal government is using the Commerce Clause to require people in each of our 50 states to buy health insurance. That is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

With an economist, I discussed one plan to allow insurers to sell across state lines. She tells me that insurance companies can not offer insurance across state lines because that will negate the sovereignty of the states.

Well, if that is indeed true, how in the hell is our federal government doing it? Not to mention, health insurance has always been a STATE issue. The feds can not just decide to take it on.

I strongly believe that this legislation will be ruled unconstitutional. I agree that we need to do something about national health care but this abomination of a bill is NOT the answer.

Driving a car is a PRIVILEGE granted by the state.

Being alive may or may not be a PRIVILEGE depending on your viewpoint.

There's actually a quite straight-forward way out of this situation. I don't believe that any one can be forced to buy insurance. That said, I don't see any obligation on the part of doctors or hospitals to provide care if you don't have insurance or cannot put down a significant cash deposit. You want the freedom to make a life decision, then you also get the consequences of that decision. And, I see no obligation on my part to pay taxes for someone else's insurance and I see no obligation on my part to pay additional premiums on my insurance because somebody else does not have insurance. Quite frankly, if you don't want to or can't pay for insurance, tough!!

If states want to opt out of health care coverage, I fully support it. But if you try to move to my state when you get sick, I say there should be a ten year holding period before you can participate in health care in my state. I do not want Republicans "gaming" the system by not paying in until they get sick then running to my state and crying that they supported it all along.

If Vinson upholds the states' challenge, he would overturn decades of law enforcing the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce, said Ian Heath Gershengorn, deputy assistant attorney general.

"This court is free to disagree with Congress' policy judgments but it is not free to overturn 75 years of Constitutional law," he said.

Duuuuh....Mr. Gershengorn, Assistant Attorney General who is an Administration puppet, this Administration CLAIMS THAT MANDATING ME OR ANYONE ELSE TO PURCHASE HEALTH INSURANCE FALLS UNDER THE COMMERCE LAW ???

The Federal Government CANNOT DEMAND THAT I PURCHASE HEALTH INSURANCE OR ANYTHING ELSE FOR THAT MATTER (i.e., buy a Government Motors product).

That, Mr. Gershengorn, IS CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.....the Government cannot order me to pay for something I don't want.

So, go back to your chambers and wait for the Supreme Court to rule that the President's MANDATED UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE REFORM legislation is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

I wonder how precedence such as mandatory auto insurance will come into play.

It won't. Driving is a privilege, not a right. You don't want to buy Auto Insurance, don't drive.

wish these activist judges would just butt out and let congress do their job.

and to ido, the government does demand you purchase things, try having kids and no electricity, running water, a proper carseat, or not paying child support and see how that works out for you.

The problem the administration has is that if the court strikes down any part of the law, the whole thing goes down. Because of the games they played to meet a requirement that the law be revenue neutral, the whole thing is one giant package. One of the big ways they made this abomination work was by requiring people to buy health insurance. In order to get agreement on eliminating the pre-existing condition exclusions that exist today, they needed to force everyone to buy health insurance. Otherwise people would just wait until they got sick and then buy insurance. This would drive insurance premiums through the stratosphere. They also buried a stupid rule regarding businesses preparing 1099's for anyone they buy more than $600 worth of goods or services from in the health care bill. This item has nothing to do with health care but they needed to projected tax revenue that this item adds to get to their revenue neutral point.

The entire health care bill is a mess that will do absolutely nothing to reign in health care costs and is likely to drive them even higher. It will also not end up covering anywhere near the number of uninsured that is being claimed because that number is based largely on the provision that requires people to buy health insurance. In the end, this entire bill is going to blow up in the democrats faces and be exposed for the giant waste of time and money it truly was/is. With the strong likelihood of the mandate being ruled unconstitutional, the entire bill will wind up going away because there is no severability clause.

As for the lawsuit, you'll note only parts will be allowed to proceed. Also, I wonder how precedence such as mandatory auto insurance will come into play.-- TruePatriot: Auto insurance is required for people who decide to drive a car. Should someone who doesn't drive be forced to buy auto insurance?? What about homeowners insurance?? If you don't live in a house, should the gov't force you to purchase homeowners insurance??

"This court is free to disagree with Congress' policy judgments but it is not free to overturn 75 years of Constitutional law," he said.

If it is overturning only "75 years of Constitutional law" there shouldn't be a problem. The constitution has been in effect for over 200 years so it means that the constitutional law must have been changed 75 years ago for this action to negate that action.

Dale P (#1.5)

The executive branch always has to defend a law passed by congress

I thought it was the legislative branch had to defend a law passed by congress through the use of the judicial branch.

Texana Deb (#1.13)

You are not required to have comprehensive auto insurance, only liability, as long as your car is paid 100%.

Comprehensive auto insurance has nothing to do with state requirements. (By the way, I think you meant collision insurance) It has to do with requirements of your lending institution (they are protecting their assets/investment until you pay it off). Why do you think the requirement "goes away" when the car is paid off?

Health insurance is the mechanism to regulate the health care market, Gershengorn said.

Guess what folks. You are now REQUIRED to buy stocks. It is the mechanism used to regulate the stock market.

k. sanders.....

Oooooh K !!

Mandatory Health Insurance might lead to:

• Mandatory Dental Insurance.
• Mandatory home/business solar panels.
• Mandatory energy efficient light bulbs.
• Mandatory weatherization for your home/business.
• Mandatory Government Motors electric vehicle.
• Mandatory electric lawn mower.
• Mandatory rain water catch basin.
• Mandatory bomb shelter.
• Mandatory low calorie meals.
• Mandatory manually operated garage doors.
• Mandatory wood stove.
• Mandatory .........(you can fill in the blank)

Jemma77
If states want to opt out of health care coverage, I fully support it. But if you try to move to my state when you get sick, I say there should be a ten year holding period before you can participate in health care in my state. I do not want Republicans "gaming" the system by not paying in until they get sick then running to my state and crying that they supported it all along.

Yeah, thats something to be worried about, the people that actually do believe a person is responsible for their own bills and not to be everyones entitlement sponging off them. The more realistic is the exact opposite of your little fantasy. The entitlement sponges coming to a state where it is not supported demanding their socialist entitlement...denied!

Don't want to jump in to a fight, but I am going to haha. The executive signs the bill into law, and it alone has the resources to defend that signature. Should congress disagree with the prez, they must over ride that veto. I suppose at that point the legislature would have to defend the law they put into place without the prez ( exec branch) smiles@@@

taa0- The problem is the way the system works currently we are already paying for those who can't pay for themselves. Rolling the cost of indigent care into hospital care, procedures, tests, and so on into the prices we all pay for care makes the price go up for those of us who can pay. The alternative would be to allow those who cannot pay to die for lack of care; that would keep the cost down for those of us who can pay, but I find that alternative completely unacceptable. By requiring everyone to have health insurance and expanding coverage for the indigent or helping subsidize those who struggle to afford it, these costs should at least stabilize for everyone. The HCR law has provisions that are designed to be implemented gradually. One of our problems as Americans is that we want everything right now, we want it to benefit us the most rather than anyone else, and we don't want to pay for it. There are a few folks trying to make a national name for themselves out of these lawsuits, Ken Cuccinelli from VA for one, and that is one reason why this has been so politicized.

Yippee!!!!

taa0- The problem is the way the system works currently we are already paying for those who can't pay for themselves.

So again, if we are already doing this why do we need Obamacare to force us into it? Oh thats right...Spongebama Socialistpants wants to provide for the world. Not on my dime. It really is a moot point. Liberal/Democrats and Obama attempted to bully the American people into a piece of worthless legislature that over 74% of Americans do not want...no matter how you attempt to justify it, we will not allow 26% (Even giving you credit for the undecided here.) to make that decision for us. Its not happening. Sure you can tell us all how much it will benefit us, how much it will save us (definitely not a fact.) all you like, we really do not mind...but you cannot force us to buy it or into it. End of story. Again that is not yours, Obama's, or the governments desicion to make...its ours. The will of the people will not be ursurped because the minority states it is to be so.

Great job, Mr. President...a year spent creating this mess of a "reform" law and health insurance rates are going thru the roof, while nearly half the states in the country are headed to court to fight the law.

Too bad all that time and effort wasn't spent on the economy, where it belonged.

Someone should have starting filming all this on the day Mr. Obama was sworn in...and telling us that, with him on the job, the "earth would now cool' and the "waters would stop rising"...and then edited the whole disaster into 30 minute episodes of a new sitcom on television.

Comedy writers simply could not have made this mess up. It's been much too bizarre.

The show's producers could have used the post-2010 election fallout for season 2.

This sucker had the "Best Comedy" Emmy written all over it.

taao, the law requires everyone to have health care coverage. Without this law, WE pay for those who are uninsured. With this law, everyone has to pay their own share.

Opponents of universal health care are simply supporting the irresponsible, give it to me free and don't ask me to pay a dime syndrome that has put our country into dire financial straits.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch (TANSTAAFL).

Sources please common, and even if that is true...where does that law state that it is my responsibility to provide everyone else with their insurance, again sources?. When was the last time someone was ticketed or taken to court for not having Health Care Insurance? When was an illegal alien ever taken to court for not obeying the laws of the land they are "visiting" for not having Health Care Insurance?

