Personally, I would be all for universal single payer if we could afford it, but we can't.

I beg to differ. We can't afford NOT to have it. Canadians spend much less per head for health care and they cover everyone! Are you saying Canadians are that much more capable than Americans?

the pop of canada is less than california and that is the issue 300 plus million people is a different story no matter how good a plan.

the population of €Uropean countries where health insurance is more or less mandatory is around 425 million.

That's the biggest problem with Obamacare as LB alluded to, is that it caved to the big health money corporate interests and did very little about cost issues. Only universal single payer is really capable of seriously addressing BOTH cost and full access issues. The USA can learn from so many other countries who cover all at much less per head than the US.

a big cost hurdle has to be removed first and that is the necessity for having excessive liability insurance coverage in case of malpractice suits. as long as Bill, Cathy, Bubba, Dorothy, Buck and their ignorant friends sit on juries awarding tens of millions for a crooked nose job or a visible scar above the bikini line, health cost in the U.S. won't come down. when a surgeon told me (in the 90s!) that his annual insurance premium is slightly below 80,000 dollars per annum i thought he was bullshitting me.

Oh they'll accept the ruling alright and the only fighting that will be done is on internet forums like this one.

This president is in the pocket of every single special interest and he let an historic opportunity slip by to start universal health care in America .. The special interest rather than the citizenry are always the chief beneficiaries of any legislation his administration proposes. And let's face it, some parts of it ARE unconstitutional. America is a nation of states.. All powers not assigned to the Federal government in the constitution are the purview of the states. He overreached there, but even then it might have been OK if this new mandate came with a means to pay for it, but it didn't. The Amateur indeed.

Anyway, the consequences of the SC decision today,either way won't bring down a nation. Unlike the horrendous 2010 SC decision in "Citizens United vs, The F.E.C", which was the worst Supreme Court decision since Dred Scott. Dred Scott led to the blodiest war in America's history, Citizen's United signaled the end of democracy in America. I wonder what that will lead to?

Could Obama or anyone have passed universal health care? You seem to think so. I have strong doubts. Of course Obama ideologically wanted universal health care and that was his original position. He moderated his position to be very similar to, very ironically, his opponent, Romney, who now runs from his previous pro mandate position. I sure hope he would at least tried harder to the do the right thing, universal health care, but he gave that up before the fight even began. I don't know that anyone really knows what would have happened if he had indeed fought for universal.

How the different factions reaction still depends on exactly what the ruling is. For example, if the law is totally upheld, there is NO WAY the republicans will "accept" that, who are you kidding? They will say now you must elect Romney and we will kill the bill if you elect us.

It stopped being a bill once Obama signed it.

That's the biggest problem with Obamacare as LB alluded to, is that it caved to the big health money corporate interests and did very little about cost issues. Only universal single payer is really capable of seriously addressing BOTH cost and full access issues. The USA can learn from so many other countries who cover all at much less per head than the US.

a big cost hurdle has to be removed first and that is the necessity for having excessive liability insurance coverage in case of malpractice suits. as long as Bill, Cathy, Bubba, Dorothy, Buck and their ignorant friends sit on juries awarding tens of millions for a crooked nose job or a visible scar above the bikini line, health cost in the U.S. won't come down. when a surgeon told me (in the 90s!) that his annual insurance premium is slightly below 80,000 dollars per annum i thought he was bullshitting me.

And there's the rub. Tort reform is clearly needed in the healthcare industry but everytime it's been proposed so much stuff that shouldn't be part of it has been proposed for inclusion in the Bills, consequently it has been scuppered..

That's the biggest problem with Obamacare as LB alluded to, is that it caved to the big health money corporate interests and did very little about cost issues. Only universal single payer is really capable of seriously addressing BOTH cost and full access issues. The USA can learn from so many other countries who cover all at much less per head than the US.

Obama & the Dems basically announced they weren't serious about cutting the cost of healthcare when they refused to address tort reform. Over-the-top lawsuits cause outrageous malpractice insurance costs which get passed on to the people. BTW - the Trial Lawyers Assoc of America (or American Association for Justice) as they like to be called, donates almost exclusivley to the Democratic Party. That tells you a lot.

Yes I agree lawsuit settlements should be limited. But that's just another right wing talking point. The truth is that aspect is a very MINOR part of the bigger crisis of health care inflation.

OK, the decision comes Thursday. That we know. Anything else. We don't know. How exciting!

Here’s what we know about how the Supreme Court is going to rule on health care after Monday’s rulings: Nothing

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/06/26/what-we-know-about-how-the-supreme-court-will-rule-on-health-care-nothing/

OK, the decision comes Thursday. That we know. Anything else. We don't know. How exciting!

