vataloco: "Adding millions to have access to healthcare is great I think but it doesn't address rising costs which is the reason many people don't have or choose medical insurance."
You are absolutely right. If our representatives would have focused on the rising costs to begin with, we wouldn't have had millions of people without insurance.

Well, stc0528, Obama didn't lie according to Willard Mitt Romney's senior campaign adviser. "Eric Fehrnstrom, a senior campaign adviser for Mitt Romney, said Monday that he disagrees with the Supreme Court’s characterization of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate as a “tax.”" [ http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/en... ]

Of course, Willard Mitt Romney himself called his RomneyCare individual mandate penalty a tax when he wrote, "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." [ http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/new... ]

Willard Mitt's campaign seems to be in their usual state - stumbling over the ever-changing positions.

Obama "LIED" SHAME SHAME SHAME

"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, if in fact that happens, what will the repubs replace it with? Do they even have a plan?

Now, I'm no fan of Obama, but you have to admit it is the ultimate hypocrisy that this plan (with the mandate that both Romney and Gingrich approved of back in the day) is no longer ok with the repubs just because Obama got it passed.

bigmike:"Well there needs to be livable wage jobs created for those people to get jobs that pay enough to afford health care. The single mother with 2 kids who works for someone who does not offer benefits needs to be able to afford insurance. There are cases where the "dad" in these situations are responsible for providing health care and don't. Once again, most of this health care act is funded by people who are already wealthy enough to get the good tax breaks the rest of us don't. Let them pay their share."

I would also like to add that if the employers don't wish to pay for a portion of your healthcare anymore, they have no excuse to not give their employees a raise and living wages.

Affordable Health care will turn the USA into another stagnant no growth European type economy. This assures the recession will linger on. Many employers will simply not hire until the dust settles.

vatoloco said, "Medical decisions are best left to patients and doctors. The problem has always been government intervention in all of our nations problems."

Your zeal for blaming the government for "all of our nations problems" has reached ridiculous levels. The problem with healthcare delivery in the last 30 years has been healthcare insurance companies inserting themselves into the healthcare decision-making process -- between the doctor and the patient -- to enhance/ensure their profits. And yet, you want to continue to use the same old system that has compromised the healthcare decision-making process?

Poobah, please stop the rational thought out comments. It confuses the righties.

nicksmom said, "You all do realize that employers will dump coverage because it is cheaper to pay the fine & this will push our healthcare system towards a single payor system?"

First off, the sooner we move to a single payer system the better. It's an economically inevitable conclusion in the evolution of our healthcare system.

Secondly, most employers offer healthcare insurance because they want to remain competitive with what other employers are offering. You're suggesting that employers will drop healthcare insurance once they have to pay a fine, yet those same employers haven't dropped it when they don't have to pay a fine.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/155447/Americ...

So vato, we found some common ground to agree on :)

You all do realize that employers will dump coverage because it is cheaper to pay the fine & this will push our healthcare system towards a single payor system? Then again why am I surprised by the clueless comments from a misinformed electorate?

Vato, it is too bad that the universe is not centered on you.
It must be terrible to have to do things that you do not want to do
and pay for things that you do not want to pay for.
I feel your pain.

vato, love that you quoted QR and Geoff Tate, one of my fav bands of all time. Thing is you forgot the second verse:

"I'm tired of all
this $%%#%%*
They keep selling me on T.V.
About the communist plan
And all the shady
preachers
Begging for my cash
Swiss bank accounts while giving their
Secretaries the
@#$%

They're all in Penthouse now
Or Playboy magazine, million dollar stories to
tell
I guess Warhol wasn't wrong
Fame fifteen minutes long
Everyone's using everybody,
making the sale

I used to think
That only America's way, way was right
But now the
holy dollar rules everybody's lives
Gotta make a million doesn't matter who
dies"

Could be used to describe the right side as well.

