Obama has imposed the biggest tax increase on the middle class with this.

what incentive do people have to go to work now? not the ones that can't...i understand their plight. i'm talking about the same kind of people who abuse EBT cards. now they get healthcare too? Man, this America thing is a lot sweeter a ride than it was 25-30 years ago......

Of course the SCOTUS upheld it, those in favor are appointees by Obama!!! Obama may be an idiot, but he's not stupid....he knew long ago this would happen. There's 5 more reasons to vote for Romney.
All this does is make the middle class pay more for those that can't pay at all. How will all the illegal immigrants be "taxed" when they refuse to buy it? How will people with little to no income pay for insurance?? Its less money for people to have in their pockets to spend on other things, potentially helping the economy "in the long run". In the long run, this will not help the economy, but I bet the scumbag insurance companies are thrilled!

We will be paying billions and billions over the next 20 years, just like when the ADA act was passed.

This courtt has ensured that my daughter will never be penalized for the grave crime of having been born with cancer. Insurance companies can no longer deny her care for her medical conditions. She will be able to receve equal and fair access to care.

The entire point of a society is to share strengths and weaknesses. This new, late-20th century "I don't want to pay for other people" is a disgusting breakdown of our culture.

Separating it from the Commerce Clause makes it a Tax. A Tax that Mr. President promised he would NOT impose on the middle class. He did. He broke yet another promise. I will remember this in November.

“During his first presidential campaign, candidate Barack Obama repeatedly pledged not to increase taxes on Americans making under $200,000 annually, or families making $250,000 annually. During a stop in Dover, New Hampshire, President Obama said: ‘I can make a firm pledge…no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase.’ The health care law contains 18 separate tax increases totaling approximately $560 billion over 10 years, according to the initial estimate of the law by the Congressional Budget Office. Several of these taxes are passed directly to consumers and effectively break the President’s pledge.”

For every unfortunate person like your daughter Ben, there are a dozen "gimme" dirt bags who will just sit idle, not participate in society, and hold their hand out. Reform IS NEEDED, but not at the Federal Level, and in this manner. Massachusetts has proven (though I'm not a fan of Romney Care) that states can handle these issues on their own. Furthermore, if the Federal Government were not involved, any legislation passed at the state level would be streamline and would have fewer earmarks (and pages) in the bill. Did you know that your daughters school loans are incorporated in to this bill? Again, it could have been done another way, with less impact on the nation as a whole, instead of being pushed upon us in this manner, by the power hungry, and far too large, Feds..

@Julie - Obama appointed only two of the nine justices. Clinton appointed two, and the remaining five were appointed by Reagan and Bush. One who was in favor, the Chief Justice, is a Bush appointee. Did you even read the opinion to see what they debated before making your party-line accusation? I'm including the link here for your reference.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/NEWS/scotus_opinion_on_ACA_from_msnbc.com.pdf

I'm curious to know if you were this offended when Romney passed a very similar law in Massachusetts, after which Obama's Affordable Care Act is actually modeled. I'm not saying what I think either way, as I haven't read the opinion yet (and I may call on Kira to help me with the "big words" if she's agreeable!), but I do think it's a little bit comical that in one breath you are railing against Obama while praising the very man who laid the foundation for the Act in the first place. It seems a bit disingenuous and, frankly, hypocritical.

@ Ben, nice social justice point/ Dem talking point BUT taxing me to pay for you, and thus burdening my grandchildren and great grandchildren with the future debt, to implement this new federal healthcare ponzi scheme, EXACTLY like the bankrupt Social Security ponzi scheme, of FDR.

What part of 'you'll eventually run out of other people's money' don't you get. There's nothing left to borrow against. Barak Obama looted the till for decades to come.

Obviously, you don't live here in MASSACHUSETTS, with the astronomical healthcare costs of mandated healthcare. WHERE YOUR DAUGHTER IS COVERED. Move along carpetbagger and take Elizabeth Warren with you.

The rates went up and the middle class people are paying for it. It is better to be poor or working class where you can get healthcare for free or at a subsidy that is affordable. Do you know that Obamacare will increase people on the Medicaid rolls who can't afford health insurance. Guest who will pay for it? it will be us, the middle class.

@ Kim Thank You for using the brand spanking new Dem Talking Point
"I'm curious to know if you were this offended when Romney passed a very similar law in Massachusetts, after which Obama's Affordable Care Act is actually modeled."

