Although my feelings are mixed as is the future viability of this law, I cannot wait till the 27 year olds finally have to have insurance or forfit their IRS refund every year, when I was 27 or 30 I did not have insurance and had the freedom to say no to it

One thing I wish Obama and supporters of the law like Minnie would stop doing is calling things like Mammograms free.

They are subsidized, paid by someone else, either through increased taxes, which Obamacare has now become under the Supreme court ruling, increased insurance premiums or reduced benefits. I am glad Im old enough to not have to worry about me paying for it.

As of 2005 (Health and Human Services numbers), 45.8 million Americans are without health insurance. 63% of them are under 35 with 40% under 25. That 40% is immediately available for their parents insurance policy. 46% of the uninsured work full time.

The uninsured do get medical care, of course, since they cannot be turned away from emergency rooms. According to FactCheck.org:

"Families USA found that the uninsured received $42.7 billion in care in 2008 that wasn’t paid for either out of pocket or by other private or public funds. A study by the Kaiser Family Foundation found a slightly higher amount of uncompensated care. KFF found that those who are uninsured for at least part of the year receive $84.3 billion in care during the time they are uninsured, $30 billion of which is paid for out of pocket, leaving $54.3 billion uncompensated."

That means my medical bill includes my share of that 43-54 billion dollars of uncovered medical care. @JW, that is free care for those patients but you and I pay for it in our own medical coverage, coming out of our paychecks every month. The theory is, if they pay for their own insurance, my insurance premiums would decrease.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/05/uninsured-cps/index.htm
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/06/the-real-uninsured/

You are so correct BIFalconskeep!

Well if you or your child gets sick with no insurance and you have to get hospitalized. Welcome to socialism like it or not.
your welcome!

I think you might want to use a higher dosage of your "herbal" medicine.

You are poor white trash, fertile ground to support the big money that owns this country.

You are soooo right. If I wished to live in a socialist society, I would not live in the USA. Do people not see that this is a further invasion of our freedoma. By calling this a tax the Court did not address the meat of this law, only the constitutionality of congress's ability to tax. I feel so badly for the younger people in our society who will bear this burden.

If you could guarantee me that neither you nor your children would ever seek care from a hospital as long as you were uninsured, I might be more sympathetic to your argument. As it stands, I and others like me are being charged for the $45-54 billion dollars of healthcare consumed by the uninsured per year.

Every time I or my children have had to go to the hospital I pay for the visit. Its called preventive medicine in any form to keep from having to use the hospital. Our hospital visits are extremely rare and I haven't had to go in 18 years.

To TRex: You seem to have a complex against working people. Im going to college and working and taking care of my home....what are you doing? I think you should go troll someplace that finds you even educated and get out of your mother's basement.

Yet you have no problem letting me and everyone else pay for your medical care when you or a member of your family becomes ill. Either you are FOR socialism (as when you let me and the rest of your countrymen pay for your healthcare as you are doing now) or you are AGAINST socialism (like paying for your own healthcare by buying insurance from a private insurance company as required under "Obamamcare").

Personally, I'm for the socialist method (guaranteed medical care for all - even those who can't pay for it). It just surprises me how many so-called "conservatives" seem to favor the same method.

White trash mentality.

Right On!

If you get sick I mean REALLY sick and you dont have or are not able to get insurance then you are the drain on this America you love. Why is that fair to other Americans? Pay your fair share & Pay your taxes right?

I doubt that you be spouting your constitutional "freedom" b.s. when you find yourself facing bamkruptcy because you can't pay medical bills for a dread disease. "freedom" and "patriotism" sound real high-minded when you have money and good health. They are just so many empty words when you're broke and dying of cancer. Take your principles down the hall and see how much health care you can buy with them.