You people need to get some reading comprehension. I never said 94% are currently covered. What I said was between the people who currently have health insurance (80+%) and the people who WILL have coverage once medicare/medicaid are expanded in 2014, 94% of Americans WILL have some sort of coverage.

I always have wondered why people think health insurance should be tied to your job. This is what creates a lot of problems. If you lose or leave your job, you're screwed and that's not right. Better to have exchanges and buy your own policy that you can keep with you than to rely on your employer. You right wingers are all about self-reliance right? Then why are you asking your employer to pay for your insurance? Buck up and take care of it yourself.

I have my own personal policy and it's a lot cheaper than what I can buy from the man, even with the boss covering 60%. It's not a cadillac, but it's not a terrible plan either. This probably would be even cheaper with some more competition in the marketplace.

The wealthy already have better health care than the rest of us, this will always be. The rest of us are stuck with what we can afford (not what the government "makes available" for us; as the government isn't running the health care industry, just requiring insurance).

There's huge money in selling insurance. Just look at the Janesville School District; self insured and 25+ million in the bank. Imagine the profits the companies with thousands of clients the size of JSD make. To bring down costs, we need to take the profit motive away and that means a single payer system.

Well there needs to be livable wage jobs created for those people to get jobs that pay enough to afford health care. The single mother with 2 kids who works for someone who does not offer benefits needs to be able to afford insurance. There are cases where the "dad" in these situations are responsible for providing health care and don't. Once again, most of this health care act is funded by people who are already wealthy enough to get the good tax breaks the rest of us don't. Let them pay their share.

Hey Loco,
Do you want the government, American people or even one dollar to go to help out the uninsured??
A simple yes or no.

Dow up 228 as of now. Must love the certainty and personal responsibility and social justice promoted this week in WashDC.

One percent of the U.S. population owns approximately 40 percent of the nation's wealth. That's a distribution that most Americans don't know about, Dan Ariely of Duke University discovered in a recent study. Respondents of all demographic categories mistook Sweden's even wealth distribution for that of the United States. Host Noah Adams speaks with Ariely about his study.

NoLefist
I tried to find an answer to some of your questions because these were things that I did not know about.
First I find no evidence that there will be a 10% increase in premiums.
The law will impose a 2.3% excise tax on medical device manufacturers. It will exempt eyeglasses, contact lenses, hearing aids, and • any device that is generally purchased by the public at the retail level. Estimated to raise $20 billion The medical device manufacturers can afford it, trust me.
About the medicare cuts Medi-scare is a classic fear-mongering technique usually deployed by Democrats against Republicans, most vividly by the television ad depicting Paul Ryan pushing grandma off a cliff. The Affordable Care Act does try to rein in Medicare costs by slowing the rate of growth and ending the Medicare Advantage program, but that should be consistent with Republican values of increasing efficiency and reducing waste, fraud, and abuse. Moreover, the Ryan plan, which Romney endorses, would cut at least that amount but redirect the savings to reducing the deficit.
If you can afford to go tanning, you can afford to pay 10% more to fake sun your buns in fact this could have been more.
The restrictions on deductions is only 2.5% of ajusted gross income. Not huge but it is something.
I don't find any factual evidence of these huge premium increases you speak of and I can't see how they would. With more people in an insurance plan, premiums usually go down not the other way.
And the fact is by forcing people to get some sort of insurance decreases the burden on those of us who do have insurance. The only ones you hear complaining are those who don't have insurance and don't want it because they think nothing can ever happen to them.
The fact is that something had to be done to help those who need health care.

Yesterday was a great day for America.

As I read these comments, I have a vivid mental image. It's a school of privileged fish who used to be the only fish to have the run of the whole lake. And the privileged fish are now writhing and flopping in fear; fearful they're in an ever-shrinking pool because all of the other fish now also have the run of the whole lake. You're okay, privileged fish. You're okay.

Tax cuts only "cost" the government money if it was the government's money in the first place. Is all money the government's to begin with? Did the Democrats pass some law that I haven't heard about?

