ABSOLUTELY DO "NOT" AGREE WITH THIS RULING.

I think it’s great! it’s about time I get to pay the same as everyone else, Why should I have to pay over $3000.00 a month for me and my wife to have insurance just because we are both self-employed.
Yet if we give one of these “commerce groups” $2200 a year, now we can get discounted group rate.
How about I’m an American, Im an American VET, is that group enough for you? We’re just about 313 Million strong, Now give me my #$#@ discount!

I cant even begin to recount the times I’d go to the Dr or ER, get a bill and see adjustments such as billed rate - $1290.00 Insurance rate $412.38.
SO if I pay cash, I pay $1290 bucks, I have insurance, they will take $412.38 for the same procedure because it’s a “prearranged rate” The Mafia isn’t dead, they went into healthcare.

Chief Justice Roberts voted to uphold "Obamacare" not because he agreed that it is constitutional under the Commerce Clause, as the administration argued, but because Roberts decided that the "fee" was really a tax and Congress could tax us for "going without" insurance (his words). If his argument holds -- and I do not think that it will, long-term -- there would be no limit to what Congress could decide we must have or do and tax us if we don't.

The Supreme Court has voted. We vote in November.

Charlie Kadlec
Acton

Ryan:
The problems with the US health care system are that:
1) Doctors, Nurses, technicians, drug providers, etc., get paid for office visits or procedures, not for documentable good patient outcomes or satisfaction, &
2) Many "gatekeeper" doctors or other refereers
a) don't keep up with the expentionally exploding medical knowledge regarding evolving viruses and vacines and other drugs, but
b) prefer to refer patients to a partner or member of their closed network rather than the best expert on a specific topic.
If your doctor is 60 years old and graduated from Med School at age 25, you too often get medical advice that is 35 years out of date. Some good doctors try to keep up by attending conferences and reading journals, but if they work 50 + hours, they will fall behind.
William C. Crum

This decision was absolutely correct based on case precedents---Congress can and did---decide to ensure coverage for 30M plus Americans---Not sure how anyone who knows someone who has cancer---and needs insurance---could disagree---This protects their coverage (re: preexisting conditions)---Honestly, I wish those who disagree with the decision actually would look at what it does---This is in America's best interest and it beyond partisan bickering...

If they can "tax" you for not having health insurance, think of the things that they could add a tax to. Deciding how many children you can have (CHINA) or not have, tax you for not following Doctor's orders, deciding what car you can buy and tax you for buying the wrong one. Being taxed to death and then not dying and being taxed again for living. At this point, the ruling has opened the door for the Federal Government to levy any monetary amount on us as long as they call it a TAX. Sounds to me like we need another Real "Tea Party". There is not a single person in the Country that doesn't know that the Health Care System need changing, but Obamacare is not that change. This Bill was shoved down our throats. Pelosi's words, "We have to pass it to find out what's in it". Ask yourself, Would you buy a car without looking under the hood or would you just say,
I'll take the pretty blue one. Well, that's Obamacare. IF they had just taken their time about putting it together and reading the damn thing, this whole business could have been avoided.

As Charlie wrote, "We vote in November."

Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III

And 'you will lose in November.'

Much has been said here & of course online for, or against. It all comes down to how we feel about some basic levels of fairness coupled with compassion for others, knowing that the 'other' could just as easily be us, but for sheer luck of birth and/or a multitude of layered circumstances. Fair, for me means that those who take from a system need to contribute (those with no insurance can walk into any E R and get free service and this gets widely abused and those people should pay in, because if they do not, those who do pay, pay more - un fairly. The E R is a profoundly inefficient to deliver routine care. On that note, reform is certainly 'conservative' taking out the free riders via the mandate - you can take from the system - and do - so you must pay in as millions of others do. Taking out lifetime caps and pre-existing condition restrictions is part of compassion - 1,000's of families went bankrupt paying for the kinds of awful medical conditions that we would not wish on our worst enemies. By pure luck, most of us do not suffer from such horrific conditions. Those who were looking at a year or two of life or millions of $ in care costs, 'pulled the plug' either on themselves on a loved one to avoid bankruptcy. Do we let people who cannot pay those millions die while their families go bankrupt? I say no, some say yes.