Try as hard as you may but Health Insurance premiums in MA, are the highest in the nation. MA taxpayers now know, that it was a fabricated lie that mandated Mass Health, would stabilze health care costs or lower them. Up, Up, Up but never down.

@Theresa - so Romney lied? Oh, and you're very welcome - i didn't know I was using the "brand spanking new Dem Talking Point", but I'm glad that made you happy. It was actually a valid question and an equally valid observation, but I will take your sarcastic partisan response as the best you could muster on short notice. Isn't it possible to have an intelligent debate anymore? Or do we always have to resort to this shallow nonsense?

And Theresa, just for the record, I'm not a Democrat.

The tax of which people are speaking is if you don't buy insurance. Read page 30 and 31 (not what the viewer has for page numbers, but what is 'printed' in the document) to understand that this is nothing new.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

Health insurance premiums highest in the nation? Nope. My insurance is through Oklahoma, I am paying more than BCBS and get less coverage.

Just a thought... The Supreme Court was not ruling whether this was good or bad policy, they were just stating that the Federal Government has the power to impose taxes on the nation under our Constitution. Thus, you either buy insurance and pay a lower tax or don't and pay a higher tax. See page 50 of the Decision. Are we arguing that this cannot be construed as a tax?

Now, a bit of my 2 cents, worth much less than statistics or references to the constitution. Universal healthcare should be a right, not a privilege. Those that don't want to work won't be swayed by having health care or not, they won't work regardless. Those of us that DO work and need urgent care won't have to sell our soul for it.

Moreover, I think we all have a lot of reading left to do on this before we can actually come out huffing and puffing about one side or the other. Hopefully, over the next few days we can all get more informed about what this all means and then discuss it civilly without anonymously calling our neighbors carpetbaggars (though I'm not even sure what that means) and telling them to move along from somewhere that is their home.

And Kim, thanks for the summary of which president elected what justice. I was headed there, fast and furious.

We have to pay car insurance. How is this different?

Ben,

Do you know why there are no numbers for benefits fraud? Because the Democrats are too spineless to go after the lifeblood of the people that keep voting them in. If you notice that the MA GOP tried to get EBT card pushed through....who shut it down?

Perhaps if they were a little more careful with WHO got the money rather than how many different ways they could come up with to give it to other people, hard working Americans would be a little less offended every time something new got passed.

As a military veteran, I'm also offended that its still legal to lie about your military record. While I understand there is a thin line between personal bragging and blustering and using said lies for profit, I think that distinction should have been made and the law upheld.

So what have we really learned today as a country? Its OK to lie, and you can impose any fee on the American taxpayers you want, as long as you call it a tax afterward.

@Chris - is it possible for you to try to make a point without sarcasm and name-calling? I'm curious.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, talks like a duck.....

Kira:
"Those that don't want to work won't be swayed by having health care or not, they won't work regardless." - except now they get a net gain and those who work are at a net loss after paying for those who do not work.....it certainly does not inspire the unemployed to work.

"Those of us that DO work and need urgent care won't have to sell our soul for it." - our souls...no you are right. But we will have to pay much more. First we are already at a loss after providing for those who do not work. Second, we will see our rates go up....insurance which is not based on risk is infact just welfare. Third, our rates will rise because more people are covered under fewer policies. Third, to help pay for those who don't pay into the system and for those who don't belong here in the first place, the US gov has had to borrow and print so much money that the dollar you are holding today may well be worthless tomorrow.

I agree that your thoughts are nice....but nice thoughts and reality are often at odds.

I'll take that as a "no" then. That actually makes me sad. I enjoy an intelligent exchange of ideas. Ah well.

@Ben except, you know.....MY comment was about EBT fraud. But those are interesting facts about Medicare. Cool story, bro.

PREDATOR (really? PREDATOR?). Who are you agreeing with that my thoughts are nice?

The Democrats keep winning (here anyway) because they give the house away.
Think about all the people who keep voting Democratic because they get all the benefits provided.
Kinda reminds me of the term Rice Christians.....keep giving the people food and they will show up in your church every time.
It's not that I'm against poor people or helping them, but it's sad that we're a welfare country today. I guess this is one way we get back at the rich, as most of them with the middle class are paying for it. You only win if your rich or poor.
Jim@ccfiile.com

Kira: I guess you didn't like my thoughts....I thought your ideas were nice.

@Ben. OK, copy and paste works. Good catch.

