http://imgur.com/Do3UG

germancaveguy I believe the reason many employers still partake in the insurance game is because of the tax system. Because we have such a rotten tax code employers can "claim" to their employees they are getting X dollars in health care benefits while the employer gets the tax credit on this money, not the employee. It is just a matter of claiming they are giving their employees X in total income and benefits while the real dollar value is much less due to the tax breaks. If/when these tax laws are changed the market will shift with it. To this point government has done everything but putting the consumers in charge of their own healthcare dollars. With no concern of costs very few people consumer shop for quality and price. Just think what cars would really cost if there was no comparison shopping. Yeah I know there is little choice to comparison shop during an emergency, but for things like yearly checkups and normal treatments much can be done; but for some reason this part is never addressed.

http://www.hendersondailynews.com/opinio...

Tort reform is only a small part of reforming health care costs, only .4% according to CBO. In the over 30 states that have done it, the only savings are in insurance costs for providers, not consumers. Just as many tests are ordered, and consumer insurance premium costs keep rising like the states that have not had tort reform.
Obamacare allows for selling insurance across state lines, if those states are willing. The government "mandating" it seems like it would not be a good thing in the eyes of conservatives.

germancaveguy: Again, I agree to some extent. I do believe that end of life counseling is important for all of us as we age. That being said, I hate to think that cost would be a determining factor in end of life choices. If a person chooses to fight the process of death, at what point would they (or should they) be forced to exhaust their personal savings?

Costs for healthcare for seniors is outrageous. Unfortunately, as the population ages it gets more expensive to meet medical needs. My parents get medications from Mexico and Canada at a fraction of the cost of what they would pay here. Pharmacies and physicians know that many of their patients do this. Sadly, those responsible adults that have provided for their families their entire lives find themselves faced with extraordinary medical costs that they are unable to pay, forcing them to make some pretty grave decisions.

"fordfan, based on the history of your posts you wouldn't understand a fact when presented one"
RetriedAirForce, coming from you I will take that as a compliment.

poobah -- Thank you for the comment. I appreciate it.

RAF -- I'd also like to thank you for your participation here. Granted, you and I often disagree on many issues. Yet your contribution to these discussions is still appreciated.

cmalpsv -- To add to your entitlement comment, I think there also needs to be a shift in the perception many people have as they age or become ill. One of the prime obstacles we face with the ever larger population of seniors is providing the much costlier care that they need.

Now, I don't want to give the impression that care should be rationed. However, there should be more discussion and planning for this stage of life. Many people have been diligent in drawing up plans for when they die. Yet, much of the time the same cannot be said of those later years where one's health begins to decline.

If for instance, more people should have access to end of life counselling. While this can be seen as 'death panels', the truth is that we are all going to die eventually. If someone becomes ill with say cancer, shouldn't they be informed that not seeking treatment may be their best course of action if it indeed is. Why should someone spend their life savings going through a miserable treatment plan just to prolong their life. If the odds of recovery were small, they may decide that foregoing treatment to instead pursue some of their dreams would be the better alternative.

Yet, many clinics have policies against this type of counselling because the treatments are so lucrative. There are doctors that can't recommend the alternatives because they would face termination. And so, people often die miserable trying to prolong their life; instead of actually living it out.

germancaveguy: I completely agree with your post. It certainly isn't a simple solution, it is a start.

Healthcare tends to be expensive because the example you posted is fairly prevalent in the whole healthare continuum. There is also a percentage of the population that truly believes that the more expensive tests/meds are the better ones and any attempt to prescribe them is considered poor medical practice. Passing the AHA isn't going to change that perception.

I don't believe that there is a simple solution, it is a multi-discipline problem. Addressing the entitlement 'attitude' would be a good start as well.

cmalpsv -- While tort reform is necessary, how it is implemented will be key to any success. Where the line between frivolous and justified gets drawn is hard to determine. To just make it tougher for people to sue may bring cost down substantially. Yet, how will such reform effect the quality of care? Will less diligent doctors and nurses become more careless? Or, will this lead to an improvement of care? Such questions are hard to answer, and thus an adequate solution to the problem is difficult to obtain.

Further, there are other legal matters that should be addressed to improve healthcare in this country. Currently, there are companies that hold patents for things they shouldn't necessarily be allowed to. Due to this practice, doctors are prohibited from doing inexpensive tests instead of more expensive ones that can be less conclusive. Medicine is no stranger to protectionist practices from companies trying to profit from their products.