Here’s what we know about how the Supreme Court is going to rule on health care after Monday’s rulings: Nothing

http://www.washingto...h-care-nothing/

What we know for sure is that either way, no matter what the SC says we are left with shit. A totally unworkable system that dosn't enable us to take care of each other. And in 54 years of wondering why we're here, that's the best reason I've come up with for us being here, to take care of each other.

OK, the decision comes Thursday. That we know. Anything else. We don't know. How exciting!

Here’s what we know about how the Supreme Court is going to rule on health care after Monday’s rulings: Nothing

http://www.washingto...h-care-nothing/

What we know for sure is that either way, no matter what the SC says we are left with shit. A totally unworkable system that dosn't enable us to take care of each other. And in 54 years of wondering why we're here, that's the best reason I've come up with for us being here, to take care of each other.

100 likes for that one.

This is interesting. The Washington Post is calling for Scalia to RESIGN from the supreme court because his opinions have become blatantly politicized. I agree with the Washington Post on this one. It will be interesting to see how this injudicial judge writes about the Obamacare decision.

http://www.washingto...O06V_story.html

So often, Scalia has chosen to ignore the obligation of a Supreme Court justice to be, and appear to be, impartial. He’s turned “judicial restraint” into an oxymoronic phrase. But what he did this week, when the court announced its decision on the Arizona immigration law, should be the end of the line.

BTW, I've been reading the Washington Post all my life. I have NEVER heard them so strongly suggest that a specific supreme court judge needs to go before in this manner.

http://www.washingto...EG7V_story.html

For many Americans, the Supreme Court’s decision on President Obama’s health-care reform poses a keen test of legitimacy. In an atmosphere of intense partisanship, made more acute by a pending national election, can these five Republican-appointed justices and four Democratic-appointed ones pass judgment in a way that impresses most Americans as an act of law rather than politics? We have maintained that they can, or at least that the justices should enjoy a presumption of good faith. But the recent behavior of one member of the court, Justice Antonin Scalia, makes that presumption harder to sustain.

...

But his lapses of judicial temperament — bashing “a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda” in a written dissent, or offering views on this and that in sarcastic public speeches — detract from the dignity of his office. They endanger not only his jurisprudential legacy but the legitimacy of the high court.

Obamacare, based on a right wing republican idea from ROMNEY (personal responsibility for all to buy insurance, a very conservative concept) might get killed today. Or if not, the republicans will still try to kill it.

What do they have to replace it to solve the problems Obamacare intended to address? Nothing. Nothing at all.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/one-more-time-the-gop-wouldnt-replace-obamacare-with-anything/2012/06/27/gJQAOcVB7V_blog.html

If the Affordable Care Act is repealed, we will rediscover — quickly, I think — that Republicans aren’t actually interested in health care reform. Eventually, circumstances (and the insurance industry) will force Congress to act; the health care system is simply too dysfunctional. Until then, however, Republicans seem to be content with millions of uninsured Americas

.

This is interesting. The Washington Post is calling for Scalia to RESIGN from the supreme court because his opinions have become blatantly politicized.

As his opinion on the Arizona immigration law made much more sense than the others, I do not think that he will be resigning. IMO the other justices were the ones pandering to political correctness, instead of following the constitution. Let's hope they do not do the same thing on the health care bill ruling that comes out today.

Obamacare, based on a right wing republican idea from ROMNEY (personal responsibility for all to buy insurance, a very conservative concept) might get killed today. Or if not, the republicans will still try to kill it.

What do they have to replace it to solve the problems Obamacare intended to address? Nothing. Nothing at all.

http://www.washingto...cVB7V_blog.html

If the Affordable Care Act is repealed, we will rediscover — quickly, I think — that Republicans aren’t actually interested in health care reform. Eventually, circumstances (and the insurance industry) will force Congress to act; the health care system is simply too dysfunctional. Until then, however, Republicans seem to be content with millions of uninsured Americas

.

One big difference between Obamacare and Romney's plan is Romney didn't have a constitutional issue.

It was legal.

We will know more in about 6 hours on Obamacare.

Obamacare, based on a right wing republican idea from ROMNEY (personal responsibility for all to buy insurance, a very conservative concept) might get killed today. Or if not, the republicans will still try to kill it.