Opponents of universal health care are simply supporting the irresponsible

No, opponents of this are keeping the irresponsible from becoming more irresponsible. Its a matter of personal responsibility and accountability. Learn it....live it, ya don't have to love it, but ya do have to learn it, and ya do have to live with it.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch (TANSTAAFL).

Yet, that is exactly what you want to provide, a free lunch for everyone on my dime. Not happening.

taao - I don't know where you are getting your "poll" information, but it is not what I have found across the board. The highest "disapprove" rating I have found is 45%, not 74% as you state. In fact the number who approved rose in July to 50% who approved, so who again is the minority here? And you know what, our system isn't set up for us to have a referendum about every issue. If you want that sort, move to California and see how that's worked for them.

You said: "So again, if we are already doing this why do we need Obamacare to force us into it? Oh thats right...Spongebama Socialistpants wants to provide for the world."

And if the only issue here was reducing the cost of medical care to those of us who carry insurance, you might have a point, but it's not. The point is 45,000 Americans die from lack of access to health care every year. Many more have limited productivity in our society due to chronic medical conditions, many of which are treatable if only people had health insurance and could afford treatment. Folks who have been denied health insurance in the past or who had insurance and then got dropped when they got sick, those who have children with pre-existing conditions, young adults who may not work for employers who offer health care or who are graduate students can now have health insurance under this bill. Does not sound like the president wants to take care of the whole world, just the sickest and weakest in the US. Explain to me why that is a bad thing, except that you just don't wannnnnna have to have health insurance. Your entire argument when boiled down, is on par with "Cuz you're not the boss of me!"

Dr Grimm, you're not looking too hard. Look at the Rasmussen poll. Hell, just google, "health care polls" and you'll see that there is not support across the board. In fact, there is the opposite.

I'll believe a Rasmussen poll when I start watching Fox News. Which would be never. Take a look at the comparison of Rasmussen polls with other polling agencies. On any issue of support for anyone other than a Republican or a Republican idea, their numbers are waaaaaay lower than any of the other polls. It's a strong trend.

The only polls Liberals consider accurate are polls that are conducted by Liberals with 100% Liberals weighing in. Thats like asking Obama to be honest...he will gladly tell you ok and then lie to your face.

Funny how everyone forgets that the mandate was actually proposed by the republicans, and that the health-care reform is basically the same as the one Mitt Romney passed in Massachusetts. And the states that are against the reform are... gasp... republican strongholds.

taao- Really, you know 100% of liberals and know exactly how they think? I'm a liberal and can only speak for myself. I trust polling from ABC News, CNN, Quinnipiac, Gallup, CBS News, Associated Press, etc., because I have checked out their methodology and found it to be sound and not slanted, even when their findings differ from my opinions. Not so for Rasmussen and Fox.

And you met the president and he lied to your face, is that right? Hmmm......

Just exactly how many Republicans have you asked how they feel about Romneys decision? I'll hold a few seconds while you come up with a mythical number (tic, toc, tic). As a resident of another state I have no voting power to help overturn Romneys Mass. decision...If I were a Liberal I could simply contact ACORN and vote in their election and help to overturn it. Wow 74% of Americans who are against Obamacare are all Republicans! "Holy Test*cle Tuesday Batman!" All those Republicans and Obama was still elected...I smell something fishy here!

Really, you know 100% of liberals and know exactly how they think?

Actually, I make it a habit to only associate with people of integrity. So to answer your question, I "currently" know no Liberals, but I have in the past and I have seen them here on the vine...thats about pretty much the maximum I can personally stomach.

And you met the president and he lied to your face...

First off never said I met Obama personally...I recommend "Hooked On Reading", But I watched him lie to every American, unlike the promised C-Span televised debates on Health Care that never occurred but instead were conducted secretly between various political whores. I never met Bill Clinton either but he appeared on National Television and lied strait to all Americans faces. Same thing Obama did...imagine that.

No i was pointing out all the hypocriticalness of the republicans and the states suing over it.

The reason most dem's were against it was the lack of public option.

And xikaiden as long as you believe that...well thats all thats important little buddy. Personally I am very, very, very grateful to Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Clinton, etal; for attempting to push Obamacare down the throats of Americans. Now I will be equally grateful to the Federal Judiciary system to rule it un-Constitutional, as it is and for it to be repealed. Brighten up xikaiden these are great days to be an American! Sad days to be a socialist, but hey I'm not one so its great days ahead for me! America Rising!

Dr. Grimm, you checked their methodology, "500 phone interviews that took place between x date and y date", that is the magical methodology? Come on...

taao - Just in case you ever wonder why true and helpful bi-partisan conversation is rare, take a look at your last two posts here: "The only polls Liberals consider accurate are polls that are conducted by Liberals with 100% Liberals weighing in." and when you get called on the sweeping generalization, your response is:"Actually, I make it a habit to only associate with people of integrity. So to answer your question, I "currently" know no Liberals, but I have in the past and I have seen them here on the vine...thats about pretty much the maximum I can personally stomach." I could respond point-by-point to your last post, but I'm not going to bother, as it will change nothing for you, nor respectfully, do I intend to respond to any of your other posts in the future as it seems impossible not to respond in kind. Best of luck to you.

ChiCity- There have been numerous articles over the past few years about the methodology used by the various polling organizations. There is debate over the questions asked (open vs. closed-ended, loaded or non-loaded, order effects, etc.), samples used ("likely" voters vs. registered voters vs. adults vs. convenience samples) and how they are obtained (via automated telephone call to homes vs. calls from a live person to homes vs. in-person interviews vs. internet polling), how the data is coded, how it is entered and by whom, how the data is cleaned, how it is analysed and how it is interpreted. I no longer have the links that offered comparisons of the methodologies, but you can look on each site and get some ideas. I realize most people don't go into as much depth with who uses what methodology, but it seems important to me to check out where the data comes from before I place a lot of stock in it.

"Get Real", please get SERIOUS. Health care reform has been on the table for over 30 YEARS and going nowhere. Several presidents took it up, but didn't get nearly as far as Obama. Clinton for instance failed utterly despite the fact that he really wanted it. In fact, Obama consulted with Bill Clinton on it several times.

The reason why the FED takes up anything like this is because many the states won't touch taking up public health insurance otherwise. Hell, if Republicans had their way, they would do away with Medicare and Medicaid, the two BIGGEST "socialist" programs in national history. The only reason they don't shout it from the rafters is because too many of their constituents would balk.

The point is that we NEED to get everybody on insurance because the Fed pays an unreasonable amount to hospitals and clinics for people that DON'T have health coverage and can't pay. Every American deserves to have health care insurance, and the states that don't provide it need kicked in the groin for it. The only way that will happen is through Federal intervention. There is nothing "wrong" with the bill. Some people are just unreasonably mad because the US Government got involved. This is EXACTLY the way things went down with Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid. History repeats itself.

21 Conservative States. They should all be allowed to secede from the Union. Then they can figure out what to do with their seniors when Medicare is taken away from them.

The States can sue as they are left with the obligation to execute the law in many instances. The States also represent the interest of their residence in the form of the Attorney General against many issues...there is precedence (Google for yourself) so not worth discussing further.

If the Conservative states wins, then watch the Libertarians sue to get rid of Social Security, Medicare and Unemployment.

I'm not too sure you'd be too well off if you lost most of the states from the country's 'bread basket' laurie.

Let's get practical though - this is the process laid out in our country's Constitution, and mimicked in the state's... this is part of making laws that challenge the interpretation of this nation's foundation. To discredit it just because the states involved have conservative leanings doesn't make your statement any more right than when some fringe right wing person complained over the Arizona court's ruling earlier this year and their law (which conversely had high public opinion versus the health care bill).

If you have a problem with this process, perhaps you should leave the Union.

Mommy2BE - Under what premise would they sue those three safety nets? There isn't any that I can think of, and neither of those could be challenged by a court overturning the health bill. So really... the only way those things disappear is through them repealing the bills/laws that created them.

Nothing unusual about an Administration filing to get a court to dismiss a case it disagrees with before it goes to trial. As i recall it happened many times in previous administrations as well. It isn't pressuring the court in violation of separation of powers, it's all part of the normal legal process.

13. But there were fewer in total back then.

To Laurie-480643...21 conservative states? Apparently you overlooked liberal California north, oops I mean Washington. It's not whether the state is liberal or conservative in this disagreement. It's whether the federal government can mandate madatory health care and penalties to those who dont "voluntarily" participate.

and it's up to an individual taxpayer — not the states — to challenge the law then.

Wow. This administration is completely clueless. They honestly want to suddenly have the courts inundated with about 20 million lawsuits against the federal government? And who pays for the defendants in those cases, us? I don't think you can even sue as an individual at that level. Besides, the polls were us challenging it, the rally's were the warning shot over the bow, and the final blow for not adhering to the people they represent will come this November.

All but one has a nut case right wing attorney general. The reason they went after the bill was for political.

DaleP-1653887 : Quite a few, but I have a feeling you're not going to put slavery into its proper context. After all, President Lincoln wasn't for abolishing slavery either. I would recommend checking out a History Channel series that was ran maybe half a year ago, I think the title was something like, "America, The Story of Us." (or making). At anyrate, it did an amazingly clean job of presenting the factors around slavery in an unbias way in the first episode (or maybe second) of that series. The entire thing is actually worth watching.

