If I was a betting person, I would put my money on the campaign that raises the most money today as the one to be taking a victory lap in November.

A dark day for all Americans.
The sucking sound you here is all the wealth being transferred out of the USA to somewhere else. I for one, will transfer as much of my wealth to other countries. I will not pay the tax.

Rebecca, I always find this odd. I had a friend, who sadly died three years ago, who was already on the liver transplant list when we got her health insurance right here in Loganville. I've never understood how other people couldn't do it.

I'm kind of torn about the ruling. On the one hand I think people who don't have insurance should pay a penalty, tax or whatever you want to call it. For those who don't agree think about it. When someone doesn't have health insurance and they do need medical care they will get it if it's an emergency. So who pays for that health care when they don't have insurance? Those of us who do have health care? The taxpayers? I mean when you stop and think about it whats wrong with having health care insurance? Is your fancy car, cell phone or other luxury item more important than having health insurance?

Me I'm self employed. I've lived without health insurance before and it scared me every day I did without it. When I was able that (health insurance) was one of the first things I budgeted into my business. I've only used it a few times, but look at it just as I do my car insurance. Something to be used in emergency's.

I think our Congress however missed out in making health care better for all Americans when they passed this law however. First I don't think many of them understood the implications of the law. Second once the law is implemented what will happen if it doesn't work the way they envisioned?

Finally I don't like the fact that they (Congress) has to enact a law that should be common sense in the course of ones life.

kk
I think this is another milestone in our nation that will benefit all Americans. Especially those who have been denied insurance due to pre-existing health problems. I think the Obama Adminstration did a great job in the write up of this healthcare so that congress couldn't pull their usual control. Oppressing the people in this country and denying people in this country is not in our constitution but it is done everyday.

Can we recall the 5 that voted yes? I thought they had read and understood the constitution?

I think the whole system needs fixing and Obama can't fix it. The only thing that will ever fix it is completely getting insurance out of our medical business and letting you & your doctor decide what is best for your care; and you and your doctor work out a plan to take care of that. Insurance companies are not interested in our health. They are interested in our dollars. They couldn't care any less about how healthy or unhealthy you are and that is the part that has to change. Get costs back down to where we only need insurance for major medical stuff and premiums that reflect that.

Jerry Moore....the reason why they had to enact the law is because Republican see it as interefering with a companies way to make money. Its that simple. If we pass laws that may hurt the bottom line...thats not fair.

However, its also not fair that the uninsured's bills get passed on to those who work and have insurance either.

Four years ago, I had to take my son to the emergency room. The co-pay $100 dollars. Last year he broke his arm ER visit $200 co pay!!

Me two visits to a specialist within 30 days plus a prescription $250 out of pocket.

Wife had an MRI $500 dollars.

Really? This is outrageous when I pay $428.00 for a family plan, and that is through my employer! Nothing is covered under my plan.

5 years ago...most would have been.

People who scream don't force me to buy are most likely the scammers who hit the hospital and don't pay. Why pay when you can get others pay for you.

Health care should be non for profit and we would not have these issues.

Today is the first step in the right direction of getting healthcare under control. I would imagine more tweeking will occur over the next few years to get it palatable for all.

Wow. I'd like to have your $428/mo plan. Our family plan is $165/week. Two years ago it was $295/week and that was through the local not-for-profit HMO but at least it did pay for stuff. Now our $165/week plan only pays for 1 well care visit and I think a few basic blood tests.

Recently I saw a doctor for a procedure that I need to have done. The cash price (self-pay) is about half what the insurance price is. I thought the whole purpose of insurance was to have someone to bargain and get a better price for you as the patient. A few years ago, I bought a medical "device" from a local medical supply store. Cash price was less than half the insurance price. WHY WHY WHY is this allowed? Because they need my extra insurance $$$ to pay for people who don't have it. There should not be an insurance price that is different from the cash price. Forget the constitutionality of it, it is just plain unethical.

Cassie, if you are looking, please email me at sharon.swanepoel@patch.com and I will give you the contact information. I monitored it and made sure it was paid every month until she died so I do know for sure about this. It is not hearsay information. She had access to the best care, including in-home care for the four months that she was out of Emory Eastside and before having major surgery at Emory University Hospital, which she sadly did not survive. There was one issue, however, that I was concerned about, and that was the lifetime ceiling. When she died she had hit that $2 million mark by about $60,000. I completed paperwork to ensure that Emory got paid and I'm not sure where they got that from, I just filled in the information. I can't help wondering what would have happened had she survived. Her insurance was more expensive because of her pre-existing condition, but her family between them made sure the extra expense was covered. However, I don't believe it was any more expensive than all our insurance is about to become now.