For instance, Lab Corp v. Metabolite. Here, you have a company that patented a correlation between high levels of an amino acid and B vitamin deficiency. Because of this, they hold a monopoly on testing for this correlation. If this arguably invalid protection were not to exist, other companies could create less expensive testing solutions. The result would be an expedient diagnosis for easily treatable diseases.

This is not the only case of this type of problem. Sure, companies should be able to obtain patents for the products they develop. Yet, to have a lock on discoveries is absurd.

My point is, if we want to see better and less expensive care, we need to reduce the need for lawyers at all areas of the spectrum.

germancaveguy, I appreciated your response about the talking point we have heard before about how employers will being dropping healthcare insurance programs for their employees and paying the fine because it's less expensive than the cost of insurance.

What this assertion expects us to believe is that employers would wait until there is a fine they have to pay to drop healthcare insurance, while they could have dropped those insurance offerings without paying those fines for decades. If, as an employer, you're going to drop benefits for employees, why wait until your fined to do so? The major reason employers offer healthcare insurance is to remain competitive with what other employers are offering. Thanks for the great comments, germancaveguy.

I really don't see how the Obama plan changes anything. It is simply another burden for taxpayers that are already providing for Medicare and Medicaid programs. It isn't saving money anywhere. Another expansion of government (namely the IRS). And who will continue to pay for the 1% that refuse to get mandated insurance? Again, the taxpayers take the hit. And the taxpayers are paying for the addional IRS staff that is supposed to keep the plan in check.....So how is this benefitting the country?

Tort reform should be a first step in the process of affordable healthcare. Healthcare providers should be able practice good faith medicine without have to go on the defense every time they see a patient. Frequently those that threaten practitioners with litigation are those who don't have a regular healthcare provider, use the ER for routine medical care, don't follow up as directed, etc.

What about the concept that government shouldn't be responsible for your healthcare; you, the patient, should be responsible for your lifestyle and healthcare.

RAF -- I agree that for the market based approach to be dominant, the government side of the equation needs to be reduced. However, that is just a matter of the numbers. In a sense, working to get the government out of the equation is akin to asking a competitor to close up shop in order to gain market share. There are reasons for why the government makes up such a large portion of the market. Yet, many of the arguments don't even attempt to identify the issues behind this situation. Without doing that, no real change will occur.

For instance, our aging population essentially gravitates toward Medicare. To have more people using private insurance, these people would need an incentive to purchase such insurance instead of using that available to them from the government. With the current offerings being unable to come even close in terms of cost, this is unlikely to happen.

Due to this situation, many people have the idea then that a public option will be the best way to improving the insurance problems our country faces. What too many people fail to acknowledge however, is it is only one option. Granted, with as large of a problem we face, the solution will be big overall. Yet, by moving in the right direction with multiple solutions, a comprehensive reform can be obtained.

The PPACA doesn't get us there by itself. Nor should it have. It did however address some key issues. And yet, there is still more to be done.

As far as the notion that employers will begin dropping their employees because the tax is cheaper, I find that hard to believe. We have no penalty now for doing so, and yet employers aren't dropping their plans. If employers begin to do so, it will be simply because the insurance rates have become too high. Instead, employers offer these benefits to gain/retain valuable employees. But does it have to be this way?

For instance, why are there no proposals for legislation that will encourage people to get insurance separate from their employers. It shouldn't be too hard to imagine a system where people could be paid a cash benefit to be used only for medical insurance. If this was the norm, people would spend their money chasing the best insurance instead of relying on their employer to pick the right plan. In many ways, it would be similar to how we purchase auto insurance. Further, cost would likely drop because competitiveness would become larger. As it stands, insurance companies take advantage of the employer/employee relationship to increase their profits.

