Good comments Lisa. Most of the posts see this as a positive thing. I see a lot of HUGE issues , such as less employment ( companies won't be able to afford it ). And, what happens when one insurance company, with thousands or millions of customers, goes out of business ? I don't think anyone has thought about the reality of this thing. But, as others mentioned, since people who cannot afford insurance now have to buy it, then it will be cheaper for all. I can't wait till the day I have a sore tooth and have to wait 6 weeks for the gov't to process an application for approval for me to go see the dentist.

We'll work on that. But, for now, the classic "+1" reply would work.

+1

I'd prefer a disagree button...

More comments like this need to be shared with everyone. The media has already said they will spend a lot of time ( and $$$ ) telling people some of the great things this new law will bring. Both sides of the story need to be exposed, however. For many of us on fixed incomes, I anticipate our monthly premiums will go up, as well as our yearly deductible. If the state has any employees not paying anything, this needs to change. Just like taxes, if this thing is going to work, everyone has to pay in. Otherwise, we have a situation like the tax system where 47% of the population pays nothing and the other 53% pays it all. I often wonder who is addressing this in our gov't ?

Kurt, your comment about 47% of the population paying no taxes is factually wrong: please do not repeat what is, at best, and erroneous statement or, at worst, a lie. Here are the facts: you are referring to the percentage of American HOUSEHOLDS (not taxpayers) which pay no FEDERAL INCOME TAX. You omit an important reason for why those households have no federal tax liability: their incomes are too low to pay federal income taxes. Those household still pay plenty of taxes: local property taxes, state and local sales taxes, various federal excise taxes, gas and energy taxes, state income taxes.

Why are you picking on the poorest people in this country as freeloaders? Are you simply parroting the class warfare and resentment inculcated by the right-wing noise machine which is meant to deflect our attention from the preferential tax treatment investment income is given over income earned through honest labor? You intend to implcitly defend a tax system which relieves the wealthy from paying their fair share, and lets them freeload on the taxes paid by the middle class? What alternative do you propose so our health care system provides access to care for all Americans, regardless of income or having pre-existing health conditions?

Kurt, your class war rhetoric on the poor is NOT appreciated in this coprner...

Quit being a crybaby, Kurt. I called you on the factual error of your original statement. Funny how you seem to have stalked me, and put the onus on me to fix the system. Grab the rope and gung ho with the rest of us, instead of whining when you get called out for repeating bad information.

It's easy: quit repeating the canard that half the people "don't pay any taxes."

No sale, Troy. A flat tax is not fair, only simple. Progressive income taxes reflect reality: lower levels of income are subject to less taxation because more of the income must be spent on essentials like food and shelter. You can easily make the present system more fair by ensuring all kinds of income, including and especially capital gains, are subject to equal taxation.

I also reject your orthodox defense of investment. Investors have the lowest levels of risk and commitment to any business venture: they don't have to know the business or industry, they can sell out and bail at any time, and they are not the ones investing their labor and livelihoods in the business, as the employees are.

Finally, you use "investment" in a Utopian way. As Marx argued in "Capital," as the system ages and rate of profit declines, capitalists will resort to financial speculation to chase profits. Financial derivatives and collateralized debt obligations were "investments" which did little to nothing to spur employment and productive economic growth. Those forms of investment did help wreck the economy and destroy jobs. Kevin Phillips, in his "American Theocracy," was very blunt: the financial industry does NOT produce generalized wealth, it only enriches a tiny percentage of the population.

Billy, I cannot take the "fair" tax seriously: it's just another right-wing gimmick proposal. Come talk to me once you have a clue about how economics works.

"!?!?" to Billy. I can no more criticize the (un)fair tax without being ideological than I can criticize it without running my brain and, in the process, metabolizing oxygen and complex carbohydrates!

Nor did YOU find the proposal attractive outside of your own ideology, so quit pretending that you somehow have access to objective reality which is NOT mediated through the values you have internalized as a member of this society. THAT'S what "ideology" is: a learned set of values through which you construct an interpretation of your lived experience of the world.