Now--my disagreement was with SCOTUS interpretation. The dissenting opinion states the law violates the Commerce Clause. That should have been the end of the discussion. Why was it allowed to be reinterpreted as a tax? Was it written that way? Isn't the process supposed to be deciding if laws AS THEY ARE WRITTEN to be deemed constitutional or not? If that's the case, then how did we end up at "its unconstitutional, but we know what you meant"?

That's not how its supposed to work. Strike it down, make them rewrite it to fit the Constitution, and pass it again.

Chris, that is the SC's mandated job. Instead of killing legislation, they must try to find a way to uphold it, if possible under the constitution, page 50 of decision: "JUSTICE GINSBURG questions the necessity of rejectingthe Government’s commerce power argument, given that §5000A can be upheld under the taxing power. But the statute reads more naturally as a command to buy insurance than as a tax, and I would uphold it as a command if the Constitution allowed it. It is only because the Commerce Clause does not authorize such a command that it is necessary to reach the taxing power question. And it is only because we have a duty to construe a statute to save it, if fairly possible, that §5000A can be interpreted as a tax...". That IS how its supposed to work...

Actually, the job of SCOTUS is to interpret the law. The law never said "This should totes be a fee under the Commerce Clause, but no way, brosef, is this ever a tax."

I am so tired of hearing people say "The rich pay their fair share" as Ben comments above on the 15 %. So, say I make $60,000 and pay 28%. Keeping the math simple, I would be paying $16,800. My neighbor makes, say $2 million, but only pays 15%. He is paying $300,000!!! in taxes. So who exactly is not paying their fair share?? $300,000 verse $16,800?? And I am more likely to ever use government welfare than my neighbor.

Typo should be "don't pay" Sorry

Ben and Kira, you must realize by this point that they have no interest in realities, facts, or common sense.

John, Yes. Why should your neighbor pay a smaller percentage of what he makes BECAUSE he makes MORE than you? I know big numbers confuse, but the simple fact is, you are demanding that the rich pay less because they are rich. It's THAT simple.

"But whether they like it or not, those in the lucky "predator" group cannot change the fact that all these other Americans are JUST as American and JUST as worthy of opportunity and life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness (and health is fundamental to these things--inseparable from these liberties)". _David

I agree one hundred percent. We all as Americans have a right to opportunity, life, and for liberty. However, and this is where your argument fails, American's do not have a right to equil outcomes. Otherwise where does the redistribution end? Your lovely wife? Your 2.5 kids? Your grades? Your looks? Your intelligence? If you are willing to apply this logic to health, more specifically health insurance, why not happiness? How will the government level the playing field for that on?

sorry "on" should be "one"

I have a daughter who has a chronic condition since birth..In 2009 she had brain surgery. There were complications-an infection (meningitis) She had 5 surgical procedures and 37 days in the ICU-- Two weeks after she got home, Her insurer CIGNA dropped her coverage after 14 years of paying premiums- Thanks to Mass health she is now covered. The Europeans hold that healthcare is a right and not a privilege. They ousted for profit insurance for a single payer plan. One private enterprise collects premiums and pays claims-That's it- They take 5% for operating costs, 95% pays claims. Everyone pays based on a sliding scale .As a result, everyone gets care, no one gets a bill or files for bankruptcy. -- In the USA thing differ. You pay a hefty premium to an insurer who takes 30% to 40% for operating costs which includes lobbyists and shareholders. The insurers are solely committed to the shareholder, not to the sick The President's plan should lower premiums making health care affordable- There are 51 million potential customers out there.. Only in the USA , do thousands of Americans with treatable issues die for lack of insurance. Only here do folks lose everything and file for bankruptcy with staggering medical bills-- This could easily be your fate even if you have coverage. Under the President's plan, you may chose not to be covered, but you will be fined. This is not a tax, It insures me that when you have your day in the ER ,it is not as a freeloader.

Just an extension of the snowflake generation. Things that have remained something to work for throughout human history, suddenly have become a birthright of the masses.

So....next up Genius Squad......overpopulation, and dwindling access to food and clean water worldwide. Now that we have spent the last 100 years making strides to make sure that we have forever altered the natural life cycle on Earth...how do we keep up with the strain on resources that is now going to become a three headed monster: 1. People are living much longer than they did years ago, straining our resources in every imaginable way. 2. One of those ways is money...that we won't be able to move elsewhere.(Now that we have deigned this a birthright, it will touch off chaos in the streets to take it away). 3. Now we can't spend that money on our "white guilt", helping out all of the other unfortunate countries of the world.