I do hope the 'yeses' never have a change of circumstance and find themselves lying in that hospital room, enduring excruciating pain, staring down tortured years then death and there is no $ from society to alleviate their pain. ' Let them suffer, then die ' because they have no cash - is not a world I want to live in. SO, I agree with keeping this healthcare reform. Let children suffer, then die while their parents go bankrupt is not an option for me.

This all said, I would add that is burns my sense of fairness to know that everyone in Washington, legisaltors AND the arch conservative supreme court justices have cadillac healthcare FOR LIFE - how profoundly hypocritical of these creeps to accept taxpayer funded helathcare and vote to let people suffer, die and leave their families in bankruptcy. and many of these people claim to be religious. No religion that I know of preaches, 'take all you can from others and set up a system that keeps them from having what you have.' I believe there is a clause in the constitution that says something to the effect of; " congress shall pass no law that they themselves are not subject to' having a separate 'cadillac' healthcare system for member of congress AND the supreme court, while the citizenry does not have that exact same system is therefore unconstitutional. Why we do not demand that congress eliminates their pension system AND cadillac healthcare FOR LIFE and instead subjects themselves to both social security and medicare leaves me speechless.

People are missing the whole tax thing,, its easy.
Everyone,, EVERYONE gets a tax credit of $xxxx.xx to cover health insurance, if you elect to NOT have health insurance you lose that tax credit.

ALSO as part of this, the tax credit you get covers the fee/charges that it would cost a federal employee for medical insurance, the idea was that simple, to give everyone in America affordable health insurance. We all know Fed’s have an awesome insurance plan, why can we offer citizens of the US of A, that same plan?

Now politicians being what they are, need to add to and take away from the idea, distort what the intended purpose was for the idea and then sit back and say “ wow that’s crazy” and not realize the mess they turned a great concept into.

Moving forward, We need to start someplace, with no line in the sand, we have nothing to cross, no way to move forward, is this bill perfect? No, is it a starting point? Yes and that’s what we needed, a place to start.

I find it intellectually dishonest to say that with this ruling the government can suddenly force all sorts of decisions on us.  

If you open the US tax code -- or simply fill out your tax return -- you'll notice that there is nothing new under the sun.  

As an example, we all need a place to live and we find it through the private market.  Yet, if we make the choice to own a home we get a tax credit, while there's no such tax credit for renting. Effectively, we tax people for renting. 

This is just one example. There a plenty of other, e.g., tax credits for job expenses, hybrid cars, charitable giving. It's all about encouraging a particular behavior, which is considered desirable. Please explain how any of these is any different from broccoli?  

By all means, people should vote in November. In fact that was the whole point of the ruling - this is a political decision, not a judicial decision. This is the part I agree with the most. It is beyond my understanding that this ever made it to the supreme court when there are so many other examples of using the tax system to discourage a particular behavior. 

As you might remember we did vote about this in 2008. A significant part of the 2008 debate was about healthcare. Perhaps, most ironically, the Republican proposal was a tax credit for people who buy insurance. Why on earth should the federal government tamper with the free market and get into encouraging people to buy health care rather than broccoli???

It's going to take some real time to see what this ruling means. For the moment most of Obama-Care stands because 5 Justices re-wrote the legislation from the bench. The legislation says it's a penalty. They re-wrote it to be a tax. Apparently they forgot that all tax legislation must originate in the House of Representatives. So even if they want to interpret this as a tax, it can't stand because the House passed a Senate originate bill!!!! Hello!!! Did anyone bother to read Article 1 of the Constitution?
But we got some important good things out of the ruling. The mandate itself has actually been struck down. Government can't compel commerce. That's good in spite of twisted logic that say you can now tax someone for the failure to engage in commerce.
The Court also struck down the coercion of the states by the Federal Government vis-a-vis the Medicaid mandates. So that's a huge victory which will cause this monstrosity to fall in on itself. But the Court finally set some limits and stood up for 10th Amendment.
And the Court reminded us all of the dangers of 16th Amendment. We need structural change in order to fundamentally restore America. That needs to happen in the political realm, not the judiciary.
So while I disagree with the logic behind the majority opinion and obviously the result. It puts the ball back in our court.

