That penalty provision doesn't come into force until 2018, so I'd ask around to find out who is taking advantage of your situation.

Tom. Take Debbie's advice, Go GET EM and the let us know what happens.

I am with Kaiser as well, though I don't know if it is a Cadillac plan, but it did go up recently - but only about 20 or 30 dollars (it's just me)

Jean, please check the source you posted: The Heritage Foundation has a horse in this race, and I would consider anything they say extremely biased. Also, it's almost a year old. The article I linked from factcheck says the penalty will be "no more than $2,085 per family" in 2016, and the current state-run models indicate $9,459 per year for a family plan." Hope that helps.

Patrick,
" The Heritage Foundation has a horse in this race, and I would consider anything they say extremely biased." Coming from you that IS the funniest thing you've ever written. Here's a link that might apply to this conversation. http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/09/report-83-percent-of-doctors-have-considered-quitting-over-obamacare/
It's not going to be much help that you have a baseline amount of money to pay a doctor if there are no doctors to pay. My wife is a medical professional and these conversations have occurred.

James, since you posted a link to a story on the Daily Caller-- a site started by Tucker Carlson and recently made "famous" when one of its reporters interrupted the President during a press conference-- I'm going to ignore your opinion on what qualifies as an unbiased source.

Also: the DPMA-- the "non-partisan association of doctors and patients" your article references as having done the survey-- is on the list of members of the National Tea Party Federation.

Would you like to know how I know that? I read your article, and then I looked up who the body was that did the survey.

Would you like to do the same? http://www.thenationalteapartyfederation.com/Membership_List.html

Patrick,
what about the second source in my post? Personal experience with medical professionals who back the story up?

While I can appreciate that your wife works in the industry, she's not a source. She's hearsay, and the evidence is anecdotal. I don't know either of you, and I can't fact-check her. Besides, do I believe there are disgruntled people in the health care profession who thought about quitting over this bill? Sure. Why not? But your wife can't vouch for 83% of doctors.

Look, I can tell you right now that almost 100% of teachers I've talked to have thought about quitting the profession since Governor Kasich took office. That's doesn't make me a quality source of information anyone should be citing when it comes to disputing public policy.

James cited something from The Daily Caller. A right-wing online rag run by Republican loser Tucker Carlson???

BWHAHAHAHA. Never a shortage of stupidity. Which is the GOP norm today.

Patrick,
we're at an impass. I don't credit your sources and you don't credit mine. I guess I'll go with my personal experience.

James, just out of respectful curiosity, which of my linked sources don't you credit? I have links to ABC News (the link says "tax penalty"), NPR ("7 million Americans"), factcheck.org ("How much of a penalty?"/Death Panels/Gov't Takeover), Barack Obama's website ("probably won't affect you much"), and the health care website itself (the word "here"). If you don't consider those news and first-hand sources credible, what would you consider credible?

I suppose if you wanted to take issue with the two remaining sources, businessinsider ("twice the amount") and americanprogress ("not a tax increase on all of us"), I can understand that, as they don't have a reputation as being unbiased news sources or fact-checkers. But the businessinsider source lists the exact same numbers the factcheck source uses earlier, and the americanprogress graph cites the Congressional Budget Office as their source for the information on the graph.

So, again, if you don't consider or trust any of those reliable and credible, what type of source do you consider worthy and factual? I mean: above and beyond the scope of your wife's conversations-- which, again, are still valuable and interesting, but I wouldn't cite them if I were writing a thesis on the bill.

Patrick,
except for factcheck.org, which I have not used enough to find the pattern, all of the sources you list share the same fallacy, as do you. They start from the premise that progressive idiology is mainstream center thought. For half (or more) of the body politic this is simply not the case. This being true they and you cannot see why others disagree with you much less convince them to your side.

The 83% of doctors considering quitting is just a lovely biased poll, and bad reporting to top it off. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/12/jeff-duncan/gop-lawmaker-jeff-duncan-repeats-survey-finding-83/

debbie that link you posted claiming to dispel the many untrue myths is from someone who posts under the name of CaspianX2.
THAT IS FAR FROM UNBIASED .....now im not saying that they are not true/untrue but it is slanted

Jean - yes, that is his posting name. How does that make the source slanted, especially when he cites every reference he makes and adds numerous addendums listing the subsequent changes to the posting? It's a pretty transparent interpretation and certainly less overtly biased than posting a link from the Heritage Network!

debbie exactly my point if you are saying mine is biased,then why should I give any merit to yours ?????now kays seems to be pretty solid but

Jean - So let me get this straight. Because you linked to an overtly biased source and I noted that, you will now call bias on my link (probably without reading it)? And Kay's "cut-and-paste" job is "pretty solid"? Got it.

Remember those 21st century skills we were "discussing" in the other Patch thread? Examining source material and not just taking what people claim as "truth" at face value is one of those skills. Back to school with you!

"then why should I give any merit to yours ?????"

You posted a freaking blog. Stop your whining and educate yourself. For once. Although I realize that goes against the grain of today's right-wingbats.

A couple of thoughts about those 'death panels'. 1. When the Republicans (yes, not the dems) came up with that part in their own plan to fix the medical financial mess we are in no one complained, but as soon as it was not their plan anymore it became an issue. 2. That part was then removed to keep everyone happy.

Kay...well done. I actually read many pages of the actual ACA. You are providing actual FACTS. Those advocating the efficacy are all quoting favored 'sources'. The masses think this is going to be a wonderful thing 'for the people'. Just wait until the legislation is fully enacted.

Right now it is all a fantasy dream concept for those who have not read it. This dream will not come true and a great price will be paid in health care quality and increasing cost to the working taxpayers and the Nation.

But...as John Roberts clearly wrote in his decision: "We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgement is entrusted to the Nation's elected leaders who can be thrown out of office if people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect people from the consequences of their political choices."

That above quote is not quite a clarion call touting advocacy of the ACA.

"People who cannot currently afford healthcare will be forced to purchase it and if not will be taxed."

That's simply not true, Kay. You will be charged a fee if you CAN afford health insurance, but simply choose NOT to carry it, just like you can be penalized for not carrying auto insurance. Because, let's face it: if you know you can get insurance at any time (because this bill does away with pre-existing condition exclusions), why would you buy it at all until you need benefits (which undermines the entire system). And because Medicaid will be available to people up to 133% of the poverty limit, this bill actually EXPANDS the number of people in poverty who will be able to be afford coverage.

And I don't see anyone arguing that the bill included no additional taxes. However, the Congressional Budget Office (non-partisan) and Joint Committee on Taxation have previously estimated that, "the ACA will, on net, reduce budget deficits over the 2012-2021 period." http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43080

debbie from your link
Gross additional costs of $1.5 trillion for Medicaid,
Offset in part by about $0.4 trillion in receipts from penalty payments (sounds like a shortfall)
Not to mention >>
Those amounts do not encompass all of the budgetary impacts of the ACA. They do not include federal administrative costs, which will be subject to future appropriation action. Also, they do not include the effects of the many other provisions of the law, including some that will cause significant reductions in Medicare spending relative to that under prior law and others that will generate added tax revenues relative those under prior law.

Where on earth are you getting this "no more specialist" thing? You think the ENTs, onconologists, & gynos of the US will truly be forced into becoming internists? Yes, the health care lobby absolutely would've let a bill like that pass.

