Guy, you have been the receiver of a single payer system your entire adult life. I do not believe it ruined your life, in fact it probably made it better. If it so horrible why did you endure it for so many decades?

---

To me the question is not about insurance. It's about who is master thats all.

In a state you must carry auto insurance. And you must have a state drivers license. The federal government does not have a thing to do with either. This puts the state where it belongs, in charge of it's own affairs.

Yes, I called Romney a socialist. As long as that socialism is within his own state I have nothing to do with it nor any say over it. Now that healthcare is a federal issue I have beome involved. I disapprove.

This ruling also calls out other breaches of our Contract called The United States of Americas Constitution. It calls for the forcing of all Churches to cover in their insurance offered to their employees abortive day after pills, abortions, birthcontrol pills and a slew of other things that most Churches would not ever allow in their insurance coverage.

Justice Roberts is [was?] a Catholic man. With his vote he has insured that his own Church must continue with the abuse of the 1st amendment.

It's about who is to be master, thats all.

ID, I thought that question was answered in 1865. The Federal Govt. won!

---

ID, I thought that question was answered in 1865. The Federal Govt. won!

Perhaps you don't understand the Constitution or the founders. The right to LIFE, LIBERTY, and the chase of happiness? Yes, slavery was tossed out for freedom.

Just so we could be enslaved by debt....

We cannot afford this health care system. We can't afford what was on the books before it either....

ID, I thought that question was answered in 1865. The Federal Govt. won!

Perhaps you don't understand the Constitution or the founders. The right to LIFE, LIBERTY, and the chase of happiness? Yes, slavery was tossed out for freedom.

Just so we could be enslaved by debt....

We cannot afford this health care system. We can't afford what was on the books before it either....

ID, you asked a question, "It's about who is to be master, thats all." Your post does not address the subject.

---

we also can not afford to have millions of Americans without a reasonable chance at health care. We have tried it, clogged up emergency rooms as a result.

People deserve better than that.

We all do deserve hope, and change.

---

Janice

It wasn't the federal government that won. Freedom won in 1865.

Almost like the ruling [Dred Scott] that told the blackman that he would remain a slave, we are faced with the same problem. Some will tell you that the Commerce Clause won the day [it's o-kay to buy and sell black people], and that the Constitution is intact. This is not the case, the very First Amendment has been shattered, Churches all over this Country [not just Catholic] are damned to a continuation of the violation of their conscience.

Oh my -- not that is really unexpected...


[/quote]
ID, you asked a question, "It's about who is to be master, thats all." Your post does not address the subject.[/quote]

Gary, this should be a very large boon for the insurance industry.

Interesting way the stock market reacted to the news. Hospitals went up, health care insurance went down. To read that it means that Hospitals will now have carte blanche to raise rates through the ceiling. It also reads that insurers will loose their profitable contracts with employers as they all cancel their plans. So with everyone getting the voucher, how much will income tax have to go up?

---

Personally, many people I know, and myself included, will be better off with Obamacare, vs our private insurers.

Ex, you did understand that Obamacare is private insurance didn't you?

Yes.

But IF my employer does not/did not offer insurance, I would be eligible for vouchered (income-proportionate) private insurance. NOT the same thing as my overpriced 1/3rd of my gross pay family plan.

Who is going to pay for your voucher? You are. And add in an administrative expense on top.

Don't be surprised if Obamacare runs 50% to 75% of your income.

When you have pro-business lobby against the creation of a huge private business (insurance) you should think long and hard about that ...

---

Actually Gary, you make another argument for single payer -- 'administrative costs' for Medicare run well under 10%. Administrative costs for private health insurance companies have run over 20%.

And bets on your 50% to 75% number.

BULLETIN

This just in:

Breaking News: Conservatives planning to leave the US, but can't find any wealthy Western countries without universal health care.

...So with everyone getting the voucher, how much will income tax have to go up?

Income tax will go up less than one would pay for insurance through their employer.


[Edit: ^what Barry said. He puts things into more specific terms than I can.]

---

#resist

Gary, this should be a very large boon for the insurance industry.

Interesting way the stock market reacted to the news. Hospitals went up, health care insurance went down. To read that it means that Hospitals will now have carte blanche to raise rates through the ceiling. It also reads that insurers will loose their profitable contracts with employers as they all cancel their plans. So with everyone getting the voucher, how much will income tax have to go up?

Gary, just a point of order. Since when has the stock market reacted rationally? It pretty much operates as a ponzi scheem, IMO.

---

Actually Gary, you make another argument for single payer -- 'administrative costs' for Medicare run well under 10%. Administrative costs for private health insurance companies have run over 20%.

Obamacare isn't Medicare, it is private health insurance ...

---

Understood, as I noted, another argument for single payer.

