All those people that we will be buying healthcare for... What is the exact number again? I don't want to miss any "0" when I file 2014 taxes!! LOL JK Lefties!! Don't get your underwear in a bunch!!!

NoLeftist, you're confusing two arguments that the Solicitor General made. But I don't find that surprising. I also don't find it surprising that you failed to acknowledge Willard Mitt Romney's senior campaign adviser saying it isn't a tax. And the fact that Willard Mitt Romney called his RomneyCare individual mandate penalty a tax. So take your pick. In the end, tax or not, it's money coming out of the pocket of the small minority of people who can afford to purchase insurance and fail to do so; continuing to expect others to cover their healthcare costs when they fall ill or have an accident. The people complaining most about the individual mandate, tax or not, seem to be those who are always preaching individual responsibility and about paying their own way, but are now complaining about being mandated to practice what they preach.

The chief justice called it a tax, the Obama administration insisted it was a tax in the Supreme Court hearings, and the IRS will be collecting it, but it's not a tax.

Got it.

Like I always say, being a Democrat means never having to say you're sorry!

Fair enough poobah.

smallBIZowner -- I think you're off base on your assessment of how the tax, for not having insurance, will grant a person state sponsored emergency care. I've read of nothing that would imply such a thing. If a person such as yourself were to simply pay the tax as a result of not having any insurance coverage, you would still be left with the bill for an ER visit. Granted, you could always just not pay such a bill. However, this approach is counterproductive to one's personal finances.

On the other hand, there is a potential loop hole per-say. For example, due to the new clause banning preexisting conditions, you could carry minimum insurance until you develop a need for more coverage, say because of developing cancer. This would allow for substantial savings for a while. Also, this would avoid the tax all together.

The whole notion that this new mandate is somehow going to create havoc for so many is just absurd. There is only a small margin of people that will even need to worry about this tax. Yet, I suppose the hysteria surrounding the discussion is creating a desire for people to conjure up ways the new law is going to destroy either their lives, or our country as a whole.

dtb, I forgot to add that the quotes you provided that claimed Roberts statements about "taxes" were part of the majority opinion of the Court is just simply incorrect. The remarks you quoted are from Roberts individual opinion in which no other justice joined him. It is from page 58 of the ruling as released by the Supreme Court and is clearly marked as the opinion of Roberts alone.

You can see that by going to page 58 of the ruling (page 64 of the PDF) on the Supreme Court website, finding the quotes and seeing at the top of the page where it says, "Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J." [ http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11p... ] The opinion of the Court, which precedes Roberts individual opinion is clearly labeled, "Opinion of the Court."

justBnice...are you bragging about being a freeloader?

Sorry for any confusion, dtb. I don't disagree with anything you say in your first paragraph. However, when I said, "In fact, the other four justices in the majority did not call it a tax and stated in their opinion that they would have upheld it under the Commerce Clause as well," the "their opinion" was the opinion of the four justices ruling with the majority opinion (sans Roberts), and not the majority opinion itself (which requires five justices). The opinion I was referring to was written by Ginsburg, concurring in part and dissenting in part, and joined by Sotomayor, Breyer and Kagan. I was not representing the opinion written by Ginsburg was the judgment of the Court. My point was to demonstrate that just one of the justices in the majority opinion of the Court (Roberts) stated this was a tax, and that four of the justices in the majority opinion of the Court (Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer and Kagan) would have also upheld the Act based on the Commerce Clause.

Here's a list of the opinions that were handed down (taken from the syllabus of the ruling itself). ROBERTS, C. J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and III–C, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined; an opinion with respect to Part IV, in which BREYER and KAGAN, JJ., joined; and an opinion with respect to Parts III–A, III–B, and III–D. GINSBURG, J., filed an opinion concurring in part, concurring in the judgment in part,and dissenting in part, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined, and in which BREYER and KAGAN, JJ., joined as to Parts I, II, III, and IV. SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., filed a dissenting opinion. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

Not trying to start anything here poobah, but Roberts wrote the opinion for the majority, which is the opinion of record. There aren't any other opinions for the majority. He who writes the majority opinion writes for the court.

"In the ruling, the court decided the most controversial provision -- an individual mandate requiring people to have health insurance -- is valid as a tax, even though it is impermissible under the Constitution's commerce clause.

"It is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. "Such legislation is within Congress's power to tax."

He later added: "The federal government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. ... The federal government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance.""

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/28/politics/s...

dtb, if the Supreme Court had found the individual mandate requiring citizens to buy healthcare insurance to be unconstitutional they wouldn't have allowed a penalty for citizens not following the mandate. Whether one justice called it a tax is quite irrelevant to the ruling, although it may have some political fallout. In fact, the other four justices in the majority did not call it a tax and stated in their opinion that they would have upheld it under the Commerce Clause as well. So we have just one justice in the majority calling it a tax. The fact remains, the majority found the individual mandate to require healthcare insurance constitutional.

smallBIZ - the loop-hole is for more than just the lower-middle class to use. I plan to do just that in early 2014 - this will save me $14,000 a year. I'll get health insurance every 3rd or 4th year to take care of any accumulated health issues. Then it's back to the free $14,000 a year for a few years.

Actually poobah, the court DID have a problem with that. What they ruled was that while you can't force people to buy health insurance you CAN tax them if they don't have insurance. Congress has the power to levy taxes, which the IRS is charged with collecting. A nuance, yes, but that's how they made it constitutional.

This ruling opens a nice loophole that will be exploited. Lower-middle class families can save much-needed money by dropping their healthcare insurance and simply paying the new tax. Paying this tax implies an entitlement to state-supported medical treatment for emergencies. When needed, the family can get healthcare insurance for a while until it's not needed any longer and return to paying the new tax only.

NoLeftist said, "Having the federal government force people to buy something they don't want is unconstitutional."

That is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's ruling that the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate is constitutional. You're entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. The fact is it's not unconstitutional.

The powers of the federal government are specific and enumerated, while state powers are not. Having the federal government force people to buy something they don't want is unconstitutional. Having the state do it is not. That's why there's been no MA supreme court case on the issue.

Other than that minor detail, you're right on Poobah.

What a maroon.

Ezoner said, "There is one big difference. Mitts plan was a state plana and did not bind the entire country"

Willard Mitt made his plan as large as he could at the time -- the entire state of Massachusetts. To think he's going to change his progressive stripes into conservative stripes is nothing more than wishful thinking. Conservatives have the blinders on full-time to stomach Willard Mitt's long, long history of progressive actions.