What do they have to replace it to solve the problems Obamacare intended to address? Nothing. Nothing at all.

http://www.washingto...cVB7V_blog.html

If the Affordable Care Act is repealed, we will rediscover — quickly, I think — that Republicans aren’t actually interested in health care reform. Eventually, circumstances (and the insurance industry) will force Congress to act; the health care system is simply too dysfunctional. Until then, however, Republicans seem to be content with millions of uninsured Americas

.

One big difference between Obamacare and Romney's plan is Romney didn't have a constitutional issue.

It was legal.

We will know more in about 6 hours on Obamacare.

Funny, Romney never mentioned a constitutional issue when Romney was for Romneycare (mandates) at the national level! That was before he was against it, when Obama became for it. The hypocrisy is smelling.

So now we know the right wing party is against universal single payer and against mandates (which was their idea!!!). The American voters can only conclude they are against full access to health care. That my friends, is IMMORAL. Again the party which allies themselves so closely with fundamentalist Christians when it comes to policy is actually very un-Christian.

Funny, Romney never mentioned a constitutional issue when Romney was for Romneycare (mandates) at the national level! That was before he was against it, when Obama became for it. The hypocrisy is smelling.

Would it make you feel better if Romney said that his thinking just evolved?

Funny, Romney never mentioned a constitutional issue when Romney was for Romneycare (mandates) at the national level! That was before he was against it, when Obama became for it. The hypocrisy is smelling.

Would it make you feel better if Romney said that his thinking just evolved?

What's Romney's plan to cover ALL Americans?

So time is running out. We'll know their ruling soon. It kind of feels like an election day. He's one interesting prediction on the lines that the court is dominated by political right wingers hoping to damage Obama:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/27/my-supreme-court-health-care-prediction.html

This is easy. I take the darkest and most cynical possible view of the conservative majority; I believe, as I've written, that they are politicians in robes (with the partial exception of Kennedy); as such, I believe that they will behave here like politicians, and they will render the decision that will inflict the maximum possible political damage on Obama and the Democrats.

He's one interesting prediction on the lines that the court is dominated by political right wingers hoping to damage Obama:

Here's hoping it's true. Neuter him politically before he destroys the country.

The damage is already done on this bill. Medical insurance costs skyrocketed even more once it was passed. Regardless of what happens today there will be no rollback on that. Mightn't we at least move forward since we've already paid the cost?

FWIW, my family and I are likely going to be spending about 3 years (back and forth) in the states soon. A family of four, including 2 minors, no pre-existing conditions, we're looking at about $1,600/mo for medical insurance. That's $19,000/yr after tax income. I can afford it, though I'd rather not, but I can't believe most Americans can. BTW that wasn't even top end coverage.

Obamacare, based on a right wing republican idea from ROMNEY (personal responsibility for all to buy insurance, a very conservative concept) might get killed today. Or if not, the republicans will still try to kill it.

What do they have to replace it to solve the problems Obamacare intended to address? Nothing. Nothing at all.

http://www.washingto...cVB7V_blog.html

If the Affordable Care Act is repealed, we will rediscover — quickly, I think — that Republicans aren’t actually interested in health care reform. Eventually, circumstances (and the insurance industry) will force Congress to act; the health care system is simply too dysfunctional. Until then, however, Republicans seem to be content with millions of uninsured Americas

.

One big difference between Obamacare and Romney's plan is Romney didn't have a constitutional issue.

It was legal.

We will know more in about 6 hours on Obamacare.

Funny, Romney never mentioned a constitutional issue when Romney was for Romneycare (mandates) at the national level! That was before he was against it, when Obama became for it. The hypocrisy is smelling.

So now we know the right wing party is against universal single payer and against mandates (which was their idea!!!). The American voters can only conclude they are against full access to health care. That my friends, is IMMORAL. Again the party which allies themselves so closely with fundamentalist Christians when it comes to policy is actually very un-Christian.

JT, if you knew anything about the Constitution you would realize what Romney did in Massachusetts was not in violation of the US Constitution. The bill there applied only to Massachusetts and had no impact on interstate commerce, which is the problem with the Congressional action in 2009.

A mandate in Massachusetts would not be unconstitutional unless the State Constitution prohibited it, which it apparently does not.

Like many things, it is a States' Rights issue.

Try again. Under two hours to go.

Romney promoted the mandate model to go national. That's all you need to know. If the supreme court kills the mandate, it will be purely about their disgusting right wing political bias. This court starting with Bush vs. Gore has lost credibility as being above politics.

Romney promoted the mandate model to go national. That's all you need to know. If the supreme court kills the mandate, it will be purely about their disgusting right wing political bias. This court starting with Bush vs. Gore has lost credibility as being above politics.