Actually Gary, you make another argument for single payer -- 'administrative costs' for Medicare run well under 10%. Administrative costs for private health insurance companies have run over 20%.

Obamacare isn't Medicare, it is private health insurance ...

Gary, this should be a very large boon for the insurance industry.

Interesting way the stock market reacted to the news. Hospitals went up, health care insurance went down. To read that it means that Hospitals will now have carte blanche to raise rates through the ceiling. It also reads that insurers will loose their profitable contracts with employers as they all cancel their plans. So with everyone getting the voucher, how much will income tax have to go up?

Gary, just a point of order. Since when has the stock market reacted rationally? It pretty much operates as a ponzi scheem, IMO.

A market is a very good at predicting the future, not 100%, but amazingly good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction_market read the footnotes ...

---

So now the Supremes have confirmed that: Everyone will be made to buy health insurance. This is somewhat logical since Congress has determined that it is in the public's interest for everyone to have health insurance. Not everyone wants or needs health insurance however, so if you don't buy health insurance you will be taxed some monetary amount that will accrue to the US Government. The feds can't penalize you under the commerce clause, but there are no constitutional limits on taxing you.

Let's look at this another way. The Federal government owns lots of GM stock, so based on today's Sup.Ct. decision the following could legally (constitutionally) take place: Everyone will be made to buy (a GM vehicle). This is somewhat logical since Congress [could determine] that it is in the public's interest for everyone to have (a GM vehicle). Not everyone wants or needs (a GM vehicle) however, so if you don't buy (a GM vehicle) you will be taxed some monetary amount that will accrue to the US Government. The feds can't penalize you under the commerce clause, but there are no constitutional limits on taxing you.

At least in the second scenario the value of GM stock should rise nicely.

So now the Supremes have confirmed that: Everyone will be made to buy health insurance. This is somewhat logical since Congress has determined that it is in the public's interest for everyone to have health insurance. Not everyone wants or needs health insurance however, so if you don't buy health insurance you will be taxed some monetary amount that will accrue to the US Government. The feds can't penalize you under the commerce clause, but there are no constitutional limits on taxing you.

Let's look at this another way. The Federal government owns lots of GM stock, so based on today's Sup.Ct. decision the following could legally (constitutionally) take place: Everyone will be made to buy (a GM vehicle). This is somewhat logical since Congress [could determine] that it is in the public's interest for everyone to have (a GM vehicle). Not everyone wants or needs (a GM vehicle) however, so if you don't buy (a GM vehicle) you will be taxed some monetary amount that will accrue to the US Government. The feds can't penalize you under the commerce clause, but there are no constitutional limits on taxing you.

At least in the second scenario the value of GM stock should rise nicely.

But in the first scenario, as we've already seen, hospital stocks will rise nicely.

Either way, you pointed out my one issue with Obamacare. The positive I see here however, is perhaps more people will be in favor or a single payer system, as this whole thing comes to fruition.

---

#resist

So now the Supremes have confirmed that: Everyone will be made to buy health insurance. This is somewhat logical since Congress has determined that it is in the public's interest for everyone to have health insurance. Not everyone wants or needs health insurance however, so if you don't buy health insurance you will be taxed some monetary amount that will accrue to the US Government. The feds can't penalize you under the commerce clause, but there are no constitutional limits on taxing you.

Let's look at this another way. The Federal government owns lots of GM stock, so based on today's Sup.Ct. decision the following could legally (constitutionally) take place: Everyone will be made to buy (a GM vehicle). This is somewhat logical since Congress [could determine] that it is in the public's interest for everyone to have (a GM vehicle). Not everyone wants or needs (a GM vehicle) however, so if you don't buy (a GM vehicle) you will be taxed some monetary amount that will accrue to the US Government. The feds can't penalize you under the commerce clause, but there are no constitutional limits on taxing you.

At least in the second scenario the value of GM stock should rise nicely.

But in the first scenario, as we've already seen, hospital stocks will rise nicely.

Either way, you pointed out my one issue with Obamacare. The positive I see here however, is perhaps more people will be in favor or a single payer system, as this whole thing comes to fruition.

The second scenario shows why the first is so abhorrent. If you think Congress can do the tax thing in the case of health insurance, then what limits do they have at all?

It's a matter of opinion.

I feel health care should be a guaranteed right, in the US, as it is in other industrialized nations.

I don't think cars (or any material possessions) are "rights".

Your taxes (and mine) already are paying for government supplied services. Adding one service, no matter how big of a service, changes nothing about the way we are taxed.

You or I hopefully haven't needed/wanted to call the police. But if we did, they are there for us.


I don't think it's going to pan out as bad as some people think, nor do I believe Obamacare being passed will "open the floodgates" of socialism. The right, when talking about Obamacare, sound as priests did during the Salem trials. Much ado about nothing.

---

#resist