With this ruling, the federal government can impose anything they want to on the citizens. If said citizens do not want to comply, they get taxed. Wake up people, this ruling is the beginning of the end. Are you so pitiful that you want others to provide for you through the power of the imperial federal government?

This is a victory for all Americans. The irony here is that the individual mandate is a Republican idea that would otherwise be embraced by conservatives if not for the fact that they have an irrational hatred of President Obama. Both parties deserve a great deal of credit for passing health care reform that attempts to maintain a market based solution.

The notion that Obamacare is a "government takeover" of health care is absurd. The Affordable Care Act was the epitome of compromise. It's too bad that Republicans, especially their presumptive nominee for President, are too afraid to celebrate something this important that they were instrumental in crafting. Democrats would love to share the credit with them but they won;t go near it. How silly is that?

The supreme court have just opened the doors for government to tell us what we can and cant do....they have more power than ever before..all they have to do is say they will tax us if we don't comply and now with this ruling they can require anything of us...wake up america ...employers are not going to start hiring with the employee cost on the rise.......higher unemployment is on the way.....and the bad part is the disabled people that want to work will be one of the first effected like always...
Unemployment among persons with disabilities spiked in the second quarter of 2011, and continues to outpace the unemployment rate for other workers, according to the U.S. Department of Labor.
Reported From Forbes
Americans with disabilities are experiencing a jobless rate more than 80 percent higher than the rest of Americans

******So now being as my husband and I both work! Make $100 to much money for food stamps that we desperately needed badly last week! Can't afford insurance, let alone even think of a co-pay! Need medicines that will not be refilled until I have blood work, that I can't afford to go too. Will now be penalized from the government that is suppost to be for me? I NEED A CHANGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*angry*

Kath, if you have insurance, as you have stated in a previous post, you will not be taxed. The "tax" is for those who chose to remain uninsured.

If your statistic is correct, that 8 out of 10 have health ins (and i'm not sure about that stat but let's go with it anyway), then 8 out of 10 will not be paying the "tax". Only 2 out of 10 will, so that is only 20%.

I think in the big picture this may be the best result. Now the amerian people will have to get off their butt and vote Obama, Pelosi & Reid out of office before we become Europe or Cuba. These are the radical hippeis of the 60s finally achieving their goals dismantling America.

Guess I'll be getting my healthcare in jail. It will be a cold day in hell before I buy anything the Obooboo administration requires me to buy.

I think Roberts just set up the libs on the Court with this. They voted 9-0...that's 9-0, people, that the mandate isn't Constitutional under the Commerce Clause. But 5-4 it's OK as a tax. Roberts just hung a huge middle class tax increase around the neck of The One. Have fun campaigning with that on.

That's a good article you pointed to Leon. Here is a link to an article on howstuffworks.com that went in depth on the reasons healthcare reform was desperately needed. For those that know howstuffworks know that the site is completely non political. It just provides information on an enormous range of subjects. They just decided to analyze this subject first in '09 then in '10. They also proved articles that debunked some of the myths associated with Obamacare.

http://people.howstuffworks.com/why-pursue-health-reform.htm

We all hate when we are forced to do something we don't like or even want....Where is the freedom. I have been working since 15 and now I'm 46 never had a problem with health benefits. I know the economy is bad so wouldn't you think they would focus on jobs...hmmmm..sad day for all

I don't think any of us knows enough about how this will unfold, and what changes may be made in the next two years, to judge how we'll be affected. As a cancer survivor (1989 with no recurrence), I can say that I have been discriminated against by insurance companies for years. I was paying almost $800 a month when I finally opted for a very high deductible plan with a fairly high premium. Plenty of (formerly) middle class people are working long hours and are still unable to afford health insurance or health care.They haven't done anything wrong. The cost of health insurance is beyond their means. Even if they can manage Peachcare for their children (and it continues to get funding), what will happen to the children if mom gets sick and can't work....or dies because she couldn't afford diagnosis or treatment? These are my neighbors and yours.

Something else to consider: First, it is inaccurate for the media or anyone else to declare that the individual mandate written into law was upheld. The ruling is a political and legal slight of hand that is unprecedented. Roberts answered the question of is the mandate as written constitutional by essentially saying, "No", but that doesn't matter because what the Congress and President didn't understand was that they could get the same result by taxation, which is constitutional. The questions that had been raised about the actual law in the lower courts, reviewed and alternatively struck down and upheld by the appeals courts were basically ignored. Roberts answered a question that wasn't asked. If this law had been honestly written identifying the requirement as a tax, it never would have been challenged. (of course it never would have been passed by congress, either). The law that was written, enacted, challenged and reviewed was struck down. The court basically wrote its own law enabling what would never have been passed by the representatives of the people.