No, it will be because the mandate is unfunded. It was legislation of the worst kind. It's almost as if it was designed to fail.

Romney promoted the mandate model to go national. That's all you need to know. If the supreme court kills the mandate, it will be purely about their disgusting right wing political bias. This court starting with Bush vs. Gore has lost credibility as being above politics.

No, it will be because the mandate is unfunded. It was legislation of the worst kind. It's almost as if it was designed to fail.

It's not the supreme court's job to determine funded or not funded. That is totally ridiculous.

Romney promoted the mandate model to go national. That's all you need to know. If the supreme court kills the mandate, it will be purely about their disgusting right wing political bias. This court starting with Bush vs. Gore has lost credibility as being above politics.

No, it will be because the mandate is unfunded. It was legislation of the worst kind. It's almost as if it was designed to fail.

It's not the supreme court's job to determine funded or not funded. That is totally ridiculous.

No, but it was the administration's job to fund it so it wouldn't fall under the purview of the Supreme Court. It was totally inept and as i said, it almost seems as if it was designed to fail. The only beneficiaries of this scheme have been insurers. Yet another interest group Obama is in the pocket of.

Even if the bill is totally struck down, the problems it was designed to address are not going away! And the republicans offer nothing.

1) Americans recognize that the health care system is in serious need of reform, and they want the federal government to act. A recent Associated Press poll found that 77 percent want the President and Congress to get to work right away on a new law to replace Obamacare if it is struck down by the court — which is to say, they favor a federal response to the nation’s health care problems. The millions of uninsured aren’t going away, and health care costs will continue rising.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/the-morning-plum-what-the-battle-over-obamacare-really-comes-down-to/2012/06/28/gJQAUF2r8V_blog.html

Even if the bill is totally struck down, the problems it was designed to address are not going away! And the republicans offer nothing.

1) Americans recognize that the health care system is in serious need of reform, and they want the federal government to act. A recent Associated Press poll found that 77 percent want the President and Congress to get to work right away on a new law to replace Obamacare if it is struck down by the court — which is to say, they favor a federal response to the nation’s health care problems. The millions of uninsured aren’t going away, and health care costs will continue rising.

http://www.washingto...F2r8V_blog.html

With one minute to go I'm going to say that's my wish. That the thing gets totally struck down and people of all political stripes realize that they are absolutely fuc_kED if they don't come up with something bettter, fast.

The mandate survives. The bill survives. The supreme court retains some credibility!

FANTASTIC!!!!

You are very, very naive if you think the right wingers would have gone for some kind of single payer solution now if the bill had been struck down. They would have just gone for status quo with some weak BS about buying insurance across state lines, USELESS to the uninsurable. A HUGE VICTORY for the American people and for two term President Obama. Obamacare isn't perfect but a precedent has been set.

The mandate survives. The bill survives. The supreme court retains some credibility!

FANTASTIC!!!!

You are very, very naive if you think the right wingers would have gone for some kind of single payer solution now if the bill had been struck down. A HUGE VICTORY for the American people and for two term President Obama. Obamacare isn't perfect but a precedent has been set.

Huh?

CNN Breaking News:

U.S. Supreme Court strikes down President Obama's health care law requiring Americans to buy health insurance.

OK, they got their headline wrong. Looks like it was upheld. OK, let's make it better.

They got it wrong. A HUGE WIN for Obama. That's a technical legal thing. The mandate is now a TAX. Any tax is legal. The total bill survives including the mandate which is now a tax. This is the PERFECT result for Obama. I am flabbergasted.

Yes, I'm gloating.

Washington Post now:

Breaking News

Supreme Court upholds individual mandate in health-care law

The mandate survives. The bill survives. The supreme court retains some credibility!

FANTASTIC!!!!

You are very, very naive if you think the right wingers would have gone for some kind of single payer solution now if the bill had been struck down. A HUGE VICTORY for the American people and for two term President Obama. Obamacare isn't perfect but a precedent has been set.

OK, now APOLOGIZE for slandering all the conservative justices, especially Chief Justice Roberts appointed by Bush.

I'm reading the Indiv Mandate survived as a TAX, not under the Commerce Clause. Interesting.

They got it wrong. A HUGE WIN for Obama. That's a technical legal thing. The mandate is now a TAX. Any tax is legal. The total bill survives including the mandate which is now a tax. This is the PERFECT result for Obama. I am flabbergasted.

Yes, I'm gloating.

Washington Post now:

Breaking News

Supreme Court upholds individual mandate in health-care law

Obama is now the biggest tax raiser in US history. Wait for the attack ads coming soon to a screen near you!