Derwood

also, why would hospitals suddenly shut their doors to everyone but the very rich? THAT would be suicide (financially)

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

dc_dux

Just more nonsense like "death panels" and "government run"....the failure of Obama and the Democrats in Congress was not to debunk this crap forcefully and repeatedly right from the start.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

roachboy

i was listening for a minute to some faux news programming earlier---it was coming from behind my head as i was waiting in a checkout line so i wasn't paying attention. when i noticed that there was a steady blah blah blah happening, the rhetoric was all "rationing of care" and other stuff similar to the inverted logic in the op. when i looked on the way out of the store, it was some glenn beck show. i think someone else pointed this out earlier in the thread, and that may be why i was attending to it, but fox news does in fact have a very specific rhetoric for not quite talking about reality while pretending to do it. and it is the case you it is a recognizable rhetoric. paying attention to it for even a few minutes i started to feel like i was being hung upside down and all the blood was rushing to my head. most strange.

in the french system, for example, there is a mix of access to basic health care and manditory private insurance for more advanced care and based on that it is simply, empirically false that anything like the outcome pan describes is likely to happen here.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

cementor

Pan,

I'm with you on the great majority of the post. I do believe the Dems will suffer by cramming this thru. The reason really stems around the idea that the Bill will not materially change anything. I think the general public who regardless of which side you are on, will have expectations of reduced cost, or better access or some key point and ALL will be dissappointed.

I found this article which is quite long and looks at some of the "advanced" countries of the world and their approaches to healthcare. If you have time wander your way thru it. You'll find some very interesting tidbits and perspective that I think is really the key. Each country is unique in its approach, but at the end of the day there is no free lunch.

Most of the Canadians who post here extoll the virtues of their system. They would appear to be in the monority of their countrymen from the poll taken and quoted herein. It states that 59% have major concerns regarding the sytem and fell it is currently in need of major overhaul.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-613.pdf

Looking at most ratings, parts of Europe offer the "best" healthcare, but many of them will be and are seeing rationing and reductions in quality and services offered as the governments are decreasingly able to pay for or deliver said services. If you read it please note the references to compensation levels for thier physicians, it is scary. The point is if we in the US paid our physicians in the same manner we'll be seeing auto mechanics for cancer treament. They don't have to work with the engine running.

I am not in favor of the current bill, because I don't believe it addresses the core items that need reform. I also believe when people pull the "let's get it in place, then we'll fix it" ploy as is being done it is for all the wrong reasons, not to mention the FIX IT part is normally forgotten or purposely not followed up. This rush ( we have to have a vote by Easter ) to get "change" inacted is the precursor to unintended consequences and they are usually worse than the problem they were intended to solve.

Unfortunately our governmental system has no "quality" involved. In most business environments quality reads something like "done once, done right". In medicine I believe the hypocratic oath is something on the order of "do no harm". I have strong belief that this bill will do lots of harm. I am for reform, just not in this form.

__________________
Cementor
If I was any better I'd have to be twins!

dc_dux

How is providing 30+ million currently uninsured working Americans with affordable and accessible PRIVATE health insurance not a material change?

Or those nearly 200 million with employer-based insurance..how is ending the exclusions for pre-existing conditions or imposing a limit on out-of-pocket expenses so that no one will face bankruptcy as a result of a medical crisis not a material change?

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

Here is what will happen.

Under true emergency care most people do not have choice, they go to the closest available location. Those locations will be overloaded.

People who have some time (they would calculate it based on the expected wait time at the closest hospital, compared to the one of choice) and money (of course the mo'money, the mo'choice - including off-shore locations), they will charter med-jets, med-copters, or other forms of transportation that poor people typically can not afford or won't be covered. These new private medical facilities will be located in remote resort type locations far, far away from average working people. These new facilities will be privately run, for profit - business plans are being drawn up as we exchange information here.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

pan6467

And who pays for the "private insurance" for those that can't afford it? Are you telling me people working minimum wage or close to jobs because there are no high paying jobs, are going to have to shell out money they can't afford for insurance?

Explain to someone working part-time or for minimum wage that a portion of their paycheck HAS to go to insurance or they are fined and/or put into prison.

Then tell someone who is getting government assistance and has been promised by the Dems and Obama (implied promises and because many will not understand the law... much like those pushing it through) that they can't have treatment at the Cleveland Clinic because they don't have the insurance they need.