"Federal judge said Tuesday he expects to dismiss parts of suit but let others stand"

Lets just cut to the chase and send this to the Supreme Court. Why waste time when the judge has already stated that he intends to 'widdle-away' parts of the suit.

REALLY? It appears that these states actually have some AG's that are looking out for the best interests of their states and the people that live in them. They are ACTUALLY trying to live within their budgets and not over spend and over tax the people. Trying to let a little bit of common sense get into the picture.

I want to see if our system in America really works. That bill shouldn't have passed and the people's opinion should have mattered. But they didn't and so now I'm anxious to see if the checks and balances keep us from getting bullied by the government or if they only worked 250 years ago.

Standing, our AG in a liberal state jumped into this and now he will never get elected again. I'm fine if states want to opt out of health care. FINE with it. But don't move here when you get sick!

Jemma

Hate to break this to you but Obama's plan DEPENDS ON ALL THE STATES being involved, otherwise it does not work.

I disagree that your Attorney General will not be re-elected because of this issue. There may be other issues but not this one. What is YOUR basis for saying that?

My basis is that Politicians DO EVERYTHING to be elected.

Allen

Guess what? Attorneys who work for the government are on salary. They are not paid by the billable hours.

Chances are much more likely that the 21 states mentioned are much more concerned about transferable federal funds (to state general funds?) under the pretense of state run health care options rather than any legitimate though arguable Constitutional encroachment on their rights.

Were there to be a real issue, then 50 states would be participating. they are not so the majority of the Nation has not seen any gross impropriety or heinous subversive attempt to "force" a requirement.

This is a continuance of spiteful coercion to mask the real intent of the GOP and a waste , gain of the Nations collective time and money.

People get serious illnesses. People get involved with serious accidents. Yes, if you don't wish to own a car, you don't have to buy mandatory auto insurance. Let's see a show of hands for all of those that don't wish to get a serious illness or get involved in a serious accident?Let's see a show of hands for all that face serious illnesses and got involved in serious accidents DESPITE their wishes? One more time. A show of hands for all of those that faced such a disaster DESPITE their wishes, without health insurance, and paid their astronomical medical costs in full? Not many hands. Then WHO paid those costs? Sorry, this is a very foolish debate.

How many of us believe that life-saving medical care should be reserved only for the highest bidder? That is the question that many of us try to avoid while opposing U.H.C. That is the question that separates honest, compassionate and moral men from wild animals that will viciously devour one of their own to preserve their own status and life. The rest of the civilized world has already answered this question. What's wrong with us?

The courts disagree with you Moshe... otherwise these trials would not be moving forward.

In addition, obviously not all 50 states would participate in a lawsuit like this... basically because some states are controled by individuals that see eye to eye, and heavily support Obama. You can easily parallel this issue to earlier this year with Arizona's law... the biggest difference between the two is that the Arizona law was very popular, and the health care bill is ranging from split to unpopular. But... the law had its day in court and the courts rendered a verdict which it should have an opportunity to do here.

Furthermore... you state that the majority of the nation does not see any gross impropriety with forcing citizens to buy a product - the polls suggest otherwise, so you may want to check into that. And I'll take it a step further... if this bill is allowed to go on as it is... and people are mandated to buy health insurance under the precedence that it must be done to guarantee health care for all (or 32 million people) and is the government's responsibility since it's for the "general welfare" - by their interpreation. [Note: this mandate is a keystone (supposedly) to the bill's cost]. Then what is to stop the government from mandating people purchase other items under the premise of general welfare. My example uses GM, GM begins to collapse again wrenching tons of jobs as well as losing billions of dollars tax payer money was used to prop it back up - so the government mandates that people buying a vehicle must buy a GM or pay an additional penalty for any non GM vehicle purchased - under the pretense that once again... we are protecting the general welfare by saving those jobs, and securing tax payer money the government put into a failing business.

Sounds like a crappy deal to me.

Commonsense101 : Here is a cruel thought... but I work hard, I got an education, climbed the totem into a position that would provide to me an income that would pay my bills and provide to me what I wanted - including health insurance. I made life choices and went down these paths because with each success it helped secure an easier future for myself. Why is it that my health insurance will have double digit increases as it is forced to take on people who have made bad choices, passed on educational opportunities, and chose to do less with themselves than me? I understand the whole, we pay for it regardless when they go to the ER... but surprisingly... that system costed less than this health care bill. So what have we really gained other than spending more money for the same product... that will actually penalize the majority of Americans to help barely 10% of the population? It doesn't add up - there were better ways.

RatPoison, Here's a cruel thought. Your health insurance company and providers read your mind. They counted on your selfishness and false pride to bend you over time and time again. As they had their way with you repeatedly, they knew you would deny the pain and humiliation in fear of losing their "protection". Much as a prostitute fears the loss of protection from her pimp. I feel much sorrier for you than the poor slob that dies from lack of proper health care. He lost his life. You lost your dignity, then your soul.

Moshe - You can keep repeating the same mantra, but a majority of Americans were opposed to this bill in all polls, and it is choking our economy, as business waits to find out the REAL financial implications of it. The rising health care/insurance costs just since this bill was passed are evidence that it IS NOT doing what it was supposed to do (and most of the law isn't even in effect yet).

The Federal gov't has NO RIGHT under our Consitution to mandate the purchase of health insurance. You WILL NOT find anything to the contrary, if you actually READ the Constitution. If you think otherwise please, by all means, post the evidence here for everyone to see.

That is why it conveniently went from being a "mandate" to a "tax," which Obama previously insisted it was not. I don't know how you manage to swallow all the double-talk (lies, for short), but most of America isn't buying it, with good reason. And good reasoning is in short supply when it comes to our lawmakers today.

I belong to NO party, but "NO" is the answer to this one, if we hope to preserve our rights under the Constitution. By the way, you will also find NOTHING in the Constitution that gives lawsmakers the right to force citizens to take responsibility for other citizens. Should you think otherwise, I again encourage you to post the words from the Constitution which would jusitfy such an argument.

When the middle class is completely wiped out, there will be no one to support those who do not support themselves. And then, there will be NOTHING more to grab. It's time to hold people accountable for their choices. And those who work hard should NOT be punished for donig so.

Laurie (#2.1)

21 Conservative States. They should all be allowed to secede from the Union.

And when they secede from the union, do you not think the loss of their taxes will have an impact on your social security, welfare, food stamps, and medicaid?

the thinker-318752

Laurie (#2.1)

21 Conservative States. They should all be allowed to secede from the Union.

And when they secede from the union, do you not think the loss of their taxes will have an impact on your social security, welfare, food stamps, and medicaid?

I am pretty sure you would see those "dreaded" top 2%'nters move pretty damn quickly. I know I would.

That would leave those 47% that do not pay taxes holding the bag for once.

That is the question that separates honest, compassionate and moral men from wild animals that will viciously devour one of their own to preserve their own status and life.

That is quite a summary of the way the democrats handled the republicans.

The rest of the civilized world has already answered this question.

Quite a summation of the nation - dump the welfareCare (according to the polls).

Gee, is there possibly a middle path? This was the black and white strawmen being presented last Nov/Dec. Either you are a compassionate caring citizen or you are against the HC bill. Either you are a responsible citizen who does not want to reward bad behavior or you are for the HC bill.

People are poor because they make bad choices, not the other way around. This country needs a social safety net- and we are all for that. We must not make it easy or better to be on assistance than to be out working.

Why not agree that we all have catastrophic care plans and increase the coverage in steps and chunks with prices commensurate- but I should not be in the prenatal care/well child care pool- that is unjust. Then it becomes a tax on health, and lifestyle. An 18 year old and a 50 year old have different needs and wants- world travelers have different coverage needs than someone who does not even have a passport.

Make the insurance companies provide different types of insurance- not just one type. And certainly do not reward poor customer service by forcing patients/customers to buy an overpriced inappropriate policy.

Laurie, medicaid is run so well, I'm sure there is no way those states can figure out how to band together and handle healthcare in a competitive private sector.

Why do people think the government can run any critical program efficiently?

Moshe - You can keep repeating the same mantra, but a majority of Americans were opposed to this bill in all polls, and it is choking our economy, as business waits to find out the REAL financial implications of it. The rising health care/insurance costs just since this bill was passed are evidence that it IS NOT doing what it was supposed to do (and most of the law isn't even in effect yet).

Wall-Mart, Cosco, Lowes, Home Depot - a.k.a. Big Box, HMO, HOA etal all add infinitum. The entire insurance industry whom has previously successfully lobbied and won mandatory insurances in other areas such as Automotive, yet some how the business model changed here.

What to expect for several years, the operators whom have been using criminal tactics, then oversold returns on investment, then added even more colorful explanations for performance are going to have some degree of difficulty with this business model.

Reality, uninsured...still get treated, unencumbered by insurance claims adjusters meaning full pop plus secret sauce. Wall Street just got spanked and now is even more suspect, so of course in the down stream Dependant markets...one might say it isn't working like its supposed to from their perspective.

It is now Defcon 5, time for people to recognize they are victimized daily. Point of no return in the argument --- "Gosh even before it goes into effect its not working correctly?" ( in effect the verbatim was to painfully humorous to repeat)

People misuse the teachings of their own religion, that doesn't mean the owners manual is defective.