NonnyMus:
You can't seriously equate medical treatment of potentially life threatening diseases with hair stylists. Whatever flimsy ongoing education certification requirements are in effect, the fact remains that older doctors can not keep up with medical advances. Also, doctors have a financial incentive to order unnecessary tests and office visits, and they do only refer patients to other doctors or technicians within their closed profitsharing network.
Everytime I go for a medical visit, I am on time (aka 10 minutes beforehand to show an insurance card to the receptionist). Then I and other patients have to wait routinely for 30, 45 or over 60 minutes. Also, the doctors charge hundreds of dollars per hour, but often spend ten minutes or less with each patient, meaning they charge the hourly rate for 4, 5 or 6 patients per hour. How scandalous, but there is no accountability within the US medical "profession".
William C. Crum

Tell me something, Im just curious, who is paying health insurance for the guy that has been standing in front of the Burlington mall for the last 6 months with the sign, "Please help. wife and children to support"? we are all paying for him are we not? Thats whats wrong with the system here. We are taking care of people who could take care of themselves, I for one, resent that. If you truly need help thats one thing, But to know we are paying for people like that makes this wrong.

@Earnhardt: What we have here didn't create 159 new agencies or boards. It took about 70 or so pages to write. It didn't have nearly as much potential for governmental abuse.
But most importantly the States have plenary policing powers when it comes to legislating social policy. The Federal Government does not. The Federal Government exists only because the very limited authority it has, comes from the people and the STATES, which are Sovereign. Massachusetts is a STATE not a Province. It has powers and authorities that Federal Government doesn't have.
The court in as much said, the States have the authority, unless forbidden by their State Constitution, to impose such a mandate.
But folks, read the decision. The Federal mandate was struck down! What remains is the tax for those who don't purchase insurance. That has the same effect of upholding the mandate. So the law for now survives. And we can discuss the ruling under the taxation clause in another comment.

But you asked what's wrong with what we do in Massachusetts. Nothing Constitutionally speaking, because Massachusetts has the authority to impose a mandate. What's wrong with the Federal Law is that is a huge expansion of the Federal Government not permitted by our Constitution. Remember one of the principle purposes of the Constitution is to protect the people and the States from the Federal Government.

But, as I understand this, isn't this Government telling us that we HAVE to have health insurance? isn't this in a way, the Govt. TELLING us we have no choice? I don't know a lot about it. so I'm just asking.

I understand it the same way.

@Eernhardt. There is a huge difference between State and Federal Government.
We are on nation, but 50 Sovereign States. The word State is just another way of saying Country. Each State has it's own Constitution, it has it's own form of Government. Not every State has a the same kind of Legislature with two Houses. Not ever State Constitution allows the same authority to its Government. They are "Free and Independent States" where in the people establish their own social policies through their own State Government. There are limitations on this independence and they are set forth in the Federal Constitution. So we have a Union of States.
Our Framers intended the power of government remain in the government closest to the people.
See as a citizen of the United States, if you don't like what Massachusetts is doing, you can change it easier, and if you can't change it, you can move to another State. It's not so easy to leave the United States and move to a country you don't have citizenship in. Unfortunately the nature of our Federal Republic has been eroding since 1913. At the rate we are going, our rights as free and sovereign states will completely be disappear in our life time.
Our Republic was designed to protect individuals from the tyranny of the majority. That's why we elect the President through and Electoral College and not by popular vote. The best way to protect individual freedoms, is to ensure that the most power resides in the most local government.

So while it appears to just by the "Government" telling us what to do, it makes a difference which Government is telling you what to do.Think of it this way. The most local government there is the FAMILY. Each household makes it's own rules. Each set of parents decide what works best for their family. The members of that family have to live by the rules set by the parents.
Now imagine, if all of a sudden some outside that family starts dictating what dinner time, what the curfew is, and so forth is for every family on the block.

The new law, similar to current Mass law, imposes a tax penalty on those that don't have health insurance and choose not to buy it. The penalty amount starts small in 2014 and is scheduled to rise up to near the cost of an insurance policy. The cost of a policy that provides the defined minimum is capped based on your income, to keep it affordable. At the lower end of the income spectrum, the insurance is the same as Medicaid, which gets expanded to cover more people.

