5-4 Insurance Mandate Upheld

ZEB · July 3, 2012, 12:16pm

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

Okay those against the mandate. If the US could drop its current healthcare system and replace it exactly with some other countries system, which country would you want to copy?[/quote]

No one - there is not one worth copying.

What we need to do is implement policy to reduce health care costs and make helath insurance prtability by disentangling it from employment. Give insurance companies competitive pressure across state boundaries and breack up local monopolies.

Then, after this is accomplished, see who is left over that cannot get insurance - and devise a plan to help them. But that pool of people should be small and the costs manageable.

That’s the great idiocy of Obamacare - how can you complain that the law is supposed to help people who can’t afford insurance when you never try, as an initial matter, to make it more affordable in the first place? If affordability is truly the problem, well, simply try to make it more affordable…right?

Obamacare - and its Orwellian official title, done to maximize marketing - did the opposite: it simply decided to expand coverage without worrying about affordability. That’s the point: the “Affordable Care Act” had nothing to do with affordability - it was an attempt at universal coverage, affordability be damned. It;s the most dishonest bill in modern history.

Every sane person - including legions of moderate Democrats - knew (and know) that if you want to fix health care, you have to prioritize bringing the cost down. Period. Any serious reform will have to begin there. The only thing that Obamacare did was set back real health care reform for years.[/quote]

This, this, this, and this!

Aside from the complete constitutional issue clusterfuck, this is it. There was ZERO serious attempt to actually take a logical approach to resolving any cost problem in the first place. You could have passed any number of small, 50 page bills for tort reform, creating competition pressure, bring costs down in any number of a dozen ways at least-- and NONE of those bills would have been seriously controversial, or had any Constitutional questions raised at all. But the current bill is blatant pandering, power grab, and grandstanding. And it’s terrible fucking policy to boot–no reasonable bill can be longer than War and Peace and still maintain enough flexibility to create a workable (real) solution.

easy steps toward a solution were easily visible to almost anyone with a brain–including MANY on the left side of the aisle–but it wasnt as “sexy” a solution as the idea of national coverage for the ideologues.[/quote]

Exactly, but the left never looks for a “free market” answer such as you and TB have suggested which is to first bring down the costs by creating competition. This is not as difficult to do as many on the far left imagine. However, it does not fit their “free stuff for all” Utopian vision of what government should be therefore it is disregarded before it’s had a chance for fair debate.

ZEB · July 3, 2012, 12:18pm

[quote]Severiano wrote:
Oddest thing… Romney did this first, and when he did it, it wasn’t a tax, it was a penalty.

Romney has been in part running on his tax record, but if it turns out this is indeed a tax and not a penalty, we need to revisit what a penalty is and a tax is on quite a few things on his record… Is this a good thing?

[/quote]

You’re assuming that the Romney plan that was specifically for one particular state is exactly like the monster that Obama hatched.

Severiano · July 3, 2012, 12:28pm

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
Oddest thing… Romney did this first, and when he did it, it wasn’t a tax, it was a penalty.

Romney has been in part running on his tax record, but if it turns out this is indeed a tax and not a penalty, we need to revisit what a penalty is and a tax is on quite a few things on his record… Is this a good thing?

[/quote]

You’re assuming that the Romney plan that was specifically for one particular state is exactly like the monster that Obama hatched.[/quote]

So the problem isn’t in principal (like it was yesterday for all these posters) but scale is the problem?

Come on, you know that’s a bunch of hooey.

ZEB · July 3, 2012, 1:07pm

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
Oddest thing… Romney did this first, and when he did it, it wasn’t a tax, it was a penalty.

Romney has been in part running on his tax record, but if it turns out this is indeed a tax and not a penalty, we need to revisit what a penalty is and a tax is on quite a few things on his record… Is this a good thing?

[/quote]

You’re assuming that the Romney plan that was specifically for one particular state is exactly like the monster that Obama hatched.[/quote]

So the problem isn’t in principal (like it was yesterday for all these posters) but scale is the problem?