Come on. People actually buy this load of lies?

Always amazed at the total opposition to any kind of national health care law in this country. Don't you folks know that the good ole USA is the ONLY industrialized country/western/1st world that doesn't provide this basic right to its citizens? For being such a Christian focused nation on almost all other political issues, why doesn't health care coverage for all - including the poor - be just the right thing to do as a Christian? Please explain what I see as total hypocrisy for those who oppose national health care coverage.

@Debbie Schinker: Your comparing the purchase of auto insurance to the purchasing of health care insurance is flawed. If you don't own a car, you (at least so far) don't have to purchase auto insurance.

Phyllis, Nice Point

Phyllis - People can choose not to own a car, but no one can chose not to get sick or injured. There is not one person alive who has not and will not need medical care.

Jean - I repeat: the Congressional Budget Office (non-partisan) and Joint Committee on Taxation (again, non-partisan) have previously estimated that, "the ACA will, on net, reduce budget deficits over the 2012-2021 period. Now that the bill has passed, the CBO is evaluative but has stated that it will take until the week of July 23rd to complete their assessment.

Potatoe/potato.
Chief Justice Robarts stated why it's not actually a "penalty." And his reasoning makes great sense.
But, you can call it whatever you want. It doesn't change its' main purpose. To get the freeloaders from sucking at my boob.

I do not understand your question "who will fund this increase on pay to the IRS?" There is no "enforcement of fees". There is a penalty, tax, whatever if you CHOOSE not to purchase insurance. They will NOT have the ability to levy, lien, seize assets, arrest you, accrue interest on your fee/penalty/tax etc if you CHOOSE not to purchase insurance. They will deduct the fee from any refund you might be expecting, but if you have no refund coming then they get zilch. As far as additional costs for the IRS, it will be the addition of a box your employer checks on a W2 stating you have insurance just like the box showing how much you put in your 401k or if you have an HSA etc etc. No additional forms there. They will add a line to the return and possibly a form to fill out regarding the insurance, no different then the forms added for the sales tax deduction, or your HSA account, or your energy efficient home improvements, nothing major there. Health Insurer's will most likely have to issue a form like a 1098 showing if you have insurance or not. Nothing major changing here and nothing more than happens anytime the tax codes are revised or adjusted.

Kay...I don't mind your typos...I hear you! Cheers!

"Read the law, and speak facts target than theory."
Practice what you preach, right-wingbat.

Good freaking Lord. How much more stupidity are you going to pound out?

Ah, this certainly seems like a reputable source.

I browsed that site a bit before writing this comment and I was just a bit amazed that I did not find anything on the fake moon landings or the aliens at Area 51 or 54. Conspiracies theories aside, do you have anything useful to add to the discussion?

For the reader (RE: Kay's various posts about what the bill says): pg. 58 of the bill talks about setting up the website for people to identify plans. It doesn't say anything about "national ID cards." Page 59 does not give "government direct access to private bank accounts for funds transfers," but it does discuss the format in which the website information will be presented to the buyer. Page 127 mentions neither the word "doctor" nor "salary." And so on...

You know how I know this? I went to the bill, and I checked those pages. It was very easy. Wanna do the same thing? Here ya go: http://www.healthcare.gov/law/full/

Kay, I honestly have no idea what you're talking about, but I do appreciate you copying and pasting your information from the Americans for Tax Reform website onto my blog. However, when you're trying to rebut someone's point, neither Grover Norquist's website, nor one using the URL "TheForbiddenKnowledge.com," qualify as responsible and unbiased sources of information.

Regardless of all that, can you please confirm for me whether or not you actually believe the IRS is "forming a SWAT team to collect" taxes, or if it was some kind of joke I didn't understand? Because if you actually believe that, I have to add you to the blog at the end. I just can't miss the opportunity to include something that bizarre.

Thank you, Patrick Giusto!!!!

Your efforts are greatly appreciated by those of us who honor facts, and abhor fear-mongering!!

Anyone who questions your statement about SWAT teams, they need only look up on google 'SWAT TEAM harassment'. Its a reality.

Oh, Wanda, you are such a kind lady, your kindness really gets your point across...and it reveals so much about you!!

Wikipedia is a real source!!!!!

Lady, REALLY ? "What exactly makes my sources not credible?" I went to the home page of your "source." theforbiddenknowledge.com ? Do you really believe the bogus crap being espoused on that site ? Are you on crack ? My gosh, that's just a cyber version of The Enquirer for pseudo intellectuals. Your credibility on this topic has officially disappeared.

Right on, Kay...lets face it, there are GOOD things in the ACA. I am all for the pre existing condition bit, etc. But I am going to sit back and watch the 'middle class' discover the actual impact on the quality of their health care and the financial duress resulting from full implementation of the ACA. The poor and penniless will have a free ride, but no better health care, probably worse, unless free birth control can take up the slack in the deprivations.

When the bureaucrats in Washington decide you get pills instead of the surgery because you are 72 years old and it would be a waste of time and man hourskills to have that bypass...because you are so near your life expectancy, the joke is on you (by the way...Obama said that himself, I heard it from him in one of his speeches). And when you are refused dialysis because you are 69 and it would better serve someone 45...the laugh is on you!! Glory Hallelujah!

Kay, I'm reading the full, 2400 page bill. You should know that, because I provided the link.

Your "summary" and your "facts" are nothing more than a chain email being passed around for the better part of three years now. It was written by a man named David Kithil in Texas who was angry with an early draft of the bill (which died in committee in July of 2009) and simply made up almost all of the claims you cite.

Here are four sources that have fact-checked the copying-and-pasting you've done from this chain email and proven almost all of them false:

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/jul/30/e-mail-analysis-health-bill-needs-check-/
http://www.examiner.com/article/health-care-reform-bill-page-58-national-id-card-email-gets-fact-checked
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/01/judges_letter_on_health_care.html

Please, PLEASE just stop. i can appreciate that you're angry about the bill, and you seem like an intelligent person. I'm sure there are plenty of things you can find to disagree with within the bill that are completely and factually accurate without resorting to the irresponsibility of spreading someone else's lies.

patrick if you are reading the full 2400 page bill please run for senate it would be nice to have someone there who actually reads the bill (I am still against the obama tax) but you would have my vote on merit

Jean, I only read the portions Kay was referencing. As a school teacher, I don't think there's much hope of me ever getting enough money together to run for any office. However, if you can figure out a way for that to happen, I'll make you a deal: you can be my campaign manager, and I'll read any bill you put in front of me.

Thanks for the vote of confidence, and for reading!

Patrick,
you're a Union Member aren't you? Get their endorsement and you would have enough money to swamp your opponent.

Kay...I am with you, all the way. It boggles the mind. Obviously your have actually read much of the 2400 pages, as have I. If the author has actually read it, I would ask him why he does not, in presenting his case, also inform his readers of the facts that limit their own choices and their doctor's influence over the individual control of their health care? I think that reality is alarming.

And as to those who might get health care in the work place, how about those businesses who are sure to opt out and pay the much lesser fine for not having it? And if it is so wonderful, why was all of congress exempted and wavered out of participating along with half the unions in the nation? Doesn't speak too well for what they are serving up their citizens.

please, this is a game with patrick, he is the guy who screams fire in a crowded movie theater, and then sits back and watches the mayhem, and then for good measure he pops in and throws a few pokes in to get the mob angry again (nice job)

I love this comment more than words can say.