Whether you agree with the Supreme Court or not here are a few observations: 1) Heritage Foundation a conservative think tank is the originator of this law which was supported by Gingrich, Dole, Chuck Grassley, Jim Demint and Mitt Romney. After the Mass. law pushed by Romney said it could be used as a national law 2) In Mass. uninsured from neighboring states cross the border to use their ER's which cause increased costs - so people on vacation do have an effect on Interstate Commerce 3) you have to buy auto insurance 4) young people do get sick and I don't want to pay for that 5) its only a tax for those individuals who don't take their own responsibility and want to pass it on to others 6) this law stops socialism because everyone must pay for the use of medicine 7) currently each family subsidizes over $1,000 for the uninsured

Your absolutely correct, and if you read the CBO report on the law, which I have, as well as most of the law itself, the SHTF in about 10 years. For us older folks it won't really matter. The young hipster doofus's who elected these officials that passed the law are gonna be screwed. I guess I am ok with that now. I used to be angry, now I am indifferent, perhaps even pleased. They get what they deserve.

You use and have always used socialism. Education, USPS, Fire dept., Police...etc.

You sound like Joe Paige, a right wing looney tune that does his stand-up comedy routine every other Thursday at City of Clearwater Commission meetings. Like you, he's an airhead with a big mouth and no brains.

This coming from people who call themselves 3deye and trex. poor misguided idiots.

Lost 1- Turn off your AM radio. Your propoganda dosent work on middle america!

Sir - The Tenth Amendment reads as follows: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Do you dispute the right of Congress to levy taxes? The various states may not reverse an Act of Congress. Please stand and say the Pledge of Allegiance. Our Pledge of Allegiance speaks of ONE nation under God. Simply said the various states are not co-equal to the federal government, rather they are subservient to the federal government.

Get off here. You make sense

Bravo. As a life-long, liberal Democrat, I love nothing more than to hear some sanity from the once proud and sane GOP. (Intelligent, patriotic people can disagree honestly.) Eisenhower would be proud!

I think most people are missing the intent of Roberts decision. He felt that it should not be upheld or revoked, he felt it was a political decision. His intention was quite clear, Obama care stands for 4 years if re-elected. Senate has been considered a lost cause for democrats this election, and the hosue looks safe for repubs. Problem is, whoever becomes president will decide the fate of Obama Care. So in reality, Roberts decision was brilliant, it allows the American Public to vote for the rentention or repeal of Obama Care.

Hey Ripley "BELIEVE IT OR NOT" Just the facts..........

the law revised by the courts has not been published yet for anybody to read as far as I know. I am currently looking for it. I read the laws completely before saying anything. I do see this as a great problem on alot of working people, mostly the middle class. I am holding my breath to see the outcome to what the future IRS taxes cause to the middle class.

I have in fact read it, and found interesting things such as the employers 3% tax on insurance offered to employees, and 2% on self purchased, did you see that?

Perfect example of my previous statement.. The above is one of many analyses floating around the Internet. This one I believe was from 2009 and flawed because it analyzed a draft at the time, and not the actual legislation that was signed into law. Further, its citations are really only summaries- a quick spot check against the actual bill-as-passed shows many discrepancies.

I’m not trying to make a case for either side, just trying to make a case that we rely on what other people tell us far too much.

Sir - It is unfortunate that you endeavorer to use information that the source you referred to has refuted. In a recent interview the author states he, "he has not had an opportunity to go through the final bill." When he was speaking of Patient Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act. Those are the facts. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/01/judges_letter_on_health_care.html

Go ahead hit me with the good stuff Mr Ripley.

Post where you found it. Still looking but I have only found the older versions before it was revised.

Jack Sprat- try to be more specific with your blathering about how bad we have let it get. I might enjoy that.

Yeah, bring back Bush. He was the Republican hero. And you voted him in twice

What fools.
.

Although I become uneasy at the prospect of calling any president a fool, (it's a respect thing), I think you have the best response to the mess that has been made in the last four years that I have heard in the last four years!

Citation on that quote, please.

The main problem in America is that most the people can only read at roughly a 8th to 9th grade level (http://www.pfizerhealthliteracy.com/pdfs/The_Health_Literacy_Problem_v2.pdf)
and most adults are just "50 percent of American adults are unable to read an eighth grade level book " (Jonathon Kozol, Illiterate America).
According to the Department of Justice, 1993 from their Literacy Statistics Reference Information, "21 million Americans can't read at all, 45 million are marginally illiterate and one-fifth of high school graduates can't read their diplomas."