Face it: the (un)fair tax, like much of the opposition to the Affordable Care Act and outcry over the Supreme Court decision (so, are YOU going to take up arms in opposition!?), is not based on any kind of "objective" assessment outside of the bounds of ideology. I reject the (un)fair tax because it is a closet consumption tax, it is simplistic and unrealistic, and is not even politically realistic.

+1

Billy, you expect retailers to act as tax collectors, because your (un)fair tax is basically a value-added tax which is collected at the point of sale. That is one reason the proposal is attractive to so many people: you argue we can get rid of the IRS. As a value-added tax collected at the point of sale, it IS a consumption tax, thus inherently unfair since working people spend a larger percentage of their incomes. Having worked retail and seen what quarterly tax reports for the state of Iowa are like, do you REALLY expect to push through that kind of idea without significant opposition from corporations like Wal-Mart, which you expect to act as tax collectors gratis?

You are all wrong- there should be no tax on INCOME and earning a living. Their should just be a national sales tax. If you want to blow your extra money you pay more taxes. NO Jeff- they can exempt buying "essentials like food and water and shelter" and cable and cell phones..... everyone pays their fair share but are not penalized for getting that second job or good investing.

Wow, Kiddo! Nice to see how you think an employee, who has to sell his labor-power in order to live, and whose labor is the source of a business's profit, is less important than the investor who has money to burn, but will still eat even if his investment is lost, and who contributes nothing but cash to a business enterprise. Troy, what you have convinced me is that you just won't listen to any ideas or analyses which fail your tests of what is politically correct.

Sorry Jeff I am just realistic, an employee does not have to sell his labor to live, he can start his own business become his own boss and risk his own capital or convice an investor to risk capital on his idea. We live in a global economy and labor is no different than any other raw material.

Plus how do you know that investor will eat if his investment is lost? I know a lot of people who are retired who won't eat if their investment is lost. That cash you denigrate so readily is what a business generates to pay those taxes employees etc. I am not sure what political correctness has to do with the relative values of labor and capital so I guess I am glad I convinced you of something???

Troy, you identify with capitalism; I don't. You offer abstract arguments, but no concrete examples; I referenced derivatives and CDOs because those were, and ARE, investment products which I cited as examples of financial speculation. Read Morgenstern and Rosner's "Reckless Endangerment" for an exposition of how sub-prime mortgages and related financial products set the stage for the 2008 recession.

I cite sources for my ideas; you don't. I see work as a cooperative venture where people work together, and do not see being an employee as being subordinate to being self-employed, and I'll also argue it is unrealistic, and Utopian, to breathtlessly argue that everyone can be an entrepreneur.

Our differences are deep, and I'm not a liberal who will simply cave on your ideas in order to appear "reasonable." I think the Suprme Court decision upholding the Affordable Care Act is pivotal, and will help preserve a reform that, imperfect as it is, is also pivotal in ensuring that a basic human need, access to health care, is met; you seem oblivious to how capitalism fails to meet such basic human needs. Where do we go from here?

No you are correct you don't identify with capitalism. You are a liberal who identifies with taking what is mine and redristributing it according to your idea of what is just. It is a failed idea around the world. I think at this point we will just have to agree to disagree and I will continue to keep people from stealing what I have earned and people like you will keep trying to tax me to pay for what you think you are entitled to. You may win and when that happens I will shut my business down, stop employing people turn my wealth into gold where it can't be traced and join the rest of you with my hand out. You think capitalism fails to meet basic human needs, I see just the opposite. The Poor people in the United States are some of the wealthiest in the world. Famine and starvation are basically nonexistent in the US. Homelessness is negligable and medical care was readily available for free or at extremely reduced costs before the (un)Affordable Care Act. I really don't have a dog in this hunt except the cost for health insurance will go up for my employees. So be it. We will have another failed government program like social security, medicare and medicaid.

"You are a liberal who identifies with taking what is mine and redristributing it according to your idea of what is just."

If you REALLY believe that, Troy, then you are lving a lie, since you choose to not respect people whose ideas differ from yours.

Be deeply ashamed.

Sorry Jeff but your ideas don't just differ from mine you said at the beginning of this that you believe in a progressive tax. That is just about as unfair as it gets because if I make more not only do you want more actual dollars you also want a larger percentage of what I make. I don't have a problem respecting peoples ideas who are different than mine. I have no respect for those who want to reach into my pocket to make those ideas a reality. People who think it is okay to take from me because I have more are who really ought to be ashamed.