LOL no matter how you package it, this is going to be a mess, people are going to have high expectations and in the end, this is going to be political suicide for the Dems and Obama.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

dc_dux

Pan....I dont think you understand the proposed Insurance Exchange and the fact that most of the 30+ million currently w/o health insurance are not poor...but average guys working for a small business who cannot afford insurance in the individual market.

With the Exchange having a very large risk pool to make it more affordable than it is now, those folks could sign-up for Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Kaiser HMO, etc....or any of the PRIVATE companies that would COMPETE for these individuals by offering four levels of coverage, at varying costs.

If one of these folks comes to the Cleveland Clinic with a Blue Cross/Blue Shield card, why would he be treated differently than a "rich" person with the same card and same coverage?

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

pan6467

And the people that CAN"T afford the insurance? How many millions are working for less than $10 an hour and are barely able to make it NOW, let alone add the cost of insurance to that? Who pays for them? You're going to tell those people who can barely live on what they make they HAVE to buy insurance they cannot afford or be fined or go to prison???? And if government does pay for them, then where does government draw the line on who they pay for and who they don't? And for those government pays for is that not pretty much going to be Medicare and Medicaid? And what of the "Cadillac Tax" for those who can afford better insurances?

What about those unemployed, the people who can't work but can't get disability because the SSI has denied them?

This is the WRONG BILL and the Dems are committing suicide by ramming it through the way they are. Passage of this will be a very sad day for the USA.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

aceventura3

Pan,

You are on target. It is too bad we can not get Congress off of their talking points and really address concerns and questions.

As I understand the legislation, insurance companies will have a mandated medical pay-out ratio, but this also gives them a guaranteed profit margin - the risk will be taken out of the system for them and they will pass on costs to government and consumers. If pre-existing conditions are an issue an insurance company can simply stop accepting new applicants forcing those people to go into the exchanges. This adverse selection will force costs up in the exchanges or coverage will have to be sacrificed. Kucinich was right at first, this bill is a win for insurance companies. We either need to go all in with a single payer public option or go "free market", this hybrid is for the birds.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

Again...I dont think you understand the bill.

Most of those currently uninsured are working...and most work for small businesses that do not offer insurance.

Some would be subsidized...up to 2X the poverty level to purchase PRIVATE insurance on the Exchange. Those above 2X would have access to more affordable insurance than is currently available.

It is not a perfect solution, but far better than what those 30+ million have now.

And for the rest of us....significant benefits....no more exclusions of preexisting conditions or rescission of coverage when facing a new medical crisis...a new limit on out-of-pocket expenses so no one faces bankruptcy as a result of a medical crisis...no cost for preventive treatments, including such things as colonoscopy and mammogram, etc.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

dogzilla

This is a material change alright. You can't expand the pool of people getting access to medical care by this many and not expect there to be some limitation on access to medical staff. It's not like current medical staff has 5-10% free time that they can see these extra people.

It's also change in that you can't increase the number of people covered by medical care without increasing total cost. I've yet to see a government program actually reduce the cost of anything.

This is also a material change. You can't increase the cost of medical care by eliminating exclusions for pre-existing conditions and eliminating caps and then just assume that insurance companies are going to make it up out of their profits.

One way or another, I expect my out of pocket costs to go up. Whether the Democrats take the honest route and raise taxes or use some subterfuge to make me pay for this.

This whole argument that this bill is better than no bill is just nonsense. If the Democrats can't come up with a reasonable bill, then there should not be any bill.

dippin

This has nothing to do with increasing the gap. You might not like the mandate, but that is another subject.

rahl

You are assuming that everyone added to the plan will automatically require treatment all at once. Why would that be the case. A very large majority, as dc pointed out, are young healthy americans who do not feel the need for insurance. By adding them to the risk pool it will offset the risk that insurance companies will face taking on those with pre-ex's.

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

dc_dux

So we should just ignore those 30+ million because it might strain the system?

And there are numerous incentives in the bill to address it.

More of the "government program" rhetoric....it is more people covered by PRIVATE insurance...spreading the cost.

That is why there is a mandate along with a vastly larger pool to spread the costs.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

dippin

Why is the argument that this bill is better than no bill nonsense? The perfect is the enemy of the good.

Also, the bill is quite explicit in what it will raise taxes on. Add to that an increased pool and the costs start getting in line. Finally, implicit in your post is that the 30 million uninsured don't alreay use doctors and facilities. In fact, they use these same doctors and facilities, but often when a condition has turned serious enough that they have to go to the ER.

cementor

First the question is if there really are 30+ million, without insurance, who WANT insurance and I believe this is highly questionable.