This law better deny freebies for illegals because why should Americans be forced to pay for health care for illegals.

Prounion: Do you have the Union Cadillac Health coverage? Did you know it was exempt until 2016 or 18 then you get to pay through the nose. You get to really help the poor then.

The Health Mandate is partial payback for the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, which should NEVER have been extended, especially not during a Great Recession:

Tax Cuts For Wealthy Americans Cost Treasury $11.6 Million Every Hour: Report
Tax cuts for America’s top earners are costing everyone, every hour of every day, a new report from the National Priorities Project finds.
Tax cuts for the wealthiest five percent of Americans cost the U.S. Treasury $11.6 million every hour, according to the National Priorities Project. America’s top earners will get an average tax cut of $66,384 in 2011, while the bottom 20 percent will get an average cut of $107.
The report comes as party leaders wrangle over the best way to curb the nation’s budget deficit, protesters around the world demonstrate against income inequality and corporate greed and Republican presidential candidates offer their economic plans to voters. Former pizza company CEO and Republican presidential candidate, Herman Cain, has been getting lots of attention in recent weeks for “999 Plan” which would cap the corporate, income and sales tax rates at 9 percent.
President Barack Obama unveiled his deficit reduction plan last month, which aims to curb the national debt through a combination of tax cuts and increased spending. The plan includes a proposal to increase taxes on millionaires -- the so-called Buffett rule, name for famed billionaire investor Warren Buffett. In an August op-ed in The New York Times, Buffett argued that lawmakers should put an end to tax breaks for the “super-rich.” After Obama announced the proposal Republican leaders criticized the Buffett rule calling it “class warfare.”
Still, there are some Republicans who support increasing taxes on the wealthy. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan -- a registered Republican -- told CNBC earlier this month that he supports allowing the George W. Bush-Era tax cuts for the wealthy to expire.
That could because the tax cuts are weighing on the national debt. The non-partisan Center for Budget and Priorities found that the the cost of tax cuts for upper-income earners is as big as the Social Security shortfall over the next 75 years. If the U.S. reverted to Clinton-era marginal tax rates, the U.S. Treasury would net an additional $72 billion annually, according to Citizens for Tax Justice.
In addition, increasing taxes on the wealthy could also help to narrow the widening wealth gap. The net worth of the bottom 60 percent of U.S. households -- about 100 million households -- is lower than that of Forbes 400 richest Americans. Tax cuts for the wealthy provided Americans making more than $1 million with a $128,832 benefit, while Americans earning from $40,000 to $50,000 got an $860 benefit on average.

"I do not get where people think the middle class is going to be negatively affected by this."

How about the 10% tax on insurance premiums?

How about the medical device tax?

How about the half trillion in cuts to Medicare?

How about the tanning tax?

How about the restrictions on deductions for healthcare expenses?

How about the up to 100% premium increases because ObamaCare won't allow premium discounts for healthy people or groups? (community rating)

How about the individual mandate forcing you to pay up to 8% of your GROSS income in health insurance if you don't have it becauseyou can't afford it?

Were you accidentaly or purposefully ignorant of these things?

dtb, 94% of us were covered??
So this law was written for 6% of us?
REALLY?

Scarry stuff, Feduptaxpayer? How big of a scar? Glad to see you've discovered GNP and currency devaluation.

dtb .. writes ..." The mandate is not the tax, the tax is the penalty for not having insurance. Very few will pay this, as 94% of us are/will be covered. Far from the largest tax hike ever, but some people like to make up their own facts."

dtb says 94% of (310,000,000) Americans are covered today by some sort of healthcare insurance - I imagine that means -- HMOs, PPOs, Medicare, Medicaid, ect.