Any poorly managed endeavor will fail, it does not matter what moniker is associated with the organization private, government or ecumenical. Transitional personalities from any boom market will infect current business in the hopes of reliving the glory days or no delivery but rewarded with riches.

.COM Bust, Savings and Loan Bust, Auto Industry Bust, Real Estate Bust. All Scandals.

People like doctor steph are the reason I DON'T WANT GOVERNMENT involved in the health care industry - AT ALL.

Doctor steph has common sense solutions and is middle ground. She's probably a doctor so she's in on the business angle.

I absolutely despise how this health care bill was shoved down our throat with literally ZERO thought to the plan COSTING US TRILLIONS of dollars.

I look at it this way - I can not afford to get sick.

shoved down our throat

You're female, and I am not gay so I was able to extract a perspective from your point. Honestly, I am not convinced the nation suffered some debilitating experience as a whole nor that you are impassioned by the tone of your viewpoint against the Legislation.

The tendency to extrapolate personal fears with an unverified depth of risk into volumes of cost is not supported in sample international markets essentially treating homo sapiens as a vertical market service primate breed of preference offering biological repair and remediation.

If it is costing someone trillions prior to full insertion of the Bills contents, They lied and should lose forward projected cash flows.

Pickpockets do not get paid unless they get the wallet, even then it is a theft. Nobody can AFFORD to get sick. Siberian hard labor IS STARTING TO LOOK LIKE A LUXURY VACATION!

Thank You so much GOP.

laurie-480643

21 Conservative States.

You got that wrong sister, Washington State is NOT a Conservative State. I live in Washington State!

Moshe-is there Anything you're aware of that's Not the fault of Someone Else?

the Dems, not the GOP, shoved this mess down our throats, requiring fewer and fewer votes until they were able to SCRAPE it by the objections-that tells me and everyone who watched it Was Not Widely Accepted. You probably were Also Not Aware that to pay for this mess, we're starting to get TAXED in 2011 for something that won't be Up and Running until 2015 At Best. Interestingly enough, i've noticed a pattern in your rants-"run, run, the GOP is at fault", which sounds disturbingly like "blame Bush, he caused the 1929 wall st crash and everything after that" mentality.

You, of all people, disturb me. Your ability to distinguish Facts is definitely limited, Especially since the Entire Country save a few fanatics is Against the entire Situation!

RatPoison

"As equally concerning is this statement from the article: Administration attorneys also argued that the section requiring health insurance doesn't take effect until 2015 and it's up to an individual taxpayer — not the states — to challenge the law then."

You mean like the Fed waited until the Arizona illegal immigration law took effect? Right. LOL

You must be a trial lawyer supporter, or one yourself. Follow the litigation and make lawyers rich regardless of who is trampled along the way.

That made little sense Bob. The case has issues and merits that warrant the process - if you can understand that... then your comment is pointless. Not to mention I can't tell if you think that I think it's a good idea to let class action suites be raised by citizens as opposed by the states... I personally didn't like the statement because for a government of the people - we are essentially be challenged by the authors of the law to point out what's wrong.

Commonsense101 : Hey, Commonsense101... guess what, if there came a time when I didn't feel my interests were represented by my health insurance for what I pay... I wouldn't renew it. I'm not the one getting bent over by signing a contract for a specific service... if I felt screwed by it... I wouldn't do it. I'm more than capable of managing my own money to prepare for bad times.

My parents told me when I turned 18 that I had two choices to make regarding my health care. To either pay an insurance company to insure me if in the future I had some unforseen issue - or to take the same amount of money and save it for the same unforseen issue. It was never... never... "you must have health insurance to get health care". The saddest part about this all, is that if the government had truly wanted to help =everybody= they would have targeted the sources of health care cost because everybody wins if you can reduce this... those who have insurance, and those who do not. Amazing what some common sense will do for you.

Noyt gonna happen; it will be upheld and the gop will bithch about it for the next fifty years; just like social security and medicare

losers

Not sure why you think health care for all is a bad thing? Well, under the Gop plan...oh wait... the Republicans don't care about the middle class getting sqeezed by health care costs. If they did they would have done something about it when in power. Come January the GOP's idea of getting Health reform done is repealing the Bill. That's all they'll do! America is screwed!!!

The Republicans had several plans for health care reform when the economy was upbeat and the Democrats said no every time. Now is not the time for such an expensive bill.

Come January the GOP's idea of getting Health reform done is repealing the Bill. That's all they'll do! America is screwed!!!

We told you that would happen if Obama, Pelosi, and Reid stood fast to partisan writing of the bill and didn't include all elected representatives. It's your party's own fault for being so arrogant. Maybe the next time it'll actually be REFORM and not just mandated purchase full of bribes to Democrat states to buy votes. If we're really lucky, the Democrats will get rid of those who vote for crap they don't even read this November.

Amen media is crazy, the people never had a say so in this, obamanation just forced it on us with his Dems and said like it. He needs to stop spending $$$ like it is his before we are all bankrupt. Hard to believe that there are still people out there that stand behind this guy, he is doing nothing but running us into the ground while China sits back and watches us go under. Nice going libs, if the welfare runs out then what are you going to do!!!

Rockin, every time I read "the republicans don't care about the middle class", I just laugh. Are you really so dense as to believe that they only look out for the rich, or top 2%. If that is so, how do they ever win an election? Let me guess, middle and lower class republicans are too stupid to know what they are voting for? Such an arrogant attitude. The fact is, some people have different priorities than you, and formulate their own opinions. This attitude will be the downfall of the democrats. "If you don't agree with me, it must be because you are not as educated or enlightened as I am". Keep thinking this way... Arrogance and perceived benevolence is the common denominator among most liberals.

It isn't health care reform, it's health insurance reform. Does anyone still think this is health care reform? This is reistribution on a massive scale = only instead of actual dollars being redistributed, its health care services being redistibuted. Our access to health care will decline. Our ability to procur the services we want will decline. Our cost will go up. And Nobama and all those who voted for this abortion will never have to worry about waiting 6 weeks for a doc appt. Greater costs; less access. But of course, all those who won't take responsibility for their own lives will be covered. Only those who go to work every day will bear the cost.

Good post cele. Another thing to consider: We continue to hear people say that we are the only industrialized country not to have universal health care. What isn't said is that those who can afford it travel to the US for surgery and doctor care because we have the best medical care in the world.

Federal Government has the right to regulate interstate commerce, last time I checked health care was interstate commerce.

The best medical care in the world IF you can afford it, if your insurance company doesnt claim that your congenital heart valve condition was pre-existing, if your insurance company doesnt retroactively cancel you, if you dont lose your job and cannot get COBRA because your employer has less than 50 employees, your well intentioned employer has to keep cutting benefits because he cannot afford 20% annual increases every year for the last 5 years. The CARE in the United States is great no question , it is the total system that needed the reform!!

The Attorney General in our state pretty much destroyed his political career by joining this bandwagon. In the end, if this results in Universal Healthcare I will laugh so hard. It's what we wanted all along.

Federal Government has the right to regulate interstate commerce, last time I checked health care was interstate commerce.

Then you have not been paying attention. Insurance CAN NOT be sold across state lines meaning I can not call a NY insurance company to provide insurance to me in CA.

I wish I could because I'll bet the insurance rates in OK are way less than insurance rates in CA.

Exactly. Again, all I have seen in various threads is people throwing themselves in front of the very wealthy like mothers protecting their young. I just cannot understand this, "Save the Corporate and the Uber-Wealthy" mindset amongst Tea Partiers. It borders on cultish and these people are fighting against their own best interest. While the healthcare bill wasn't close to perfect, it had benefits for the middle class, yet, these people are screaming their collective heads off against things like the ones you mention.....no more pre-existing conditions, no more lifetime caps (which one can easily reach during a single catastrophic illness), keeping kids on their parents policies until they are twenty-six, amongst other things. It's not like the insurance companies didn't get anything out of it....this bill was a big, fat, wet, sloppy kiss to the insurance companies.......they got MILLIONS of new customers (and lots of money in premium) for some concessions and we get a small break. Yet, these people go off like it some kind of Stalinistic plan, which is just insanity. But, here they are, squawking away. I just want to know what it is that makes these people work so hard against their own best interests.

@ChiCity You hit the nail on the head - "those who can afford it travel to the US for surgery and doctor care". The key word here is afford.

I believe there are parts of this that people believe in and can support as a bipartisan effort. I have no problem with no pre existing conditions, leave your kids on the plan to 26 and no retro active cancellation for ANY reason. I can even go along with mandatory catastrophic plans.

What I think everyone disagrees with is mandating extensive plans that people do not need or want. That is nothing but a pay off to insurance companies, period. The companies want healthy people in the risk pool because they will never have to pay off on them- or at least very rarely. This amounts to a tax on being healthy.

Insurance is a rip off to begin with, but since people started using insurance as HMO type coverage- ie wanting insurance to pay everything- the insurance companies weren't making 50% profit and they began telling people who do not know better that the rate hikes were because of not having risk distributed to more people. This is code for we need more people to pay for nothing so we can have our profit back.