Come on, you know that’s a bunch of hooey.
[/quote]

Okay, sorry I wasn’t more clear. I am personally against any sort of health care plan that is similar to the Obama mess be it at the state or national level. However, the reason for the in above post was to point out that the Romney plan may have had several major differences to Obamacare. Also, at a politically fundamental level if the people of one particular state want such a beast they are entitled to it. Massachusetts being a more liberal state I’m sure about 80% of the people are thrilled with it. As you know Obamacare crosses state lines and forces other states (26 of which have sued the government over the issue) to participate in national health care against their wishes.

Do you see the difference now?

thunderbolt23 · July 3, 2012, 1:04pm

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

Agreed.

The question–left completely unanswered by Baucus and company–is how to expand coverage and reduce or contain aggregate costs. The answer should be easy: reduce aggregate demand for medical services.

But as a matter or policy, how does Congress accomplish this? The answer should be to empower consumers by making them pay progressively for services: the educated consumer will choose not to pay for marginally worthless services. (Trust me: much of what is offered as medical care is baseless and worthless.)

This is not news. The interested reader will find 40 years of literature by Mark V.Pauly, and many others.

Instead, what policy have we? In the last 3 years, as a small businessman, my premiums have gone up 50%, largely to pay for the anticipated costs of the “Affordable Care Act.” For any employer, it will become a reasonable choice to end health insurance benefits, and kick part of the cash back to the employees and say, “You are on your own. Go find an insurance exchange.” The exchanges will function to limit access to services, and just because someone has an insurance card does not mean that they will find a “provider.”

(I do not endorse Krauthamer’s argument. Now that Mr. Chief Justice Roberts has redefined the ACA as a piece of taxation, what activity or lack thereof will be untaxable by Congress? By his flawed opinion, the restraint placed on the Commerce Clause now is replaced by COngress’ power of taxation to intrude unrestrained into every private behavior.)

The ACA expands coverage–by fiat, and not well–and gives away entitlements–without funding them publicly–and empowers insurance companies only–without meaningful restraint. Thunderbolt is correct: in no way was any real national health care need met by this monstrosity of a law.

In short, despite what sufiandy or BrianHanson would like to believe, the mere fact that Congress passes a law and the President signs it, does not make it happen, and the worst of “unanticipated” outcomes have been written into this law. Economic forces cannot be wished away.

Were Congress to repeal the Laws of Gravitation today, I would not walk out of a tenth-story window tomorrow.[/quote]

Excellent post, Doc.

thunderbolt23 · July 3, 2012, 1:15pm

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

Aside from the complete constitutional issue clusterfuck, this is it. There was ZERO serious attempt to actually take a logical approach to resolving any cost problem in the first place. You could have passed any number of small, 50 page bills for tort reform, creating competition pressure, bring costs down in any number of a dozen ways at least-- and NONE of those bills would have been seriously controversial, or had any Constitutional questions raised at all. But the current bill is blatant pandering, power grab, and grandstanding. And it’s terrible fucking policy to boot–no reasonable bill can be longer than War and Peace and still maintain enough flexibility to create a workable (real) solution. [/quote]

Exactly. Just imagine a world where a grown-up leader decides to champion health care reform, and begins at the beginning: pass smaller, easier to understand, digestable chunks of cost control that have bipartisan support. Build consensus, build trust - actually tackle the most pressing problem of health care (costs).

After several bills, and a little time gone by implementing those cost-reducing measures, start introducing bills to assist those who can’t afford the newly cheaper and more flexible health care options. Set up exchanges, work on a subsidy for those with pre-existing conditions. Insure portability and provide a COBRA-like subsidy so that a person who loses their job and can’t find work for a while (and thus can’t pay for their insurance) gets a subsidy or similar to make sure coverage is uninterrupted (and thus, they never get an uncoverable “pre-existing” condition).

And this modest, smart, surgical approach wouldn’t have nearly the drag on the economy that this giant, uncertain, enormously expensive power grab has had.

If we had a decent leader that has this kind of vision of how to do business in Washington, we might actually get something done on health care.

SexMachine · July 3, 2012, 1:19pm

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
Oddest thing… Romney did this first, and when he did it, it wasn’t a tax, it was a penalty.

Romney has been in part running on his tax record, but if it turns out this is indeed a tax and not a penalty, we need to revisit what a penalty is and a tax is on quite a few things on his record… Is this a good thing?