My sentiments exactly.

The health insurance issue is complex and certainly worthy of very serious discussion between now and November when we, the voters, get a chance to influence the future by voting for those who have the best understanding of what needs to be done, and the commitment to do it. One simple test of the candidates' commitment to finding the best solution -- for us -- is to ask them if they would vote to eliminate the current health insurance plans for all Federal (or State) employees -- including Congress (or the General Court), the military, the Supreme Court, everybody -- and to replace them with exactly the same plan that they want to impose on us -- and only that plan. If not, why not ?

When Niki Tsongas was asked whether she would sign up for "Obamacare" after she voted for it in November 2009 she gave one of the most convoluted non-answers known to politicians. I plan to ask her again.

Charlie Kadlec
Acton

That just begs the question, considering that those with current health plans are not required to search for a new option under Obamacare.

Theoretically, prices could still go up for insurance (to Earn), but the point is that companies are required to have a cap. But that is interesting though - I wonder what the gov't actions are towards private insurance companies that will probably be unaffected since a majority of people can't obtain coverage under them.

@Earnhardt.. I share your concern about government intrusion. I was simply pointing out that in this area, states have more authority to act then the Federal Government.
Personally I think that every individual has an implicit "personal liberty interest" protected by the Constitution, so I would have struck down the mandate at all levels of Government. I feel the same way about seat belt laws or snow shoveling ordinances or any other nanny state attempts to mandate personal behavior.
It is one thing to prohibit behavior in order to protect people from each other. It's another to mandate behavior, forcing people to engage in a particular behavior or task.

I love this discussion. I do have a local cable show in Newton called "Veracity" and would love to keep the discussion going. Anyone interested in taking a pro-side or the con-side of this issue on the show? If interested please email me at ahhinc@hotmail.com. Dont let me stop the discussion.

One should consider that anyone/everyone who becomes seriously ill will receive care and it they cannot pay the cost will be passed on to the public in one manner or another. It might be best to standardize how the payments are made to ensure the payments made are shared fairly.

In the end we all pay for the uninsured so anything that expands coverage or "motivates" people to obtain coverage is a good thing to me. I think this act is a halfway decent first step but we have a long way to go. And I wish people would stop talking about how we won't be able to choose our own doctors because it just isn't true.

Also, just curious...anyone on this string from JP?

Agreed, Maura. I'm in JP, by the way.

arbly
The last time we were forced to pay a TAX for something wee did not get left alot of options tea got left in the bay. Think about the next party, ballotts, asprin, cvs cards oh my. The mountain man will be the last of your worries my precious

Just remeber one thing, we can vote them all out of office, but this will never go away,,, it is here to stay, Just wait until you see the next "mandates" that will be coming. This is just a trial run people.

This good policy---especially for veterans---I'm a veteran of two wars and we need to make sure our troops tthat return broken have adequate care---both under the VA and in private life

Mitt biked around France instead of serving his nation. His five healthy sons 'serve' their nation by supporting their dad's candidacy for president, instead of serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. Beau Biden served, why didn't they?

We do like brocoli here at the rectory and I don't think the upcoming tax on not eating it will be a problem. Or was it a penalty? The silent majority will speak to this on November 6th.

Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III

My question is: Is there anyone who is against Healthcare reform who DOESN'T have healthcare? It seems to me that the majority of those who are against it are already 'comfortable'.....

Time for truth about Canadian Health Care:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/01/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-canadian-health-care-in-one-post/

When I was living in Italy and then England, every time I needed to visit the doctor, the care was almost universally better than that which I've received here in the US. At the Lahey Clinic, etc.

And it was FREE.

@theLittleWeen.. Whats your point? you feel the need to repeat my statement to ken pope? I don't get it. Why don't you stop with the little immature insults and get to your point? Also explain to me how we are all wrong. Also what was the comment again about my "rhetoric"? I cant seem to find it now. If you admire me so much you feel the need to copy my statements. at least ask first.