@hollywoodunderground: "all I have seen in various threads is people throwing themselves in front of the very wealthy like mothers protecting their young. I just cannot understand this...But, here they are, squawking away. I just want to know what it is that makes these people work so hard against their own best interests."

How do you know what is in anyone's best interests but your own? I'll answer: you don't, no one does. What we are "squawking" against is anyone and everyone who thinks that they know what is best, i.e., the party currently in control at the national level. For me, it's all or nothing, baby. I don't want your safety net if it means I can't touch the sky. As 50-cent said, it's get rich, or die trying.

Federal Government has the right to regulate interstate commerce, last time I checked health care was interstate commerce.

When was the last time you checked about having to buy a product or service despite your desire? How often are you required to buy a Happy Meal, a dress, or sexual services despite your utter disgust with those products or services?

But because some may desire those, all are required to purchase and choose to purchase a salad, slacks and forgo any localized adult entertainment.

Insurance is only interstate commerce if customers are allowed to buy policies across state lines- which we are not, and there is nothing in the bill/law that allows this.

No TORT reform, though MSNBC reports that malpractice costs at least 55.6 BILLION a year. That is a whole lot of health care. And the practice I see that number seems low.

Not sure why you think health care for all is a bad thing?

If it's so great, then why aren't our elected officials required to accept it. Why do they get to keep the great insurance we tax payers pay for them to have. If it is so great then they should be the FIRST ones to sign up for it and set an example for the rest of us. If they think it's good enough for us then it should be good enough for them.

Lets not forget our elected officials are all RICH people. Quit sticking up for them, Dems and Repubs they are no better then the rich man who took his company over seas to avoid taxes.

Stull - Our lawmakers also have to have health insurance coverage. The law does not exempt them. If you have private coverage through your employer, you don't have to go with the pools that are being created unless you want to, just like our lawmakers and many others.

Then lets get rid of their insurance coverage that we pay for and put them on what they have purposed for the citizens. We are their employer and I say UHC for them!

Karen...

I'm glad you made the point about health insurance being unable to be sold across state lines. You can buy life insurance or auto insurance from a company in any state of the nation...but you can only purchase health insurance from companies offering it within the state you live in.

That's one reason health insurance has become so expensive...lack of competition.

J-Hill......so, the reason you fight so hard for the wealthiest 2% is because your goal is to become one of them?

No, J-Hill works and has perhaps obtained an education because he wants to be poor. Damn, have to love Liberal logic.

Put you money where you mouth is; it will be upheld

Perhaps the local sports book can start taking parimutuel wagers on the supreme courts ruling

Perhaps you are in denial joelpalmer. One doesn't have to look far to see the recent rulings from the SCOTUS to see they are calling things in favor of individual and state rights over the Federal government. This is very much a matter of an individual's right to participate in the commerce. The Federal government has absolutely NO authority to force people to buy a product from a private entity. As far as the commerce clause that little bird won't fly. Even by some snowballs chance in hell it does somehow get past the supreme court as constitutional I would like to see them enforce it. I for one will refuse to buy health insurance or pay any so called tax for not buying it. My state is in the process of passing nullification of this ridiculous mandate so the feds can take their 2000 page joke of a law and shove it.

Insurance is different from normal commerce in that if everyone doesn't participate from the start it isn't practical. Especially with health insurance, where those in need of life-saving treatment will probably get it whether they paid their insurance premiums or not. There will always be those who jump the turnstile in the subway, and those who will refuse to get health insurance but demand emergency treatment anyway, unless steps are taken to penalize such behavior with transit police and fines for not getting insurance.

What can be done to compromise is to require catastrophic plans for all people- almost everyone can agree with that. Then have a step wise increase in benefits with increasing costs.

Requiring people to buy a product that they do not want and do not need is wrong. As for penalizing the conduct of not buying and insurance and still expecting care- that would be Ted Kennedy- instead of requiring the insurance companies to provide better care and better product at better costs Kennedy required hospitals to treat patients regardless of the ability to pay. That was extrapolated to emergency room care for coughs and colds. This is the worst way to receive routine care, and does not provide appropriate follow up or continuity of care. The care is very expensive for a low pay off.

IE you or your child has a cold, if you go to a doc in their office it shows a responsibility for care, and most likely you will be examined and told to return if you are not significantly better in 3-4 days. You may get a rapid strep test. You will be recommended OTC care for the symptoms. Go to the ER with exactly the same stuff and- you get a CBC +/- a chemistry panel. Probably a CXR and of course the rapid strep test. Since there is no evidence of responsibility for seeking care, they will probably give a shot of Rocephin- a long term antibiotic so that if it is strep ( rapid strep has a high error rate) and you do not come back, they won't be sued for malpractice. The second course of care will do nothing to change the course of your care, but will cost 3-4 times as much money and have the same result- or worse since the antibiotics may cause problems for you, or increase resistance in bugs in the future.

And, DocSteph (if you really are a doc), you know that this will lead to people NOT seeking treatment until it's too late because most people CANNOT afford doctor bills of $100 and up for one office visit. Catastrophic coverage is a joke and leads to only the people who can afford it getting care and those who can't to suffer. How about this.......let's do what the rest of the civilized world does and have UNIVERSAL COVERAGE and get rid of the profit grubbing insurance companies that serve no purpose but to suck up medical dollars that can be used for actual medical care instead of paying Bill McGuire four hundred million dollars.

Hollywood Underground, the rest of the civilized world comes to the US for surgery, cancer treatments, etc., because we have the best care. Not all can afford it, but for those who can't pay to choose their doctors, their care is still superior to the rest of the "industrialized world". I don't want to be told how my health care should be handled when I am perfectly happy with my current care. And don't give the garbage that the quality of care for people like me won't decrease, most doctor's have admitted that isn't true. I'll believe them over some Hollywood Lib.

Hollywood would have us universally paying for some party animals and illegals with our hard earned money, while we barely make ends meet. Hollywood-get your head out of the Smog, stop smoking that garbage and come work for a living like the rest of us-bet you wouldn't vote obummer anymore!

I also haven't heard mention of how they're paying for all this "universal health care"-no comment on US paying for You to grace the doc with your presence? try OUR taxes, or was that an attempt to slip it by us like obummer did>?

Ah.......two Fox News watchers. ChiCity, you would be wrong. It's the other way around. Americans go to other countries, like India, to have procedures done. Most Europeans and Canadians stay in their own countries and resent the lies that are spread about their health care systems. They wouldn't touch our system and consistently vote against any attempt to bring a for-profit system back.

SSGDave......you are jusst insulting. Why you want to make people like Bill McGuire rich beyond anyone's imagination while people die is beyond my imagination. For what he got paid, many people could have been covered. Health insurance companies are just useless middlemen who's time have come and gone.

Hollywood, that is probably the dumbest thing I hav heard in a while. People who have a choice and can afford where to get treatment go to India to have procedures done. Staph infection anyone?

I have never watched Fox News in my life. How about an original rebuttal? I actaully read, both sides of the issues, and formulate my own opinion. Get a clue.

You are very uninformed, then. India is just one of the stops.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_India#Medical_Tourism

It's a Republican fallacy when you hear the whole, "Canadians (or English or any other people from countries with universal healthcare) come to the US for treatment." They wouldn't come here unless they like going broke or they are looking for the latest and greatest in cosmetic surgery.

By the way - What does Palin even have to do with this thread? It's like if you can't prove your point you try to side-track the discussion.

Clotho - "the President has nearly two years of executive experience". WOW! he hasn't learned very much in two years has he? He has just about wrecked the entire country and the economy! I don't hardly believe the position of being POTUS is the place for on-the-job rookie training, particularly for a hard left liberal, radical, ideologist, socialist bastard. I don't believe the results of his "two years of executive experience" would get him anywhere in a successful business or corporation other than getting his worthless ass fired!

"The President has nearly two years of executive experience"

Resume inflation, at best... There is a kid down the block that has had a lemonaide stand for the past 3 years. Unfortunately, by your standards she is far more qualified for the office of President than our esteemed, yet flailing, leader. Can't say I disagree...

Palin is a quitter and Gingrich divorces his 2nd wife while she's laid up in a hospital bed. Reagan never went to church and Glenn beck and Limbaugh were both Rock Jocks in the 80's!

I really don't have a point other than these "Conservatives" fail the smell test.

Ladies and Gentlemen..., the nose of the American people has spoken!

LOL I love the logic. OMG they're talking about a possible HUGE failure for the president. Let's talk about someone who isn't even in office on the conservative side! Quick! Name calling ALWAYS wins arguments!

And since you brought up Palin, I find it absolutely hilarious that she's at 76% approval rating even after quitting and getting slammed by MSNBC daily. Obama is at half that and dropping.

Rock, you said one thing right, you don't have a point. Remind me again what they have to do with anything. I am independent, never seen Beck, Palin or Limbaugh speak, was too young for Reagan, and with John Edwards are we going to bring up Gingrich?

I was a rock jock and ended up with a Masters degree from a major eastern university. Be nice.

I really liked geology and was glad it fit the science requirement.

@rockinwithdokken:"Palin is a quitter and Gingrich divorces his 2nd wife while she's laid up in a hospital bed. Reagan never went to church and Glenn beck and Limbaugh were both Rock Jocks in the 80's! I really don't have a point other than these "Conservatives" fail the smell test."