Is it any wonder why people are not understanding what the government is doing to them and what rights people are so blithely handing over? Look at H.R. 1955 under the definition of "homegrown terrorist" and remember that all our laws are under the interpretation of a judge. Pay attention closely to the part " force or violence" listed in the definition. Now answer what is the difference between "force" and "violence". If you cant figure it out yourself by looking at the sentence, go look it up at Hirriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Apparently the definition doesn't mean "violence" when you look up force. It means- "an individual or group having the power of effective action" and "a body of persons or things available for a particular end "(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/force). Yet most people don't understand the difference.
How are we to know if we aren't literate and understand what we read?

Mr. Sprat, the US has a progressive income tax system; otherwise it would unfairly burden those who are less able to pay higher amounts (on average).

While I have taken early retirement, I still have a pretty good income, and it is only right that I pay more than those less able to do so.

Moreover, before I retired I had some very good years (it was a bonus system, so incomes varied greatly year to year) and I never minded paying even higher rates those years when I made a lot of money, as I was blessed to receive it, and it was right that I contribute more to our national common good.

Selfishness is distinctly un-Christian, and not taking care of those less able is simply wrong.

@Bob B, I think that is exactly the point of this bill -- to get every American (adult) paying for their own health coverage. Right now, roughly 46 million Americans aren't doing that.

1) They are getting healthcare for free today and you are paying for their emergency room and hospital bills already. Wouldn't you rather get them insurance and cheaper preventative care? It should save you money.

2) Chief Justice Roberts advanced conservative cause far more yesterday than you may realize. His opinion will affect how judges around the country view the Commerce Clause and it should greatly limit its application and thus limit Congressional power. It was a huge win for conservatives and federalists.

You do realize that the "other idiot" you'd vote for is the original author of this law, right?

Actually, it works VERY well in other countries. The US now ranks 50th (according to our own CIA) in life expectancy. EVERY country in which people live longer than we do has universal healthcare.

Patient responsibility -- like buying insurance as required by this law?
Japan and Germany have government run healthcare and their people live longer.
In states with so-called "tort reform" there have been no reductions in insurance rates - just bigger profits for insurance companies. It's a red herring.
Illegal aliens (or as I like to call them, "people") are already treated just like anyone else without insurance - and those costs are already passed on to the rest of us.

What's the Republican solution? (Until Fox started calling it "Obamacare", it was exactly what was just upheld by the SCOTUS.)

You are very right.
They took away doctors' rights to run "free" clinics to help the needy (check out the doctors' tea party conventions in D.C. and other places and ask doctors what they think about it)
They do not allow us to buy insurance out of our state lines (I found a nice insurance plan out of montana I could afford but they can't sell it to me because they don't have legal right to sell a policy in Florida).
Why should I have to pay for someone's health care that has come into the United States illegally? Why are we supposed to pay for these people?
The impact on businesses and jobs is going to be insane let alone the impact on the average working and middle class. Look at what Marco Rubio has to say about it on the senate floor -MarcoRubio Discusses #ObamaCare on the Senate Floor: http://t.co/vkAmEuOE #FullRepeal.
Pass legislation that makes insurance companies offer insurance to those with prior health conditions and make it illegal for them to drop someone due to a developed health condition instead of this kind of garbage.
How many doctors are going to put up with the government now telling them how much or little they can charge? How many are going to quit?
In those countries with free health coverage how many older people are denied medical treatment due to age?
For cancer patients, how many are going to be denied care due to age or stage?
And the biggest question...how many of you want the government in your bank account?

@Paul Ray : a vote for Romney is a vote for the original author of this healthcare plan.

I don't know about you, but his silence on that fact while he campaigns against it tells me tons about his character. He was directly involved in creating "ObamaCare".

Shawn, personally I would prefer a third party, the founding fathers warned us about the very predicament we are in, a two party system is evil and bad for the republic.

It's funny, while many Americans are against "Obamacare" the vast majority support its actual requirements. Sadly, that doesn't speak well of our intelligence. Sort of like being against having a "cookout" but really liking burgers, dogs, potato salad and eating outside. What parts are you against?