You sound like a college professor who is used to bullying his students and when that doesn't work you accuse people of being closed minded. I really hope you are self-employed so you can enjoy the benefits of the (un)Affordable Care Act that you wish upon my employees. As far as living a lie I guess I am not as edge-u-kated as you are because I have no idea why believing: "You are a liberal who identifies with taking what is mine and redristributing it according to your idea of what is just." means that I choose to not respect people whose ideas differ from mine. Are you telling me you don't want to take more of what is mine and give it to someone else? If that is the case then I apologize for mischaracterizing your argument.

Troy, why do you think I am a college professor? Is that based on anything I've written here, or have you been stalking me? Is you assessment of my teaching based on observing me in the classroom (funny, but I don't remember you!), or is your assessment based on POLITICAL, as opposed to pedagogical or professional criteria?

I actually didn't think you were a college professor at the time I wrote that, just that you sounded like one based on your choice of words and references. The truly ironic part is that you are a college professor. I never commented on your teaching, at the time I didn't know you were a teacher, I commented on what I thought you would be like as a teacher based on your comment about me living a lie because I disagreed with you.

I am also not sure how looking at your posts where you state you teach at Kirkwood and then going to Kirkwoods website to read your bio qualifies as stalking but if so then yes I guess I am.

+1

Not really more like those who spend vs those who spend more. While they try to get us taxpayers fighting over who gets the bigger handout.

So what, Kurt? You were still wrong to say "47% of Americans pay no taxes." Look at the wording in the very first paragraph: "Almost half of individuals AND HOUSEHOLDS (emphasis mine) owe no taxes for 2009. Could that be true?"

In this editorial, USAToday continues: "Most still pay Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes, sales taxes and property taxes (if they own any property).

"So they're paying taxes, but the fact that 47% pay no federal income tax is nonetheless disturbing — not for what it says about the non-payers but for what it says about the nation's broken tax system and how hard it will be to fix it.

"The people who pay no income tax aren't freeloaders or evaders; virtually all are simply doing what the law allows. That there are so many of them is the result of decades of deliberate, bipartisan tax policy."

Nice try, but no cigar, Kurt.

+1 . I can definitely relate to Mary's comments though my situation was a little different, yet very similar. I had a wife that left me high and dry, with the mortgage, two kids to raise and the courts even gave me her student loans to pay back. Back on the subject of this "affordable" plan, I think it will take a while to see what this really ends up being. The Supreme Court has ruled this as a tax which means everyones taxes are going up. Lots of things need to change in this country and Mary has pointed out some of the issues.

What is a discriminatory paycheck. I moved to Alaska and went to work as a chemist in a Fairbanks lab. One of my co-workers and I got to talking and she found out I made 50 cents an hour more than her and we both did basically the same job and had been there the same length. She was furious, but as we talked the reason for the discrepancy became clear. When it came time for raises she took what was offered, I didn't. I argued with my boss I was worth more and gave substantial reasons why. An employers job is to pay the minimal amount to get the job done, an employee is trying to maximize the worth of their labor. I would posit that men are more aggressive as a whole on arguing their worth than women which leads to the appearance of discrimination. Could you tell me what overt war on women, what specifically do Republicans support that you feel is an attack on women? My wife and I are Republican's and we have 4 daughters. For the last 10 years my wife worked she earned 5 times what I did, she worked for Wells-Fargo I worked as a chemist. Now her job is taking care of our children and I am self-employed and the dollars are reversed, she knows that if she decided to get back into the work place after a 10 year hiatus that she will earn significantly less than she did before. We would really like to know how this constitutes a war on women.

this deserves one of those +1's

Thou shalt not steal. I think this argument was settled with Moses. Tell government to take their 10% and not steal the rest. Simple really.

Moses was a gangster. Shall we talk about his blood purge of Israelites who resisted his despotism?

So I take it from your comment about Moses that you are in favor of stealing and think you should steal because you believe the person delivering the message was a gangster?