You are so right! If all conservatives cared about was pedigree, we would have never thrown in with those folks. What matters more to us than the "were u from, who you wit" of liberal politics is this: reason, logic, the soundness of a persons ideas, and the proven ability to get things done.

Really? Why are we even talking about personalities? None of the people mentioned represent me or as far as I know, my party. And BTW- Rush was already very successful talk radio in the 80s- he even had a TV show at some point- late 80s early 90s? Glenn Beck I never heard of til this year. Same with Sarah Palin- til McCain plucked her from obscurity- never heard of her. Personally wish it were still that way!

But, we do have 5 republican activist judges.

As opposed to non-"activist" judges like Ruth Bader Ginsburg ???

Steph-you were doing so well, too, until you jumped on the palin bandwagon-she had Nothing to do with this, and you had to display ignorance and go off topic-shame on you!

Laurie -

Medicare is already failing. Add to that that it is being gutted to pay for this debacle and it fails even faster. As a result of out-of-control federal spending I'm not counting on either Social Security or Medicare - and I've been paying into both systems for over 30 years.

See what happens when Medicare is taken away from seniors when it's rendered unconsitutional. There won't be a Republican anywhere that will get elected to any office. See if I'm wrong.

As I said, I doubt it will be there anyway for most of us who are middle-aged right now. So your argument is a 'non-sequitur'. I am making other plans. That is what responsible adults do.

This law would be declared unconstitutional because it requires individuals to purchase private goods or face a penalty.

Medicare is a tax which is used to provide a public service. Declaring the healthcare bill unconstitutional would have no effect on Medicare.

If I were you I wouldn't be so snide. For one thing there are many "responsible" adults who just don't have enough to retire on or bad luck befalls them or something else. Remember the saying "the best laid plans...."? Social Security and Medicare are there for a reason. If you have no memory of what it was like before these programs then you cannot appreciate the difference they have made in this country to a very vulnerable population. So you may plan all you want but that doesn't mean when push comes to shove at the end of the day you won't need these programs too.

I still get a laugh out of those signs stating "No Socialized Medicine, and keep your hands off my Medicare".

Tammy, pray that you die before geting sick. Sounds ugly and mean but the reality is one serious illness will wipe you and your family out unless you are a multi-multi millionaire.

Responsible adults save and responsible individuals go broke.

DaleP - Yeah...it's great isn't it?

Dave - Don't be so sure if this law is declared unconsitutional that it doesn't take Medicare down with it as well. The Commerce Clause was also used to justify Medicare.

Mommy2be -

The health care debacle will actually DRIVE even more people into bankruptcy as they are being forced to Buy something that has been optional in the past. Many families will fall 'through the cracks' as they will make too much to be subsidized but not enough to afford insurance. Add to that the fact that this debacle gives the federal government access to PRIVATE bank accounts and this becomes a recipe for financial ruin for even more families.

When a family is faced with providing food and a roof for their families versus mandated health insurance just what do you expect them to do? Many families, especially YOUNG families, live payday to payday - they have no choice, but they don't meet the requirements for being subsidized. Heck, even the democrats that passed the bill admit that it will have people who will fall through the cracks!

By the way, Mommy2be - I find your comment inflammatory in the same way a death wish is inflammatory and it can be taken that way. You may want to reconsider your comments before you actually post them.

There's a huge difference in this partisan law and Medicare/Medicaid. The other 2 were bi-partisan. They're just outdated and need adjustments just like Social Security and retirement ages. Back when these 3 passed, most people didn't live beyond 65 yrs old so the system worked for retirement. Now people keep trucking for another decade or 2 after retirement. TORT reform wasn't necessary back then either because they weren't a nation full of lawsuit happy people who think everyone owes them something.

Remember, the right was calling for fixing what we had in place rather than just throwing another wet log on the dying campfire. Fix Medicare, Medicaid, VA, Social Security, TORT, etc and you wouldn't even need the health care bill.

Laurie, Medicare won't be repealed. They are seperate arguments, and seperate issues.

Um, so judges can't find one law unconstitutional because some other laws might be unconstitutional and that's not practical? Hmm....sounds like a progressive house of cards to me and I would welcome it to fall. Let's get this unconstitutional stuff worked out once and for all.

Remember the saying "the best laid plans...."? Social Security and Medicare are there for a reason.

Why are you putting a spin on the wording? Congress originally said the "the best plans to get laid..." But you are correct about one statement. SS and medicare are there for a reason - to screw the public out of hard earned wages since many of us who have been paying in for nearly 40 years never expect to see a dime from either program.

thanks thinker. Many do not believe SS and medicare will be gone, but the numbers do not add up in our favor. We will see none of it.

I was already told by a person at the Social Security office that yes I will be able to collect social security I'm almost 46, but my 20 year old son won't. My son has worked every summer for the last 6 years he hasn't paid in much, but he has paid in and he will continue to work and go to college and then work full time and they will still take out of his check for social security. Medicare is another story. Why would an old folk need medicare if we have UHC? Why will they continue taking medicare out of my pay check when I or my employer will be paying for my health care (UHC) Do old folks not qualify for UHC?

I think you are supposed to take comfort in the fact stull that when he passes he may be broke, starving, and homeless...but he will still have his health. Its a moot point anyway, Obamacare is almost a thing of the past. Get ready for Liberal crying as they are denied their major socialist entitlement free handout.

We are forced to now in the form of Medicare taxes which are taken out of our paychecks without our agreement.

Laurie -

Medicare is considered a TAX which is why they have allowed it to continue. In my opinion, it shouldhave never been passed in the first place.

Tammy - Tell that to seniors that depend greatly on this program as well as Social Security. Republicans are playing with fire when they start to try to dismantle programs that help the most vulnerable in our society who also happen to be the biggest voters. Good luck.

health insurance is incorporated and regulated by each state. By definition, its not interstate. ;)

Medicare is not.

Laurie -

Seniors are not, as a rule, senile, as you seem to think. The republicans have said NOTHING about dismantling the systems either. They have put out feelers for OPTIONAL modifications to both programs as a means to SAVE them. Perhaps if you did more research into what is actually going on...

The thing is, as these programs currently stand, they will both be DEFUNCT in 10 years if changes aren't made due to BOTH parties using the funds for their 'pet' projects and to support extravagant budgets. They have already changed retirement ages once to try to save the programs.

Tammy - You are naive if you think for one minute that the ultimate goal of the Republicans is not to dismantle the Social Security and Medicare systems. They have hated these programs since their inceptions and would love nothing more than to administer their demise. Sorry to burst your bubble but you seem either very young or very ideological.

Medicare is a TAX. Is this federal mandate to buy insurance a "tax" so that it falls under the same category as Medicare?

If it is a "tax", then Obama lied about raising taxes for people making under 250K (nothing new--he lies a lot).

Now the administration wants to call it a tax. Maybe Pelosie should have read the bill before pushing it to a Christmas Eve vote. A few tweaks, and it could have been presented as a healthcare tax. Too late to call it that now.

laurie, you couldn't be more wrong. Whatever media is telling you this has nothing to back up the claim and is spreading fear & hate based on misconceptions. It's what happens when people get backed into a corner and are losing....fight or flight.

We are forced to now in the form of Medicare taxes

Highlighted the relevant part of your statement. "This is not a tax" - Obama

Tammy - Tell that to seniors that depend greatly on this program as well as Social Security.

Why do you think it's an on/off lightswitch? Nobody is calling to yank the rug out from under anyone like that. If they shut it down it would have a grandfather clause to continue coverage and retirement acceptance at a certain age and everyone below that age would just stop paying into it and move to an ALTERNATIVE to the failing institutions we have now.

All I heard from the left for 18 months was how change, reform, etc were good ideas and now you argue the other way around. We need a bi-partisan plan. Obama is unwilling and, now that he drew the line in the sand so deep with all of his bickering and name calling, incapable of being the leader to make that happen. Everything you're about to see happen after the elections is his fault for pushing voters too far the other direction and making the Democrats look like the party of intollerance and unwilling to listen to the voters.

Obama conveys weakness every time he gets on television. He's either apologizing or calling people names like a 12 yr old. He has already done more to tarnish the image of the US than Bush ever did. If you watch international media, you would know we're the butt end of all jokes now.

@laurie480643: "Tell that to seniors that depend greatly on this program as well as Social Security. Republicans are playing with fire when they start to try to dismantle programs that help the most vulnerable in our society who also happen to be the biggest voters. Good luck."

I wouldn't be so sure that cutting entitlement spending is politically disastrous. The democrats gutted medicare to make their Obamacare bill revenue neutral, but democrats are going to mop the floor with the party of "No!" in the November elections, right?

laurie, tammy is right. The numbers do not add up. SS and Medicare will be gone by the time we need it. The dismantling has already begun.

When seniors realize they have a big bulls eye target on their backs it won't be good buy President Obama, it will be good bye each and every last Republican because the seniors will blame the Republicans for taking these programs away from them when they need them the most.

Seniors are to busy voting (D), the way AARP tells 'em to.

The insurance companies arent fighting to cover seniors. That's why medicare was created in the first place. Nobody wanted to cover seniors.

Laurie - you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Give it up.

laurie

Perhaps it is no wonder then that you seem to think that seniors are unable to think for themselves.