The spirit that made this country one of the greatest powers of our time is slowly fading into the sunset. While I am glad that we at least spent the money on our own citizens for once, instead of a country that will still hate us, I feel we are sending the wrong message to a growing class of people more than willing to kick back and let us provide. I agree with many of the provisions of ACA. There was a need for reform. But I honestly think its gone too far. It WILL be abused, because the government will not install oversight. There are holes that need to be patched.

Yes, let's patch the holes, and regulate well, by all means! There will still be corruption--there always is--but we're moving in the right direction (and may I say, a quintessentially American direction? the same direction we've been moving in, slowly but surely and not without setbacks, since we became America.).

Ruling Obamacare constitutional strikes a terrible blow against states rights and the long established concept of federalism.

I have no problem with the various states implementing their own Obamacare type plan at the state level, if their citizens want it. However, the federal government should not be involved. There is just too much temptation to use the federal government as a slush fund because the feds can just issue debt and then print money to cover the costs. The states are limited in that regard because most are required by law to balance their budgets every year and they can't run the monetary printing presses to monetize the debt as the federal government can to provide free stuff to the general public.

I am disappointed. Not with the ruling because I think the ruling was correct. But I feel like we were duped – lied to again. I am starting to feel like Obama and the Dems knew exactly what they were doing when they wrote this bill. They set it up as a tax (managed and collected by the IRS at tax time) and unequivocally denied it was a tax to get the votes they needed to pass it. After all, it’s not illegal to lie to the public. Then, when it came time to argue in court, tell it like it is – it is a tax (because it is illegal to lie in court). They let everyone freak out about the commerce clause and the limited role of government knowing the SCOTUS would look at all options, not just the commerce clause – pretty slick actually. Maybe I’m giving them too much credit but I don’t think so.

I am glad that we don’t have to worry about pre-existing conditions or losing heath insurance due to unemployment. The benefits of this law were always easy to see. But I am concerned about the number of doctors available to treat 30M newly insured patients. I am particularly concerned about my family doctor. I worry that too many new regulations will tempt him to retire, leaving me hunting for a doctor in a market with too few.

I am also concerned about the cost. We are in no position to be spending money this way. I wish they would spend some time reducing fraud and validating that people are truly needy before giving them whatever they want. I am also concerned about what this means to Massachusetts. The Federal Government has been subsidizing the MA health connector (or whatever it’s called) for years. When that support is diminished our state and local taxes or insurance premiums will have go up (again).

But I don’t believe for a minute that this will be repealed. Even if the GOP gets the WH, Senate and the House I don’t think they are crazy enough to repeal it. It’s ours now, we own it. I hope it turns out to be better than we thought. And I hope we can afford it.

Most things that are worth something, cost something. I don't know how much it will cost--but I do know that no two people will answer that question in the same way, nor will any ONE answer be comprehensive. The question of whether or not we can afford it aside, I think it is a positive thing that more and more people think it is worth trying.

Its refreshing to see that the Patch is getting more evened responses to issues rather than the never ending right wing opinions. Let's face it, Obama is a popularly elected president who was elected due to the gross failure of Republican policies. The Democratic senators were elected for the same reason. The democratic house, when health care was passed, was elected for the same reason. So trying to portray the health care law as something done illegally is a stretch, even for the Supreme court, which has a number of Bush appointees. And to those who claim that no one needs to work anymore and they will get free health care now, guess what, people have been getting free health care in this country for a very long time. Its called spreading the expenses to those who pay. Hospitals right now treat those who can't pay and those who can pay pick up the tab. At least the law now tries to get fair payment from all. Now if only the House could be a democratic majority again, we could get things done in this country rather than have a Republican controlled house who's main goal in life is to regain the power they lost, at all of our expense.

As we go forward, what will be the impact of this Supreme Court decision on small business, the engine that drives our economy and hopefully will help pull us out of this stalled recession?

Larry Schmeidler

What will be the impact on adding 30 million new health care clients on everything?
Not to mention the millions of illegal aliens that are already on it?
But that's not an issue here as many people think that we have a money tree out back where you just pull the money off it.
So now the Govt. can tell the States what to do and how to handle their Health Care issues. This ought to be good!
Jim@ccfiile.com

I think the Supreme Court decision was a tragety . More government incursion into the lives of its' citizens ! The Democrat's idea in running this country is to drive all hard working CITIZENS TO THE POOR HOUSE !

Well, since we already gave everyone health care at the federal level, what's holding up federal recognition of gay marriage now. Let's rip the band aid off and get it over with, rather than another 2 year news cycle....