[/quote]

You’re assuming that the Romney plan that was specifically for one particular state is exactly like the monster that Obama hatched.[/quote]

So the problem isn’t in principal (like it was yesterday for all these posters) but scale is the problem?

Come on, you know that’s a bunch of hooey.
[/quote]

Okay, sorry I wasn’t more clear. I am personally against any sort of health care plan that is similar to the Obama mess be it at the state or national level. However, the reason for the in above post was to point out that the Romney plan may have had several major differences to Obamacare. Also, at a politically fundamental level if the people of one particular state want such a beast they are entitled to it. Massachusetts being a more liberal state I’m sure about 80% of the people are thrilled with it. As you know Obamacare crosses state lines and forces other states (26 of which have sued the government over the issue) to participate in national health care against their wishes.

[/quote]

This is true. And of course Romney was not under the same constitutional restraints as the federal government. Whatever you want to call it: penalty/tax, it is a tax as the federal government themselves were arguing recently. And the federal government can only levy federal income tax(Amendment XVI), capitation tax(if directly apportioned amongst the states) and excise tax.

Severiano · July 3, 2012, 1:22pm

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
Oddest thing… Romney did this first, and when he did it, it wasn’t a tax, it was a penalty.

Romney has been in part running on his tax record, but if it turns out this is indeed a tax and not a penalty, we need to revisit what a penalty is and a tax is on quite a few things on his record… Is this a good thing?

[/quote]

You’re assuming that the Romney plan that was specifically for one particular state is exactly like the monster that Obama hatched.[/quote]

So the problem isn’t in principal (like it was yesterday for all these posters) but scale is the problem?

Come on, you know that’s a bunch of hooey.
[/quote]

Okay, sorry I wasn’t more clear. I am personally gainst any sort of health care plan that is similar to the Obama mess be it at the state or national level. However, the reason for the in above post was to point out that the Romney plan may have had several major differences to Obamacare. Also, at a politically fundamental level if the people of one particular state want such a beast they are entitled to it. Massachusetts being a more liberal state I’m sure about 80% of the people are thrilled with it. As you know Obamacare crosses state lines and forces other states (26 of which have sued the government over the issue) to participate in national health care against their wishes.

Do you see the difference now?[/quote]

From what I gathered you simply don’t like it because it has Obama’s name next to it.

So why must I pay auto insurance? Really, I’m over 30, I have never had an accident, never had a ticket. Should I have the option to opt out of auto insurance? I don’t think so, I’d just be being greedy and stupid if I said I wanted the option. I know I’m not the only one that could be hurt should I end up in an accident. I also know that if I don’t pay for my health insurance and end up getting hurt in the gym or at work, taxpayers end up paying for it.

I’ve had no major health issues, the only issues I have are wear and tear, I’m on no major prescriptions and I self medicate for pain. Should I have the option to opt out, even though I know damn well if I am severely injured and cant work, I’m basically homeless because I don’t have a heck of a lot saved? I shouldn’t have the option to opt out of health insurance even though you as a tax payer will end up having to foot the bill if I ever got crushed by heavy weights?

Romney recognized this problem correctly, and that is why only 1% of the people in his state ever had to pay the penalty, or as you say, “tax.” There are too many people in the country that can’t afford health insurance at all. Texas is a great state, they pay for people’s opportunity by offering them college education. But, the amount of people living check to check without health insurance is a problem. We end up paying for it one way or another. Don’t you understand it?

I’m in agreement with Romney (from several years ago) on this one. BUT, if you seriously have several million sitting in your bank account, and you are retarded enough to not want health insurance, then I think you should have the option to opt out, so long as you guarantee you will cover your expenses.

SexMachine · July 3, 2012, 1:30pm

[quote]Severiano wrote:

From what I gathered you simply don’t like it because it has Obama’s name next to it.

So why must I pay auto insurance? Really, I’m over 30, I have never had an accident, never had a ticket. Should I have the option to opt out of auto insurance?
[/quote]

This is a stupid comparison. The insurance is only needed if you choose to drive on a public road. You have the choice. The Obamacare mandate forces people who are doing nothing to enter into a private contract or be fined/taxed for not doing so.