I admit, that made me laugh; literally, and out loud.

I don't know that I would scream "fire" in a movie theater, but I do love a good discussion. And, if I can facilitate that, well... so be it. In my defense, I hope I at least also have a reputation for not insulting anyone personally by calling them names; which is more than I can say for a few people involved in these discussions.

sense of humor ??? are there still anyone left with one of those

Mike, in light of the Supreme Court's decision, the Congressional Budget Office will not have an updated final score ready until July 23rd.

However,the CBO's last scoring of the overall bill in March said it was going to REDUCE the budget by about $120 Billion over the next ten years.

Here's a link to a politifact story, which (about halfway down) references and links to the CBO report.

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2012/jul/11/american-commitment/tv-ad-says-health-laws-cost-2-trillion-double-what/

REPEALING the law, counter-intuitive as it may sound, could actually cost more. Here's an explanation regarding one of the bills (which didn't pass) aimed at repealing the Act, and how it would add $210 Billion to the deficit:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/18/us-usa-healthcare-cbo-idUSTRE71H77N20110218

... And no mention of Obama's very blatant racist statements over the years? Hmm... Besides, what does that have to do with Obamacare and whether or not it will work?

Which racist statements did you have in mind?

To Patrick: His "typical white person" comes to mind, as well as the highly racist 'church' that he was a member of. There is also Eric Holder (appointed by Obama) that feels that whites should not be protected under hate crime laws. Here you go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skgKr22hY4s
Keep in mind that black-on-white violent crime exceeds white-on-black by far (statistically and even numerically). Let's see you joke about that Mr. "Humorist". ;)

Let me see if I get this straight: You think our President and Attorney General are racists, and as proof, you cite a video by the JTF-- The Jewish Task Force (AKA "Jews Against Obama")-- a fanatical, racist, religious hate group.

You did THAT, and you want me to crack a joke about it?

Seriously: Is it that you people don't UNDERSTAND what a reliable source of information is, or is it that you don't CARE?

Patrick, if you weren't living in Ivory Tower Land, you'd know all about black racism. I was just looking for a link that demonstrated Eric Holder's racism. The fact that it was the JTA saying it is irrelevant.

No, Mike, it's not irrelevant. That is the ENTIRE POINT of this blog, and this discussion: when you get your information from bad sources, and you look for something to validate your ridiculous opinions instead of making an effort to remain objective, you end up believing that there are Death Panels, or MicroChip implants, or that Eric Holder is a racist.

Let me give you some advice: You don't come up with opinions and THEN look for a source to back them up; you come up with good sources from which to get your news and then you make up your opinions.

Patrick,
I suppose you agree with John Edwards that the source discredits the truth.

Patrick - I applaud your educational efforts here, but fear it's in vain that you continue to bloody your head against these brick walled people. Just please keep trying to teach your STUDENTS these essential source-checking, research, and citation skills. Our democracy is in true peril without it.

Patrick we are still waiting .......Patrick as you posted "but if they're getting their information from partisan sources, they're not going to make an intelligent, objective decision.

may I ask where you get your un-biased information from ...5-6 un-biased sites would be nice

Oh and Debbie your "source-checking" has been exposed as very weak in the past, so back to your kitchen, and continue teaching your 8th grader something uselessly partisan

James Murphy,

No one but you, and Tom M, are "still" waiting for me to reveal five or six sources, because I've already linked and discussed five sources for this blog. If you're not willing to click on a link, or even read the comments section and figure out that we've already taked about, I am not willing to have this conversation with you.

However, I am more than happy to watch you both continue asking the question, as it makes you look lazy and irresponsible to anyone who is stil paying attention to this discussion. Please continue "5-6 more times."

I asked for unbiased sources you linked politifact (run by Bill Adair biased)
washingtonpost (very biased)
examiner.com ....Ill give you that one
reuters ....(thats obama news network)
and politifact again ........so now I see what you call unbiased

Patrick, why play this dumb game? Are you denying that Holder intended to exclude whites from protection against racially-oriented hate crimes? You can find Holder's speech on a million different sites. A fact is a fact. Don't dodge the issue. Either give me evidence that Holder's speech was fabricated and a hoax, or defend what he said. Stop the ad hominem, stop the red herrings, etc.

About Saving Our Health Care:
A project of www.iwvoice.org and www.americanmajorityaction.org.

I couldn't find much about iwvoice, but the other party involved with "Saving Our Health Care" was kind of dubious to me.

americanmajorityaction.org is a tea party site:

A rising star in the conservative and Tea Party movements, Ned Ryun is the founder and President of American Majority, a non-partisan political training institute whose mission is to identify and mold the next wave of liberty-minded candidates, grassroots activists and community leaders.

I don't know how they can put the terms "Tea Party" and "non-partisan" in the same sentence.

Grabs popcorn and sits on comfy chair awaiting the arrival of all the angry liberals, coming to spew their angry venom against jeff and mike

tom, I don't know why the "angry liberals" should be spouting venom at me, I was just pointing out that Mike's source is tied to Tea Party and other "conservative" groups.

Jeff, attack facts, not sources.

"Attack facts, not sources." What?! Facts most often come from credible, neutral sources. Where actual facts are cited by sources with a political agenda, they ought to be verified by numerous OTHER sources to be considered facts. In the healthcare debate especially, the bottom line is that many "facts" trotted out by both political sides are no more than speculation. Healthcare is a BIG system with many players and there is no possible way to accurately and precisely pinpoint and claim as "fact" the impact of sweeping changes. The best any of us can do is look for research based on past actual numbers corroborated by a variety of politically neutral sources. The source of the data is critical to the credibility of the argument - and indeed to the arguer.

Debbie as you posted " Facts most often come from credible, neutral sources."

may I ask where you get your un-biased information from ...5-6 un-biased sites would be nice

Damn, Patrick is right...is there anyone on here that knows how to research CREDIBLE, FACTUAL, SCHOLARLY sources on which to base your writings? How were any of you able to graduate from college? OR...hmmmm....

Another list of non-partisan, transparent and open sources acknowledged as credible by both political parties - for tom m's benefit.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/jul/30/e-mail-analysis-health-bill-needs-check-/
http://factcheck.org/2012/06/romney-obama-uphold-health-care-falsehoods/
http://www.urban.org/toolkit/issues/healthinsurance.cfm
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/reports/health_intro.php
http://www.cbo.gov/topics/health-care

As a side note, tom m, I do find it fascinating that you so vehemently insist on transparency from others while continuing to conceal your own identity.

LOL Debbie you think urban.org is a non-biased site ...PLEASE keep drinking that kool-aid .... its current president Sarah Wartell founded the Center for American Progress (a democratic think tank) and served as a deputy assistant under Bill Clinton's ... this is your idea of an unbiased site

"Stuart Butler, director of domestic policy studies for the conservative Heritage Foundation, said that while 'there are clear differences in our overall philosophies,' the Urban Institute's research is based on solid technical and professional foundations."

" 'They do very good work,' said Christopher C. DeMuth, president of the conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI)."

"While many public policy specialists perceive the Urban Institute as being somewhat on the liberal side of the roster, it carries a wide variety of researchers and their views differ quite a bit."