The Democrats want to pay all the bills with everyones else's money.
Keep planting those money trees and everything will work out fine.
Jim@ccfiile.com

Paul...Doesn't make sense....."Penalizing freeloaders" How does that happen? The illegals and most uninsured use the hospitals as their primary care, this is where they fly under the radar. Of course this cost isn't figured into any picture, until the hospital goes bankrupt. Lets say they were even able to send them a "Penalty Bill" try finding them first (the illegals anyway) and then get them to pay it....LOL Time for a name change...new identity, and new address.
Jim@ccfiile.com

This is outrageous! Telling people to pay for their own health care insurance! A stock market that's up 30% in three years! Bin Laden dead! Taxes are unchanged! Iraq war is over! The sky is falling...the sky is falling!

Just wait for the workers and doers to go on strike.

Paul.....Here is my view....We all should pay a reasonable cost.
Illegals should get nothing! That alone will bring the cost down tremendously.
Health care is too expensive because of the freeloaders getting emergency care.
The hospitals have to pass that cost on to someone. If everything worked above board we wouldn't wouldn't be paying such a high cost. Reign in the cost and the cost of Health Care Ins. goes down...make sense?
If worse came down to worse the illegals can charge it to their EBT cards they usually have a couple to use.
Jim@ccfiile.com

We'll see.

What I find so interesting about all the comments, is that many, if not all, are NOT based on facts. Opinions are good, but let's not distort facts. I'm a 2+2=4 guy, and often someones '2' is another's '3', it can't be both. People need to have their facts right before giving a comment.
As for being "taxed" in Massachusetts for not having health care (Romney), and being "taxed" under Obamacare, what's the difference? It's still a tax.... is being taxed for not having health care in Mass, and/or not having it under Obamacare the same? If Obamacare 'tax' is unfair, then the Mass health 'tax' is also unfair - 2+2.

Well, Jim, you answered the question. Bravo.

Guess what? We happily don't live in country where we let people die on hospital steps, as you would have it. We are humans. We are better than that.

Or at least the rest of us are.

Paul....Maybe you can show me where I advocate people dieing at the hospital steps.
How about playing honest with this one?
Jim@ccfiile.com

"Illegals should get nothing!"--J. Rizoli. Discuss.

And this is by no means an "illegals" issue. Back on track.

David as usual you missing the point. The illegals HAVE to be figured into the equation, if not, you're not going to get the full impact.
ANYONE who is getting FREE Health Care has to be figured in.
This is what they do in Framingham all the time when it comes to the census.....they claim we have 67,000 people but they don't include the illegals which at one time was 20-30k? So how fair is that? The liberals want us to think they don't exist but as time goes on they do and the cost of tending to them is staggering.
So to talk about Health Care without them is not in the best interest of those who are paying for the care. Those who do pay, pay a higher premium right for those that don't. Same with car insurance.....why do you think we pay more in Framingham than someone in Dover....Take a guess.....
Why is it that no matter what we talk about cost wise it always reverts back to the........
Jim@ccfiile.com

Jim, as usual you are trying to make this a conversation about illegal immigration. Of course some (but not all) illegal immigrants will continue to benefit at the expense of the taxpayer--but by your own constant account, this has been happening for decades, and in that respect, the decision of the Supreme Court has nothing to do with this. Illegals benefitting from access to emergency care is a completely separate issue, and one about which, to read your posts (half quoting the Bible, half damning immigrants), you are quite uncertain and divided. And please stop stereotyping--this is not about your vaguely-defined "liberals"; it is a bi-partisan issue, and many Republicans also believe that health care is a basic American right. That is one of the best facts to emerge from this Supreme Court decision.

The Jim Rizoli Hate Parade in full swing folks....

I do HATE! I hate having someone else spending MY money!
I'm curious....How many here love to have your money spent on PEOPLE (not just illegals) that don't deserve it?
I guess I must be the only one....LOL
Jim@ccfiile.com

Anybody read Scott Brows article in the Boston Globe OPINION page today?

http://bostonglobe.com/opinion/2012/06/28/supreme-courth-health-care-ruling-bad-for-nation-and-for-massachusetts/i7G0ghvXkPTirPSQOklP4H/story.html

He brought up some very logical concerns.