[quote]
There are too many people in the country that can’t afford health insurance at all.[/quote]

That’s what Medicaid is for - people who can’t afford health insurance.

ZEB · July 3, 2012, 1:35pm

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
Oddest thing… Romney did this first, and when he did it, it wasn’t a tax, it was a penalty.

Romney has been in part running on his tax record, but if it turns out this is indeed a tax and not a penalty, we need to revisit what a penalty is and a tax is on quite a few things on his record… Is this a good thing?

[/quote]

You’re assuming that the Romney plan that was specifically for one particular state is exactly like the monster that Obama hatched.[/quote]

So the problem isn’t in principal (like it was yesterday for all these posters) but scale is the problem?

Come on, you know that’s a bunch of hooey.
[/quote]

Okay, sorry I wasn’t more clear. I am personally gainst any sort of health care plan that is similar to the Obama mess be it at the state or national level. However, the reason for the in above post was to point out that the Romney plan may have had several major differences to Obamacare. Also, at a politically fundamental level if the people of one particular state want such a beast they are entitled to it. Massachusetts being a more liberal state I’m sure about 80% of the people are thrilled with it. As you know Obamacare crosses state lines and forces other states (26 of which have sued the government over the issue) to participate in national health care against their wishes.

Do you see the difference now?[/quote]

From what I gathered you simply don’t like it because it has Obama’s name next to it.[/quote]

HUH? I just explained why I don’t like it and it has nothing to do with Obama. Come on man tell me you’re kidding. Reread my post.

Correct me if I’m wrong but the federal government has nothing to do with forcing you to take auto insurance. And this speaks to my main point in my previous post. Please reread it as I don’t feel like retyping it.

The point is Obamacare in its totality is a bad plan! This was discussed by two other posters who spoke about lowering health insurance costs and opening up the industry to cross state competition. The entire thing needs to be scrapped and we need to start over. Forcing people to purchase health insurance with the penalty of fines and jail is foolish.

As I said in the post that you either didn’t read or didn’t understand, that may work well in certain states that want it. Romney was Governor of a liberal state and they love the plan.

How about a free market system where an individual can do what he or she wants with thier own money without threats from the US government?

Severiano · July 3, 2012, 1:39pm

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

From what I gathered you simply don’t like it because it has Obama’s name next to it.

So why must I pay auto insurance? Really, I’m over 30, I have never had an accident, never had a ticket. Should I have the option to opt out of auto insurance?
[/quote]

This is a stupid comparison. The insurance is only needed if you choose to drive on a public road. You have the choice. The Obamacare mandate forces people who are doing nothing to enter into a private contract or be fined/taxed for not doing so.

[quote]
There are too many people in the country that can’t afford health insurance at all.[/quote]

That’s what Medicaid is for - people who can’t afford health insurance.[/quote]

Ooh it’s a stupid comparison? People who drive on public roads are at risk to auto accident on public roads just like people who are alive are at risk to health problems while alive. I don’t think that is stupid at all, it is a solid logical comparison.

As for medicaid, you need to be selling fingernail clippings to even have a low enough income to qualify for medicaid. It doesn’t cover many (many many many) people who survive from check to check. Doesn’t seem to be working as intended.

Severiano · July 3, 2012, 1:45pm

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
Oddest thing… Romney did this first, and when he did it, it wasn’t a tax, it was a penalty.

Romney has been in part running on his tax record, but if it turns out this is indeed a tax and not a penalty, we need to revisit what a penalty is and a tax is on quite a few things on his record… Is this a good thing?

[/quote]

You’re assuming that the Romney plan that was specifically for one particular state is exactly like the monster that Obama hatched.[/quote]

So the problem isn’t in principal (like it was yesterday for all these posters) but scale is the problem?

Come on, you know that’s a bunch of hooey.
[/quote]

Okay, sorry I wasn’t more clear. I am personally gainst any sort of health care plan that is similar to the Obama mess be it at the state or national level. However, the reason for the in above post was to point out that the Romney plan may have had several major differences to Obamacare. Also, at a politically fundamental level if the people of one particular state want such a beast they are entitled to it. Massachusetts being a more liberal state I’m sure about 80% of the people are thrilled with it. As you know Obamacare crosses state lines and forces other states (26 of which have sued the government over the issue) to participate in national health care against their wishes.