Here's what will happen beginning around 2015. Employers are being encouraged to DROP their healthcare coverage for those HMOs - PPOs for employees. All they will have to pay is an 8% penalty (or tax) on each emplopyee's wages to do so. That's much cheaper for them than contributing 18%-25% of their employees wages for their monthly health care insurance premiums. This will happen in private sector and in public sector employment. When that does - then we all have to go to these new healthcare exchanges set up in state and find our own healthcare coverage from someone in the exchange. Those Americans with lots of money will getthe best healthcare coverage, the rest of us now will have to take whatever the government has made available for us.

And the Supreme Court also ruled that the states can cut those on state Medicaid today. So those people (who most likely are under the 400% poverty line limit) sill get their coverage paid for by the federal tax payers and adding billions annually in cost to the new ObamaCare system not origionally planned on.

This is going to wreck the system of good healtnhcare insurance / medical coverage for 90+% of Americans so that 20million (Americans and illegals) can now be covered.

There had to be other ways to accomplish this without dragging everyone down to help the few in need.

In the same week our Supreme Court ruled that 1) states, especially border state, can take no action to, themselves, enforce immigration laws / illegal immigrants that the feds have chosen to ignore. States like Arizona racked with 500,000+ illegals a month better not dare to do what the federal governemt is supposed to be doing uniformly, but is only doing so very selectively. 2) It is OK for the federal government to ORDER us to buy a NEW standard designed, one-size-fits all, form of healthcare insurance (ObamaCare,) or be taxed by the IRS for not doing it. and 3) It is OK for candidates running for elected public office to intentionally lie to us 9and mislead us) about their Military Service (or probabaly anything else they shouldn't lie about)because stopping them would be an infringement of their right to free speech.

I have always believed I am a pretty center of the road, mainstream (and Main Street), a-political person.

But I have to say, I do not agree with any of these decisions by our Supreme Court. I am wondering ... when did we enter a zone where NO law enforcement, lieing, and taxation by mandate have become vogue?

what is going on?

dtb ignoring the tax increases just for the program regardless of penalties does not make them go away.

This explains how it gets paid for. I do not get where people think the middle class is going to be negatively affected by this. Only those making over 200K and those with large investment earnings. They may have to buy the Porsche without the gold rims.
http://www.smartmoney.com/taxes/income/w...

The mandate is not the tax, the tax is the penalty for not having insurance. Very few will pay this, as 94% of us are/will be covered. Far from the largest tax hike ever, but some people like to make up their own facts.

It's so easy to be charitable, and sanctimonious, with other people's money.

This health care law is going to be extremely expensive, more expensive than we've been told. When you point out that fact, people call you immoral for turning your back on the poor. What nonsense! Furthermore, when you also point out the fact that forcing people to pay for other people's health care against their will is also immoral, again some castigate you as immoral and haters of the poor. Lastly, forcing people who don't want to buy health insurance to buy it anyway or be penalized if they don't is again quite an immoral position. Yet when you object... well you get the idea. It seems that the Orwellian sheep have their chants well rehearsed.

At least one good thing has come out of this ruling. President Obama's lie that his law isn't a tax has been thoroughly exposed for what it is. Just as have he gross and intentional underestimations for the costs of his "plan". I suppose that pointing these facts out is another example of hatred of the poor and immorality by those who have the nerve to do so, too

Our health care system is flawed and unsustainable long term unless reformed. The costs of providing medical care for the uninsured is paid by all of us through higher medical insurance premiums and increased Medicaid expenditures.
The ACA is a start. We will learn what works and what doesn't with this new law. This is going to be a work in progress. I think what we can't do is to go with the status quo and do nothing.

If America did NOTHING but matched the per capita healthcare costs of other developed countries with better quality healthcare systems 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.

Well said jcommon.

Our current federal budget deficit is 1.3 trillion. That is how much we spend above what we take in. If you do the math, that is 26 billion dollar budget deficit per state caused by the federal government. That is money we DON"T HAVE, money the US has to borrow. Do you really think that WI should be making that number bigger? I suppose you think that is "free" money? Think about this, not only is governor Walker doing WI taxpayers a favor by NOT taking money from the gov't, He is also doing all the US taxpayers a favor by not taking it and spending it. The gov't shouldn't be offering money it doesn't have and we don't need that money and all the provisions that come with it.