" 'Taking us as the conservative benchmark,' said Heritage's Butler, if organizations were rated from very liberal to very conservative on a scale of zero to 100, 'we'd rate 100. I'd put the AEI at 70, and the Urban Institute and Brookings at 40 to 50. They're not raging liberal think tanks.' "

For people really interested in sourcing bias, here's a list of think tanks showing their political leanings which identifies Urban Institute as "Center-Left" http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_03/013420.php

Debbie shows another example of her copy/paste talents with this link from 2007 http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_03/013420.php next debbie will be linking JFK links in response to democratic values >>> you are dismissed debbie, you have failed

James - why don't you cut out the personal attacks? What I did is called QUOTING which is why the entire excerpt is in QUOTES. I was addressing tom m's concerns about the Urban Institute by QUOTING conservatives who state that it's a centrist organization, since tom m doesn't believe my assertion to that end.

But debbie to cite a 2007 source is very weak, politics have changed since that came out
well here is a quote From Harry Reid– “I think the President is doing a bad job,”
(he said it in 2007 so it should still apply to obama) if not, than either should your 5 year old link link

Debbie give up, you are talking in circles
And to quote Billy Madison "No where in your rambling incoherent response did you come close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. We are all dumber for having read it. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul"

James - if you can find a more current similar list, please link it here. Your Harry Reid quote is incomplete and out of context.

Kim - 'A simple "I disagree" would've done just fine,' since you're quoting (and I'm paraphrasing) Adam Sandler movies here. lol By the way, do you have anything SUBSTANTIVE to add to the discussion or will you just continue slinging personal insults?

A fact (or an argument) needs to be judged on it's own merits, not on who made the claim.

Oh my, sorry for that. I guess it's what I get for just copy/pasting!

Tom, I think you've got this a little backwards. Jeff was merely checking the sources, which is completely the point of this discussion. Everyone is fully entitled to have differing points of view; but if they're getting their information from partisan sources, they're not going to make an intelligent, objective decision. This discussion isn't so much about the bill, it's about the misinformation and lies that are being spread ABOUT the bill.

Patrick,
the problem here is that you fail to acknowledge that the sources you quote, ABC, NPR, Barak Obama's website and the Healthcare Website itself, not to mention Huffington Post, are as biased as the conservative sources you reject. You insist that they are Centrist and unbiased when they have as much of an agenda as Fox, just on your side. From the number of comments you garner I'd say my estimate of half the body politic, or more, disagreeing with you is probably correct.

James, if you want to go ahead and believe that ABC, NPR and the Huffington Post are all equally "liberally biased," that's fine. I think you're wrong, but that's essentially irrelevant to this discussion. Go to those places AND go to Fox and the Drudge Report. I don't care. You should all be getting your facts from multiple news sources. There is no excuse for not doing this. It's the 21st Century, and spending five minutes to click on a few different links and making a few searches to determine whether or not the information you're getting is credible before opening your mouth is NOT a difficult thing anymore.

Frankly, I would be embarrassed to provide a link to the Heritage Foundation or the JTF. Those are not news organizations. The Heritage Foundation's statement reads that they are "a think tank-- whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies." They're not a news source, and they're declaring their bias. If you're interested in news, they are not a credible source.

So, I'll ask again: Is it that you people don't KNOW what a reliable source is, or is it that you DON'T CARE?

Patrick,
we care exactly and as much as you do, only we can see your biases where you don't admit they exist. You exist in a blind spot Patrick.

Well, James, I guess you'll just have to keep pointing them out to me until I get it; or you understand that, as far as being worried about bias, I'm the least of your concerns.

Patrick,
you have a forum and are a prime example of my concerns.

Mr. Grossetti,
I agree that is a beauty of Patch.

Obamacare is a tax. Making Americans buy something is Unconstitutional ......Kathleen Obamacare is a tax. Making Americans buy something is constitutional as long as it is stated to be A TAX

Kathleen,
Patrick has a point.
Anyone out there interested in starting the process of Amending The Constitution on this issue? Passing amendments takes a broad consensus to be successful. We might just have it here.

So requiring car insurance is unconstitutional?

Typical partisan stupidity.
There's been czars under Bush, Clinton, Daddy Bush, et al.
And, an rather ignorant right-winger playing the "Constitution" card isn't a smart move. The Patriot Act, anyone? Were you jumping up and down protesting that? Of course not. Because Limbaugh wasn't telling you to.

The fact that you mentioned Holder and Black Panthers shows exactly where you get your complaining talking points from.

You're just another example of why Patch shouldn't let anyone who has access to the internet to blog on here.

Patrick I am still waiting .....
Patrick as you posted "but if they're getting their information from partisan sources, they're not going to make an intelligent, objective decision.
may I ask where you get your un-biased information from ...5-6 un-biased sites would be nice

Well, Patrick, I think you are mistaken in your interpretation of what the supreme court said. Had the Mandate remained a Mandate, it would have been unconstitutional. That is exactly why the attorneys for the ACA used the word tax in their arguments rather than mandate. A Tax is not unconstitutional. It was Roberts who explained this necessary differentiation. Read it.

Jack,
you're so funny. You've been a poster on Patch for how many minutes?

jack why are you here posting ....its your turn to hold that "we are the 99%" sign down on the square ....get a move on it, your other 3 members need you

What does the amount of posting have to do with anything?

Exactly. Nothing. There's people who look at Patch and don't post. But, it's past the point of tiring where every single week, there's a new post b*tching about the ACA. I don't see a fraction of this type of complaining that our elected officials are not doign ANYTHING AND getting paid for it.
Typical partisan stupidity. And in yours and "tom m"'s case- - right wing stupidity. Derp!

@tom m --

That's all you got? Assuming one's a liberal?
Get back behind the counter and pre-pay the pumps, fool. Especially some pansy who thinks they're all tough behind that keyboard.
Now, again, I wanted $10.00 on pump TWO, NOT 5, horses backside.

Meet Jack, aka Jack Kelly, aka Troy McClure, aka Tom Tucker, aka Thomas James, aka et al.
Patch, this individual has been kicked off numerous times and needs this incarnation to disapear as well.

James-
You beat me to it!
Just checking in and there he is AGAIN!

You're exactly right, Solon. Yet there is so much opposition to health care reform...it makes no sense! It's the effect of partisan propaganda, to keep things the way they are so the corporations keep all their profits. Half of the population has been brainwashed to accept this as the way it should be, so conservative candidates will remain in office, sucking up their big salaries and FREE health care benefits. Why are they even allowed a voice on how we get ours?

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/251875_461417057202611_22788993_n.jpg

On your points 1,2,3...yes, that is a rip and that sort of thing needed to be addressed. But, the ACA is going to now assume that roll and we wont be any better off.

John first you say "It's the effect of partisan propaganda,"
then everything that follows is about as partisan as it gets

Phyllis just look at the heading The Truth About Obamacare (written by a democratic school teacher)

Congress exempts itself from most labor laws, and the Fed govmt exempts itself from many environmental regulations. while repulsive, this concept is nothing new and certainly did not come in with the ACA.

@ Solon Bull: Whether or not its new...the very repulsevity of it should cause the USA to rise up and denounce it. Like they finally made a law recently disallowing the congressional insider trading that many of our congress critters were doing. We can demand more of these jokers.