Another example of Willard Mitt's actions that you may be interested in reading about; Willard Mitt's company investing in the abortion services industry. "Social conservatives will not like this: Mother Jones’ David Corn reports that Mitt Romney led an effort at Bain Capital to invest in a medical waste disposal company that disposed of aborted fetuses. Bain Capital’s investment in Stericycle became a minor issue earlier in the campaign, but SEC filings obtained by Corn suggest Romney and Bain were misleading about his role in the purchase." [ http://www.salon.com/2012/07/02/romneys_... ]

Poo -- although I so not support a single payer system in ANY form. That was one of the reasons I wanted someone other than Mitt. But in the big picture, I would rather have Mitt than Obama any day and twice on Sunday.

There is one big difference. Mitts plan was a state plana and did not bind the entire country amd did not grow the fed. govmnt significantly as a result. I believe that one size does not fit all. I also do not agree that we will see any cost reduction and in fact will see significant tax increases and a total system take-over -- over time. This is nothing but a money & power grab for a significant portion of the US economy. Dont be blind and think that there is an altruistic better good driving this. If the government didnt see a golden goose here they would have ran like the wind.

Any real issues you'd like to address, Rick_Raff, or just venting? I can understand you being so frustrated at the prospect of voting for Willard Mitt Romney, the pioneering architect of the Affordable Care Act. You can thank your man Willard for the individual mandate concept (along with Newt and the Heritage Foundation) and you can thank your man Willard for developing and implementing the tax penalty for not complying with the individual mandate.

"Our experience also demonstrates that getting every citizen insured doesn't have to break the bank. First, we established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance. USING TAX PENALTIES, AS WE DID, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages "free riders" to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others. This doesn't cost the government a single dollar." - Willard Mitt Romney on his RomneyCare individual mandate penalty which was a TAX as he wrote in this USA Today OpEd on July 30, 2009 [ http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/new... ]

Amazing that republicans support the guy who basically designed the Affordable Care Act from the ground up - taxes for penalties and all.

Vato, it makes my shoulder hurt watching you pat yourself on the back.

vato, do you really believe that diabetes is a habit?

And our legal and medical system protects doctors from lawsuits charging malpractice - it's virtually impossible to win a malpractice suit.

jvilleis86ed, capital letters and insults aren't a defense of your argument.

The Act modified Internal Revenue Code (IRC) §5000A of the IRS code to restrict the measures the IRS may take to collect the penalty created by the Act. Taxpayers are protected from 1) criminal prosecution for failure to pay the penalty and 2) the IRS is prohibited from filing a notice of federal tax lien.

However, there is no restriction on the IRS placing a tax lien on the taxpayers property and rights to property under IRC §6321. And there is no restriction placed on the IRS in using the tax refund offset to collect the penalty owed. If the taxpayer is ever in a position of having a tax refund due them, the penalty will simply be withheld from their tax refund. "Specifically, the filing of notices of liens and levies otherwise authorized for collection of taxes does not apply to the collection of this penalty. In addition, the statute waives criminal penalties for non-compliance with the requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage. However, the authority to offset refunds or credits is not limited by this provision." [ http://ria.thomsonreuters.com/newlaw/new... ]

Additionally, the Act was designed with full knowledge that there would not be 100% compliance and that not everyone could afford to purchase insurance or pay the penalty. Indeed, covering people who have been unable to afford healthcare insurance is one of the key objectives of the Act! Your statement that the only way the Act can work is if everyone paid in is contradictory to the very design of the Act.

Regarding your statement about paying an insane amount more than your fair share for healthcare insurance. That in part, is due to having so many people uninsured, which this Act helps to correct. Hospitals, clinics and doctors absorb some, but surely not all, of the costs of treating uninsured persons. A large percentage of those costs are passed on to paying customers directly through higher prices for services/products and indirectly through increased healthcare insurance premiums. Your observation of current healthcare insurance rates is a defense of one of the Act's key objectives, that being getting more people insured.

vatoloco, there seems to be a contradiction between you saying, "a sound comparison that other countries do not compare to our cultural and socioeconomic population" and you providing a link to an article about healthcare in another country. By providing the link that you did, are you suggesting that you now feel it is valid to compare our healthcare system with those in other countries -- something you have opposed in the past?

I get the example. Assuming this happens in the parking lot of the store, there's insurance there. The driver should be responsible for the medical expenses; if a hit & run, the victim is SOL.

dtb, if it happens on store property, perhaps the store would be partially liable for expenses. And only if the driver is identified and has auto insurance would the customer be able to collect from the driver's auto insurance company.

It's an example of people, just living life and doing everyday things, at risk of events that they can not possibly afford if not for them pooling their risks with others.

In that case, customer gets insurance money from store and driver's insurance company.

Individual Mandate for Dummies (Chapter 2): Uninsured customer leaves store and is hit by car. Healthcare costs, $375,000 paid for by people with insurance. Personal responsibility?

Individual Mandate for Dummies: Customer: No, I don't want to buy that pack of gum. Clerk: Ok, that will be $2.35 in tax.

jvilleis86ed said, "poobah, you're a wealth of NON information. The KEY note is a FEE/TAX can be imposed but not enforced."

I hope there aren't many people relying on you for advice on not carrying healthcare insurance and not paying the penalty. Here's some more "NON-information" for you. The government has two means of enforcement. The first is a tax lien against all property and property rights of the delinquent taxpayer. The Affordable Care Act prohibits the federal government ONLY from FILING a Notice of Federal Tax Lien. It does NOT prevent a tax lien from automatically being attached to the taxpayers property, including home, car, tax refunds, bank accounts, inheritance, etc.

The IRS also has a second enforcement tool: use of the refund offset (intercepting tax refunds). Approximately 3 of every 4 taxpayers get a tax refund every year. The average amount of refunds is around $3,000. That amount is more than adequate to cover the average penalty amount and the amount of the tax lien will be deducted from tax refunds.

The choice to not file a notice of a federal lien against taxpayers who owe a healthcare penalty was a good decision. We don't want our healthcare law to end up taking a person's home or car because they didn't buy healthcare insurance. That's counter-productive. The refund offset, along with most taxpayers willingness to follow the law, will yield a high level of compliance. Probably as high as compliance with current taxation laws. Those taxpayers who choose not to buy healthcare and choose not to pay the penalty, and have no tax refunds to offset, will be living with a federal tax lien attached to their property and are taking advantage of the vast majority of Americans who are following the law.

