Originally Posted by RichieLion

FYI: The Supreme Court does not MAKE LAW. The Congress makes law. The same Congress that makes a law can REPEAL IT. This is within the purview of the Congress' authority.

If Congress does indeed succeed in repealing this law, the role of the Supreme Court in this matter is moot.

Forget something that is already Law. Where's the JOBS?

Originally Posted by Topper1

Forget something that is already Law. Where's the JOBS?

You mean the jobs that are being stifled and eliminated in anticipation of Obamacare?

Originally Posted by RichieLion

You mean the jobs that are being stifled and eliminated in anticipation of Obamacare?

No, the Jobs the Republicans are going to create??

Here's a secret. The government doesn't create jobs, the private sector does. Republications understand this. Democrats don't. What the government does is kill jobs through regulation and taxation.

We are in The Villages, Florida. In my viewpoint, we should be more interested in what concerns us in our state - like Rick Scott.

I have seen some comments that the new Health Care Law does not do enough to address Medicare fraud, waste, and abuse. What do you Republicans, conservatives, and tea party people say about Rick Scott's Columbia/HCA that paid a record $1.4 Billion in fines for Medicare fraud, waste, and abuse? How do you explain the CEO of the firm had no knowledge of the on-going Medicare fraud, waste, and abuse?

dk: I believe there are ways that government can contribute to making it better. For starters, outlawing the practices that msot Americans find repugnant. For another, reforming that part of our legal system that contributes to higher medical costs.

Later on, to be honest, is where I have a problem. Idealistically, I believe in the capitalist system. However, the equation of "maximize shareholder returns" doesn't morally sit well with me when the product is the care and handling of sick people.

It appears that we're stuck with two choices. One is the chilling prospect of a true government takeover of health care - like the UK and Canada have. The other is a huge giveaway to the very insurance companies that contributed to the mess we're in now!

I'm *inclined* to believe, at the moment, that what we need is a combination of both. It's just that I have very little confidence in our government's ability to hold up it's end of a public/private partnership.

The key I think is always free market competition. It's not always perfect but it works. That's something the government stifles.

There are many things we can do to lower the cost of healthcare. Again far from perfect but I don't look at health insurance companies as evil.

The main goal of this bill is to drive private insurance out of business and force people into a single payer government system. That's always been the end goal.

The true evil are governments. Even the founders knew this and thus the Constitution to limit their powers and plenty of warnings in many of their writings.

It's interesting how many people will call big business, insurance companies, etc evil and then give the government a free pass when governments are the true biggest robber barons of all time.

Look at all the hunger in the world. It's not because we don't have enough food.

Originally Posted by dklassen

Here's a secret. The government doesn't create jobs, the private sector does. Republications understand this. Democrats don't. What the government does is kill jobs through regulation and taxation.

Exactly right!! To create jobs the government has to get out of the way. It can do that by drastic reform and scaling back of business regulation, deep cut of business taxes, and cuts in, and maybe even a temporary elimination of capital gains taxes.

This would create an immediate flurry of activity in the private sector and the result would be jobs, jobs, and more jobs.

The private sector doesn't need bailouts, it needs relief.

Unless you're saying that the 'Obamacare' bill was *specifically* designed to fail in order to cause the public to demand a government takeover, I disagree with you. The idea that you can influence public opinion that far in advance is ludicrous. I mean, look at the mid-term elections. Who saw that coming in 2008?

A big part of the problem with our health care system is the division between provider and payment. Your doctor is thinking "patient first". The entity who pays him the lion's share of his money is thinking "shareholder first".

Of course when government TRIES to correct some of these things, we naturally get the Law of Unintended Consequences. Pass a law so that an insurance company can't say they're kicking you out for getting sick? Fine - the insurance company now drops you with no explanation. To THEM, the law meant you just couldn't SAY why you were doing it. The whole IDEA of insurance is spreading the risk around.

But I'd also like to give another example of why we're in a health care mess:

http://bltwy.msnbc.msn.com/politics/...-1672702.story

This is the 'clarification' of the famous Dennis Kucinich $150K lawsuit-over-an-olive-pit. He goes on to explain how this was really a SERIES of events, multiple surguries, etc. But I want to bring your attention to one particular line in his explanation - HIS OWN WORDS about what happened when his tooth first broke:

The internal structure of the tooth was rendered nonrestorable. Although the pain was excruciating, I shook it off and I went right back to work.

Instead of taking care of his problem and getting checked out immediately, he just went back to work. In the end:

This injury required nearly two years, three dental surgeries, and a substantial amount of money to rectify.
...
The injured tooth and the bone above it became infected. I took a course of antibiotics for the infection, had an adverse reaction to the antibiotics which caused me to have an intestinal obstruction and emergency medical intervention.
...
My bridgework had to be completely reconfigured, a new partial was designed, so this injury did not affect only one tooth, but rather involved six (6) replacement teeth as well

All because he didn't seek proper, timely care.

It would appear to me that this is quite similar to the "using the ER as a doctor's office" problem that we hear so much about.

Unless you're saying that the 'Obamacare' bill was *specifically* designed to fail in order to cause the public to demand a government takeover, I disagree with you.

I'm saying that Obamacare was specifically designed to drive private insurance out of business so we would have no choice but to have a government single payer system. That's always been their goal. Obama even said that years ago.

I mean, look at the mid-term elections. Who saw that coming in 2008?

Me.

dk: Explain to me how mandating that we HIRE these private insurance companies (the 'mandate') is putting them out of business? It's *welfare* for them!

Yes, Obama *did* say he wanted the public option but that was long before that got thrown out. THIS law isn't going to get that done. Not even close. But I agree with you that it's NOT going to solve our health care problems. At least not as I see them. It doesn't solve access problems, costs, excessive profit motives, legal problems, etc.

If you look at the actual profit margins for insurance companies you'll find it's not really that much. One of many examples would be pre-existing conditions.

You have no insurance. You get cancer. The insurance company has to insure you and cover all or most of the cost. That's not how insurance works.

How long would car insurance last if you could buy it after the crash and make them foot the bill for the repair?

Add that fact that many large employers will drop coverage and force people onto the government plans. It's cheaper for them in the long haul. Hell, they've already been handing out wavers to large corporations to keep them from doing that very thing... until after the 2012 elections of course.

If you go back and listen to everything Obama said you'll know that this is only the first step to a single payer system. He said back then the American people would never go for it out of the gate. It's called incrementalism. That's how liberals implement their left agenda.

The folks never go for their policies as stated so they slip them in a little at a time over the years.

The concept is simple. The government NEVER fixes anything, they only make it worse.

dk: I see what you're saying but there is one part of your logic that is a bit flawed.

When you said "you have no insurance, you get cancer...". Well, that would be true if the *mandate* didn't exist. As I understand it - correct me if I'm wrong - the mandate says everyone has to have coverage. Now, surely a small percentage of those people will have cancer but most won't. In addition, the uninsured are disproportionatly young people who don't have access to employer-paid plans or have elected no coverage (usually for economic reasons when the employee-paid portion is substantial).

Part of the rationalization for this (right, wrong or indifferent) is to get EVERYONE into the risk pool.

Well, it came to a vote.

Republicans failed.

Actually we're narrowing it down to who needs to go in 2012. And we'll keep doing it right up to voting time when we clean out the rest of them. Obamacare will never survive. Go ahead bookmark this post and we'll revisit when the job is done.

BTW. Obamacare for the moment is legally dead anyway. The Democrats have failed.