@Andrew : If you'll notice, we have a conservative thinktank, the Heritage Foundation, come up with an interesting idea on a market-based approach to solving some of our healthcare issues. Romney picked that up and implemented it, then based on his success, Obama did the same nationally. Meaning that the Democratic leadership was willing to implement a good idea, even if it came from the opposition. Yet that opposition appears to be so opposed, ideologically, to anything the Democrats might do, that they are attacking their own ideas. Or, if you like cliches, they are cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

Let us hope you are right Paul. Hopefully the majority of american will start learning to read better, take a more indepth look at our government and what laws are being passed before they happen and that we get constitutionalist presidents into office that might actually be able to start straightening out the mess we now call the U.S.A. and government.

@JW : The 1 Trillion number (actually, it's been revised to 1.5 Trillion) is not as cut and dry as some partisans are claiming. Sure, the gross cost will be 1.5 trillion. But the bil balances that with increases in revenue and decreases in other costs. As reported by FactCheck.org: "Once all those revenue streams are factored in, CBO has estimated that the law would actually reduce the federal deficit by $210 billion over the 2012-2021 period..." So the actual cost of the bill is negative $210 billion.

The estimated increase in health insurance premiums due to covering the uninsured is $1,017 per insured American per year, according to the linked article in USA Today.

:-) Don't crow too much about all the free stuff. You paid for it too! Most of the revenue to cover the new program will come from payroll taxes on individuals making more than $200K a year or couples making more than $250K.

http://factcheck.org/2012/06/romney-obama-uphold-health-care-falsehoods/
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/insurance/2009-05-28-hiddentax_N.htm

Just to be clear... the $1017 is the estimate for what we pay today for the uninsured. The new healthcare system should greatly reduce or eliminate that as most of those folks will be insured.

I am not under 40, though I do try to stay youthful!

Lynda, to be fair, there are distortions on both sides of this argument. It's a huge, complicated bill, much of which hasn't even come into effect yet.

But, like you, I appreciate anyone willing to discuss it rationally, regardless of whether they are for or against.

I try to read every law that I can that is passed and to try to understand it. Unfortunately, revisions and such are not often published until after the fact and usually those revisions are just as bad as the original.
I agree though, that a civil discussion is a nice change and those that want to scream "trash" or "lazy bums" or other names to a mass majority that are actually working and paying their way are pretty much just showing their education and intelligence level.
Above all else....be informed before you speak about things you want to talk about unless it is to ask a question.

Full disclosure, for business reasons I pay close attention to the Trustees reports. I have NOT read the report on Obamacare they published, but I assume it is a solid piece of accounting. The Trustees track record is unvarnished, unlike the CBO.

Shawn, the comment don't crow too much about free stuff "You paid for it too!" implies that some of this bill is already paid for. The bill is not paid for and is funded from new taxes, not taxes I have paid in the past. This is a NEW tax, MULTIPLE NEW TAXES, not diverted funds from existing taxes. And it is not FULLY funded yet. That comes in the next 170,000 pages.

As far as payroll taxes goes, I don't pay any, thank goodness I weaned myself out of that situation years ago. Payroll taxes is the stranglehold the Congress and the Whitehouse have on the middle class and has held this country in hostage for decades.

If people were required to file quarterly and not have deductions from paychecks they would be better aware of what they really pay. There would of been a revolt in the streets long ago. They are lulled into complacency and the ease of convenience disguising the thievery.

And if your over 40, well then, join in the celebration!! Yahoo!! Our good fortune is the yolk and bondage of future generations. Trust me when I say at this point I could really care less, I mean it, wholeheartedly.

And the drugs companies for making medicines so costly as to be out of reach and the ambulance chaser attorneys suing and driving malpractice insurance up thus driving up costs for dr visits, ER visits, and the list could go. Blaming insurance companies is hardly putting the blame where the blame belongs.