Treason is probably not appropriate, but contempt of court would fit for our governor and his criminal defense fund.

"More instances of...lies, misinformation, hyperbole, and outright hypocrisy."

Take it from the expert who knows all about those things.

Tommy Thompson supports the individual mandate. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...

Part II of II Continued: Healthcare CEO Lavish Pay...

And then there’s a provision so outsize it’s drawn the attention of corporate-governance watchdogs like GMI, the research group that put Hammergren in the top spot of its latest survey of CEO salaries. If Hammergren loses his job due to a change in ownership, he receives an immediate $469 million payout, GMI found—giving him perverse incentive to see it happen. In other words, despite all the money that McKesson gives him each every year, Hammergren stands to make even more if he can find a way to sell the company to someone else. Whether or not he's earning his keep is up to the shareholder to ponder, but Hammergren is also the Chairman of the Board. He may leave the room when they vote on executive pay, but he decides who was in the room — a group of guys who are pretty well paid themselves. And if this little exercise in class warfare doesn't already fire you up, remember that McKesson also gives Hammergren $17,000 a year to pay for financial planning services. Keeping track of all that money is an expensive undertaking.

Part I of II: Health Care CEO's Lavish Pay Package Shows How the 1% Get Paid by D. Bennett - The Atlantic Wire – Jan 3, 2012
Healthcare CEOS now make more than bankers: John Hammergren, the CEO of health-care giant McKesson Corp., made $46 million last year thanks to one of the most generous executive pay packages in his, or any other business. Gary Rivlin of The Daily Beast has a breakdown of some of the outrageous provisions that contribute to Hammergren's outrageous wealth including some figures that at least one compensation consultant calls "excessive." When someone whose job is to craft multi-million dollar pay packages for corporate CEOs thinks you're overpaid, you're probably overpaid. Hammergren is not the richest or even the highest-paid CEO in the world, but the structure of his compensation is raising eyebrows even in the already outsized world of the 1%. He took over McKesson, a firm that specializes in supplying presrciption drugs to pharmacies, in 1999 after a fraud scandal took out of many of the company's top executives. Since that time he's been paid nearly $500 million as the CEO and Chairman of the Board.
His salary is a modest $1.66 million a year, but he also gets annual cash bonuses of between $10 million and $13 million. His perks are many and lavish, including a company car and chauffeur, unlimited personal use of the firm's corporate jet, and a generous pension plan not available to rank-and-file employees. (Their pension program was canceled in 1997.) Last year, McKesson contributed $13 million to Hammergren's retirement fund, which if he walked away tomorrow, would be worth $125 million.Then there's the stock grants and options, a standard form of compensation at most corporations, but one that McKesson has used with reckless abandon. Hammergren owns $129 million in McKesson stock, plus another 1 million in options that have yet to vest. (In 2011, he received $12 million in stock and another $7 million worth of options in his pay.) Oh, but don't worry. According to Rivlin, the company paid him $483,000 last year to make up for the dividends Hammergren didn't earn because he doesn't own the stock yet.

"...announced that he is not going to comply with federal law. That is criminal, he ought to be arrested and charged with treason in federal court."
-
More instances of left wing lies, misinformation, hyperbole, and outright hypocrisy. First he didn't say he wasn't going to comply with the law; I know facts are a tough thing for the fringe. I did a brief browse through your previous posts and I couldn't find anything about Obama and Holder not following federal laws. So I am wondering do you think only some need to follow federal laws.

germancaveguy, Sections 1302 and 2711 of the Act may answer some of your questions about minimum health benefits. A document prepared by Crowell Moring offers the most concise summary of Sections 1302 and 2711 that I have found and I think you'll find the document useful. [ http://www.appwp.org/documents/hcr_ehb_s... ]

While Section 1302 defines basic essential requirements, some of your questions will probably remain unanswered until the Secretary of HHS enumerates precisely the covered services/products and determines which plans (offered via the exchanges and employers) meet the requirements of Sections 1302 and 2711.

The more this law keeps being discussed, the more the rhetoric distracts from things that could be done to improve the landscape. One prime example is the individual mandate. Here is a concept that most people could agree on if it wasn't consistently used as a political hockey puck.

For insurers to be unable to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions, some form of safeguard must be in place to keep people from waiting until they absolutely need insurance to purchase it. Since we are all human, it is virtually just a matter of time until each of us needs medical care. And because there are people that would take advantage of the fact that they can't be denied coverage, an individual mandate is a good way of addressing the issue.

One of the real issues that needs to be addressed is not the individual mandate, but what satisfies minimum coverage to prevent a person from incurring a penalty. Does having catastrophic coverage and a health savings account qualify? Can a person be self-insured?

Questions like these need to be asked and addressed. Personally, I haven't found concise answers to either of the previous questions. Yet, if the answer is 'no' to each of them, Congress should work to making those two approaches qualify. Instead, one side of the isle is parading the law as a victory. The other is complaining of it as a failure.

It is quite tragic that we live in a day and age where the politics of Congress has become more about fundraising than actually making the laws work in favor of the constituents.

The message from the Republican party has been quite clear for sometime. The idea that the only way forward is to go back to square one, is just an easy way to sell their brand. Yet, Republicans have good ideas from time to time. Why won't they actually push forward any of these ideas?

I find it hard to believe that there wouldn't be room for political gain if they were to push forward the issue that a person having catastrophic coverage and a HSA should be enough to meet minimum coverage. If the Democrats rallied against such a thing, the Republicans could capitalize on that issue. One by one, revisions to the law could be made until a more satisfactory resolution toward insurance existed.

Instead, we the people are provided with hyper-partisan bickering that is simply there to provide justification for campaign contributions. The rhetoric is almost always portraying an eventual doomsday with the politicians claiming they will heroically fix everything once elected. Yet, because their is more to gain from the sky falling than there is to actually doing anything, mere citizens are stuck watching the show.

Poobah and Pharm, thanks for the link. I guess I was wrong. I swear the original text said they werent forced to. Maybe they amended it before the vote?

Romney's maids had maids

When Romney releases his tax returns for the past 10 years it will knock him into first loser on election day. He has not been, nor ever cared about, nor has a clue about what being middle class is. While most of us pay our fair share, he does not. As he himself stated, just because it is legal does not make it good policy..the same holds true with tax shelters and hiding money.

'You are destroying the future of this country for our children adn grandchildren.'