@ Steve Hurl. @TheLittle Ween @ Aaron Levy: maybe you three can get together and form a brain trust to try to voice a realistic opinion, Instead of just taking "pot Shots" at everyone. It just proves you have no real opinion or ideas to add. Happy July 4th!

@Earnhadt,

I beg your pardon? I was making a statement in support of the ACA. I you were unable to figure that out, it's hardly my fault.

And yes, I'm well aware that someone else was paying for my care when I was living in Europe. But I was merely pointing out the lack of truth in the whole 'medical care in Europe is AWFUL' meme.

And MC, it is so very sad that you view everything the US government says is 'inherently evil.' And you guys are the people who constantly accusing us liberals (or Social Democrats, in my case) or 'hating America...'

Happy Independence Day everybody.

@Earnhardt

You accused me of something I didn't do, and then acted purposefully enigmatic. And then you accused me of 'showing my true colors.' I hope you're proud of yourself?

@Aaron Levy. You accused me of Spewing rhetoric and terrorizing the country.. Did you not? Go back and look... Yup you did... so looks like I did not falsely accuse you of anything... You like England so much? I'm sure they would love to have you. That's where you showed your true colors... Free healthcare in England! LOLOLOL And yes! I am quite proud of myself... NOW I am done.. enjoy the conversation.

@Earnhardt

First, my name is Aron. With one 'A.' Learn to read, please.

Second, if you think I was using rhetoric as a pejorative, you're much dumber than you look. And your rhetoric sounds very similar to that of the sovereign citizen movement, which has produced such luminaries as Tim McVeigh and Randy Weaver. Truly, your ignorance knows no bounds.

And the whole 'if you love X so much, why don't you move there' argument is terribly played out. (And just FYI, as a foreign student, my healthcare WAS free, skippy.)

@Earnhadt I said dumber than you APPEAR. Through your commentary. And not once have you used 'facts and Knowledge' (your screwy capitalization). You've just spewed talking points. You're not worth my time, and we're done here.

Adios Aaron! come back when you have some knowledge, and some real insight.... ohh do you prefer nicknames? I mean you threw out Skippy, how about,,, hmmm Uninformed?

People, get your facts right, 99% of whats being spewn here is INCORRECT
http://healthreform.kff.org/quizzes/health-reform-quiz.aspx?source=QL

Get your facts straight, then vote early and often in November.

Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III

Hi everyone, thanks for the lively comments. I'm the editor of Jamaica Plain Patch, just wanted to ask that we stick to arguing the issues and don't make personal attacks. Here are the rules we all agree to by commenting on Patch: http://jamaicaplain.patch.com/terms

@M C Stringfellow. You're right. I did read too far into your statement, and for that I apologize. I just found it rather disappointing that you would have such a negative view of government.

And as to your other question, a Social Democrat is pretty much what it sounds like. I'm a moderate Socialist. Not a Communist, and certainly not a National Socialist (even though National Socialism lost ANY semblance of Socialism after the murder of the Strasser brothers...).

I support government control of the economy, to an extent. I am, after all, a small business owner. My views boil down to increased regulation, and a move away from the Sainted Free Market (which was never really free in the first place.).

If you look at Northern Europe, you'll probably see the best representation of my political views.

@Chris Sorry for the transgressions on my part. I'm much more used to commenting on the SPLC's Hatewatch blog, where it is impossible to NOT take a hard line when dealing with many of the white nationalist trolls that come to spew their filth.

Aaron! your back! there's another European reference from you. You really should move there, Can I help you pack? :) Yeah I know, the move somewhere else kine is over used, but you just keep inviting me to throw it out there again...You wouod support more Govt. controls. How about more taxes also? because this is all Obamacare is. like it or not. that is all it is.. What will they mandate next?

@Katy G. If you question Aaron Levy on why he didnt stay in England, he will spin it to try to make you look like an idiot. or accuse you of trying to scare everyone. LOLOL

:) Yup, or call me names, a favorite argument tool of the left.

National Healthcare (ACA):
1. Invented by conservatives (The Heritage Foundation)
2. Promoted by conservatives (Newt Gingrich, 90s, as an alternative to "Hillary-care"
3. Implemented by a conservative (Gov. Romney, remember him?)
4. Upheld by a conservative (Chief Justice Roberts)
5. And, now, denounced by conservatives.