Tom, be a little more informed about those kinds of psuedo facts. Under Carter the exporting of jobs began it continued through and including Obama. The greatest out flow of Jobs to India and China were under Clinton and Bush, and has remained steady under obama. Reganomics allowed Clinton to enjoy a budget deficit closure. But I know why let facts get in the way. Under Clinton's last few years the dot com bubble was bursting and when Bush took office it was well under way, bolstered by 9/11 it was a full on burst of the damn walls. Did Bush do anything to make it better, of course not, has Obama, no in fact everything he could do to make sure it continued. This is not a single party problem, this an overall failure of the electrorate, not researching, voting slates, listening the main stream media. So stop with the political finger pointing, it serves no purpose nor does it make for people to get along in order to vote in qualified candidates. Listen to the founding fathers
"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."

-- John Adams, Letter to Jonathan Jackson (2 October 1780), "The Works of John Adams", vol 9, p.511

Just sayin ... your are correct!!! We spend 17.9% of our GDP on healthcare, that equates to $8,953 per person this year. By far and away the most any country spends on healthcare in the world, yet we fail to have the best health care system in the world.

This wasn't the first step on the way to Orwellian 1984. Big brother started back quite a few years ago, they just kept it on the downlow. Look up the Patriot Act and H.R. 1955 as well as a few of our wonderful Homeland Security laws. Welcome to 2012 and beyond!

Under the system that Romney created in Mass, a system that mandates that everyone have health insurance. 98% of the citizens of Mass have health insurance. Your free riders are realistically a non-issue thanks to Romney.

Shawn, that argument is a bit disingenuous. When people steal from a store, your prices reflect those loses, that is not any different than someone receiving care at the hospital and you having to pay a higher rate to cover what those recipients refused to pay for. I see no difference between the two. And there are hundreds of comparisons right down to taxes, more than half this country depend on the other less than half for their entitlements.

@Paul : not at all disingenuous. And while I can see your point in comparing the uninsured to thieves, there is a major difference--the uninsured are acting within the laws while the guy that steals food from the 7-11 is not.

But let's run with your metaphor anyway. I think it opens up some interesting avenues of thought. For example, to make the metaphor more apt, let's say the guy is stealing food to feed his family because they don't qualify for food stamps but they still cannot afford food. Further, he is probably employed full time. And further still, let's say that a significant number of Americans are in this boat--45 million of them. Given that, which brings our thief in line with our uninsured, what should our country's reaction be? 1) increase police resources to get the thieves in jail 2) leave the system alone (do nothing is always an option.) 3) Improve the food "safety net" by extending food stamps or some other change to reduce the need for the people to steal food thus relieving pressure on the police (emergency rooms), reducing the price of food for shoppers (lower premiums), and making sure that citizens get enough food (health care).

A famous politician in a similar situation when facing a country of such thieves is said to have exclaimed "Let them eat cake."

Shawn, not a politician, but monarch, but nonetheless. My problem with this health care "tax" as SCOTUS Deamed it, is that it does nothing to address affordability. In fact, CBO is predicting a marked increase in per person costs over the next decade. It did nothing more than raise taxes to feed into a system already wracked with corruption. If someone can explain to me why over 50 cents on every dollar goes to cover malpractice and defensive medicine, or why drug companies are allow to write off billions in advertising and promotion of their drugs, or why buying the self same drug manufactured in the US from Canada is cheaper than here, then maybe I would shut up (well on this topic anyway). I am not a financial expert, but have spent the greater part of my career doing IT consulting for various insurance companies and can see some things that could be changed right away. The democrats had the opportunity to pass some very beneficial legislation that would have made health care more affordable and available for all and completely fell down on the job. This was not reform it was a tax and a poorly designed one.

Because of the political nature of some of the comments, using a pseudonym is a common practice so that others cannot track down and possibly hurt those that have made the comment in a commentary setting.
Often discussions, most often about politics or religion can cause tempers to flair. Some people take a basic, intellectual conversation personally and try to hurt those that have opposing views or views they believe are against thier morals.
Thus the use of pseudonyms to protect one's private identy.

I find it away for people to spout off without owning their words .
Transparency is a good word.