Chicken little

You're welcome, kaysbrew.

thanks poobah. I saw 2.1 million and forgot my decimal. 4.6 million even better!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

New poll, the majority still hate this biggest tax in history. If you thought 2010 was big for the GOP. Hold on to your hats.

Poo -- I did and stated that but as usual you want to twist a discussion around. All lefties should be properly exported. I had enough of their bull -- they -- and you are destroying this country. You are destroying the future of this country for our children adn grandchildren.

kaysbrew said, "Romney raised 21 million dollars just yesterday after ruling."

$21 million just yesterday after the ruling, kaysbrew? You'd better call in to get your talking points straight. "Mitt Romney's organization said Friday morning it had raised $4.6 million online, and Obama's operation, while not revealing specific numbers, said they had surpassed Team Romney's announced total. The Romney fund-raising figure included money from more than 47,000 contributions in the first 24 hours, the candidate's spokeswoman Andrea Saul said. [ http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/201... ]

Ezoner; Poobah has openly advocated a single payer system. Don't need code words for that.

Ezoner, you originally said, "you want to model the american economy and systems after quasi-socialism and a bankrupt european economic model not to mention healthcare availability and government regulated and controlled access." Now you've scaled that back to, "its evident that you support socialized medicine and state that you want -- by code words -- whats best for all." I'm glad you ratcheted things down a few notches, but now you think I'm speaking in "code words" and apparently think you have deciphered what my "code words" mean.

I do appreciate your concern for my wants, but you should probably focus on what you want.

Poo -- no hypocracy -- its evident that you support socialized medicine and state that you want -- by code words -- whats best for all. Do you deny you want socialized , national heathcare??

I was simply pointing out the points of agreement -- certainly we can do better, the point of contention if how... There are many countries where you purchase your own individual policy. In those countries you are not required to purchase that product. Even these countries in some cases have socialism as an economic foundation....

I did see that Vato. It will only be positive results. Marijuana consumption will certainly not increase, but the number of American adults arrested and the costs occurring from those arrests will certainly decrease. Wasteful spending and individual liberty seems to be at the core of the anti-Obamacare argument which is fabulous because it's what my team has been preaching FOR YEARS.

LOL speaking the truth of the lies of others gets a comment deleted?

How sad.

A poster is allowed to make an unsupported accusation, when asked to support it refuses, I identify and call the troll out for it and my comment is deleted. The editors need to re-clarify what they think is libel, since clearly it is being ignored.

RetiredAirForce, you said my statement that, "you have never complained about the government healthcare program available to you being paid for with taxes on Americans" is a lie. You can prove that by showing us just ONE such comment you made amongst your nearly 10,000 comments. Instead of name calling, just cite ONE such comment you have made.

Dem Rep says "now let's unionize Doctors" how did that work for our public schools? They never learn do they? Rejected twice in Wisconsin and schlacked in 2010 and needed a Supreme Justice to rewrite the law for them from mandate to tax to keep it.
Can't wait for November.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012...
21 new taxes!
Still a BFD(B for Bad)

Romney raised 21 million dollars just yesterday after ruling. Too Cool!

"These findings indicate that, from the perspectives of both physicians and patients, the U.S. health care system could do much better in achieving value for the nation's substantial investment in health." [ http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/... ]

Healthcare expenditures per capita by country: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cou... ]

I wonder why we never see the number of complaints regarding wasteful spending and gov't intrusion when they arrest responsible citizens for merely possessing a plant?? Hypocrites.

Ezoner, do you not see the hypocrisy in you telling me what I want?

Poo and others -- you want to model the american economy and systems after quasi-socialism and a bankrupt european economic model not to mention healthcare availability and government regulated and controlled access.

The arguement is NOT about changes in healthcare -- the arguement is about personal responsibility and individual independence. The very independence that the fathers of our nation fought for. I do not want the government involved, I do not trust nor want the government to spend my money, I feel I am better prepared to spend my own money wisely. So to some extent I agree -- I need to be looking out for my best interest. My best interest is taking personal responsibility and in turn many people that are in the same position and I and my family. You will never be able to consider all the combinations and permutations to encompass all without atremendous burden on some and exclusion or limitations on many. Socialism does not and will never work.

This whole thing could have been avoided by just giving everyone the same health care, premiums and deductables as our members of Congress. If it's good enough for them then it's good enough for all of us. Take the costs off the back of business and see the economy grow.

donnaw, have you seen the per capita comparisons of what American's pay for healthcare vs. citizens of other developed countries with better quality healthcare systems? If we did NOTHING but matched their per capita costs we could cover EVERY citizen and save money in the process. But forbid helping out those who can not afford healthcare insurance! Tea party conservatives would rather go broke not helping others than to save money helping others.

The contempt I have is for hypocritical and egotistical perspectives on a national healthcare system, not for veterans. Third_Eye, if you want to push this, I'll take you back a year and show you what contempt for veterans really looks like. But you may want to discuss that with RetiredAirForce before doing so. Tea party conservatives are all about me, me, me and as long as it works for them it's fine. But forbid if it possibly works for someone else.

RetiredAirForce said my statement that, "you have never complained about the government healthcare program available to you being paid for with taxes on Americans" is a lie. Well, show us just one such comment amongst your nearly 10,000 comments.

Tax increases and massive government spending has worked so well for Europe, what is there to worry about ?

The contempt the left holds for the military veterans is apparent in remarks such as Poobah@5:22am.
The refrain is since a veteran is a conservative he/she should give up their military benefits since they oppose "entitlements" from the government.
There is a HUGE difference.
At some point in time the military veteran signed a contract. He/she pledged to go where and when the military told them to go. As part of the contract they pledged to give their life if necessary to protect our country, in Viet Nam the government 'cashed in' over 58,000 of those contracts.
The contract obligated the government to make certain payments, such as for disabilities and time in service.
Veterans EARNED the 'benefits' they receive. Many receiving the entitlements conservatives oppose have earned nothing.

poobah
Jun 28, 2012 at 3:30 p.m.
I love how you keep bringing up the wrong side of history and slavery. As if we all don't know the Democrats were apart of that divide as well in keeping the slaves and starting the KKK.
As with Wisconsin your small majority on this issue doesn't mean it's right. I firmly believe Roberts didn't want the liberals to degrade and belittle the Supreme Court which he has already tried to do and take it to the people in November.

As far as the 401K issue. Google Obama wants your 401k and you will get a multiple amount of sources. It will be in the next term if he is reelected. Thank GOD that will not happen.