The current reform may not be the best approach for the future. Personally, I think it comes up short in too many ways of doing enough to fix the situations. Yet, without any other ideas gaining momentum, this path will become the one we take. The GOP needs to acknowledge this an start taking meaningful action. As it stands, their doing as much good as a player on the bench yelling about how they could have won the game.

oneday...the Supreme Court ruled the bill WAS a tax. That was the reason they passed it. It didn't pass muster under the commerce clause so it was okayed as a TAX. pretty simple. And many sources have said, even your quote, that not everyone who wants to keep their current health plan will be able to, as Obama promised. Read some other articles and you will find other points of view. And as far as cutting down on ER usage, that won't happen either. Massachusetts use of ERs didn't decrease after they enacted their healthcare bill.

germancaveguy I agree that neither the current law or any proposal, that I have seen, are the best way; I suspect none will agree one finalized plan will be the best overall anyway. Regardless, those that devised this law or those that want it changed, are never going to agree because both are looking for separate outcomes.

The current people that wrote and support the current law see this as a first step only. The promised land for them will be a complete government run single payer program.

There is no way to compromise plans with those that want government run anything. Where is the middle ground? What we have today is about as close to middle ground as you can get between those that want all run by the government and those that want a complete market based approach. Medicare/medicaid makes up close to 50% of the market share; that is the program one group wants for all. In order to have a market based approach the government share needs to dwindle.

The current law does nothing to keep medical costs from rising, which was to be the initial focus of the program to begin with. The intent of the current law is designed to make it easier for employers to dump employees programs forcing them to something else and paying fines. The better approach would be the open exchanges, crossing state lines, without more employer restrictions based on employee numbers or fees; but you need to remember their end game was first and foremost the priority.

There were so many ways to make the system better for the user in price, convenience, coverage’s, and portability. But these were all skipped over because that did not meet the end "dream" for the plan they want.

fordfan, based on the history of your posts you wouldn't understand a fact when presented one.

onedayatatime - good post but it is the goal of donna, wislady, retriedairforce and many others to put out false information. You can put facts in front of them all day long and they will ignore them. they are dedicated to a politcal cause and they believe the end justifies the means. Did you see the three muskateers (Boehner, McConnell, Ryan) on the talk shows on Sunday? They were asked very pointed questions on what the Republican plan was to replace ObamaCares. Not a one of them would give an answer and all wanted to change the subject. They used the Frank Luntz surveyed term "patient-centered health care" from "The Language of Healthcare" study that he did in 2009.

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM116_lu...

This is is the rope-a-dope strategy they have to prevent 30M US residents from having health care.

@donna ."You can keep the plan you have."The ACA care law does take pains to allow Americans to keep their health plan if they want to remain on it.
Even under the current system Americans are not able to keep their insurance. Employers change carriers, carriers change policies. "Even before the law has taken effect, the rate of forced plan-switching among policyholders every year is substantial, and the CBO figures suggest that the law could increase that rate, at least modestly, even if Americans on balance benefit from the law’s provisions. We rate Obama’s claim Half True."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...

Mitt Romney "Obamacare … means that for up to 20 million Americans, they will lose the insurance they currently have, the insurance that they like and they want to keep." We rate his statement False. Poltifact
"it's not a tax." It is a penalty and then only if you refuse to buy insurance. This so called "largest tax in history" is bunk. It has already been determined that only about 1% of people will be penalized. That was rated "Pants on Fire Lie"
Please...just go to poltifact and find out what the truth is. Just about everything you have stated in your post is misinformation.

sorry about the double post

Here is a very in depth analysis of the Affordable Care Act researched by The Institute of Medicine National Acadamies. It is very well written in layman terms and all sources cited. This is the best analysis of the ACA I have found. You have to scroll quite aways down before you get into the body of the report, the first part is the credentials of the reviewers and outline of the report
http://healthreform.kff.org/~/media/File...

Here is a very in depth analysis of the Affordable Care Act researched by The Institute of Medicine National Acadamies. It is very well written in layman terms and all sources cited. This is the best analysis of the ACA I have I have found. You have to scroll quite aways down before you get into the body of the report, the first part is the credentials of the reviewers and outline of the report
http://healthreform.kff.org/~/media/File...

where did the Tea Party Republicans all go?

donnaw, I said a VIABLE alternative. RAF's link is just more rehetoric from the right and I have seen no efforts to actually move forward any of these "ideas".

Federal income taxes are lower than they've been in 75 years. You just got a continuing reduction from the Bush tax cuts, along with a cut in payroll taxes. Among the world's nations, the United States ranks 50th in life expectancy and 173rd in infant mortality, yet spends 18% of its gross domestic product on health, far more than the "socialist" countries you like to rail about. The ACA is going to help 30 million people that currently don't have health insurance to get coverage. Taxes aren't eating you up and you know it. You're probably on social security and medicare which, by the way, you didn't fully pay for. Consider, for a change, the common good and how we can do better as a country and community.