Romans 13:5-7:
Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
Matthew 17:24-27 we learn that Jesus payed taxes:
After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma tax came to Peter and asked, "Doesn't your teacher pay the temple tax?"
"Yes, he does," he replied.

When Peter came into the house, Jesus was the first to speak. "What do you think, Simon?" he asked. "From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes—from their own sons or from others?"

"From others," Peter answered.

"Then the sons are exempt," Jesus said to him. "But so that we may not offend them, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours."

And We should care about the comments of somebody who calls itself The Shill?
The definition of a shill really doesn't inspire a lot of confidence.

1. a person who poses as a customer in order to decoy others into participating, as at a gambling house, auction, confidence game, etc.

2. a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.

No Troy you should care about the comments of someone who call himself Jesus Christ.

Shrillster,
Could you enlighten me as to why the above post has any bearing on this discussion as I don't believe anyone has advocated yet not paying their taxes in protest, just in trying to change the law and why we believe it is bad law. But then again I have never claimed to be a religous scholar and may be misinterpreting your point

This one too !! +1

Mary, on what evidence do you base your assertion that undocumented immigrants receive healthcare? So what if they do: it makes you feel somehow better or empowered to impose misery and privation on them? Or, is the REAL point that American healthcare needs fundamental reforms so that ALL Americans, including you, have access to it?

How will denying immigrants healthcare, which you seem to imply here, help YOU?

If you want to see something interesting on the deficit ...... assume we were to stop growing the deficit when it reaches $16 trillion ( we are almost there ! ). Then, we begin paying it off at the rate of $1000 a second. Calculate how many years it will take to pay it down to zero ( assuming, of course, no interest is added to the $16 T figure , which is not reality ). The answer will astound you.

You have some excellent comments, Mary and I , for one, hope you don't leave Patch. I am sure some of the city and state officials read the readers input, even tho they may not post a response. So, your input is valuable to all of us and I hope your situation receives the attention it deserves. This health care issue is a real hot button and I think we are just on the verge of having this undergo a major change - which it needs to, as many of the posts have pointed out ( how to pay for this thing is going to be the major challenge ). Yes, there are some of the posters that will pick your input apart, but don't let that stop you from responding. ( I have a nephew that is an absolute einstein ..... I don't get into any heated discussions with him as he has all the data, quotes, references, etc. to tie me up in knots. He is destined to be a politician :-) )

+1

Your assertion that UNDOCUMENTED immigrants receive care to the exclusion of citizens is just that, an assertion. Support your assertion, Troy, by providing evidence. I reject your unproven, unsubstianted claim that undocumented immigrants receive health care to the exclusion of people like Mary above. You're scapegoating, and playing the undocumented immigrant card without ofering any realistic proposal of your own.

As for immigrants, so what if some here "illegally?" Wasn't it a GOP president, Ronald Reagan who, in signing the 1986 immigration reform act, who granted the largest amnesty in the nation's history to undocumented immigrants? What is your policy proposal, a mass roundup and forced deportation of an estimated 10-12 million people? Look at Romeny's waffling on immigration: he's trying to please a hardline anti-immigrant base, while simultaneously appealing to a growing segment of the electorate, Hispanics, who take the immigration issue very seriously.

Troy, I am registered as an independent, and am alienated by a GOP which is unwilling to accept the compromises necessary to govern. Face it: Republicans are not infallible, your party needs to soften its hardline stands, and stop playing wedge politics.

Troy, contrary to what you and other Republicans may believe, your sweat smells the same as ours.

Reject away, but given A. that there are only so many funds to pay for those who can't pay and B. illegal immigrants qualify to receive those funds then it follows that at some point citizens are not getting benefits that illegals are. I could present a plan to deal with the healthcare problem but I doubt that it would meet with your approval. No, I don't have to do a massed deportation, if we secure our borders the deportation could take place over a period of years as we would have no more illegals entering the country, or at that point we could afford to offer a path to citizenship but first we need to secure those borders. Personally I reject your assumption that the hispanic population who are American citizens don't want the border enforced. I very much support immigration, just legal immigration. I realize that following the rules is harder than not following them which is why illegal immigration is a problem. I never claimed Republicans are infallible and you may not like the hard line stance on some issues but for some of us the principle is important, we have rules and laws for a reason, I may not like the (un)Affordable Care Act but I don't advocate just ignoring it. I advocate repealing it legally. I use deoderant so I am pretty sure my sweat doesn't smell but I will admit that I probably sweat as much as you. I can't speak for everyone else about their sweat like you do.