I was unemployed for 7 months then started my own business which I netted 40K last year and somehow I prioritized healthcare coverage for my family of 4. This really becomes a question of desire. I know a number of much younger (healthy) folks who absolutely do not want insurance period. Nor do they want to pay for every one elses insurance and I'm pretty sure they don't want a government mandate that they must spend their money this way.

The point is we have a percentage of Americans, probably much less than the 10% of the population media would have us believe, who want insurance. This is the problem and segment that we should be immediatly addressing.

Just a quick Math Exercise

For 30M folks (using your number) At $1200/ month buys a family of 4 roughly a $1000 deductible policy (for reference, more expensive better coverage than I carry). Lets assume 2.5 people per family unit (just for aurgument). If you do the math we can buy insurance on the open market for 17.3B$ annually. That leaves us (94B CBO for reform annually for the current plan - 17.3B (30mln folks coverage)=76.7 B / year to go fix the real problems. Starting to sound like our government "oh its only a couple 10's of Billions"
How do we do it, eliminate pre-existing conditions. Oversimplification, but if your primary goal is to provide access to all who want insurance, this is the first step. Premiums will likely rise across the board, but what's new about that?

__________________
Cementor
If I was any better I'd have to be twins!

flstf

I think it is more like 4X the poverty level.
http://www.kff.org/healthreform/uplo...bill_final.pdf

dc_dux

There are about 25 million small businesses (employing anywhere from 1 to 200 people) in the US and a large majority (well over half) offer NO insurance to their employees.

You cant do it w/o a far larger risk pool...oversimplification.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

The costs are already spread in the system, the question really has to do with will the new system be more efficient? The assumption is that emergency room care is the most expensive method of providing care and that if people have insurance emergency room usage will decline particularly in areas where a routine office visit would suffice and it assumes the system will not be over-burden. This is an assumption, an unknown, that has to be factored into the cost equation. The other assumption is that "private insurance" will really end up being the new means for the spread costs - it is very reasonable to believe that insurance companies will bear almost none of those new costs. They will be picked up by taxpayers and those paying premiums.

Cigna's, a health insuance company I follow, stock price was up 10% this week as the bill gains momentum and is expected to pass this weekend.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

I stand corrected.

And I would have preferred the House version for funding....the surtax on those with income over $500k (or $1 million couple)....less than 1 percent of all taxpayers would be impacted.

And, the House end to anti-trust exemption for insurance companies would have been nice as well.

But you cant have everything...its called compromise.

IMO, the good...for those 30+ million uninsured and those of us currently w/employer-based insurance...far outweigh the bad.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

flstf

To calculate what your subsidy will be:
Health Reform Subsidy Calculator -- Premium Assistance for Coverage in Exchanges/Gateways

dogzilla

To some extent, no. But be prepared to pay more when medical staff remains relatively constant and the number of patients increases.

The government program part of this is the well publicized subsidies to those at as much as 4x poverty level. Those subsidies are coming out of the taxpayer's pocket. Unless someone is disabled, I shouldn't be subsidizing their coverage. I also shouldn't be subsidizing their going to an ER instead of a doctor today, but that's another debate.

dc_dux

If you want to equate government subsidies with government run...thats fine. But it still doesnt make it a government run program when the providers will be private insurance companies.

The cost of those subsidies is coming from several sources...including cuts to Medicare Advantage providers that have been overcharging for years...to the tune of $150 billion as well as significant savings through technology investments over time (far more difficult to measure).

The $500 billion that would have been generated by the House version would have been better, IMO.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

pan6467

I gave an answer to the gap question in post #38.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

dogzilla

Apparently even the Democratic leadership doesn't think the bill is good enough, seeing how they are trying to force the bill thru with the 'deem and pass' charade, otherwise known as 'duck and cover'. If this was such a good bill, the Democrats should have no problem proudly voting for the bill.

As just one reason why this bill is far from acceptable, is this article

Cat urges rejection of health care bill - Peoria, IL - pjstar.com

With US businesses already having trouble competing in the global marketplace, the last thing they need is even more government mandates that increase their cost of doing business.

pan6467

Yes, I do understand. You are going to have MILLIONS of people who work for under $10/hr forced to spend money they don't have, even with subsidies they'll have to pay money they cannot afford to.

And no, this is not about millions of 20 somethings all in great health not needing medical coverage. That maybe the majority but there are also MILLIONS who lost good paying jobs and are now working for under $10 and can't make it now and you are forcing a new expense onto them.

Plus, as soon as some of these MILLIONS get insurance they will flood in to get treatments they have needed but couldn't get because they didn't have insurance.