RetriedAirForce/donnaw/others - the very first item describes what the status is (basically trust us to do nothing as that is what the GOP does):

"On January 20, 2011, the House passed H. Res. 9, a resolution instructing House committees to develop legislation replacing the job-killing health care law. Committees are currently doing their work to hold hearings and examine solutions to lower costs, increase access to quality care, and strengthen the doctor-patient relationship."

I hardly think that the healthcare providers in this area are going to get rich on taxpayer money. The reimbursement rates for Medicaid and Medicare are very, very low. It certainly isn't going to improve with the new law going into effect.

dtb...apparently you can't read. Retired posted a source of GOP points for starters. I am against this bill for many reasons. The way it was passed, the 22 new "taxes", to name a few. The lies Obama told to get it passed..."You can keep the plan you have." "it's not a tax." "It will cut down on ER use" (Massachusetts residents use the ER just as much if not more then they did before their healthcare bill.)
And dusty...4000 new IRS employees to do audits whose salaries are paid for, you guessed it, more tax payer dollars in addition to the $300+ million in annual operating funds. Just give your paycheck to the govt and they will give you back what they think you should have to live on. Ya, this bill will save us money, sure!

RAF -- Thanks for posting the link. I had not seen the page before. While it doesn't lay out much in terms of the specifics, it does generalize what the GOP feels would be a remedy to the health care situation.

There are ideas in the pledge that I can agree on. Expanding the HSA and allowing for purchase across state lines are two ideas I think highly of. Yet, it is the party rhetoric that keeps stalling their own efforts.

For instance, does abortion absolutely need to be tied to the previous efforts? Of course it doesn't. I'm no proponent of abortion. However, I think it's completely foolish to try to get abortion reforms passed at the expense of other meaningful reforms. These 'poison pills' are what makes everything take so long to get passed.

Further, the idea of tort reform is something I believe can help as well. Yet, the way these ideas are pitched and the language used to describe them are what stalls much of the effort. The talk of tort reform from the GOP often comes off as disingenuous. Most people can't empathize with the notion that malpractice insurance is a burden. Yet, they can definitely see how lacking the ability to sue could be an issue if they were ever treated by an incompetent doctor.

My point is, if the GOP wants to really push these efforts forward, they need to work together to find a way to get them done. The constant talk of repeal is pointless if they don't put forward real efforts to change the situation. Each session that goes by creates the impression that many of the Republicans have resigned themselves simply to pandering for votes at the expense of truly utilizing their position.

And donnow, repubs have been railing against this plan for TWO YEARS and have yet to come up with a viable alternative.

Donnaw: Well, with all that new revenue, think of all the jobs they'll create!

dusty...well sure they love it! It means more tax money for them! Just to name one--new federal income tax levied for hospitals. What's not to love about the bill if you are in the medical field. Bend over middle class, here it comes.

Motorman the problem with your lame question, besides the obvious, is there has been outlines for the very thing you request since the earliest days of the discussion. A simple google search provides you answers if you really wanted them. http://www.gop.gov/indepth/pledge/health...

If you really wanted the answer why post the question here instead of looking for it yourself? Have you become a product of your party and need everything given to you without effort of your own?

I would suggest the next question you should ask is when is your party going to enact a national budget, after all it has only been three years.....

"Appearantly all the tea party can do is destroy not build."
-
Destroy? Is that more of the rhetoric from the left that wanted a more civil conversation?

" They all support the Affordable Care Act."
-
More lies.

Maybe we should listen to doctors, nurses, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and others that take care of our health. They all support the Affordable Care Act. The only ones complaining are the insurance companies. Wah, wah.

Like I said you libs want the political party not in power to tell what their health care plan is and yet you Dems who were in power for two years and it took you TWO YEARS to get a plan with enough bribery in it to ram thru congress. It has been a few days since the SC vote and you want a plan? Oh ya, how about that budget you Dems are working on? Made any progress?

poobah - but that was at a state level not a national level. Forcing states to do this is unconstitu........no wait.....never mind.