Justice Roberts has stated this law unconstitutional under the commerce clause but has allowed it to stand under the federal tax laws. Hasn’t Pres. Obama promised us no tax for the middle and lower class? If it wasn’t a tax, why did he hire thousands of new IRS agents before the ruling?

He lied to us on this law which will lead to rationing and poor quality care and government deciding my future care. If you thought arguing with the IRS over your tax refund was impossible, try dealing with them over healthcare.

What about the economy? Employers will not hire over 50 employers and those with 55 or 60 will lay off to get under Obama’s 50 employees or less statue. 1,000,000 smaller businesses across the states adds up to a lot of additional unemployed because of Obamacouldcareless.

It leads us to believe Justice Roberts punted out of the court system and put back into the hands of the American people. By the looks of the money Romney raised yesterday, it will probably work. The majority of Americans hate this intrusion and now that it has been declared a tax, that number may grow.

poo...so adding new benefits and 45,000,000 more people to the cost of health care isn't going to increase costs? What planet are you living on? In addition the IRS is going to hire over 4000 new employees and add over $300 million in expenses to regulate this law and this money is coming from where? And how do you think poor people will pay for this new benefit? That's right the remaining tax payers will pay for it. You and me.

Another lie by the local left fringe troll "you have never complained about the government healthcare program available to you".

RetiredAirForce, you have never complained about the government healthcare program available to you being paid for with taxes on Americans, yet you now complain about taxes when it comes to healthcare for others. Or your taxpayer funded, state income tax-free, government pension.

Just more examples of the egotistical, and hypocritical, perspectives of tea party conservatives on a national healthcare program.

What did the court’s ruling show? The much proclaimed expansion of the commerce clause by the administration and congress was slapped down. Hopefully future administrations and members of congress respect the limited authority granted to the federal government by the constitution. Additionally the ruling showed what many proclaimed when this law first passed, this is nothing but a new tax. The ruling clearly stated the only way for this law to "punish" those who don't want insurance is to lay a tax on their income.

We should all stand and thank the supporters of this measure that think taxing American's, just for breathing, is a good idea.

Lastly, something shown in this state for just one example, laws can always be changed; including the right to unionize and amounts to tax.

This is the section of the ACA that pharm is talking about that requires members of Congress to buy from the exchanges. You can read it within the entire text of the Act at this location: [ http://www.opencongress.org/senate_healt... ]

d) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE.

(i) REQUIREMENT. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are

(I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or

(II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).

(ii) DEFINITIONS. In this section:

(I) MEMBER OF CONGRESS. The term Member of Congress means any member of the House of Representatives or the Senate.

(II) CONGRESSIONAL STAFF. The term congressional staff means all full-time and part-time employees employed by the official office of a Member of Congress, whether in Washington, DC or outside of Washington, DC.

It is in the bill, or check politifact.com, factcheck.org, or snopes.com. All 4 of those sites have had that information since the law passed.

Pharm if you could link that information for me that would be awesome. I tried reading most of the bill and now I see why Pelosi wanted to pass it without reading it lol. And dtb, thanks for the clarification. Either way though, its a tax for not doing what the govt wants you to do.

Congress has to buy insurance from the exchanges when they are established. They are not exempt.

kersty, the people never had any power - it's always been the politicians, only now they're owned by lobbyists and corporations.

Point of clarification: the mandate is not a tax. The penalty for not buying insurance is the tax.

Oh, one large point I forgot. If this law is so great and the insurance is so good, WHY did the lawmakers exempt themselves from the law? Dont they work for us? Guess they hold themselves to different standards when it comes to the "common folk". They work for us supposedly so they should have to reap the benefits from what they pass as legislation. Get rid of their cushy life-long plans once they are done with their terms. The people in this country have truly lost the power to the politicians.

First, to the people who say the government requiring health insurance is the same as requiring auto/home insurance, your wrong. You have a CHOICE to buy a car or own a home. The government doesnt make you provide home insurance, the bank does. As far as a car, yeah, to drive on the public roadways they have that right to regulate certain aspects of that. Now to health insurance...the government has taken away the CHOICE of buying a product. The requirement now cited by the government is that you are alive. If you dont buy into it, they fine you...oops I mean TAX you. What happened to Liberty in this country? You know Liberty, that thing that allowed you to chose to do what you wanted? The thing that the Democratic party harps about and says the other side wants to take away? Well, you took away many peoples liberty today and replaced it with government regulation. Did health care need reform? Yes. Did the government need to be the main player in it...remember the government doesnt have to many fiscally successful programs under its belt. Sorry, I support liberty and will choose to not support this law. The government will continue to try and expand its power over its people no matter what party is in charge. While the sheeple think its for every Americans well being, the government is truly trying to make it so we the people cant survuve without their "help".

"The individual mandate has been struck down, and people can not be forced to purchase insurance."

um, have you been watching Fox "news" again?

@justdontgetit- vataloco and others like him don't care one whit about giving anyone a hand up. I admire you helping your daughter to move forward and am happy when a program that I support aids you and her. Ignore his/her ridiculus comments. You are right.

Part of Justice Roberts ruling does have some positives....

States can decide whether or not to opt out of the Medicaid expansion. If the state refuses federal money for the expansion, the federal government can NOT penalize the state by pulling other federal funding. Also, the federal government can not tell them how to run their Medicaid program if the state has not accepted the federal money.

The individual mandate has been struck down, and people can not be forced to purchase insurance.

ddr: Senator Johnson has the fed health plan, and he wants to deny a minimal plan for everyone else.

vatoloco you may not understand the demands of med school and I choose for her not to work but concentrate on her studies so she can graduate with honors and have the job of her choice. I work three jobs and her mother works two so that we can put her through school. Don't assume it is her choice not work, it is ours. We all want bigger things for our children and this bill helps her chances by not having to work for fear of not having insurance.

Oh yeah, for you tea partiers. The penalty for not having health insurance seems to be you get your tax return grabbed by the IRS. What? You can't figure out the withholding form?

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/06/...
How did this jerk get elected anyway? We are his employers so deny him healthcare.

vato - he ditched the war on poverty pretty darn fast so he could expand the war in Vietnam.

"The quality of healthcare will go down, and the cost will go up...that is a fact."

wislady: making up facts since August 2010.

Wow. So many experts on the constitution. Ummm...let me point out Roberts and the court said it was ok. RINO anyone?

Can someone tell me how forcing people to buy insurance provides health care for all?

