My family has been positively effected by it as well. My brother has epilepsy and was able to stay under our parents coverage longer. Without it he couldn't have afforded his own health insurance, and probably wouldn't even have qualified because of "pre-existing conditions." However, I don't agree with the requirement that a person be fined if they don't have healthy insurance.

Ned, my wife is a 14-year breast cancer survivor. Thanks to "Obamacare", it will be easier for her to qualify for insurance in the future. I also worry about folks like my altruistic daughter, who has chosen to become involved in Christian ministry and thus currently is uninsured. My wife and I have had to help her a number of times with her medical needs. I pray that "Obamacare" is upheld by the Supreme Court.

David...here you are again willing to sacrifice values. For some reason that has no validity in reality you want Obamacare to stand even though it is an enormous shift in the balance of powers. Of course the good parts of the bill can't be done in any other manner...isn't that right David? Yeah...to hell with our balance of powers and where this unconstitutional shift of them might lead down the road. This reminds me of the time said that you can get someone to swallow poison as long as it looks like M&M's.

Cool thing about your daughter...the ministry part. Good for her.

Ned...what you also have seen is a fundamental shift in the balance of powers. This like one of those huge falling domino setups...once you knock down the first one...you have no idea what else falls too.

While I am very very glad she has insurance...this bill can be easily done without the Obama power grab. To start...the SCOTUS is going to throw the thing out on it's ear and we all should be thankful for it. We'll get the opportunity to do it right...and it will.

Teresa, the interesting thing here is that there is no severance clause in the bill...that basically says that parts of the bill can continue to function without the other parts. If the individual mandate goes Obamacare is done...I'll be celebrating that day too.

Agree - providing coverage for preexisting conditions as well as "eliminating ER visits" for the illegals and "Medicaid" folks would go a long way - but, we don't need Obamacare to do it!!!

magawd David...you will say just about anything to protect your guy won't you? I bet you're even okay with his comments to the Supreme Court on Monday, eh? Look...when you shift the balance of powers in the federal government you shift one fo the foundations upon which the nation was founded. Do you even know where the idea of a 3 prong government came from? Remember there was no such system in existence when the Constitution was written. Obamacare is just simply wrong. They were so desperate to ram ths "we have to vote for it so we know what's in it" bill in it that they didn't even put in a severance clause. Heck...in 2700 pages why couldn't we get the ability to buy insurance across state lines? Answer...because Obama is more concerned about 'transforming' America. Healthcare was just a convient vehicle...the mandate is gone. It's a done deal. The rest of the bill is gone too because they were too stupid to put in that severance clause.

Tammy...portions of the bill do not go into affect until 2014 but some taxes when ineffect in 2011. That's how they propogated the lie that the bill would reduced the federal debt...6 years of spending covered by 10 years of revenue collection. Of course the CBO has now said that the bill will cost more than double initial estimates so..tada..more ObamaDebt.

Thank you Mike. It really is that simple.

Mike, your first clue that this is complete nonsense is that this article was written by Paul Broun. Broun's article is a complete misrepresentation of the CBO report designed to keep you blissfully ignorant of the fact that there is no net cost to the ACA and indeed the CBO estimates the ACA reduces government deficits by hundreds of billions of dollars over the next 10 years.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43104

Brian...no...I'm sorry but your facts are uncoordinated (copyright kudos to the M5 Unit).

The simple unescapable fact is that ObamaCare came with a promise to actually reduce the deficit over 10 years. isnt that a hoot...we can reduce the debt by spending more. Only in Obama's mind. But the real truth is that the CBO had to, by law, take the bill as written regardless of its absurdity and score it. The first 10 years of OC had 6 years of service funded by 10 years of taxes. The CBO had to score it the way they did BY LAW. When the CBO took 10 years of service and 10 years of revenue...TADA...it seriously adds to the debt.

Floyd, have you actually ever taken the time to read a CBO report or read sections of the PPACA? I ask this because you are one of the most chronically misinformed persons I have ever encountered. Get your facts straight.

Brian,

I read the report. It is entitled "Another Comment on CBO’s Estimates for the Insurance Coverage Provisions of the Affordable Care Act" and appears to be limited in scope to only one provision of the act. I also read the 10 years of taxes to fund 6 years of benefits and the doubling of the cost from multiple sources that write on both sides of the fence. I'd like to see your sources that compare apples to apples.

Bob

"Another Comment on CBO’s Estimates for the Insurance Coverage Provisions of the Affordable Care Act" is not the actual report. The comment was issued to clarify some of the mis-reporting on the subject; i. e. "the cost of Obamacare has doubled" which is a popular misreading of the report.

The actual report states "Those amounts do not encompass all of the budgetary impacts of the ACA because that legislation has many other provisions, including some that will cause significant reductions in Medicare spending and others that will generate added tax revenues, relative to what would have occurred under prior law. CBO and JCT have previously estimated that the ACA will, on net, reduce budget deficits over the 2012–2021 period; that estimate of the overall budgetary impact of the ACA has not been updated."