Now it is down to what points of the plan are so bad that they need to be totally wiped from the law books. But they seen to have nothing to replace ObamaCares with (I have asked many times) so I have to believe they think the status quo is just great. Or perhaps they are just tools of their leaders who also have no answers.

"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.

Constitutional Convention not Constitutional Congress.

vatloco said, "Our nation was not designed to be a pluralistic society based on the "All men are created equal saying."

You're making progress, vatoloco. When 49% of the 55 Constitutional Congress delegates owned slaves, you could hardly say our Constitution was framed on the premise that, "All men are created equal."

vatoloco said, "Tell us where it states that government should provide healthcare for Americans?"

More aptly, in context with Ryan's words, you tell us where the imaginary sky God listed our rights and excluded healthcare as one of them. Are you suggesting that the imaginary sky God would give healthcare rights to Americans and not to persons in other countries? Tea party republicans have bought into American exceptionalism and that exceptionalism is rooted in the mission Puritans are on for their imaginary sky God, but that would be quite exceptional, now, wouldn't it?

"Reading the founders’ paeans to American exceptionalism - about aspiring to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,” as the Constitution puts it - can put a lump in your throat. But their vision excluded huge swaths of the population, like women and slaves. And other applications of the idea had their own dark sides." [ http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/30... ]

Thanks for the great comment, ddr. There you have the tea party republican basis for denying healthcare to citizens -- an imaginary sky God and nature didn't make healthcare a right. It makes me wonder, how does a believer in an imaginary sky God, like Ryan, know that an imaginary sky God didn't make healthcare a right?

"Those are ours, they come from nature and God, according to the Declaration of Independence." - Paul Ryan

Oh, I see, it's according to a 235 year old piece of paper. As though Ryan believes that if that piece of paper hadn't said it, there would be no rights from an imaginary sky God and nature. And to think there are actually people who want to give this guy a major role in our national budget.

So if get sick and die it is now God's will? That is what Ryan said. If poor and die god's will? He is nuts you know?

Jesus... 'Paul Ryan: Repeal Health Law Because Rights Come From God' - Rawstory

Paul Ryan: Repeal health law because rights come from God
By David Edwards - Rawstory
Sunday, July 1, 2012 11:55 EDT

<snip>

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) is arguing that President Barack Obama’s health care reform law should be repealed because rights come from “nature and God,” not the government.

During an interview on ABC, former Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy’s widow, Victoria Kennedy, told host George Stephanopoulos that the Supreme Court had made the right decision by upholding the Affordable Care Act.

“This health care reform was the cause of my husband’s life,” she explained. “He believed that it was a moral issue, that it defined the character of who we were as a society, who we were as a country, and that decent quality, affordable health care should be fundamental right and not a privilege.”

But Ryan rejected Kennedy’s assertion and promised to completely undo the law.

“We’re going to repeal the entire law and then we’re going to advance patient-centered reforms that address these kinds of issues,” the Wisconsin Republican said.

“I think this at the end of the day is a big philosophy difference,” he continued. “What Ms. Kennedy and others were saying is that this is a new government-granted right. We disagree with the notion that our rights come from government, that the government can now grant us and define our rights. Those are ours, they come from nature and God, according to the Declaration of Independence — a huge difference in philosophy.”

<snip>

Link (w/Video): http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/01/pa...

If I get sick in S. America, a course of antibiotics runs $10, US. It's around $150 here. 5 minutes of a doctors time will cost you $150-$250. A short stay in a hospital will bankrupt many middle class Americans.
Yes, Malpractice insurance is expensive, then reform that system as well.

It's a step in the right direction.

Vato - nice try but you stated the tactics to do ensure that nothing is done about health care. I don't know how to make this more clear so I will ask again:

"Maybe I have missed it along the way, but I know the Tea Party Republican’s want to “repeal and replace” ObamaCares. Will one of you who subscribe to this philosophy please list the top 5 bullet points for the plan that will replace ObamaCares? A reference will be nice also."

BTW - if it makes you feel better, Boehner couldn't answer a similar question on Meet the Press this morning. Almost makes me think that there really is no Tea Party Republican plan but maybe I am wrong.

86'd, based on your comment maybe it's time to reform and regulate the insurance industry?

I can't believe that I haven't seen any answers from the Tea Party Republicans on this. I will re-post so I can become better informed. Also, I will continue to do so until I get that all important definitive link. Don't miss out on your opportunity now.