Heh, heh, heh, I love quoting Lenin in this context: "Be firm on principles, flexible in tactics."

In all seriousness, Troy, compromise is a sine qua non in a representative democracy like ours. I don't say you lack principles, just that you and the GOP need to be more judicious in accepting compromise to help govern the country. You are still arguing in the abstract about the costs of providing medical care to undocumented immigrants, and your phrase "sealing the borders" is meaningless, especially when an estimated 50% of undocumented immigrants enter the country legally, then overstay their visas. Or, what about the youing people Obama has suspended immigration enforcement, whose parents brought them into the country?

What is key here is how you want to implicitly defend private, for-profit health insurance, when there is much waste, as I have noted before. Or, it is fear-mongering to talk about "government bureaucrats" making your health care decisions: that simply isn't true, since the ACA depends on the existing system of private health insurance. The worst whopper of all was Sarah Palin's blatant lie about "death panels:" the provision which was misrepresented mandated paying for end-of-life counseling. Hardly the "pulling the plug on Grandma" that Grassley denounced.

I do enjoy our exchanges, Troy.

Let me get this straight, Billy: the ability of the US economy to grow in order to provide the resources necessary to provide all Americans with access to health care is limited, so rationing of care is inevitable, reform or no? Thus, one basis for rationing care is, say at the point of admission to a hospital or ER, to deny care on the basis of citizenship? "Show me your papers," indeed!

What apologists like you cannot seem to wrap your heads around is that there is much waste inherent to capitalism, and that US healthcare faces inflation in costs driven by the need for private insurors to profit from, basically, paying medical bills; hospitals duplicating services in order to compete with each other; overuse (this has been documented) of expensive diagnostic equipment in order to recover the capital cost, etc.

So Billy, did you mean to imply that people who do not see economics as you do are stupid?

Jeff,
Like the compromise that was the (un)affordable care act? You seem to forget for two years whatever the Democrats wanted they could have. This bill didn't even have the patina of compromise. Of course I am arguing in the abstract, as my father taught me: figures lie and liars figure, besides with the internet we all have infinite sources to back up any argument we want to make therefore making any argument using examples an exercise in futility. You seem to think that stopping 50% of illegals is not worth doing, I feel that if we can stop 50% of the illegals it will free up more resources to deal with the other 50%. As far as the illegals brought here by their parents, send them home with their parents and they can apply the same as anyone else to become citizens.

Of course I want to defend private for profit enterprises. The are more efficient and less wasteful than government. You think private insurance is wasteful, I know government is, just look at the GSA.

By the way it is not fear mongering to not want the Independent Payment Advisory Board deciding what the reimbursement rates for any particular procedure will be. The result of this will be bureaucrats deciding what is allowed by limiting reimbursement on procedures they feel are not warranted. This is also a defacto "death panel" because if you are 70 years old and need bypass surgery they could decide that it would not be in the best interest to have that paid for, ergo no open heart surgery.

Definitely agreed ! Mary's situation needs attention. I wouldn't bet the bank, though, on democrats ( or republicans ) solving these difficult situations. If this country continues to do everything on a Dem or Rep basis...... we are done as a country. Instead, we need to go back to "We, the people".

And, not to stir things up on the pay issues, but I did see some stats quoted very recently that shows that, currently ( 2012 ) females under 30 are out-performing their male counterparts ( also under 30's, for comparison ) in pay.

I call it good business not wasteful to get doctors to prescribe your drug, as far as off label usage said usage only means it was not FDA approved not that it wasn't effective.

Let's quit beating a dead horse, I can come up with much waste in government as you can in private business, the difference is I can choose who I do business with I can't choose when the government is involved. Sorry but you will have to blame the predatory lending on the government in the form of Fanny and Freddy. They basically eliminated any proof of income requirements and down payment requirements. So people who couldn't afford loans lied to get them because they had nothing to loose as they put no money down on the house in the first place.