This bill is a fucking mess and is going to cost FAR FAR more than say a sliding scale.

The ONLY good thing is exclusions of pre-existing. BUT< I know from personal experience (with my sarcoidosis) that after 1 year the insurance company cannot hold ANY pre-existing condition against you. That was a bill Clinton got through.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Derwood

Citation needed, pan

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

dc_dux

I dont think you do.

Those making under $10/hr would fall below the poverty level..and the bill expands Medicaid to 133% of the poverty level....so these folks will not be spending money they cannot afford.


I assume you're talking about HIPAA and it doesnt quite do what you suggest.

One immediate benefit of the current bill is that pre-existing conditions in children must be covered in any new policy. The full coverage of pre-existing conditions kicks in when the Exchanges are operational.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Derwood

if there is a shortage of doctors early in the new plan, wouldn't more people go into medicine to fill the void? why the assumption that the # of doctors is completely static?

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

Charlatan

Wow. I don't even have to look at the poll to tell you that it is going to be skewed. It's coming from a libertarian think tank... The Cato Institute (and yes, I skimmed it and it is full of the usual conservative boogey men).

I don't think you will have any Canadians that are not concerned about the health care system in Canada. We all are concerned about tweaking it to make it better. I think if you were to ask Canadians if they wanted to scrap Universal health care... the overwhelming majority would say no. We have seen what private health care looks like and it isn't pretty.

As for no free lunch... you really don't get how it works. Of course there is no free lunch. The single payer system that Canada uses (actually it's closer to 10 payers as each province decides runs its own health care system, mandated by federal law). Health care is run by doctors and hospitals. It is paid for by the single government payer. Costs are kept low largely by reducing administration fees that are clogging the US system.

It is a fact that we pay less for health care per capita in Canada and offer 100% coverage.

Is it perfect? No. Is the US system perfect? Fuck no.

No system is perfect but cheaper and more efficient as ours is, seems to point in a good direction.

Frankly, I don't care what the US does. The only thing I care about is how your politicians and lobbiest keep dragging us into your shit storm, going even as far as trying to change our public policy.

Keep your f'n noses out of our health care.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

dc_dux

The bill includes expanded funding for the National Health Service Corps scholarship and loan repayment programs (that were not very well funded during the Bush years) to expand the health care workforce, particularly in those areas that are underserved (inner cities and rural communities)....along with funding for more health clinics in those areas

---------- Post added at 10:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:29 PM ----------

From the article:

The biggest single problem noted is that the health bill would tax Medicare Part D. That, said Folley, would drive up costs enough it would "put at risk the coverage our current employees and retirees receive."

A tax on Medicare Part D?

I'd like to see a cite of the section of the bill that imposes that tax.

What the bill does, re: Medicare Part D is close the coverage gap or "doughnut hole" for Medicare beneficiaries. Currently, seniors who hit the gap must bear the full cost of their medications until they spend a certain amount, when coverage kicks back in. Under the new bill, seniors who hit the gap this year would get $250 to help cover the costs of their medications. Starting next year, they'd get a 50 percent discount on brand-name drugs, with the cost borne by the drug industry.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

cementor

Easy Simba! We are constantly bombarded about how we should adopt a Canadian system or a British system. My point is they work for those respective countries after many years of tweaking, but they are far from perfect. All systems have their warts and ours has a bunch, but adopting someone elses way of doing this is won't solve the issues of rising cost, and diminishihing quality and services.

Frankly I'm suprised we are that influential regarding Canadian healthcare policy when we are so f"d up with our own.

I fully intend to keep my F'ing nose out of Canadian health care if I possibly can.

__________________
Cementor
If I was any better I'd have to be twins!

dogzilla

From what I've seen, it takes some 8-10 years to get your MD. I knew a couple guys who were just finishing up their residencies that were just turning 30 as they finished up.

pan6467

Yes, I do. And there are doctors not taking Medicaid patients. In fact, most hopsitals around here won't take Medicaid patients UNLESS it is life or death in which case, by law, they have to.

No, when I found out I had Sarcoid, I had no insurance. I was lucky enough that my x-rays showed what looked like lung cancer and I HAD to have a biopsy since that would be life or death.

In 6 months, I had coverage (Anthem) and picked a doctor and went to him. I told him I had Sarcoid and he explained that for the first year of my insurance it would be considered a pre-existing condition and he would not be able to treat it. However, after that 1 year, the insurance by law had to cover it. He could treat anything else, except that. Thankfully, knock wood, other than some pain in my lungs and the fact I smoke, there is no problem with the sarcoid.