You know who's repulsive?
That Mitt Romney,
he's kind of repulsive.

In January, Gov Walker turned down 38 million until the SC ruled on Affordable HC. Now he should beg to get that back otherwise he is hurting jobs, private HC businesses and workers and gouging the taxpayers of WI.
Read below for conservatives who do not like facts:

http://wtaq.com/news/articles/2012/jan/1...

Repulsive...potus and democrat leaders celebrating their "victory" over the American people with the largest tax increase on the middle class...ever.

How much is my new tax going to be? I have health care already.

The Medicare D drug program was started in the bush years. You HAVE to sign up with a drug plan provider, but, if you don,t, you will pay a penalty if and when you do sign up.

Actually, with more research, the WI Dental Assoc did this great effort at the Colisseum just last night.

http://www.wda.org/wda-foundation/missio...

I suppose conservatives will just say WI can just rely on efforts like this. That's good enough for those moochers and slackers. Shameful.

Health care is so abyssmal in Alabama (which WI aspires to be like) that the Gov of AL had to call in the National Guard to provide free health care. Please learn:

http://www.dra.gov/newsroom/press-releas...

More brilliant banter from the left fringe "I don't think you have enough chlorine in the gene pool of life."

The democrats are celebrating 21 tax laws, 10 of them which will affect people with incomes under 250K dollars.

They certainly did make history, besides the Holder event, they are celebrating the largest tax hike in the history of the United States.

1. Young adults stay on a parental plan until 26 = Good.
2. Pre-existing conditions for kids and adults are out = Good.
3. A person's illness can not be maxed out = Good.
4. Insurance companies have to spend more on clients than profits = Good.
5. Companies under 50 are exempted and companies 50+ must offer insurance = good.
6. 30-40million uninsured will get coverage = good.
7. People who are flooding emergency rooms to get care will need to take pesonal responsibility and pay a tax for making all of us responsible folks quit paying for them = good.
8. The state of WI will have lower rates for all workers lowering costs.
9. Even Canadian conservatives who dominate politics at the moment would not trade in their health care.
10. This is the humane thing to do- help thy neighbor (even if they live in Milwaukee).

Naysayers, read this closely. Believers, read this and sing its praises.

wi55LADY - You sound like a close relative of WISLADY...I imagine that you have good intentions, but regarding your comment - I don't think you have enough chlorine in the gene pool of life. Get over it & move on to something you understand.

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.

Why is it the left needs to constantly lie all the time? Like the previous poster (NVgrf) who has stated he/she will never post on this paper again, then does anyway. Like the previous posters comments on those on the right opposing the constitution, clearly that is not correct.

The only thing corrected in yesterday's ruling was the current administration and dem party's use of the commerce clause and allowing the same people to now tax people for inactivity, the first time in our nation's history. They should all stand proud and pat themselves on the back.

Interesting how all of the "Constitution loving" righties all of a sudden oppose the Constitution. Kind of like Romney opposing the Affordable Care Act which was based upon the program he developed in his own state while he was governor.

No, it doesn't mean they will have to get insurance, but if they don't they pay a extra tax for not having insurance. This reduces the free rider effect of healthcare. People who use healthcare but don't pay the bill, leaving the cost of thier care to be either absorbed by the hospital or passed on to other payers in the form of higher overhead costs.

So does this mean all illegals (and I did NOT write Hispanics) must pay for health insurance? Does this mean all single heads-of-household with 5,6,8 kids must pay for health insurance? Doubt it very much. The middle class will still be paying for these people. I, for one, am tired of it. You choose the behavior, you pay the consequences. But not here in America. Freebies will continue to happen. You think Obamacare is going to reduce the number of people in the ER getting free medical treatment? Get Real. It isn't going to happen.