"Maybe I have missed it along the way, but I know the Tea Party Republican’s want to “repeal and replace” ObamaCares. Will one of you who subscribe to this philosophy please list the top 5 bullet points for the plan that will replace ObamaCares? A reference will be nice also."

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.

We'll tell you Dems what the Repubs healthcare plan is when you can pass a budget.

MooShoo, only a complete and utter tool would attempt to lie about Scott Walker on this one; again. You know exactly what he said and what his intentions are. You lost your cred on your very first post skippy.

I am sure that some of the Tea Party Republican's out here have the details. I just can't find them. They will respond with details and a link so they preserve their integrity (adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty)

fordfan, it's OK for the repubs to criticize a dem for being "without a plan" but to ask them for a plan is asking too much.

Maybe I have missed it along the way, but I know the Tea Party Republican’s want to “repeal and replace” ObamaCares. Will one of you who subscribe to this philosophy please list the top 5 bullet points for the plan that will replace ObamaCares? A reference will be nice also.

Well, you don't know
how much that means to me!
It is always a pleasure to read
your informed
and enlightened comments.
Keep up the work!

gary..thank you. You add so much to the discussion!

Thank you, Chief Justice Donnaw.

I urge all of you to read all the tax implications of this bill as there are many. Of course the CEO of the hospital is for the bill. He smells more money for the hospital. Just one of the many provisions of the bill is a 0.9% percent hospital federal income tax on those earning $125,000 if single and $250,000 if married. That's just one of many. And this isn't a tax bill? What a lie!

Walker doesn't need to worry about implementing this at all actually. By 2014 he'll be in the big house sharing a cell with Blago in the "convicted Governor's wing" of the federal prison.

"Let's review this issue for those who lack understanding of the law. Congress passed it, the Executive Branch signed it, the Supreme Court upheld it, and the Wisconsin Governor ignores his oath to the office."
-
Thanks for the middle school Government class recap MooShoo, but the LAW also gave states a DEADLINE to make these changes. And until the DEADLINE passes, Governor Walker is not doing anything illegal. The PRACTICE of law is much more complicated then simply PASS/SIGN/UPHOLD.

Notice how the article about Holder being held in contempt has disappeared from the news page on the Gazette? "Let's not keep any negative news about Obama and the gang here very long. Let's move along quickly."

How can a Republican be a typical Democrat?

Even on CNN they have a video of Obama in 2009 saying that the mandate wasn't a tax and then the Supreme Court rules on it because it is a tax. You can't make this stuff up!

garypp..typical democrat....try diversion instead of dealing with the facts. Wasn't it fun to watch the press secretary trying to avoid using the word "tax" instead of "fine"?

That could be a medical problem or one of personal hygiene.

Yes, isn't it amazing the lack of comments about Holder being held in contempt? Even many democrats voted for contempt. And what did Obama have to hide by using executive privilege to prevent Holder from complying? Smells fishy.

"...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 or is there a reson you are excusing Obama and Holder from following existing laws?

Seems that there is a certain Democratic President that is doing the same thing. Hmmmmmm! Come on you informed Lib's, you know what I'm talking about or is that ok for him to do it? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm!

Well that
was certainly
pissy and moany.

"In Wisconsin, hospitals and insurers want first and foremost to make sure they are doing their part to meet the expectations of the law, particularly in terms of access, quality and cost."

Really?! Since when are the insurance companies doing their part in terms of access, quality and COST?

I don't like Walker either, but compliance with this health care law is not required until 2014.

It may not be right, but it's also NOT illegal for Governor Walker to to wait until a new administration. If 2014 comes around and he still hasn't complied with it, THEN you can pull the pitchforks out!

Let's see, why would Gruber and hospitals be for Obamacare ? Oh, more taxpayer money !

More criminal actions by the only "governor" in the US with a criminal defense fund.

Ya forgot the big story...Scooter says he won't follow the federal government's ruling,
until after the November election..during which He hopes that the repubs will win....
Walker just can't get a grasp on how the law works...first he turns back federal transportation money, then trys to get "part' of it back for a pet project...then is dumbfounded when the feds won't play along and gave it to other states...
Now this....
When will people realize that these new republicans do NOT have the interest of the middle class ( who voted for them ) in mind.
I voted for Paul Ryan before, but after this statement...NEVER again.