Joe Rizoli

Don't worry about the illegals, everythings covered.

http://www.examiner.com/article/illegal-alien-relax-you-re-covered?CID=examiner_alerts_article

Joe Rizoli
CCFIILE

Where does your money come from? What is it for? This is not about YOUR money rather than EVERYBODY ELSE'S money. It is about OUR money, our priorities, what we think is important as a country, not merely what you think is important as a Rizoli. It is the absolute height (or nadir) of irony that you two quote the Bible constantly, and speak for your version of God all the time, and then whine about YOUR money as if that were some brazen calf out of the Old Testament. NONE OF WHICH has ANYTHING AT ALL to do with the Supreme Court's decision not to block provisions which move us closer to the enlightened acknowledgement that basic health care is a fundamental American right, and that each AMERICAN citizen should have it and participate in maintaining it.

This is what happens when you can't counteract our reasoning and expect us to agree with nonsense.
It's nonsense to think WE have to pay for the world around us, while they pay nothing, and laugh all the way to the bank.
Jim@ccfiile.com

Some good quotes....
http://tinyurl.com/7h9ow4y
Jim@ccfiile.com

Thanks Obama for the new teeth
Signed, illegal alien
http://www.examiner.com/slideshow/teeth-1

Joe Rizoli

a nice summary of Obama"care"
http://www.activistpost.com/2012/06/15-reasons-why-obamacare-decision-is.html

Milanek--nothing "nice"-- or true--about it. One more right wing, fanatical, know-it-all, doomsayer--and this one a lawyer to boot! I suppose it's a good thing that this "activist" hates EVERYTHING the Supreme Court has ever done, or at least in the past forty years. What I really don't understand is why so many people here post links--not to news or statistics, but--to pea-brained prophet wannabes and cheap chicken littles?? The sky is still in place, and it's a beautiful day! AND your doctor will still see you!!!!

How to deal with it all....it's called "nullify"
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/06/28/what-next-nullify/
Jim@ccfiile.com

$250 rebate b/c of Affordable Care Act

I just received a check from Fallon Community Health Plan for almost $250 as a rebate required by the Affordable Care Act.
Summarizing from Fallon's letter:
ACA requires health care plans to spend at least 80% of premiums on health care services and activities to improve health care quality. No more than 20% of premiums may be spent on administrative costs such as salaries, sales & advertising. This is called the "Medical Loss Ratio". ACA allows states to set a higher ratio than 80/20. In Massachusetts, the ration is 88/12.
The letter continues:
Fallon health did not meet the Medical Loss Ration set by Massachusetts in 2011 as it spent only 84% of $209 million in premiums on health care & activities to improve health care quality.
Fallon was required to rebate me 4% of my premiums. The check was enclosed.

Perhaps the Republican would like to repeal this.

Now you can go to a Red Sox Game.
Jim@ccfiile.com

Can you folks who do not agree with the Supreme Court's decision explain why a health care law supported by the very conservative Heritage Institute in the early 90s and introduced by Republicans in Congress in 1993 as an alternative to Clinton's plan, modeled on a law signed by our former Republican governor is now a subverive socialist plot to take away our individual liberties?

Hypothetically, if this plan had been brought to Congress by a hypothetical President Romney in 2008 - how would you have felt about it?

Remember that if you have to file quarterly taxes and don't you pay a penalty. Not having health insurance requires you to pay a penalty. The Feds are not taking over health care. They are forcing you to buy PRIVATE insurance for cripes sake. YOU decide what kind of insurance you want. You don't want insurance, you pay a penalty. Again - your choice.

One other thing to consider - we spend almost twice per capita than any other industrialized country for health care - yet we have lower life expectancies and higher infant mortality rates. This situation makes us less competitive in the world economy and is unsustainable.

Yes, most of these other countries have government run health care systems but the fact of the matter is that the current state of US health care shows our system basically sucks. Two other countries - Switzerland and Taiwan, have a system based on the ACA and they have better health care outcomes than the US.

Linda....Your not Worthy.....LOL
Jim@ccfiile.com

I'm all for Health care....who's going to pay for it?
Should one group of people foot the bill for the rest?
The whole system is screwed up, they would rather spend the billions of dollars on bogus wars than to help the people living here.
The messed Health Care system is just a symptom of something that is totally wrong.
Jim@ccfiile.com

Andy -- I hope Obama's re-election campaign uses your first paragraph for a TV ad.

But hey, the health care war's over. The good guys won. Businesses will adjust and we'll have another 'new anormal'. States with less leadership and foresight than former Gov. Romney provided in Massachusetts will implement the law. Health care plans will be forced to control their costs. Millions and millions of American parents who could not get health insurance for their kids, will have it. And we are a better nation for that.
It feels like morning in America -- once again.