@ Debbie: again why not form your own opinion by reading the thing yourself? Then you will know what is what and what is not what. I don't care how sources are rated...you and I and everyone are capable of being our own source. You obviously care about the subject and I think that is good! Now, do your own research. I also have to say that there are good things in the ACA which could be implemented legislatively now that we have awakened the USA to the subject. But so much of the ACA is just unbelievably absurd and limiting.

I cannot claim to have read and understood every word in the document. However, I have read much of the actual ACA. The text of the law is not in question. However, all law is open to interpretation, which is why the Supreme Court exists and why this forum is so active. At any rate, people like you and Kay don't seem believe that what the bill says is what it really means, so even were I to quote the text of the bill, you'd argue that what it says MEANS something entirely different.

AND...Debbie, that is very unfair of you to presume that we would purposefully argue against you over any specific of the ACA as to its intended goal. Until you can present a specific decree which you wish to 'interpret' and challenge Kay or me with your understanding of that decree...you have no way of knowing whether or not we would deviate from your understanding of it. There was no call for that presumption it is unfair and baseless.

Phyllis - why did you assume that I hadn't read the original ACA myself? My other comment was referring to remarks Kay made earlier in this comments section, but you also incorrectly stated that Kay was quoting the actual text of the bill when she was not, so I'm not certain that you've actually read the comments already posted.

Ian I could sum it up in 2 words TORT REFORM

Everyone agrees there should be some reform in the healthcare delivery system. As I have repeated here, there are some good things addressed in the ACA. However my concern is that our health will be in control of the 'government' not the individual. Show me a department or program that has been successfully run by the government. SS and Medicare are going bust. All of the issues which need attention: preexisting conditions, portability, etc., could have been addressed without the government replacing the insurance companies in dictating our healthcare options.

As to being the only nation that does not provide any kind of health care to its citizens, I have to beg to differ on that. We have Medicaid, CHIP, Medicare and we can include Planned Parenthood which is subsidized by the gov.

I don't claim that changes are needed. I claim this could have been undertaken without compromising our individual control over our health care. Every time the GOP in congress tried to introduce TORT reform or portability in congress (before ACA) the dems blocked it (powerful lawyer lobby). And so forth.

Sentence should read "I don't claim that changes are NOT needed." They are definitely needed.

Hi Kim - quick question: if lawsuits are the problems to all the current health care insurance coverage cost/lack of coverage for many; very expensive dr. and hospital bills, etc., well, wouldn't it be the best solution to put health in the hands of the government? I mean, it seems that history has proven very few folks sue the USA government and win!

Ian its not just healthcare all CEO pay has become insane example, Gail McGovern, President/CEO American Red Cross $1,032,022 and thats a charity
I disagree hospitals must carry huge amounts of insurance as do doctors/nurses, also they must perform many more test than needed to cover themselves, so when 412lb joe the slob comes in with his big mac addiction ,who drops dead of a heart attack walking to the candy machine because they know the family will try to sue for 12million

Hi Solon Bull - great comment! I have had several friends be let go at their jobs, in their 50s and after COBRA benefits are over, they have been denied coverage by almost all insurance companies due to pre-existing conditions. Or, they can get health care insurance, but no coverage for their pre-existing conditions! This is the nightmare individuals face when they don't get health care coverage from their jobs. You are on your own in a very draconian world of health care insurance when you are either self-employed, unemployed, or early retiree pre-age 65 for Medicare.
The stories of hard working folks going bankrupt because of one health emergency are not that uncommon. It amazes me that so many in this country are against any kind of universal health care coverage. Good health should be a basic human right in any civilized country. I guess I was raised in a Christian environment that doesn't seem to exist today - where one was to love they neighbor as thyself and to help those less fortunate, whatever the cost. Today, so called Christians seem to be of the mindset that only the fittest can survival, and everyone for themself. And of course, don't tax me to help someone less fortunate! I guess God wouldn't recognize this country anymore - where we seem today to not all be created as equals. What a disgrace this country has become in my lifetime!

Hi James, gotta love your "Christian compassion and empathy" for those less fortunate and poor in this country today. I wonder if you would have had Jesus - and those outcasts of society he helped pay for their own health care too - weren't they the sick and ill, and generally the outcasts of his era?

no I work for a living ... I pay for my own insurance

Mr. Fell...I too work for a living always bought my own insurance. Never have I had an employer provide it for me. I have worked since I was 12 years old. The government has never had to put food in my mouth or a roof over my head. I attended college and grad school after I became an RN.

So Phyllis, consider yourself very fortunate that you have never had to rely on someone else. The fact is, many people do, and it does not make them bad people. Not everyone in this world has had the same privileged life experience as you, attending college and grad school, and always having enough money to support yourself. No, those without income are not all "lazy"...that's the implication I get from your comments about how admirably independent you have always been.

@John McMillin: It is interesting that you think I have led a life of privilege. I agree that it is a privilege to live in a country which allows me to work for what I have. I could have worked harder and had more....or worked less and have less. While working as a 'Director of Nursing' some years back, I happened to encounter hard working employees and those who would do best to evade their duties. I even overheard one employee discussing how she was trying to get on 'disability' and wouldn't have to work any more. I don't know what that mentality indicates. I don't know if it is lazy or not.

But that young woman wants you to pay her way...so she can do as she pleases when she pleases.

I absolutely do not want ANY one to go without basic needs. Even that young woman referenced above. But, if we have a large population with this mindset...what is happening to this country?

I can't afford vacations. I wear jeans every day. I buy store brands rather than name brands in the supermarket. My pick up truck is a 1979 chevy and my car is a 2002 Saturn Vue. My son bought me my IMac and my Iphone. I am elderly and I work part time. And I am thankful for everything that I have. But...you (the taxpayer) didn't give it to me.

mike - hardly surprising. unlikely that any industry needing regulation would reply with "yes more regulation would be good.".

And your point is that those working in a regulated industry want less regulations? Well...DUH!!! Let's have less regulations so that we can become the best 3rd world country that we can be....

Sorry Mike, but the DPMA is not representative of the medical professional in the USA by any estimate. It is generally viewed by those in the medical professional as being affiliated with the conservative branch of medicine/public policy, and is more or less another FOX TV NEWS mouthpiece/questionable source. Check out THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, if you want the true facts/position about physicians in this country regarding the Affordable Care Act. THE AMA strongly endorses national health care reform, and while acknowledging the Affordable Care Act is far from perfect, health care reform cannot continue to be swept under the carpet - it is time to start fixing the system now. I don't think too many in the health care field would argue the impact and political power the AMA has, and its support among most practicing physicians. If the AMA supports health care reform, isn't it time the party of NO - the REPUBLICAN PARTY - gets on board too? Also, Dr. Cosgrove, President and CEO of the Cleveland Clinic - one of the most respected medical institutions in the world - is completely in support of the Affordable Care Act. Let me quote his wise perspective: "The current cost curve for healthcare in our country is unsustainable - We can no longer deliver 21st century care within the framework of a 1950s era healthcare system. Today's Supreme Court decision means we are moving ahead on the journey of reforming healthcare in the US."
Can anyone disagree with his experience?

Are you aware of how many docs dropped their membership in the AMA after they came out with their proclamations? LOL! AMA now only has 17% of all docs as members!