You are correct it is the fault of the parent but if that example was set maybe parents in the future would make better choices, the parents didn't think it was inhumane to force them to immigrate to a strange country in the first place I don't think it is inhumane to follow the lead of the parent and force them to return.

Unbelievable: you prefer the judgement of an organization which will derive profit from its marketing activities over an independent regulatory body which weighs medical and scientific criteria in deciding which uses to recommend for a drug. Troy, if I have a problem with a federal agency, I have two senators and a congressman to scream to: if I get screwed by a profit-driven entity, I have no recourse except the civil courts.

Another user called saw little value in our exchanges. I think you are so committed ideologically that you refuse to see how profit drives bad behavior, and Adam Smith's invisible hand will do nothing to stop it. Don't blame Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac alone: they were abetted by a whole industry which saw a profit opportunity in predatory lending, and neither company had the power to mandate underwriting standards.

Go ahead and cite the old Roman "caveat emptor," but while the Romans did good things (aqueducts and concrete, among others), their ruling class was corrupt and worshipped power over justice. They gave the world crucifixion, as well as that business advice predatory capitalists use to excuse their own greed.

Now that was just funny.

Troy has some excellent comments and I wish he were in the Senate to help guide some of the people there. They sure need it ( especially Pelosi, who - if I remember correctly, took two jumbo jets full of people to Denmark for the Nobel award ceremony a couple of years back. )

Now.... I think everyone agrees : there are some good points about the Health Care Act. And there are some bad points, many of which we have no idea what they are yet. One of those is ..... what will this cost everybody ? It's like Santa Claus arriving on Christmas Eve .... love seeing the guy , but hate the thought of what it really costs. This is similar. And, also remember one point made in earlier posts : this Act is so good that none of the elected officials will be participating in it ( according to Mr O himself ). That is because they have an ever better plan that is not available to the taxpaying public. And, if I am correct , their plan costs them ...... wait for it ......... zero . HUH ???? Can that be right ?

Maria- did you really just play the "he man women hater society" Card???? Medicare is a bust and until congress, the executive branch, and judicial branch join the same health care system as our retired citizens, we are ALL lost and the burden to pay will be passed onto our kids by Nancy and Obama. I am surprised that they didnt write the bill to subsidize their minority voters better than white male voters.

Maria, I am not the first person to observe the following: when you had the image of Barack Obama, a black man, as president, Nancy Pelosi, a woman, as Speaker of the House, and Barney Frank, an openly gay man, as chairman of the House Finance Committee, it was too much for some people to stand.

Jeff.. I think your statement stands on its own... All you care about is their race, sex, and who they sleep with... All I care about is their hands in my pocketbook taking my money to promote their race, gender, or sexual aptitude. It is time Pelosi, Obama, and Barny listen to what they preach.. Everyone is equal and their is no reason to continue race and class warfare on white, male, upper middle class Christians.

"no reason to continue race and class warfare on white, male, upper middle class Christians"

Gee, Jack, you guys are so poor and oppressed. Funny how the contribution of folks who foreground their identities as you describe gave us Know Nothingism, The Dred Scott decision, the Confederacy, the Fort Pillow Massacre and Andersenville, lynching, the Klan, D.C. Stephenson, "The Birth of a Nation," a segregated military as well as Jim Crow, Joe McCarthy, J. Edgar Hoover, and just about everything else sick and wrong in this country.

Jack, it's folks like you who have been waging war on the rest of us. You're kvetching (oops, Yiddish, sorry!), becaue we are fighting back, and winning.

Jeffery, I wasn't born then and those people are not me. You need to stop punishing those who share the same genesis as your Ancestors. Talk about stereotyping. I guess it is only ok for a minority to stereotype another minority. I am "kvetching" because people like you feel that because an injustice was perpetrated on your ancestors then it is ok to perpetrate the same on others. Hypocrites ...... Btw, I support Israel. This county is great because we did not have thought police like you want, and communism was defeated.

Jack, it is ridiculous and indefensible to play victim as you have here. You're acting like you've been subjected to oppression because you call yourself a white christian. Just admit that some of your compadres were over the top in how they portrayed Nancy Pelosi. And how the heck can you claim that you have any idea who my "ancestors" were!?