Do you see the difference now?[/quote]

From what I gathered you simply don’t like it because it has Obama’s name next to it.[/quote]

HUH? I just explained why I don’t like it and it has nothing to do with Obama. Come on man tell me you’re kidding. Reread my post.

Correct me if I’m wrong but the federal government has nothing to do with forcing you to take auto insurance. And this speaks to my main point in my previous post. Please reread it as I don’t feel like retyping it.

The point is Obamacare in its totality is a bad plan! This was discussed by two other posters who spoke about lowering health insurance costs and opening up the industry to cross state competition. The entire thing needs to be scrapped and we need to start over. Forcing people to purchase health insurance with the penalty of fines and jail is foolish.

As I said in the post that you either didn’t read or didn’t understand, that may work well in certain states that want it. Romney was Governor of a liberal state and they love the plan.

How about a free market system where an individual can do what he or she wants with thier own money without threats from the US government?[/quote]

Same principals apply to auto insurance, but that isn’t a problem is it? How would you feel driving on a road where people have the option of having insurance?

You write to me as if I don’t understand, but I do understand quite well.

orion · July 3, 2012, 1:48pm

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

From what I gathered you simply don’t like it because it has Obama’s name next to it.

So why must I pay auto insurance? Really, I’m over 30, I have never had an accident, never had a ticket. Should I have the option to opt out of auto insurance?
[/quote]

This is a stupid comparison. The insurance is only needed if you choose to drive on a public road. You have the choice. The Obamacare mandate forces people who are doing nothing to enter into a private contract or be fined/taxed for not doing so.

You are not insured because you yourself might have a booboo.

You are forced to have an insurance because you might hurt someone else, operating a 1-2 ton vehicle.

Sorry, US, 2-3 ton vehicle?

orion · July 3, 2012, 1:50pm

[quote]Severiano wrote:

Same principals apply to auto insurance, but that isn’t a problem is it? How would you feel driving on a road where people have the option of having insurance?

You write to me as if I don’t understand, but I do understand quite well. [/quote]

No, you dont.

If he was forced to pay, by the federal government, to buy for your injuries or the injuries you caused while operating a car, in a way that leaves the door so wide open that federalism are pretty much dead now, he would have a problem too.

Mufasa · July 3, 2012, 1:53pm

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

Aside from the complete constitutional issue clusterfuck, this is it. There was ZERO serious attempt to actually take a logical approach to resolving any cost problem in the first place. You could have passed any number of small, 50 page bills for tort reform, creating competition pressure, bring costs down in any number of a dozen ways at least-- and NONE of those bills would have been seriously controversial, or had any Constitutional questions raised at all. But the current bill is blatant pandering, power grab, and grandstanding. And it’s terrible fucking policy to boot–no reasonable bill can be longer than War and Peace and still maintain enough flexibility to create a workable (real) solution. [/quote]

Exactly. Just imagine a world where a grown-up leader decides to champion health care reform, and begins at the beginning: pass smaller, easier to understand, digestable chunks of cost control that have bipartisan support. Build consensus, build trust - actually tackle the most pressing problem of health care (costs).

After several bills, and a little time gone by implementing those cost-reducing measures, start introducing bills to assist those who can’t afford the newly cheaper and more flexible health care options. Set up exchanges, work on a subsidy for those with pre-existing conditions. Insure portability and provide a COBRA-like subsidy so that a person who loses their job and can’t find work for a while (and thus can’t pay for their insurance) gets a subsidy or similar to make sure coverage is uninterrupted (and thus, they never get an uncoverable “pre-existing” condition).

And this modest, smart, surgical approach wouldn’t have nearly the drag on the economy that this giant, uncertain, enormously expensive power grab has had.

If we had a decent leader that has this kind of vision of how to do business in Washington, we might actually get something done on health care.[/quote]

While I totally agree with this, Bolt…would you not ALSO agree that there would have to be VERY fundamental changes in the way “business is done” in Washington?

That’s been my argument all along. As things stand now; in order to get ANY bill passed, there often has to be “compromise” (i.e. “somebody gets something”). When that occurs, all too often, a Bill begins going down that slippery slope of losing much of it’s original intent.