"moving ahead on the journey of reforming healthcare in the US" does not say "completely in support of the Affordable Care Act" - I'm sure there is plenty the good Doctor can find to diasagree with in the ACA. It means this is a discussion that needs to happen and the SCOTUS decision means that debate will continue, things will evolve. (http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/local_news/cleveland_metro/cleveland-clinic-ceo-dr-toby-cosgrove-reacts-to-supreme-court-ruling-on-the-affordable-care-act)

"the party of NO" - Can we please stop with this line? Who was "the party of NO" when Bush wanted to reform healthcare, social security, Fannie and Freddie...? Typical politics - when it's your party of NO, it's patriotic, it's rightful opposition, but when it's the other party it's un-patriotic and obstructionist. Let's please have a real discussion about problems and solutions instead of regurgitating the rhetoric from our politicians. They are out for themselves and their own power. We have to take control. If they are able to keep us divided, then the status-qou will not change, nothing is solved, and they keep going to the bank.

Ian, here's similar information from Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcsiegel/2012/04/15/obamacares-horseless-chariot/
You mentioned the AMA - their views are not fully on par with doctors.
PS - The Mike that wrote a post starting with ""moving ahead on the journey" is a different Mike.

HI Mike - I think the real question here is physician salaries. Most physicians are afraid they will not be making the big bucks once the government starts to limit insurance fees - then next physician fees? I know - I have 4 physician friends. Only one is happy about ACA - this is an MD who does geriatric care - and of course, the lowest paid one too - around $ 150,000 a year. My other MDs make: 1. High risk pregnancy doc makes over $ 350,000 a yr. 2. Infectious disease doc makes over $ 250,000 a yr. and the 3rd. one is ear, nose, throat doc and makes over $ 300,000. this is on top of unbelievable matching pensions from their hospitals/practices; endless drug company benefits and kick backs such as "drug seminars" in golf land Bahamas, beach land Hawaii, all expenses paid/ and then lets not even get into the whole residency "slave labor" they often have access to for weekends off, etc. etc. Most physicians today are the 1% and they won't let go of it easily. They have as a group consistently opposed most health care reform as they see it evading their pocket book/ fab cars/ big houses lifestyle. Drive into the MD parking lot at any hospital and count the Mercedes/BMWs, etc. I have as much education as a physician, am a health care administrator and make no where near 6 figures, with none of their extra, nonsalary benefits - both on and under the table. So anytime a physician opposes health care reform - be sure to ask them is it reform they oppose or the MD salary decline?

Hi Phyllis - fact: the AMA continues to be the largest association of medical doctors - both MD and DO as well as medical students, in the USA today = over 215,000 members = it is still the most influential medical association in the USA. And I noticed Phyllis that you state you are an RN. Are you aware that one of the largest RN groups in the country - American Nurses Association - supports health care reform and this new health care act? As does The National Association for Medical/Hospital Social Workers, the Physical and Speech and Occupational Hospital/Health Care Associations, as well as the LPN Associations - in fact, can you identify/ share with us, one reputable (not a Fox News Source, PLEEAASSE!) medical/health care professional association that does not support health care reform today?

The "mandate" was reform, not greater government beauracracy and expanded programs. That is what we got, and we all should know where that ends - more screwed up than it started. Why does anyone think the government can do it better? Realize that the government of tomorrow will mess it up even assuming it starts out right. The answer for government is always more control, to garner more votes with more programs. Look around, see what that has wrought. Individual freedom, responsibility to self and to neighbors, community. We know that works. We see what 70-80 years of government "helping out" has done - brought us to the brink of disaster. We need to own our retirement and our healthcare, that is what the government should facilitate - not government ownership, not employer provided or owned pensions and healthcare. We have tried that, that is the mess we are in. It does not work. Project the path we are on and it ends in a nightmare. Changes that are needed to take back individual control of your retirement and healthcare may seem frightening, but the long term end result of reform and self-ownership is much better. In my opinion, self-ownership will eventually happen anyway, its just we either take control to make that transition, or once the government goes bankrupt it is forced on us and a generation or two is lost in the rubble.

Exactly which freedoms have you lost (at the hands of "the government")? Yeah. Like when gun nuts whine about Obama wanting to take away their guns. How silly. Obama already has ALL the guns he needs - why should he care what guns ANYONE else in America has? The true freedom stealers are the health insurance companies. If you don't know that by now, just wait. You will. Truth hits everybody.

this is one part of the discussion I dont understand - the ins companies today decide what is and is not appropriate care. they tell us which doctors we can and cant use. they tell us which procedures we can have and which we cant. and the more treatment they can deny payment for, the more money they make. why are the anit-ACA folks working so hard to keep this system in place if it is personal choice and freedom that they claim to honor?

mike - i agree that self-ownership of health care is a great idea. but can we reasonably expect the oligopolists in the health care and health insurance industry to give up their power and lack of transparency without being forced to do so by govmt?

Mike..you present wisdom, reason and truth. Kudos!!

hi to mike, phyllis - i am unfortunately seeing a kinda lopsided, perhaps biased?, view here of your support of government intervention in people's lives. fact: before social security, most elderly in the usa lived in poverty with no financial security. fact: hospital care, surgery care, doctor's visits, no pre condition limitations/denial - these are all common in western/industrialized countries today, except usa; fact: the usa health care is the most expensive in the world, yet millions of americans are uninsured and buying health care insurance independantly is extremely expensive for almost everyone. fact: most countries of the 1st world have cradle to grave coverage, not the usa.
sooo, mike and phyllis do you always support zero government intervention in people's lives, or is it case by case as you find whatever meets your own personal agendas: for instance, should government decide who can or cannot get an abortion; or should government decide who someone can or cannot marry; or should government decide who can or cannot adopt, should government provide emergency assistance for its citizens in hurricanes, earthquakes, wild fires etc. the list can go on and on. Do you really believe that all big government programs are an attack on individual liberty?
Or is "big government" intervention/programs only bad when they don't fit/support your personal values, your needs?

Everytime the government limits your options you lose freedom. Freedom is as much about economics as it is civil rights. And as i said, people may decide to give up something now they consider reasonable, but with the "creeping" fingers of the government, we do not know what nightmare that may become in the future. Just for example, you may trust a certain President or party to look out for your interests, but what about the next one, from a different party - you want them to have those powers? What about some person 50-100 years from now - you expect them to keep or even understand the reason of programs from today. That's why you don't give the power to the government. And as far as "freedom stealers" - "just wait" lets see what the ACA becomes, and I guess "we will" see - or more likely our kids and grandkids will. Or charge is to insure they have the same options we do. With government as the nanny you can't "change" insurance companies. The power of the people and basic market forces can't be denied, but in this day are by many who trust the government more, or so they have been indoctrinated to believe. Trust the government? How's that Medicare and Social Security looking for the future?

I see the insurance argument and understand that point of view. All I can say is as above, people can force the market to change. I suppose if you have lost faith in the market, you beleive government is the only answer. I say we haven't tried to reform healthcare or insurance enough to hand over the keys to government. Also, in government healthcare there is not multiple companies, but one "decider" as to what doctors to see, medicines to take, procedures allowed. And what we will see (assuming they still exist) is perhaps the insurance companies all the same, depending on whether the government "allows" them to be different. If we want to talk about a system where you can choose "government insurance" vs existing insurance, that is a debate worth having. And if you like that idea then you must support the Ryan plan for Medicare as that is one of the elements ... but supposedly that's a bad idea according to the supporters of government heathcare.