Here's the wiki page that even shows that pre-existing is presently covered after a maximum 1 year.

Pre-existing condition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They also have the proposed terms on pre-existing and they actually look worse than what we have now. (With the exception of including domestic violence as a non pre-existing). Hell, in some cases they won't take effect for 4 years.

And they allow premiums to be raised because of the pre-existing conditions. Which, if you are going for true reform, pre-existing should not exist at all. If people have a disease or health problem and lose their job and get new insurance that condition should still be treated regardless.BUT it won't be.

I like what I have. 1 year no treatment afterward treatment as necessary.


All this talk from Obama and the Dems about pre-existing and they really are not doing anything to improve it. Again, if anything they are making it worse, punishing those people like myself who have a disease and may or may not need treated for it. Raising our premiums for it is better?

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

dc_dux

Sorry, pan....but you are just incorrect.

HIPAA provided some very small improvements in coverage for pre-existing conditions in the group (large employer-based) plan.

From the wiki:

he Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (Kassebaum-Kennedy Act) of 1996 (HIPAA) extended some minimal limits on pre-existing condition exclusions for all group health insurance plans—including the self-insured large group health insurance plans that cover half of those with employer-provided health insurance but are exempt from state insurance regulation

The HIPAA FAQ explains it better than the wiki.

Under HIPAA, a plan is allowed to look back only 6 months for a condition that was present before the start of coverage in a group health plan. Specifically, the law says that a preexisting condition exclusion can be imposed on a condition only if medical advice, diagnosis, care, or treatment was recommended or received during the 6 months prior to your enrollment date in the plan.

And, limits on excluding pre-existing conditions in the individual market is left to the states.

To suggest the bill "is not doing anything to improve it" or "making it worse" (wtf - please explain how you come to that conclusion) is just nonsense. It fixes both the group and individual markets in a significant and unambiguous way...and it starts with no more denying coverage of any preexisting conditions in children...in ALL new health plans starting 6 months after the bill is enacted.

Please tell me, how this, along with adding 30+ million (mostly young and healthy) will add to your premiums.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

ASU2003

The only problem I have with this is that it doesn't hurt the insurance companies financially when Americans as a whole are really unhealthy and sick. And it doesn't put any incentives on people to become healthier in general.

Quite frankly, if you are making $7-$10/hr, but find enough money to buy alcohol and cigarettes, then you can pay for your health insurance, but if you make $15/hr and exercise and have a clean bill of health, that person statistically has less of a chance of needing costly care.

The ER and other emergency treatment will not change the current patient load at local hospitals. Unless people were suffering and dieing without seeing a doctor because they were worried about their bills having to be paid by the state. That is what the current plan is if you don't have insurance and are poor.

I don't think that the 'good' hospitals will get overrun in the long term. It might be pretty bad at first, but they will expand and train more doctors (or import them from overseas if it is allowed).

Idyllic

I don't want a Chevy, I don't want the government to own another private industry (insurance) which they eventually will when the insurance companies go broke because the people making 10+ an hour get tired of paying for the insurance of those making less.

I don't want to be mandated to buy anything, that is just out right Unconstitutional.

This Bill is not the Right One, and I am deeply disappointed with our President for what he is doing, for his adolescent behavior, like a spoiled child throwing a tantrum because he isn't getting what he wants.
He needs to be sent to the House, oh, wait he was and he just bullied them over.

How does if feel to be bullied America.

Just keep sitting back and taking it and calling it change, yeah, change is coming, All the change you once had in your pocket, gone. And a weakened health care system to boot, how many people are going to want to Be Doctors when they get paid on a government based system. We are going to end up with a bunch of mediocre doctors who aren't working for themselves and their own recognition, the 'self' is what makes America great.

This Bill is the beginning of the removal of the 'self' which America was so proudly built upon.

__________________
you can tell them all you want but it won't matter until they think it does

p.s. I contradict my contradictions, with or without intention, sometimes.

dc_dux

I think you will find that many (most?) Constitutional scholars do not agree with the above.

At the most basic level, the mandate would be enforced through tax laws which is clearly within Congress’s power to tax.

The "unconstitutional" and "states rights" arguments make for interesting political theater, but lack legal merit.

Oh..and I dont feel bullied at all...perhaps just a bit annoyed with the endless rhetoric and fear mongering from the opposition, much of it not based on facts.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

rahl

Idyllic do you own and drive a car? If you do you are already mandated to have insurance. Healthcare will be no different. It wasn't unconstitutional then and it isn't now.

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"