Bottom line is you guys have overplayed your hand in opposing the Affordable Care Act: polling data shows that most Americans want you to shut up so we can move on. More to the point is that healthcare organizations and insurors are now working to meet the mandates of the new law.

The only folks who haven't moved on are those elements of the GOP who have lapsed on their rabies vaccinations. Shall I just call you "Ol' Yeller?"

Jeff... You are correct that most Americans want more free handouts. What you refuse to share is that the majority of Americans don't pay the majority of the taxes that hand them what they want. They are cattle at the public trough wanting others to pay "their fair share" as definined by government to keep votes and promote class warfare. If we follow your tard logic of a majority of the mindless masses want it, we would still have "separate but equal.". A majority of the country agreed with it and continue to segregate themselves through multiculturalism and by creating their own segregation by living choices.

Sorry Jeff there is no way in ... that we could be over the top in how we portray Nancy Pelosi. She has to be the craziest most delusional person on the whole planet. You have to pass it to see what's in it. Really? Let alone the claim that Holder is being held in contempt because we want to suppress the vote. Here are a couple more gems from her. 1. Bipartisanship is nice, but it cannot be a substitute for action, not having it cannot prevent us from going forward. 2. In our recovery package we put new standards of accountability and transparency, which we hope will now apply.

World according to Jeffrey- their ancestors did bad things so now it is ok to do bad things to them. All spawn of the Nazis should be rounded up and placed in concentration camps. All white Christian males who Ancestors created this great country should forfeit all of their wealth to be redistributed to less fortunate because they didn't come by it honestly. The sons and daughters should "pay" for the sins of their forefathers. Fact Jeff- a black male became president before a female... White or black. Racism against minorities is dead... The war is over and good won... Now there is just piling on. My kids went to college with better grades and didn't receive half the hand outs as others because they did not have the correct genetic background. They owe more than some of their good friends because their parents immigrated to America. My kids are starting out with a chain heavier than minority kids because I am the wrong color. If my one sone would have claimed he was gay his financial aid would have been greater. They did nothing to anyone and have many ethnic friends that come over. However, the Dems and Pelosi have targeted them to carry a greater burden than their peers.

Sooooo true Kurt... Pelosi and the Dems are so used to leading their sheep they forget Republicans actually think and CARE.

As long as they continue to attack white males and force political correctness on employers, then the social ware far will continue. Multiculturalism is a failed concept in America. Why do we need Little China or other areas created for minorities to feel American. Just go to New York City. It should be the Melting Pot not "my culture runs this block". Obama and the rest want to make sure we are divided not melted together. It helps them run things down our gullet like sociazed medicine. Keep the population in fear of each other, looking to government for the American dream and they will keep their control and power over those who cannot compete in a free market.

I understand a little better now. And, I think everyone here realizes history did not start yesterday. I just didn't see any connection between the Confederate prison ( spelled Andersonville, b.t.w. ) , or an 1864 battle in Tennessee with a real bad turnout ( not uncommon in war ). Shermans March to the Sea wasn't so glorious either, but it is sure touted as a huge victory for the north in the history lessons.

Back to the subject - this act will be a real burden on an awful lot of people. Call it a tax, a penalty, or whatever. It is going to be a burden.

Jeff, What would you call our current welfare system except a divide and conquer game started by the Democrats and continued today. Do you realize since the advent of modern welfare the African - American community has a 73% single parent rate compared to 25% nationally. The welfare system has created a permanent underclass in the US, with Barack being elected President you can't even blame the problem on racism. The problem can be traced directly back to the current social welfare state. We pay people to have children and encourage the fathers to leave and be irresponsible because the mothers get more aid when that happens. The social welfare system destroyed the family structure because it is no longer beneficial to get married or to stay married. So tell me who's best interest it is to keep people dependent on government, it sure isn't the GOP's. The Holier than thou attitude expressed by the Democrats while they play the divide and conquer race card, stoking fear and resentment of Republicans by accusing us of wanting to starve the poor and elderly. Such hypocrisy.