@ BIFalconskeep but I do see your point about a using pseudonym

It allows people to behave without social constraints however and the results we pretty commonly see are not conducive to respectful communication. 'Anonymous Coward' got famous, but at some cost to our culture.
When we can no longer express our thoughts in an open forum, not pretending to be someone else, with respect to all points of view, we will have failed.

I agree with you Paul... so where does that leave Florida in this all. Our Governor has said he will opt us out. I didn't vote for him...

I am afraid many governers are going opt to, SCOYUS left the door wide open on the opt out option at the state level but not to the individual level.

While the SCOTUS struck down the Medicare penalty, most states will still opt in because the federal taxes collected by this law won't be portioned out to them otherwise; they will be rejecting large amounts of cash. All the Florida residents that a tax for not having insurance will be sending that money out of Florida and none of it will return. Of course, we've seen our governor send the high speed rail money (and jobs) to California, so anything's possible.

@Shawn, sorry but you are wrong and stop creating panic where it does not exist. Back up your comments with facts not paranoia please

@Paul : My apologies, I made the inaccurate assumption you had read the Supreme Court decision, or at least a reasonably professional summary of it. I will be more specific for you. This relates only to the Medicaid Expansion for people making under the Federal Poverty Level ($23K for a family of four.)

If the state opts in, the government will pay 100% of the expansion cost for 5 years and then 90% after that. So if politicians vote to reject it, they will leave a significant number of voters without any insurance options all for saving that 10% of the cost. The Federal government is going to get that 90% from taxes and fees related to the program that will still apply to all state citizens. So, for example, let's say Florida opts out (it likely will), all Florida citizens will be subject to the new tax and will have to pay into the system one way or the other. However, since Florida opted out, the poorest in Florida will be left out of the insurance coverage scheme and not be covered by Medicaid. So all the fees and taxes paid by Florida citizens meant to cover 90% of that expansion won't return to the state from the Federal government; they will instead be spread out to the states that did opt in. The original bill forced the states to opt in; that was struck down by SCOTUS.

http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8270-2.pdf
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2012/0629/After-Supreme-Court-ruling-Medicaid-expansion-faces-uncertainty

Shawn, I did read it, if you have, then tell me what premium tax is would you?

Infrastructure of this magnitude is an economic driver. Do a little research on the economic impact of the original rail system, the interstate freeway system, and even the effect of removing the 55MPH speed limit on all freeways/highways. The cost is only half the equation. Without know the benefit, we cannot really decide if it was worth it, can we?

In most cases but not all.

Florida, esp the bay area, should be leaders in the solar power movement. But alas we still use small internal explosions to propel us about town. Sad really

We've cut billions from education--is it reasonable to expect that our students will excel enough to overcome their other economic hurdles? Florida is nearly last in the country on education expenditures and also close to the bottom on test scores. We pay the lowest and get what we pay for.

@ Shawn so sad... Doesn't Florida realize our children are our future...

Civilized countries provide healthcare for their citizens. I would like the US to be able to say that we are among them.
Those of us who have employer provided healthcare are about one pink-slip and six months from having our own health crisis. That makes us all slaves to our jobs and very much limits our personal choices.
I'd like my taxes to be spent on us and our children, not the military-industrial complex (the same people who own your television and radio stations.)

Perhaps the American public is a bit upset about being lied to once again by the current administration? A tax cannot be called reformed, it is still a tax

Im neither republican or democrat. I look at the issue, weigh it for what it says, look at what our constitution says, look at its impact on myself, my family, my community and my state and make an educated decision as to how to feel about it.
This "law" or whatever they want to call it is bad for ourselves, our family, our communities, our state and our country. The problems it will cause overall are exponential. Truly read what it says, do the math, look at small business owners, doctors and other areas then look at the constitution. Ask yourself if it is truly right. Then look in the mirror and see of you are one of the illegal immigrants here that the rest of us will pay medical for. If you are one, then you will see this as a good thing. If you aren't one, then you will tell the government NO on this and keep thier hands out of your bank account and personal business.

The GDP in Florida not increasing as much as the rest of the country does seem to be a no brainer. Our principal cash influx is generated by what? Tourism, and the country has been in a what? Recession, so really?