Laurie,

You have pretty much lost the argument on every post you've made. You are missing the point.

No Republican has attacked social security and MEDICARE. Both programs are headed towards insolvency and their have been ideas to improve income for these programs. Obamacare will make it all WORSE....while putting the federal government between you and your doctor.

The enormous costs of this legislation will raise the cost of OUR insurance........for all of those who work and pay for insurance premiums for them and their families. Now, I get to pay for Joe Schmuck's health insurance........you know, the guy who has been doing drugs since age 15 and alcohol since 17. His cirrhosis of the liver will now magically become MY responsibility.

Good health is not a RIGHT........it is a PERSONAL responsibility !!!!!

Since when does working with seniors every day mean you know what you're talking about when you tell me what I'm thinking and I think you're incorrect in your assumption? That doesn't even make sense. My grandmother runs a private nursing home and I'm very aware of the specifics involved since I visit all the time & help when I can. I also have seen her Social Security checks and what Medicare/Medicaid does and does not cover and it's pathetic. $300 a month for Social Security is all she gets after a full career as a nurse. $10 a day barely covers gas and electric. That's why she had to open a business in her own home and give up her privacy and retirement.

Laurie you knowing what you are talking about because you work with seniors, is like saying that a Walgreen's cashier understands medicine because they sell Tylenol. Nice try.

Most seniors would love to have another option, but they were promised something that they are not receiving. Their retirement plans included a lavish health insurance program called medicare- it just wasn't lavish or even adequate. More and more doctors cannot afford to accept it. SSI is not enough to help those who need it, and we send it to people who do not need it- PLEASE means test both programs.

Yea, is that why you knuckleheads want to change it.

It is time people take care of themselves. One is supppose to work and save and work and save. One is not suppose to live off of those who do work. There should be no free hand outs, no welfare, no medicaid, no government taking from ones paycheck to save for their and others future. There should be no poor little Bobby or Suzy they don't have what Billy and Janie have so we need to take so all can be equal. Life is not fair and people need to deal with it. If I want to give I will give and if I want to save I will save. I don't need some government official and or bleeding hearts taking from me to give to others. I work, I take care of myself and my son I always have. I do not live and never have beyond my means. As it stands right now I live pay check to pay check. My truck was bought and paid for the day I bought it, it's ten yrs old and I've owned it for ten years. I have almost 100,000.00 in equity in my home and I am the orginal owner. I woked and work for what I have and others should too!

"Are there no prisons, are there no workhouses?.... If [the poor] would rather die than go there, they should do so and decrease the surplus population."

- Ebenezer Scrooge, character in Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol"

Personal Responsibility rather than Obummercare-now THAT's a plan!

its worse than that. There was a case where a subsistence farmer who DIDNT buy or sell anything across borders got "regulated" because refraining for interstate commerce affected interstate commerce. I'm pretty sure that's still on the books.

If you would check that's just what they had in mind. Fee of the "Founding Fathers" worked on the Constitution. The Deceleration Of Independence yes. One of the reason for the three words were to keep the country from looking like Europe. Ask why the Constitution was written so many years after the Revolutionary war was over. The country was destroying it self. Some southern states wanted to expand there western borders as far west as they could go.
The Constitution was set up to create a strong central groverment. Let you read the rest.

@bsdetector: "There was a case where a subsistence farmer who DIDNT buy or sell anything across borders got "regulated" because refraining for interstate commerce affected interstate commerce. I'm pretty sure that's still on the books."

Yes, it is still on the books. Not only that, the holding in that case has been reinforced by more recent rulings, rulings which revolve around the drug war. When you read the more recent case, it is a little bit mind numbing to see Scalia re-lay the same groundwork that ObamaCare would eventually be built upon, but then again, that's how Washington works! I doubt that conservatives are ever going to relax their grip on the drug war, even if it means that we wind up with socialized medicine as a result. For some people, it's worth getting crappy medical care to keep junior from smoking out and listening to "devil music". That's life.

Please stop the war on drugs. We lost- legalize pot, tax it, give tickets for DUI. Concentrate on Meth which is killing people especially children in the lab fires!

Since when did they dtop giving DUI tickets? The State of Washington gives tickets for DUI's. Meth...close the southern boarder.

I am happy to see this in the courts, and it will probably go all the way to the Supreme Court before it is finally resolved.

How dare the Entitlement Partyforce me to obtain anything that I may or not want? Perhaps we will see the end of the Commerce Clause or at least a more direct interpretation of it.

Now President Obama should have impeached george bush and his sidekick shooter.

1. illigal spying on american citizens

2. lying to the american people and starting two unfunded wars.

3. Killing a duly elected head of state (Saddam Hussein)

4.Ousting an american spy for political gain.

to name a few

Tommyjames,

Saddam Hussein was tried by a jury of Iraquis for war crimes (you know, like poison gas on the Kurds), he was found guilty and he was EXECUTED BY IRAQUIS.

The rest of your "argument" is typical, unsubstantiated liberal bull@!$%# !

You mean "how divided this country is" right? And this country has never come together, we can sit here and act like it has no this has been simmering below the surface. Now I think that healthcare should be affored to every citizen, you can call it a handout, entitlement, etc.

I ask if Jesus was walking this earth who would he be healing?

When in a hole, stop digging. Vote for gridlock in nov.

Sorry for the typo, What would Jesus do just does not cut it, Jesus would have offered his own insurance very much like Medicare, The government should have offered its own policy, creating the Mac Daddy of competition, this was taken off the table via corrupt lobbyist in the beginning. Insurance companies have already raised rates after the legislation was signed.

This will increase our rates.

Why must my health, my very life, be regulated run and controlled by a corporation intent on making a profit? How does that even make sense? They earn more money when they can bill you, and then deny your claim.

bsdetector@ 11.2,

The phrase for this fall's elections is.......NEUTER IN NOVEMBER !!!!

Replace Obama's leftist lemmings with Independents and Republicans who will soberly and carefully question all his proposals. After all, it is the function of the legislative branch of our government to MAKE the laws.........not the President !

It's the President's job to ENFORCE existing law...........like Immigration law on the Arizona border.............only he does not have the balls to do that.

auto insurance IF you own a car. Property insurance IF you buy a house; not rent. Its possible to live here without those things. You'd have to leave the country to avoid the health insurance mandate-- I hope they didnt force it on ex-pats too.

Those are required by STATES or by your mortgage holder, not the federal government.

My brother in Florida does not have property insurance on his house. He doesn't have a mortgage either ......................so Don's weak argument just failed.

Don, your post is not correct. The equivalent of auto and house insurance to human life is life insurance, not health insurance. Try again.

What if the driver nor the company have insurance what then?

you do what everyone has done for years, you sue them.

And get NOWHERE...as the VICTIM of a head-on collission with another vehicle (that ran a red light at TWICE the legal speed limit) I can say that lawsuits are not about responsibility, falult, or fairness. Since the accident I have lost my 80K a year job, my employer supplied health benefits, and have NO HOPE in recovering from the other driver because it would "place an undue burden on his family"...WELCOME TO AMERICA - Where irresponsibility is rewarded and prudence and hard work are punished

Cardog, why even bring this up? Stop the political BS for a second and apply common sense. It is not a constitutional right to abuse your health and force others to pay for your medical expenses. Healthcare is not a right. It's a personal responsibility and choice of each American.

Healthcare needs to be fixed, but there are better alternatives.

Ever seen the voting map- no red states no blue states all purple states.

masteroftheobvious @ 17.2,

SIMPLEST AND BEST POST OF THE DAY !!!

Cardog, many dems came out against this, and only jumped ship after securing additional benefits for each of their constituents. Are you really this clueless. No congress has, or ever will again, have so much trouble passing laws when they have the numbers the Democrats have now. Must mean these bills are not popular among the people. I'm tired of Obama acting as a benevolent hegemon who is just so brilliant he is looking out for our best interest because he simply knows better.

Driving a car is a choice, you can buy one, insure it, and drive it, OR you can take the bus and avoid the expense....

Healthcare is not an option for anyone, you WILL need it at some time...but I do think forcing people to buy healthcare insurance from PRIVATE companies is wrong...Those same insurance companies are the reason healthcare cost is so high, yet the care itself is pathetic.

Repeal the bill, introduce a new one that forces all elected officials, both state and federal, and their supporting staff, to have the same healthcare 'we the people' have....then you will see politicians jump through hoops to improve the healthcare system (look into it, those politicians have the best healthcare coverage that OUR tax dollars can buy...after all it isn't costing them anything)

Aside from the absolute of if you love your country you will be for higher taxes, and health care taxes etc; why do you think higher taxes will strenthen the country?

I am a republican who gives liberally to charities, I work where most democrats will not set foot, and always have. i love my patients etc. I simply have NEVER seen anything the federal government does better than some private concern. Right now my taxes are 50% plus of my income, they are going up but I am NOT rich. The ideas are take medicare on all income, take SSI on all income, allow current tax rates to increase per sunset- if all this happens I will be somewhere at 70% this is not fair- and I live in a tax free state.