And now, for the biggest hypocrisy of all time:

Romney created Affordable HC with the individual mandate in Mass but say it is unconstitutional and should be repealed for the US!! That is rich.

Why does he just not take credit for a good idea and say 'Way to go Pres."?

The lame and lazy are just loving this prezident. Keep on poppin' out the kids, your Prez will make sure you're covered so you don't have to worry about working a day in your life, and he will certainly make sure you never have to pay to insure yourself or your offspring. Make these people get off of their butts and start contributing to the system they have sucked dry. He will just keep taking money from the working folks paychecks to support you deadbeats.

I really hope voters in this country have learned a lesson and wont make this same mistake twice. Another four years of this loser would be twice as devastating.

wislady: Romney doesn't need the money. Super Pacs will be using multiple millions to lie about the President to win.

Well said poohbah. Walker announcing he won't implement is just more Republican Party's interests over Wisconsin's. Months will go by before people will be effectively helped, due to Scott Walker's desire for future success... Arrogance of power over the people.

wislady said, "The quality of healthcare will go down, and the cost will go up...that is a fact."

Another egotistical tea party conservative perspective of a national healthcare system. Are you speaking about the quality and cost of YOUR healthcare or about the quality and cost of the healthcare of ALL Americans, including the tens of millions of Americans who currently have none?

usaret, I'd like to take your questions, one by one.

"Do you really believe your health care will improve?" That's a very egotistical perspective of national healthcare policy. We're talking about a nationwide healthcare system. We're talking about quality of healthcare for every American, not only myself or yourself, tens of millions who do not now have healthcare insurance. Will MY healthcare improve? Maybe, maybe not. Will the healthcare of the nation improve? Without a doubt. Tea party conservatives need to quit being so concerned with me, me, me and more concerned with the nation as a whole.

"Do you really believe it won't cost you more in the long run?" Yes, I believe that. Particularly as we move to the next logical step, offer a public option and then convert our system to single payer and eliminate private healthcare insurance companies from the equation. Our per capita healthcare costs will start to fall in line with other developed nations.

"Do you really believe you will have a choice on your health care?" Yes, I do. However, if I have to give up some choice, which I'm not conceding ACA will require, so that every American can have the same access to healthcare that I do, then so be it. But I do not believe I will have to give up choice. In fact, just the opposite. People will eventually have much more choice by being able to move from state to state and job to job without worrying about being denied insurance due to preexisting conditions.

"Where are all the extra medical personnel coming from to take care of the increased number of people?" Well, I'm glad that you acknowledge the ACA is going to increase the number of people who can access healthcare services on an equal foooting. I thought job growth was a good thing. Right? Especially in a high-income industry like healthcare services. If we're unable to ramp up quickly enough organically, we can attract new doctors and medical professionals from other countries as we ramp up our medical universities. There will be a curve to ramp up medical professionals, but ANY new patients we cover is an improvement over them not having the same access that you or I may have today.

Good news....Romney campaign raised $3 Million in less than 3 hours, following the ruling.

Everyone is NOT going to have healthcare, that is a lie.

The quality of healthcare will go down, and the cost will go up...that is a fact.

Welcome Slaves to the Roach Motel at the End of the Universe!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Cms18ufX...

tea party people: hush and eat your broccoli. It's good for you ;)

You may be happy now but wait until you find out the what this will cost. Do you really believe your health care will improve? Do you really believe it won't cost you more in the long run? Do you really believe you will have a choice on your health care? Where are all the extra medical personnel coming from to take care of the increased number of people?

According to OECD (2009) data, Americans spend $7,960 per capita on healthcare. The French spend $3,978 per capita on healthcare. According to the WHO (2000) healthcare rankings, the American healthcare system is ranked 37th in the world. The French healthcare system is ranked 1st.

Yet, as we see by the misinformed comments, people who have bought the misinformation of big insurance and big pharma (generally the same people who bought into trickle-down) are opposed to reforms. Without reforms, our healthcare costs will continue to spiral out of control, the quality of our care continue to decline and the number of persons uncovered by healthcare continue to grow.

Ezoner:"This will strengthen Mitts base and will further push people to vote for Mitt so that the law is repealed. I will not be forced to purchase a product I do not want and will not pay a fee or penalty."

Do you own vehicles and a house? Then you have to pay for insurance. So it's ok to be forced to pay for these insurances but not medical insurance?

I am so happy! Now I can pay way more money out of my paycheck every week for less coverage. I want to thank the Democrats for ripping off a factory worker with a wife and two kids. Don't try to argue that you represent the working class, because thats me, & I'm getting robbed by control freaks who can't do math.

poopah: I am not opposed to reforms. They are long overdue. I think the Supreme Court made the only decision they could because this is effectively a Tax and the government has the right to tax us. I do not think the Health Care Act the right reform. Just like I don't think a bill of that magnitude should have been passed with no Republican support, nor do I believe ACT 10 should have been passed with no Democratic support, nor do I believe Doyle's budget should have been passed with no Republican support. What ever happened to the Simpson/Boyles budget plan on the federal level? Reform to me is politicians acting like true citizens and working together to compromise for the good of our country. I no longer see this in Wisconsin or in the Nation and it frankly makes me sick at heart.

Maynard, sorry to hear of your shoulder problems. It amazes me that you coud be so familiar with our broken healthcare system but still apparently opposed to reforms.

BTW ... we make a couple hundred thousand less than the 250K per year. You know, the 250K that any family making under which would not have to pay a dime more under the Health Care Act for health care per both candidate and President Obama. He was right .... it will be tons more than a dime.

factsplease: I did check the link. Said no help for me and my wife. I think we are going to fall into the group of middle America that is going to be paying for those subsidies you mentioned. Free Health Care is not FREE. Someone has to pay. I have employer provided insurance (if you can call it that). Last office visit for a steroid shot to shoulder that I could not calm down through physical therapy went like this ($159 to talk to doctor, $304 for her to stick needle in my shoulder, $34 for stuff in the needle, $311 for xrays prior to shot to make sure no cracks in bones which steroid would prevent healing of) Insurance (towards which I pay a monthly premium out of my pension check) covered 90% of xrays since I had met several hundered dollar annual deductible. Rest I am stuck with. Previous "pain management doctor" my therapist sent me to for a "consultation" (no tests, no xrays, no meds ... $540 charge after the insurance adjusted it to "reasonable rate" ... I am stuck with the entire $540). Steroid shot helped quite a bit and probably could stand to have a 2nd one but not because can not afford to. So I am having enough issues paying for my own healthcare without paying towards the subsidies.