So while I’m the first to feel that leadership counts; ANY leader eventually comes head-to-head with the realities of Washington. Granted; some deal with it better than others; but eventually ALL leaders hit the “realities” of Washington.

To be honest, I’m really hoping that that the GOP gains FULL control of the House and Senate and also Wins the White House. Then I’ll judge for myself if who is in “control” really matters one iota.

Mufasa

666Rich · July 3, 2012, 1:53pm

Yes,

it is a stupid comparison. Take public transportation like millions of people in new york city. Walk. Ride a fucking bike. You wont have to purchase auto insurance. Furthermore, there is a good private market for auto insurance as a functioning exchange, much unlike this proposed healthcare debacle. This is because federal government hasnt got involved. People can use GEICO in California, and Vermont. Healthcare will still have local monopolies as they do now.

Medicaid access is a hell of alot easier to get than you think. Same with welfare benefits. I work in an urban public school system. I can tell you of dozens of families milking SSI and medicaid who probably have a gross per capita (after transfer payments) in services and payments received equivalent to mine. Without working.

The mention of the smaller bills to reduce cost IS the solution.

As long as there is over consumption of medical services that have a masked cost, be it through public subsidy programs (medicaid…etc) and employer sponsored healthcare, you will consume more than you need in pills, tests, etc. The incentive for providers is there to pitch these things to you because they get paid certain amounts for certain services by the government OR insurance.

Big surprise that often what is needed is not in the financial best interests of the doctor to recommend. Medication for arthritis for example, a doctor will get paid a certain amount for drug X as opposed to Drug Y which is better for the patient. You don’t think this occurs because all doctors are benevolent and idealistic, you’re wrong.

I have yet to see a cogent, logical argument that explains HOW this lowers costs and does not create a federal behemoth with the influence to run our lives. I have seen alot to the contrary. The rhetoric about expanded coverage for uninsured people is just that, rhetoric. Its like putting a band aid on cancer. Costs are the problem. This is not the solution. The burden of proof to the above is on those that passed it and its supporters, however given the semantic “affordable care act” and using other peoples money to pay for it, those questions will most likely go under the rug.

countingbeans · July 3, 2012, 1:54pm

[quote]Severiano wrote:
Should I have the option to opt out, even though I know damn well if I am severely injured and cant work, I’m basically homeless because I don’t have a heck of a lot saved?[/quote]

Yes. Yes you should. If you can’t be responsible enough to see the error of your ways, in the above example, then you deserve, with all the freedom America is supposed to provide, to be homeless.

And no, I don’t feel bad for you.

Funny part is, in college, I lived off campus in an appartment and worked retail. I lived off of 12k a year. I still had savings, 4 figures worth, in excess of 10% of my income…

Why should the government be the one to force people to be responsible?

Why not? Because taking care of yourself and making the right/wrong choices shoudln’t be up to the individual?

countingbeans · July 3, 2012, 1:58pm

[quote]Severiano wrote:

Ooh it’s a stupid comparison? People who drive on public roads are at risk to auto accident on public roads just like people who are alive are at risk to health problems while alive. I don’t think that is stupid at all, it is a solid logical comparison. [/quote]

Well you are wrong.

You have to choose to own a car, first off. You don’t “choose” to be alive.

Once you own the car, you have to choose to drive it on the state’s roads. Once you choose to have that privilidge you must follow the state’s rules.

Even if I choose to not go to a doctor, I now have to pay to go to that doctor…

Apples and oranges man.

countingbeans · July 3, 2012, 2:03pm

[quote]666Rich wrote:

I have yet to see a cogent, logical argument that explains HOW this lowers costs and does not create a federal behemoth with the influence to run our lives. I have seen alot to the contrary. The rhetoric about expanded coverage for uninsured people is just that, rhetoric. Its like putting a band aid on cancer. Costs are the problem. This is not the solution. The burden of proof to the above is on those that passed it and its supporters, however given the semantic “affordable care act” and using other peoples money to pay for it, those questions will most likely go under the rug.

[/quote]

One look at Mass HI rates will prove that no one can answer those questions.

No one in Washington cares about the costs. They only care about what words will get them votes.

ZEB · July 3, 2012, 2:08pm