I am no millionaire- they said I am a HENRY- high earner, not rich yet. I help mu parent, am supporting my brother after he was laid off so he can retrain. I have a niece who was orphaned t 7 and so I am helping her get through school. I have a 4 year old boy that I help support because his mother was abandoned by the father and her family. I employ a yard man and a housekeeper. Though I enjoy both areas of upkeep, I don't always feel like it and so I enjoy this luxury and I work more. So what happens if I have less money? I have to let two wonderful people go. I pay them very well- all on the up and up- neither illegal invaders. They both have small children, and this is the only income for one, and about half of the income for the other.

If the administration means what they say about most of the tax hikes hit the millionaires club- lets make that the plan. Allow the temporary tax cuts to expire on persons whose income is over a million I would be for that and I think most republicans would be for it.

there has been no evidence that higher taxes lead to a stronger country. How about making Congress cut spending first? The government should not be entitled to any more of our money unless it can prove the money is spent wisely.

Think of everything we as a country could do if the government spent our money wisely.

I agree that there is a spending restraint that can help, but we will have to increase revenues by increasing the work force. Unfortunately the whole force is depressed now because of increasing regulation and turmoil at the federal level.

Then you can send extra taxes to govt to cover my part cuz I dont want it.

You can cover my part also.

Don't CARE what you think. None of you whitebread wingnuts are very bright, anyways

I LIKE IT

and, oh, yeah... get used to it because it's here to stay

When the Feds come for you , let me know. I mean when you can't pay for your health care.

Yeah, Cardog... it's true!

Juve- I'm ALREADY paying for healthcare. WAY MORE than my bosses are. I'm freeking ecstatic to have the new law

That's right, Cris

and maybe nobody should be required to have auto insurance, home insurance, etc.

I hate the current system. Why should employers pay for insurance? It is a horrible burden on business. And, if you try to get insurance on your own and you have much more than a pimple, you do not qualify. Sometime, even pimples (severe acne) can disqualify you.

employers pay cuz FDR froze wages in WW II and they needed something else to attract employees.

Rick, the Conservative republicans are rich millionaires and $300,000 is trump change to them. It is a lot for the rest of us folks

Again, mommy, you are erroneous in your thinking. There are actually more rich Democrats in Congress than there are rich Republicans. And not ALL consevative Republicans are rich. Stereotyping does not work, or didn't you bother with that lesson in school?

As for myself, I consider myself an independent. I happen to think the federal government should stay out of my bank account, pay check, bedroom, and life. While some taxes and rules are there for the common good, many laws are far too intrusive on my life and my freedom - i.e. the health care legislation, Patriot Act (which Obama extended, by the way).

Your rights end when they infringe on my rights just as my rights end when they infringe on yours.

And if you didn't have insurance, Rick, what should we have done? Let you die? Is that what we should do with people without insurance? Just let them die? Compassionate conservatism at work, yet again.

Hunh? The Constitution only covers what is specifically named within it, enumerated powers. Anything else is left to the States. No mention of Health Care, thus not a Federal power.

For the last 75 or so years the activist courts have had a very broad interpretive reading of the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) to mean anything they want it to mean.

A cursory read of the Federalist papers and the Anti-Federalist papers shows what the framers thought of that Clause and it isn't what the courts say it is. We left the Constitution behind decades ago.

That darn liberal reading of the commerce clause! I mean all it has done is give the federal government has the legal right to establish laws such as:

making it illegal to have 6 year olds work in coal mines;

setting health standards for slaughter houses;

minimum safety standards for work places and other activities like oil drilling.

Ruling segregation of businesses illegal.

You know what happens when you don't allow the fed to enforce standards (or they just fail to)? You have jimmy in the small sections of the mine setting dynamite, you're not sure if your burger is Grade A or human pinky added, allowing companies to throw you out cause of the color of your skin and allowing a company to blow off safety measures leading to massive industrial disasters (but that would never happen! Wait.....oh.)

But hey, maybe we should take the country back to these blissful times!

Cardog and Matt

Please read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Good one, Cardog

Thats what they said about slavery. That turned out pretty good.

Actually, it will probably become even MORE unpopular as people realize that you can't pay for something for 10 years and get only 6 years of value. There is absolutely NO VALUE in that.

So, Tammy-311614

with all of your criticism against almost every substantial post on here, what would you actually suggest be done to FIX the problem? America has an over inflated upper-middle to upper class that controls the majority of the wealth in the country, yet consistently whines about proposed increased taxes to cover increasing debt, failing public education systems, and yes, medical care. America is suffering horribly in the way we care for the middle class, the middle class are the ones who will fall through the cracks. I think it is about time the upper class is made more financially responsible for some of the crisis facing America. In the end they are the ones who have abused government bail outs, outsourced America and corrupted the government by misappropriating funds.

Or, they could just pay another lobbyist gross amounts of money funded by government kick backs to pass a bill to protect their wealth that most middle and lower class individuals can't understand when it comes time to vote because we received a poor, publicly funded education.

I am not saying at all that I disagree with even one of your righteous statements on here. I am only saying, what is the answer then? You just mingle on here shooting down people's discussion threads with no real suggestions for any improvement or reform. But then what do I know, I am a moral American from a coal mining family who paid my way through college by joining the military only to be shipped to Iraq. If I had the education which should be expected by our state and local governments beforehand, maybe I would have known the upper class of America has lost their morality and respect for our country.

Are you a mole for a major HMO or PPO?

Plus, the insurance companies love this.

The rest have insurance at work and havent connected the dots to themselves yet.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% of Likely U.S. voters favor repeal of the law, with 45% who Strongly Favor it. Thirty-eight percent (38%) oppose repeal, including 30% who are Strongly Opposed.

Where do you get that lie you're using John?

Probably from the same place republicans got their info on death panels etc., which is why the numbers changed in the first place.

John, the people who wrote the law haven't even read it. Get real.

John, do you really believe that conservatives haven't read the law? And it's going to make things *cheaper?"* What are you smoking? Even the dunces who passed this law admit they didn't read it in its entirety. I read a lot of it, but I sure didn't read it all. I would be willing to bet that you haven't read it either.

John, where did your numbers come from? Nobody understands the law completely.

The rest are sluffers looking to get more out of the system than they pay into it. You have to remember that half of the country bears ZERO responsibility for our national debt where we pay for welfare, medical, medicare, food stamps etc etc etc. They already pay nothing into the system and are just looking for more freebies. They are looking to maximize their liability to the rest of the taxpayers.

This is why the Democrats are championing this through the system. Their voter base is that 50% that pay no federal income tax or are federal employees etc. No other party wants to touch this thing with a ten foot pole.

Here's one poll, showing support in July at 50%, 43% in August. http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/8093.cfm

Dr. Grimm, well you have shown your ineptitude for "studyng the methodology of polls", as you wrote above. Kaiser polls? Henry J. Kaiser is responsible for starting a healthcare company. This is your unbiased polls? Funny.

Yes, they are associated with a health care company, but their polling division is still well-respected in the industry as they make a huge effort not to be a lobbying arm for the company.

Yes, they are associated with a health care company, but their polling division is still well-respected in the industry as they make a huge effort not to be a lobbying arm for the company.

Can someone please point out the obvious thing here for me.

That's just naive. I think if you read it out loud, you would have to admit as much. Being "respected" by people within your own industry provides zero independence.

The polling industry, not the health care industry. Sorry if I was unclear. Hope this clears things up.

I knew what you meant. Big deal what the "people in the polling industry think"? They are in the polling industry. I would guess certain elements in the industry would think their results are bogus.

I bet you are one of the people on newsvine whop slams high paid executives and boards of directors. Then when someone explains independence standards on boards, you reply, "they are all in bed together", or, "they all look out for each other". All polls are funded somewhere, and are aimed to promote an end. No exceptions.

Chi- My thinking is that the people who work in any industry are probably those with the best basis for comparison as they are the most familiar with standards, regulations, and the general parameters of that industry. As for whether some in the polling industry would think Kaiser's results are bogus, that is possible also, but you'll note I didn't say "everybody" in the polling industry thought they were wonderful.

As for this, "I bet you are one of the people on newsvine whop slams high paid executives and boards of directors. Then when someone explains independence standards on boards, you reply, "they are all in bed together", or, "they all look out for each other"." I have no idea where you got this generalization because you don't know me, and I've never said anything of the kind. I have no problem with people being well-paid for doing a good job. I do have a problem with multi-million dollar bonuses for top executives whose businesses are going under and laying off workers or who are taking TARP money. And I have problems with the Bernie Madoffs of the world. But that's really not what this thread is about.

As for "All polls are funded somewhere, and are aimed to promote an end. No exceptions." I would respectfully say that while all polls are funded by someone, not all are conducted to promote an agenda.

There's a reason none of the constitutional rights require delivery of anything tangible. The "promote the general welfare", not outright "provide it"

The CBO (independent) has determined that the bill will reduce the federal deficit. The fastest way to bankrupt the country is to allow private health care to continue unfettered. The single biggest factor to the deficit is the rising cost of Medicaire and Medicaid. These costs are driven by rising cost of private health care. The same is true with the auto industry. It was going down partly because of the rising health care cost of current and former employees.

Jon---the CBO scored the bill before the dr. fix was passed (and it will probably conitnue to be passed every year). With the increased costs in dr. payments, the bill runs in the red.

Look at the numbers, the CBO keeps revising its cost estimate upwards on this disaster of a bill.

Jon -

The CBO also counted the Medicare 'savings' TWICE.