Nothing is more corrupt than "healthcare delivery" in this country, now everyone has to "buy into" it.

Oops, sorry, that's 16 Trillion dollars...with a capital T.

We've spent $16,000,000,000,000 on welfare.

vatoloco, thank you for just proving my statement that, "I know that isn't important, in fact sacrilegious for tea party conservatives."

You forgot a few things, vatoloco. One of the more important ones being that many millions of Americans who did not have healthcare insurance now do, and will, because of the Affordable Care Act.

I know that isn't important, in fact sacrilegious for tea party conservatives, but it's very important to our country as we move to join other developed nations in the quality, cost and coverage of our healthcare system.

Does anybody wanna bet how long it takes Eyster to finish licking his fresh wounds, come out from his sulking, and have a huge blog in all caps saying this decision is as groundbreaking as the emancipation proclamation? He's been MIA since posting daily diatribes just prior to the failed recall.

Bigmike, who do you think will pay for the cost of full implementation of the bill? Oh it most certainly will have an effect on you.

Poobah@3:30pm You 'did good' in the first 2 paragraphs.
Then you introduced the strawmen.

Wait till November what goes around comes around.

kaysbrew said, "Romney's popularity just increased. Do you think that was Roberts plan?"

No, I don't think that was Robert's plan. I think as with slavery, women's right to vote, inter-racial marriage and other issues, a few brave and wise leaders who understand both the historical importance and the Constitutional issues of the decisions before them step forward when they are most needed. Chief Justice John Roberts has just written his legacy as one of those leaders.

kaysbrew said, "68% of Americans want Obamanocare repealed."

You're simply on the wrong side of history, kaysbrew. There was a time in this country when many Americans also wanted to be able to own slaves. Of course, many of our founding fathers and early presidents were slave owners. They also were on the wrong side of history.

"Of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 49% owned slaves." [ http://www.quora.com/How-many-of-America... ]

"Of the first five presidents, four owned slaves. All four of these owned slaves while they were president.

Of the next five presidents (#6-10), four owned slaves. Only two of them owned slaves while they were president.

Of the next five presidents (#11-15), two owned slaves. Both of these two owned slaves while they were president.

Of the next three presidents (#16-18) two owned slaves. neither of them owned slaves while serving as president.

The last president to own slaves while in office was the twelfth president, Zachary Taylor (1849-1850).

The last president to own slaves at all was the eighteenth president, Ulysses S. Grant (1869-1877).

So twelve of our presidents owned slaves and eight of them owned slaves while serving as president." [ http://home.nas.com/lopresti/ps.htm ]

""Supreme Court Screws Nation...."" YES, by making Citizens United" a law.

I'd hate to be a democrat this November. Payback is coming.

We lost this battle but we will win the war in November for repealing the massive tax bill now known as Obamagetton.

Raystone that is to guarantee that the meny is there at retirement not for corporations to show that money as part of their earnings and then using that money how they please even to lose it. Enron

Here ya go Panamared. Confiscation of 401k was discussed even before Pres Obama took office. You probably know crazy stuff happens in D.C. every day.
http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusive...

"For those of us who actually work and provide for ourselves, be prepared to kiss your sweet 401K's goodbye."
-
"That is no rumor. Obama's next dictorial move is to confiscate the 401K's as Government domain."
-
Sure kay & upchuck. I suppose next we'll hear Obama has been secretly meeting with Putin to learn his strategy of becoming President for life. The rightwing nutjobs are out in force. Seriously, where does this ridiculous information come from, a comic book?

I'm conservative on most issues but I'm in favor of this reform. I refuse to blindly follow a party, any party. Is it perfect? no, but when we look out for the welfare of the weakest of the weak we are a stronger nation.

I'm conservative on most issues but I'm in favor of this reform. I refuse to blindly follow a party, any party. Is it perfect? no, but when we look out for the welfare of the weakest of the weak we are a stronger nation.

I am sorry I have one more question. Has anyone read all 1990 pages of this bill? If not how can anyone on here comment what is going to happen? Oops two questions.

Calm down kay. The IRS won't be coming after you; they can't prosecute or even force you to pay the fine. The most they can do is keep your tax refund. So just adjust your withholding so you don't get a refund.

More like Looney Tunes.

Kaysbrew your 401K information would your source be Fox News?

A lot of people say they don't like the bill, but like the provisions in it.

“With regards to the individual mandate, the individual responsibility program that I proposed, I was very pleased that the compromise between the two houses includes the personal responsibility mandate. That is essential for bringing the health care costs down for everyone and getting everyone the health insurance they need.”

-Mitt Romney, 2006

I ask again what is the Republican problem with the 20 year old republican idea of an individual mandate? They pushed the idea up until 2009 then in 2010 called it unconstitutional. donnaw and Walker told a congressional hearing that stripping collective bargaining had no impact on balancing the budget but yet told us it did. A Scott Walker lie?

truth: My post was in response to your 11:58AM post - just saying your comparison of health care insurance being mandatory for all to car insurance not being mandatory for all isn't really a valid comparison.

Feduptaxpayer
Jun 28, 2012 at 9:56 a.m.
For those of us who actually work and provide for ourselves, be prepared to kiss your sweet 401K's goodbye.

That is no rumor. Obama's next dictorial move is to confiscate the 401K's as Government domain.

And of course evidence of another Obama lie. He swore that it wasn't a tax, and we know now that's how it was presented to the Supreme Court. More transparency from this administration. Can't wait for November.

68% of Americans want Obamanocare repealed. The mandate is unconstitutional but can go forward as the biggest tax on lower and middle income Americans or the IRS will be banging on your door.
Romney's popularity just increased. Do you think that was Roberts plan? Put it in the hands of the people as to which America we want.
Forced to buy cabbage or get a visit from the IRS? I choose neither. Full Repeal!

This will strengthen Mitts base and will further push people to vote for Mitt so that the law is repealed. I will not be forced to purchase a product I do not want and will not pay a fee or penalty.

The Affordable HC Act is a great first step to get HC's huge costs under wraps in the next decade. Covering 30-40mill more folks, young to 26, no pre-existing, no life max, lowering rates, huge technology boom in industry are all big advantages.