Sorry Jeff you should read who posted before making a comment. No, twist it how you like but I said nothing about being promiscuous, yes irresponsible because of the welfare state because it pays to be irresponsible. You called welfare recipients lazy not me, I said it was easier it does not necessarily follow that they are lazy just smart and yes Democrats keep them dependent it was you who said they were stupid I believe your interpretation of my comment shows the racist and class warfare tendencies of the liberal left. My was just an observation that since the arrival of the modern welfare state it has been black families that have suffered.

Jeff- remember Hotel Rowanda???

It sure isn't us Rich white Republicans who benefit by keeping people dependent, since most welfare recipients vote Democrat it is in the Democrats best interest to have more dependent people who will vote for them. Us rich Republicans would like to see more people working so we can lower our tax burden.

+1 for Maria. Yes, I agree ..... there are some parts of this act that we already know about, and are good - such as the ones you have mentioned. The "bad" of this act is probably 99% unknown ( cost ???? ). And, I don't know if anyone knows the answer to this one or not : Is there a "bid" system involved in this "affordable" act ? What this means is ..... let's say you. Maria, need a knee replacement. The operation is put up for bid and let's say the winning bid is $10,000. Not bad you say, but the catch is .... you have to go to Seattle to take advantage of this. Or, overseas perhaps. Then, you start asking , what if I get the operation done locally ( Iowa City, Waterloo, etc. ) but their "bid" is $20,000. Now what ? Who pays the excess over the low bid ? - my guess is the customer pays the difference.

All I am saying is ..... with a 2700 page act, there is alot of wording going on there and I don't think there is anyone alive that understands the thing - tho Pelosi might claim she does.

The last thing for all of us to ask is : why aren't the elected officials on this wonderful plan ? Maybe Grassley or Harkin can enlighten us.

Thanks, Maria! Let me add the following: we DO have healthcare rationing in this country, performed by unaccountable private insurors who, among other tactics, employ doctors who are rewarded financially for finding grounds to reject claims. This country spends twice as much, as a total percentage of care, to administer claims: that is waste, pure and simple, since processing claims paperwork does nothing to provide care to patients.

You won't be able to nationalize GSK, since that company is based in the UK, but the pharmaceutical industry is also wasteful: look at the money spent marketing name-brand drugs to patients. Another example where every dollar spent on advertising contributes nothing to patient care. Let's not forget the GW Bush Medicare prescription fiasco, with its "donut hole" of coverage and prohibition against the federal government negotiating with Big Pharma for reduced prices. Talk about interfering with the function of the "free market!"

These guys will stoke resentment of us, since we have Wellmark insurance. Funny how they'll gripe about how "the gubmint" will prevent us from choosing our care providers: as you know, Wellmark has its network of "preferred providers," and my wife had to go to a different optometrist for her new glasses: our old provider wasn't part of Wellmark's network. But like rationing, that kind of behavior is okay, since its done by a for-profit corporation!

Another +1 for Maria.

But, if going somewhere far away were part of the law ( the health care act ), could Americans actually do anything about it? I see this very similar to putting out bids on a new building , a new parking lot, etc. The low bidder usually gets the business ( if he/she is qualified, of course ). The difference is ...... the bidder ( in the case of a structure ) must go to the site. For health care, the patient would have to go to where the service will be provided. And..... in the case of negotiating a lower price, in your case you were successful. If the whole situation becomes a matter of dollars and cents , and there is little room for negotiating, then what ? ( i.e. what would have happened if Wellmark had negotiated a cost for you of $32,995 ? - take it or leave it . Would you have gone to India ? )

Like I said earlier, the whole act is not very clear yet. Especially in the area of costs.

Does anyone reading these posts know if there is a bidding process as part of the services provided by the Act ?

I don't know for sure, but I think this act will help with some of the things you mentioned ( one of the summaries I have heard said that fraud is one issue the act would deal with ). However, cost is still a huge question and I cannot help but think that our gov't will institute a bidding process as a way of controlling costs. The other thing that seems to be a hidden issue is : what will companies do to deal with this monster ? I can't imagine every company with more than 50 employees having an A.C.A. ( affordable care act ) expert..... it would take years to learn the ins and outs of this 2700 page thing. Companies with less than 50 employees will really have a problem. ( can't justify one person to do nothing but be an A.C.A. expert )