Mike...most people think in terms of the immediate...they don't consider the impact on their freedoms, since they haven't yet had to cross that bridge. Its totally narcissistic thinking. Wait until they confront the reality of what they gave up, acquiescing to this ACA. And, it will COST them dearly as to the type of care they will recieve and financially as the IRS will have its hand in their pocket no matter what their income is.

mike - re people forcing the market to change. v hard to do here, since consumers really dont have the option of doing without the product. as stated elsewhere, the risk of economic destruction brought on by a medical expense forces us to keep buying health ins no matter what. the govmt option idea is a good one, but strangely it was attacked and then eliminated from the ACA. Loss of competiton equals loss of freedom, and the govmt option is more competition.

Again, Mike...you are the most rational in your approach to the alternative to the ACA. I fear it is too late to consider the reasonable approach as the issue has become so political its simply right vs left with the sheeple actually believing government controlling their very lives is going to make it better. Its tragic.

LOL! He reveals NONE of the negatives, as that might make people think!! He just wants 'cheerleaders'. Its like the team is being coached by pedophiles...like Penn State! Hide the bad stuff under the rug until they discover the consequential victims, and its too late.

An honest truth would be: Folks here are the good things...and here are some of the things that might be a problem. Weigh the pros and the cons...come to your own conclusion. But NO! LOL!

Thanks Phyllis! We probably have more in common than not. I have been a health care administrator, licensed social worker, Nursing home administrator and now an independent/self-employed health care consultant. I speak from my personal experiences over 30 years in health care, and now as a business owner. There is something very wrong with the health care insurance business today. I have lousy insurance, pay close to $ 1000 a month, and still have riders for pre-existing conditions. I mean, why bother at times to even have coverage - except one hospitalization could wipe out a large portion of my family's savings. I wish more folks who claim to be real Libertarians were - I find a lot of people use that term today to support their views when it is convenient. Having lived in California, I like the Clint Eastwood version of modern day/21st century Libertarianism: live and let live, individual responsibility with liberty, and voluntary association = fiscally conservative while being socially liberal. I don't see that philosophy of time honored Libertarian ideas in the so-called Libertarian influenced Tea Party Movement today.
Too many in that movement advocate for less big government fiscally and in health care, but actively support big government intervention in the so called "family values" issues. To me, those are folks "masking" as Libertarians.

Ian...you said it...'Live and let live!' Maybe the right wing IS trying to force their 'values' in legislation, but the progressive left wing does exactly the same. I am probably more 'traditional' in my personal values but I believe people have a right to be who they are as long as they don't harm or offend others or other's property. And..the government needs to keep its nose out of peoples business and choices.

Mike's suggestions and ideas on health care (insurance) vs government seem to make the most sense to me. There were and are many things we could to see to legislatively before we let Uncle Sam become our sole arbiter in our health care options.

"If you do nothing to help yourself when it's possible, your time should be up". I AGREE>>>>>
if you smoke and are on public assistance and come down with lung cancer too bad !!!!!

So James and Tom, you are saying, "Let those people just die"??? Wow, you two should sign up for the first "death panel"...I'm sure you would have fun!

Curt - THANKS so much for sharing a real world experience with health care in other parts of the world. I have friends in Canada, Scotland, and Sweden and they are completely perplexed by the opposition to universal health care here in the USA, to what they have grown up with as a universal right of citizenship. They find it very sad that our country can find the funds to support 2 wars, and contribute endless money to political campaigns, but can't support medical care for those uninsured. They think the USA has lost its "moral compass" and find it all very sad.

Curt: I don't know when you were in Viet Nam, I assume it was post 'police action. Other than the health care, what else did you notice about the 'free' there? I have a son who is a physician who was there not too long ago with ORBIS. He was doing surgery on patients who could not get the 'expertise' we take for granted here in the USA. He was also contributing to the Vietnamese physicians skills. They were sadly without various medical journals/resources, which he also donated. His observations on the obvious lack of social and personal liberties were a bit alarming. So..is the trade off for alleged cheap health care worth the sacrifice in liberties?

As to the health care system in Britain...is it worth the long lines and to a certain extent rationing that the Brits endure to get health care at a 'discount'? And how about Canada? Surely you are familiar with those Canadians who needed certain surgeries, mortgage their homes to get a surgically life saving procedure in the USA rather than be denied or terminally delayed this option by their government?

There is more to the story in 'free' health care than meets the eye.

phylis - we are already in a rationing system in the US. its managed by the ins companies. your freedom to choose has already been taken away.

@ Solon Bull: Absolutely, you are correct as to 'so called' rationing by private insurance companies. But if there was legitimate 'portability' introducing competition in the market place, along with some simple legislation regulating what the private insurers can and cannot do....plus tort reform, we might have a go at more personal control over our coverage.

Once the gov't controls our choices rather than a 'free market' we become more and more limited and insolvency of the program is inevitable as with all gov't programs.

Proper market components in place the buyer has control and can influence the type of coverage they 'own'. With the government in control, we are at the mercy of bureaucrats and a congress which panders first to itself, then panders for votes. That evolves into more taxes and less choice.

The present system is lousy. The ACA is lousy. Where are the thinkers who actually address the problems in the present system and offer solutions to them without making us victims of tyranny?

more difficult to introduce a market solution for products that we absolutely have to buy. police, fire,there is no market solution there. we agree that all citizens need these products and the govmt provides. electricity, water - these are regulated by govmt to protect the citizens. imagine a system where private companies decide if they will come put out the fire, AFTER you call and tell them your house is on fire. that is the health care system we have today. govmt wanting all citizens to have health care seems a logical and beneficial position.
bottom line of the market solution argument - health care ins and providers dont want to compete. they will not participate in competitive activities until forced to do so.

@Phyllis - In Sai Gon, Viet Nam in 2009 to visit my in-laws. My point was that even a poor country considers that healthcare for their citizens is a basic right. I did mention though that the facilities are not up to par with our healthcare.
Not sure why you and many others think that having universal healthcare in the US will end up like that of Viet Nam. It's the narcissistic attitudes of you and your kind that are ruining the greatness of this country. You don't think that we can take the lessons learned from other countries and implement a better universal healthcare system here in the USA? You automatically believe that universal healthcare in the US will become = to 3rd world care.

As to your assuming that I believe the ACA will drive us to end up like Viet Nam...such a jump in logic. YOU brought up FREE care Viet Nam, YOU lauded its 'FREE' care. I simply addressed the 'quality' of the FREE goodies in Viet Nam.

Geeze..you jump to the ad hominem attack, and YOU are a 'good humanity loving' liberal with nothing but love and kindness in your heart.

The way you guys look at the ACA is you see nothing but the shiny Rolls Royce exterior. You forget to lift the hood where you will find a Model T engine.

well marty, we have found the money to pay for TWO long distance wars for over 5 years now - don't you think we can as a primarily Christian country find it in our hearts and pocket books to pay for adequate health care coverage for all? or have we become a country that is survival of the fittest, lacking compassion and empathy? just how Christian is that view of our country and its citizens?