It is not a good plan, but it passed review by the court as being legal. All that is left to do is; fix it, repeal it or live with it as is. Hopefully, some parts can be cut and others fixed so it becomes a better plan for all involved.

dg468,

what??...LOL

Thanks to our "governor" Wisconsin is already behind the 8-ball as we haven't begun to think about the required insurance exchanges while other states are well on thier way to implementing them.

"Wisconsin will not take any action to implement ObamaCare."

And Walker defiantly refuses to follow the law - he's gonna get put in jail for conduct like that.

Breaking News,
Mitt Romney, "I will repeal Romneycare, I mean, Obamacare!"

Those that drive cars have to have car insurance. Everyone has a body and as far as I know, no one is sharing a body.

Many people don't have a car so they don't have to have car insurance.Many also "share" cars..Again, they don't have to buy the insurance.

Can any of you Republicans explain to me why you are so upset over a Republican born idea that is nearly 20 years old?

Key Quote: "Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness, (Chief Justice John) Roberts said."
Roberts clearly ruled on the constitutionality, as he should, but in his quote is a warning about wisdom.
.
"Mitt Romney is the intellectual godfather of Obamacare, said Democratic consultant Jim Manley."
Prepare for this to be the drumbeat of President Obama's campaign.
The poor economy has already been consigned to the previous administration. (ie; It's Bush's fault)

"A big step forward in American healthcare reform, supported by both conservative and liberal justices. Our leaders can now start to focus on the next logical stage -- a public option and then on to a full single payer system."

You're right poohbah. This isn't the end of the road but a first step. Really, to have an individual mandate with out reforming the insurance industry seems kind of dumb. But they will never allow any reform or regulation and the idustry is too powerful to have that occur. Which is why we need to take the profit motive out of health care and a single payer system seems the best way to do that.

Actually Ecartman, the free first class health insurance will probably be better than what a lot of people currently have-those that already have ins. So if your a hardworking taxpayer, you can pay for your ins, and for the freeloaders...which might be cheaper for them out of pocket and involve better coverage. Nov cant come fast enough.

I am required to have car insurance. Should I be upset about that too?

Time to quit your job and go on the "dole" now I guess....The only way to disentangle from this.

"land of the free" but you're required to buy into corruption.

Now EVERYONE is required to buy into a massively corrupt "healthcare system".
.
Great feeling, eh?

How so?

The only people's "situation" is going to change is free first class health insurance for the food stamp nation. If you have a job, you will be paying for yours and their health insurance. Aint it great?!

It will.

I used the wislady link as well. Isn't going to change my situation at all. Interesting.

Oh thank you Dear Leader. Your intelect and great wisdom shine like the sun. Me and my fellow comrades are only too happy to offer our labor as a sacrifice to those who choose not. OOOHHHBAAAMAA...OOOHHBAAAMA...

Not nearly enough. The American people can remedy this entire situation in November.

Maynard, if they can't afford it, there will be subsidies. Use the calculator that is on wislady's link and see what it would cost. Used it for my situation and it will save me quite a bit!

"The idea for a healthcare plan was not mine alone. The Heritage Foundation - a great conservative think tank - helped on that. I’m told Newt Gingrich, one of the very first people who came up with the idea of an individual mandate, did that years and years ago." -Willard Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachussetts, who ran to the left of Ted Kennedy, remarking on his progressive views and the RomneyCare healthcare individual mandate.

Almost forgot! I'd be remiss if I didn't thank The Heritage Foundation, Newt Gingrich and Willard Mitt Romney for pioneering individual mandates in healthcare reform.

Wislady,
better call your buddy,
Mike Vanderboegh
for instructions on what to do next.

I have 2 children and 3 stepchildren. None of them could afford health care insurance on their present income if some was not provided by their employers. If they change jobs or their employers decide to remove insurance coverage ... all will be subject to fines at the end of 2014. Will be interesting to see what the American public perception of the ACT is in 2014 when the fines, penalties take effect along with the added taxpayer cost of the salaries of the additional IRS agents hired to enforce them. Time will tell. Since the Democrats passed on getting a public option in order to pass the bill on a party line vote, I think there is going to still be lots to sort out and fix. Some provisions have already been halted once they found out the costs they would have. I understand the ruling found it was a violation of the commerce clause but that it was allowed as an additional tax. Hard to say how that additional tax will resound with middle America in 2014. Time will tell.

A big step forward in American healthcare reform, supported by both conservative and liberal justices. Our leaders can now start to focus on the next logical stage -- a public option and then on to a full single payer system.

Wislady, How much has Obama raised off the decision?

The Impact

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/spe...

How will we pay for our big oil subsidies now? Dang it Supreme Court.

The good news............

The Romney campaign raised more than $100,000 dollars since the SC decision in the last hour.

Romney supported the idea of an individual mandate.

"Maybe potus should thank GWBush now."

Kills me to say it, but you're right on that point wislady. GWB had run this country into the ground so deep, it made it very easy for Obama to get elected. Poor old McCain never had a chance (especially once he chose that crackpot for VP).

@fedup- You actually work? You post at all times during the day and night or are you using company time to post?

Land of the free
MY ASS!

Maybe potus should thank GWBush now.

Because making sure that everybody has basic health care is going to ruin this country. Yeah, that's the biggest problem we have that's going to ruin us.

Between the people who already have insurance and those who will soon be covered by medicare/medicaid, that covers 94% of us.

It appears that the stock market didn't like the ruling either.

ObamaCare now becomes the Obama Tax Law.

So nobody, my 24 year old daughter who is in medical school and being able to be on my insurance until 26 is poor and worthless?

As has been previously pointed out, Walker survived the recall and the liberals need to deal with it. Well now it's the conservatives turn to deal with it.

Ah yes. Keep crying, conservative commenters. Your tears sustain me.

is it me, or did the supreme court just say the most unconstitutional part of the whole thing is constitutional? justice roberts even said it can be "construed" as a tax which is w/in congress' power. what a joke...obama has, for all practical purposes, ruined this country. i'm sad :(

Well, the republican born idea of an individual mandate is not unconstitutional.

I was hoping and expecting that they would strike it down.

Be sure to direct all your hate and venom to Roberts - the swing vote in this case. Obama was elected on the promise of refoming health care so the bill was no surprise, but who'da thunk a conservative justice would have bought in to it. Darn Rebublicans.

great more money being tossed to the poor and worthless.I love where my tax money goes.........

Another record for potus..............largest middle class TAX in history.

Supreme Court Screws Nation....

Imagine that - Bush appointed Chief Justice Roberts saved health care.

Supreme Court Wows Nation!