The cynicism and moral depravity of this decision is breath taking.

I'm reminded of the Borg in the old Star Trek movies: "Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated."

Furthermore, I thought since the legislators insisted what they were doing was NOT levying a tax, there was no way the court would apply this. Roberts and the court made the classic SCOTUS machiavellian decision it has always done when faced w/ the prospect of telling the Congress it can't exercise an enumerated power. Historically, the court will strike in protection of a claimed violation of one of the first 9 amendments or will limit the executive, but they have typically shied away from a flat out denial of the right of the elected representatives to exercise that power.

As I see it, Roberts found a constitutional basis to uphold, thus avoiding a war w/ the executive, but in so doing, saddled Obama w/ the political burden of first defending raising taxes under false pretenses and second, explaining how the democrat led congress and adjunct professor of constitutional law fundamentally misunderstood the constitution. The fact that congress can impose a tax was never a question. What was in question was can the congress mandate individuals to purchase a product they have determined they either do not want or need. The answer to that question still appears to be, "no".

Roberts walks away w/ a reinforcement of the Court's power to interpret the constitution, which Obama had challenged, Obama gets his law upheld, but now must defend his tactics and transparency in the process. Congress is made the fool.

Because the court ruled that a tax can be levied if a citizen does not purchase something the government wants them to and did not set limits, people should be thinking ahead. If this ruling was in place before Solyndra, we would all be required to have solar panels to prop up that company before it failed and lost so much taxpayer money. When the Republicans are back in power, whether it be in Nov. or whenever, this decision will be used to force something else and the Dems will be screaming. This was a bad idea no matter who is in charge.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/government/2012/06/29/scotus-ruling-means-bigger-more-intrusive-irs/

Karsten and Ed- you got it! Anyone who thinks this is a 1% thing has really drank the koolaid. This will hit middle class big time. can't selectively tax. Obama and lib congress knew this when they got this thing started. Now they are having to back peddle on which lie they want to feed people in November.

Had they called it a tax in 2009-2010, the bill would never have passed. The administration can not deny it has imposed the largest tax increase in history on the middle class. People who don't buy insurance will have to pay several hundred dollars, depending on income. The Congressional Budget Office says that 76% of those who pay the mandate tax will make less than 500% of the federal poverty level, estimated to be $24,000 for a family of four in 2016. That means 76% of the payers will earn less than $120,000 a year. So much for Mr. Obama's promise not to raise taxes on anyone earning less than $200,000. Precisely why it won't work now, nor would it have before now. Giving power to the gov't to tax you on anything they deem necesary is a dangerous proposition.

And you all do realize that the worst of this was designed to kick in between 2012 and 2016? They planned it that way. So, if he gets thrown out and replaced, he can watch with glee as the new president suffers the results of the fallout. If he wins re-election, he will have to justify what's to come and take responsibility for it. Either way, we win politically, but all will suffer for having put this idealogue in ofice in the first place.

Please remember to abide by our terms of use. We ask that you don't use obscene language or make personal attacks.

Brian, the word tax was being used several years ago in regards to this. Read up on your government 101. The ONLY way to have gotten this through was to tax it (congress isn't allowed to do this unless it was a tax). That's why is was done in secret and as Pelosi said, "We'll have to pass it to see what's in it (groan-how the the American people allowed this is beyond me). You simple cannot believe that they can do wrong. That's a bit biased- no offense, but need to be more objective. History has shown time and time again that this is the end result of liberal policies. Even if we go with the "penalty" word, it's still money out of someone's pocket for not cowtowing to the government. is that still a good thing? It WILL affect the poor. Just watch and see.

...not that it has anything directly to do with this, but I had a thought...under Carter, those people waiting in those long gas lines were from every class, race and ethnic origin. That's how these policies play out. As good as it looks on paper, it just doesn't work whe ndealing with the real world. Can't have a utopia with fallen men in charge. That's the beauty of our constitution- it is so flawless when followed as is.

Okay, here is the actual text from the Roberts decision. It's a bit long for this space so I'll break it up by paragraphs: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

4. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part III–C, concluding that the individual mandate may beupheld as within Congress’s power under the Taxing Clause. Pp. 33–44.

(a) The Affordable Care Act describes the “[s]hared responsibilitypayment” as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. It does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congress’s power to tax. In answering that constitutional question, this Court follows a functional approach,“[d]isregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its substance and application.” United States v. Constantine, 296 U. S. 287,
294. Pp. 33–35.