Tax, penalty, fine - what does it matter? If you have healthcare, you don't pay a fine. People seem not to have any problem paying for insurance against uninsured motorists. No problem paying highway tolls (which is a tax for using the road! People who don't use the road, don't pay the toll). No problem paying $1 or more on cigarettes (again, you don't smoke, you don't pay the tax). So why no such a problem?

Doesn't matter what you call it - you only pay it if you don't have or cannot obtain health insurance.

Really, a little common sense and logic is all that is needed. Seems to me as I read these comments is ideology blinds many.

And, to address the issues of the quality of care under the ACA, a few facts about our healthcare in this country attributed primarily to equality of access:

1. 39th in infant mortality
2. 43rd in female mortaility
3. 42nd in male mortality
4. 36th in life expectancy
5. 1st in healthcare spending

Of course, like all things, these rankings are NOT solely due to access, but also our eating habits and (lack of) exercise habits.

However, if national healthcare in other countries are so awful, one has to ask why do our outcomes rank so low? The ACA is just a first step, many changes are to come as it did with social security and other national programs.

One things is clear, the bottom 20 companies nationally in customer service and satisfaction are telecom and healthcare. Interestingly, 2 industries that are in effect duopolies - no choice, no competition. Exist only to serve their shareholders. Is anyone truly happy with their cost of healthcare or cable service? No, that's why they rank so low! If the only thing the ACA does is create competition in healthcare insurance therefore drive down cost of insurance, then good.

Like a knife through warm butter, thank you Locally Involved!

Thanks for some data/question and reasoning. Locally Involved is asking the right questions!

@Kathy - These figures are the latest figures I have from the World Health Organization.

I take issue with your comment that government is taking away choice with healthcare. In fact, the exchanges will finally allow more than 2 healthcare companies to compete in a given geographical area for my healthcare dollars. the ACO's (Accountable Care Organizations) that Aetna and Inova as well as other hospital care systems are putting together are actually customer focused, value add.

The ACA is finally giving me choice and forcing a duopoly industry to change. It's but a small step. We are the last industrialized nation to take this step. Comparing national healthare to Hitler's Germany is bizarre. Personally, forcing Americans to have papers to prove their citizenry is more Nazi than healthcare!

For me, who has been rejected by both local providers because I have auto immune thyroid - something 32 MILLION Americans have and simply requires a bit of synthroid - a pre-existing condition. It's genetic, no kidding. My only option is to have heart failure or fatal afib (which both parents did, because of the thyroid), get carted to my local ER and hospital and have YOUR health insurance pay. Not because I don't want healthcare insurance, but because I can't buy healthcare insurance.

Now I can. Now I have a choice. Anywhere you travel in this country, you would be hard pressed to find more than 2 h/c providers per area. The ACA GIVES choice where none was before.

If Romney wants to repeal the Affordable Health Care Act, it will be akin to him saying to America, "My idea stinks" . Romney himself said many of President Obama's goals in the bill came from what he(Romney)set up as Governor.

Though most rinks ask patrons to sign a waiver stating they won't hold the rink responsible in case of accidents, having and enforcing safety rules will keep accidents to a minimum and strengthen the position of the rink should an accident occur and litigation follow. Thanks for sharing information.
http://www.dissertationediting.net/why-is-it-important-to-work-with-professional-editing-services/ | professional editing services

Assess the coverage on drug prescriptions. The best way to go about this is by looking for medication that you usually buy for a pre existing condition and compare the plans that offer it without an additional cost. Thanks.
Regards,
http://www.hcg1234.com/ | hcg1234

The Democrats increased taxes on the people by passing a bill to give health care for all. What bothers people is that the Democrats said the health care bill was not a tax; but, fought for the health care law in the courts by calling it a tax.

Now the people have a large tax increase for health care and the government will run it.

There are a variety of complex and difficult laws put in place for health care billing. These laws protect patients from being overcharged on services received, fraud and mistakes made by the insurance company. Thanks.
Regards,
http://www.ipc-athletics.org/