In all the debating, did anybody notice that these people with "universal healthcare" seems is based on a government budget, and healthcare can be cut or otherwise effected - whether it be political or economic. As I stated earlier - you trust the next leader / congress / party to leave it be or change it to your liking .... Is that where we want to go? (Or are we to assume it's always political and that it's only being cut because a "conservative" is the PM. If so, I wonder what all that economic chaos is I've been hearing about over there ...) I didn't reaize the PM by themselves had that kind of power. Then again, the current resident of our presidency seems to think he does in more and more instances .... Dangerous path we are steering into....

Hi Mike - your thinking is a bit muddled I believe. NOTHING is ever set in stone regarding finances, benefits, etc. in either the public/government or the private/business sectors. Are you suggesting that we should now trust the private, for profit, insurance companies and for profit hospitals to always provide the coverage we need/want? That there will never be cuts, denials, substitutes in coverages? Mike, not sure what world you have been living in, but every year since I can remember my health care insurance company adds/drops what is or is not covered; while always increasing the premiums at all deductible levels. We have been on a dangerous path with our health care policies - or lack of - in this country for decades. Doctors knew this, Hospitals knew this, Politicians knew this. When I was in grad school in the 1980s, I can't tell you how many books/articles had already been written about how broken our health care was in the USA. And this was almost 35 years ago! Both the private and the public sectors have failed to provide the needed leadership for reform. Time has run out as it was predicted many years ago. Health care will bankrupt this country if it is left the way it is - that is one fact no one can dispute. Massive changes have to be prescribed on all levels and for all players in this business/industry.

By the way, there were no other patients in the waiting area at the Radcliffe. The health care professionals were just too busy attending to other things.

As to the way private insurance deals with people...yes yes yes...this needs to be changed and the adoption of some of the ACA premises should be enforced on these enterprises. But why didn't we try that, among other things before we were sent into the morass? Congress sure has sure as heck exempted themselves from the ACA along with half the unions across the USA.

Tell me...if it is so GREAT...why isn't EVERY citizen required to abide by the ACA rules and regulations? Can YOU opt out? Can I opt out? I just don't get it.

Firstly, Pad with a 'd' not Pat.

Secondly from your own source:

"Mr Burnham said: ‘David Cameron promised not to cut the NHS, but he’s now cut it two years running.
‘His unnecessary £3billion re-organisation threw it into chaos and we’re now seeing crude random rationing across the system.
‘Older people shouldn’t be made to pay with their independence and quality of life."

The NHS is being forced to ration healthcare because the conservative Prime Minister and First Lord of Treasury has continually slashed funding to the NHS. Did you read the entire article at all or did you stop at "Thousands could lose their sight as NHS cuts cataract surgery by a quarter"?

This problem isn't a product of the NHS. This is a product of the conservatives in Parliament slashing funding to social welfare programs such as the NHS.

As for referring me to actual Canadians coming here for surgery, you say you could but you haven't which makes me already wonder about the integrity of your source since you clearly didn't check the first one thoroughly and only seem to have bothered reading the headline.

Faustian Bargain? Really? Are you serious? What's next? Sophie's Choice? Pandora's Box? Just because your red herring uses and educated context doesn't make it any less a red herring.

I'll wait patiently for these actual Canadians.

Phyllis Stager wrote (about two comments up): " I don't read someone else's opinion or biased main stream media." Then she cites 3 articles from the Daily Mail, which is a conservative British tabloid newpaper known to put its political agenda ahead of the facts. Seems to be a disconnect there...

From Article #1:

"Up to five units which currently provide major surgery to sick infants born with congenital heart problems will be ordered to shut down or merge with larger units after new safety standards are published this week."

Please read more than the headline.This is a safety measure to ensure that surgeons performing surgeries are better qualified. They aren't talking about removing services, just about restructuring them to provide better and safer care to patients.

If you had read farther you would see that this action is supported by most.

The major theme you are missing in all of these articles is that The Right Honourable, Mr. Cameron and his part are responsible for slashing billions of GBP in funding from the NHS.

You're trying to blame the NHS for having its funding slashed rather than the people who slashed it. That's like blaming your skin for itching instead of the mosquito that bit you.

While I can certainly admire your zeal it's clear that you are not well educated at all on this subject and the best that can be hoped for out of you is to repeat conservative talking points which are not in fact..well, fact.

I've come to expect more from the historical alumni of OSU than this.

I guess its political to let the public know they ainta gonna get their cataracts removed in a timely fashion if at all. I guess its political to report about how a guy was refused treatment and passes out right on the spot. I guess its political to report the financial shortfall and the closing of some health care facilities and firing health care workers for lack of funds.

Is that REALLY biased reporting or informing the public...really now, Debbie! LOL!

I think its political by the leftist media to withhold such happenings to their public. The public needs to know what their government is 'giving' them.

I'm sorry but did you just try to discredit everyone with Wikipedia? Really?

And as to shutting down those 'hospital's because so many babies died...LOL! In a system that thrives on 'excellence', instead of continuing to exist and be funded regardless of outcome...this would NEVER happen.

Those docs and that administrative staff got their salaries no matter what. It just so happened their incompetence was discovered and d/t public outcry they got shut down. But not until after a bunch of dead babies!

Go ahead an pooh pooh it... but it should never have happened in the first place.

hi marty - great point! i wonder if bush/cheney/rove realized what debt is when they inherited the clinton surplus - yes, remember the us government had a huge SURPLUS from the clinton/gore years when bush took office - and completely eliminated that surplus through unprecedented massive tax cuts for the wealthy ( remember bush's great PR comments about how all that money the wealthy would not spend paying taxes, but would instead spend on job/growth creation - "trickle down economics" --- well, aren't most of us still waiting for those jobs for us from those tax cuts to the wealthy?) and while massive tax cuts were implemented, bush/cheney created TWO WARS for us to pay for! so lets see here, i don't think debt is that difficult to understand marty. if you take a surplus, and then cut the sources of that surplus so there is no money coming in, and then up the expenses not once, but twice to fund to wars - don't you think there will be a problem balancing the books? oh yes, but then the republicans did offer their solution = cut all government programs that help the elderly, the poor, students, the unemployed, just not that 1% of the wealthy! great republican leadership don't you think? LOL

Ian King: The proposed tax hike will bring in about $65 billion for 2013. The nation needs about $8 billion a day to meet its obligations. Do you realize that $65 billion will pay for a little over 8 days to run the gov't? At the same time Obama is proposing an increase of spending for 2013 of $202 billion. It is disingenuous to suggest that that tax hike will bring down the deficit and balance the budget. WHAT BUDUGET...we haven't had a budget for more than 3 years although it is required annually BY LAW.

The accounting firm of Ernst and Young did a study and claims that the proposed tax increase will cause the USA to lose in the range of 700,000 jobs.

Your reasoning as to the tax 'cuts' being the cause of eliminating the 'surplus' is seriously in error. Take a genuinely closer look at the reality.

Now I agree with you the 2 Bush terms did us no favors economically. The wars did have to be paid for...along with the ridiculous prescription drug fix for Medicare...it didn't fix a thing and costs us.

As to the big 'bugaboo' of OUTSOURCING, Obama's personal financial portfolio shows his investment in companies which outsource to be about 40%. For example he is invested in Vanguard 500 Index Funds which hold: GE (out sourcing to India), Apple (manufacturing overseas), and IBM (foreign workers account for 71% of its 400,000 employees).

So Axelrod and his cronies should cut the 'outsourcing' crap.