(b)
Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax. The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health insurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penalties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation. Cf. Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U. S. 20, 36–37. None of this is to say that payment is not intended to induce the purchase of health insurance. But the mandate need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful. Neither the Affordable Care Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. And Congress’s choice of language—stating that individuals “shall” obtain insurance or pay a “penalty”—does not require reading §5000A as punishing unlawful conduct. It may also be read as imposing a tax on those who go without insurance. See New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 169–174. Pp. 35–40.

(c)
Even if the mandate may reasonably be characterized as atax, it must still comply with the Direct Tax Clause, which provides:“No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” Art. I, §9, cl. 4. A tax on going without health insurance is not like a capitation or other direct tax under this Court’s precedents. It therefore need not be apportioned so that each State pays in proportion toits population. Pp. 40–41.

It is my understanding that the Supreme Court labeled this a tax; although it could be those who want to frighten the people. Thanks Leon Galis for your clear outline of what the "tax" is. I and all of the people I know do not have to be concerned about these taxes, which is the case with the majority of Americans. As some of you may know, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has had a health care reform program for several years. Mitt Romney initiated this, and in true political fashion, is now turning his back on it because Republicans oppose it and he wants to be president. My knowledge of the MA health care program is that a person like Cathy, who wrote a comment on June 28, will be able to receive health insurance at a lower and more affordable cost based on her income and situation. For example, a person who is laid off, COBRA has expired (or maybe not expired) can have affordable health care. A friend told me that he/she was paying $800/month for health insurance when unemployed. With the health care program the cost dropped to $160/month. Perhaps we should find out more about how the program in MA is working.

The cost of preventive health care is less than the cost of treating illness at any level, which is why there is increasing emphasis on prevention, e.g. exercise, diet, etc. I have heard the comment, "There isn't any money in a cure." Think on that for a second. Again, back in the "olden" days I learned about 3 levels of prevention in health care. This "model" is still being used. You can search the internet for lots of information on this. Search for: primary secondary tertiary prevention or primary secondary tertiary health care or make up your own. Since I have gone way over limit I will have to cut the rest of my comments and place the i a new box. This is the basic idea: "The US Preventative Services Task Forces’ Guide to Clinical Preventive Services (USPSTF) defines primary prevention measures as those provided to individuals to prevent the onset of a targeted condition. Primary prevention measures include activities that help avoid a given health care problem. Examples include passive and active immunization against disease as well as health protecting education and counseling promoting the use of automobile passenger restraints and bicycle helmets. Since successful primary prevention helps avoid the suffering, cost and burden associated with disease, it is typically considered the most cost-effective form of health care.

Continuation: "Secondary prevention measures as those that identify and treat asymptomatic persons who have already developed risk factors or preclinical disease but in whom the condition is not clinically apparent. These activities are focused on early case findings of asymptomatic disease that occurs commonly and has significant risk for negative outcome without treatment. Screening tests are examples of secondary prevention activities, as these are done on those without clinical presentation of disease that has a significant latency period such as hyperlipidemia, hypertension, breast and prostate cancer. With early case finding, the natural history of disease or how the course of an illness unfolds over time without treatment can often be altered to maximize well-being and minimize suffering.
Tertiary prevention activities involve the care of established disease, with attempts made to restore to highest function, minimize the negative effects of disease, and prevent disease-related complications. Since the disease is now established, primary prevention activities may have been unsuccessful. Early detection through secondary prevention may have minimized the impact of the disease." www.fhea.com/CertificationCols/level_prevention.htm When one has access to health care the cost should decrease as preventive education & health care is initiated, as opposed to going to the ER or becoming seriously ill with a disease that could have been prevented. PEACE, GOOD HEALTH to all!

The address the flawlessness of the constitution...I understand that and am thankful for being able to amend, but we still have the separation of powers to keep the head guy from making executive decisions like a king. We have that and rule of law to protect against tyranny.

If you are interested, here's a link to show the penalty that a MA taxpayer will incur if not insured. http://www.massresources.org/health-reform.html
Someone may have said this already, I can't remember; however, the reason one cannot opt out of certain parts of an insurance program that does not pertain to them at the moment is that once that particular need arises and coverage is needed, you have not paid into the "pool" which provides that coverage. Think of it as the cost of life insurance when you are 25 versus the cost when you are 65; HUGE difference. Someone mentioned insurance as being a "pool" and money is collected there to cover the needs of all who are enrolled in that "pool." The reason why one company's insurance plan may cost more than another.

Thanks. So if a medical device costs $200, the total would be $204.60. In that case it is less than what the co-pay would be for most insurance companies. Somehow, I think many of us are operating on hype and lack of knowledge. It also appears that most of us are looking at this along party lines, as opposed to if it will really have a positive effect or will it have a negative effect on us. And that's too bad! After thought: we really need to have unbiased discussion groups in an effort to understand this program and stop fighting each other. The link that I posted earlier to a MA website listed some of the effects of it.

Here's a health reform quiz from Kaiser. I scored 10 of 10, how about you? http://healthreform.kff.org/quizzes/health-reform-quiz.aspx

Read this. Good read by Marco Rubio and an interview of small business owners.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-07-08/opinion/os-ed-guest-column-rubio-070812-20120706_1_obamacare-individual-mandate-new-taxes

Here's an excerpt:
He assured the American people that the individual mandate wasn't a tax. But when Obamacare was challenged in court for violating the Constitution, he changed his tune, arguing that it was permissible under Congress' taxing power. The court agreed and upheld Obamacare.
The bait and switch proved to be a brilliant legal strategy, but a disastrous economic policy. For millions of Americans, including job creators, Obama's political win is now an IRS problem for them in the real world.
Obamacare is bad policy that adds around $800 billion of taxes on the American people. It does not discriminate between rich and poor. It hurts everyone.

I hope "Obamacares" is a brilliant legal strategy as well. There are too many people in this country without adequate healthcare and they are not all minorities (racial) or poor people. It is all around us. Are we our brother's keeper?

I forgot to ask the source of $800 billion taxes; please provide your reference. I'm hoping to look at all aspects of this in order to make a well-informed decision. Thanks

Msgoff- did you read the article or just the excerpt? You may be able to find more resource by doing that. Marco Rubio actually gets out and talks to the little man who will bear the brunt of this. Obama says only millionaires!" but ask the small businessman who grosses $250,000, what he spends that money on. He doesn't pocket that! By the time he pays employees, orders more product, pays overhead for business, insures his employees etc... the poor guy probably brings home $30,000 a yr. The first few years don't even show a profit. I know - I have many small business owner friends. The small business owner probably has one car in his garage and modest home like the rest of us. Tax him to death, and he'll lay off, or not hire. That affects the little guy. So, you go to the so called millionaires, and suck them dry, government still owes promised money. Who do they go to? You got it: Middle class. It looks good on paper, but doesn't work in reality. The article offers a solution. By all means read it.

I will add, though, that we do need better solutions and Republicans had better step up to the plate if they want a shot at it. This should have been addressed years and years ago. It's a shame it hasn't been which is probably why people have been so eager to embrace and accept what has been offered currently without pouring over it with a fine toothed comb.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates less than $400 billion in tax revenues over 10 years. http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-13-Coverage%20Estimates.pdf

. What people fail to realize is that numbers might be similar etc... BUT it's the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT making the decisions that people object to most, thus the long wait, the gov't deciding whether you are too old to receive a hip replacement since they figure you'll die soon anyway. Look at veterans and their care, or ask a doctor how much they enjoy (not) waiting on payment from the government. That's the point.
It's possible to find Rubio's webpage and ask him where he got his figures. He may be quoting from the projected through 2016. I'll do that when I get a minute tonight.

Here's some reliable resource material (It passed the "grant" muster) lol:

http://www.atr.org/full-l...e-tax-hikes-listed-a7010

Cool - we no longer have to go to snopes.com now that we have a grantcheck.com.

As a parent I find the changes about pre-existing condition clauses, removal of lifetime caps, extension of coverage for children till they're 26 and the prevention of being cancelled due to illness ALL major positive changes for my family and millions of other families who find themselves in less than ideal situations due to chronic illness and disease.

The cost of Healthcare as well as reform is an immense issue looming over us as a nation. It is an issue that is not going away and up till now not much has been done to address it. No it isn't perfect. Yes, there are as of yet unknown consequences coming down the road that will need attention, adaptation and further changes. My hope is the necessary tweaks will be allowed to happen rather than be caught in a political stranglehold where we all lose.

What I find most strange is the number of people who would have embraced this entire plan without so much of a flinch had it been made law by "the other side" of the political coin but because it is Obama or Democrats it is essentially evil and our world is coming to an end.

A big Thank you to the folks who provided the links to Kaiser and "howstuffworks". I appreciate having access to the information. I am enjoying the discussion here and appreciate the calmness with which it is being presented.

BREAKING NEWS!! The House just voted to repeal health care reform. It is unlikely to pass the Senate because it is majority Democrat. This was reported on Channel 2 News. More money will be spent to fight this than will be spent on providing good health care for all people. That's why we elect adults to represent us right? JK