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-13-Coverage%20Estimates.pdf

Brian...being called "cronically misinformed" by a left-left-left wing is quite the compliment. Translated into everyday language it means that you're getting intellectually slapped around because I am able to expose all of your left-left-left wing hysteria. Thank you Brian for the compliment.

Have I read the CBO report? You betcha. Brian...do YOU know how the CBO must operate BY LAW? ObamaCare showed a phantom debt reduction because it had 6 years of service funded by 10 years of taxes. But you being a left-left-left wing hysteria propagator rarely actually do the math do you? Those dang facts just suck don't they Brian. The CBO is REQUIRED BY LAW to score the bill as written regardless of reality. If the bill said they were going to pay for OC by selling Elephant steaks at 500,000/pound the CBO **MUST** score it using 500,000/pound Elephant steaks.

When 10 years of service and revenue are actually scored factually...OMG...the cost more than doubles and your phantom deficit reduction morphs into more and more ObamaDebt.

Of course...any rationally thinking person knew that already.

But, if you have a very large pool of premium payors the "pre-existing condition" problem goes away. Sort of like when you get employed by a very large corporation.
The math is always wrong by the right. How about the additional growth in the economy when the medical system is Not in the way od commerce. as it is today many decisions are being made because of medical insurance not whats best to earn money.

Lots of growth being stunted by the current system. Dollars being wasted.

I think that has as much to do with the people and the health industry as anything else. Seriously, people eat things that don't even vaguely represent food, and drink these "suppliment" shakes that are no better for you than a candy bar. They drink milk without the fat necessary to support the calcium and protein, they drink juice instead of eat real fruit, and they can't even get in their half hour of excercise per day. So blame the people for that, not the health care system.

VERY well said David. Excellent rebuttal

Bruce, your point is similar to what I was trying to say earlier. I confess that you said it much softer than I did. Proverbs 15:1 is right, after all.:)

Bruce...you propogate a complete distortion that frankly is laughable.

I've already posted this here several times but the problem is the fundamental shift in the balance in checks and balances. The fact that you are oblivious to this speaks volumes. It should shake you to the core of your being and the fact that you are willing to sacrifice such for a few M&M's is frightening.

2700 pages and there's no buying insurance across state lines? I can get on EBay or Amazon and buy a DVD anywhere in the US but I can't cross a state line for health insurance? HUH? And why is there no severability clause in the bill...it WAS in there but was yanked to help it pass (and now the lack of it will be, thank GOD, gets the whole bill tossed).

There are some decent things in the bill. If the M&M's weren't there you wouldn't gulp down the poison. But those things...AND MORE..could be easily done in a real reform bill that everyone could support and without Obama's power grab.

David...you continue to amaze me. You want to hide behind a veil of Christianity while sacrificing values for a holiday. I'm sorry David but you have absolutely NO credibility. NONE...

The way you are willing to sacrifice such foundations of our nation for a few goodies is astounding. I mean no offense by this but take the time to read the Declaration of Independance a few times a year. I do. It inspires me and reminds me of what kind of sacrifices were made. Every person who signed it was DEAD if we had lost the war. Also, I suggest a read of George Washington's Farewell address. "Patriot" is tossed around like a salad nowadays but in Washington's time was when the word was invented. I'm interested in what a real Patriot has to say...It's a good read btw.

David...I know BO is your guy. Fine...but do like I did when Bush was doing some stupid stuff in 2008. I spoke out when he was wrong. BO's Obamacare is an Unconstitutional shift in the foundations of our nation. It's wrong. Speak out against it because it is and stop waving your small bag of M&M's in our Founding Father's face.

Brian - talk about activism. Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg and Breyer are already the new "gang of four". At least, some if not all of the remaining Supremes are pragmatic enough to consider the entirety of the debate. What about un-constitutional do you not understand? If it is un-constitutional, it is a bad law. Period. Talk about Scalia and Thomas - Kagan worked in the Barry Soetero administration! No partisanship there.

RL, the fact that you use the pejorative "Barry Soetero" tells one all one needs to know about you and the value of any argument you may have.

RL...don't you love the way the Left-Left-Left wing hysteria propagators avoid any factual discussion on issues?

There were several issues decided by Bush v Gore but the final issue was decided 5-4 by the conservative Justices. Justice should be neither conservative or liberal it should only be just. Unfortunately several of the Justices have chosen to politicize the court by overtly aligning with conservative Republican causes.

I’ll be the first to admit that it’s confusing. It appears that The Court ruled 7-2 that that the Florida Supreme Court's decision calling for a statewide recount violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment though two of the seven disagreed with the Court's remedy. The Court is polarized both ways. There are several justices can be counted on to polarize the court in the opposite direction.

Brian...the flies won't even get near that junk...Ruth Gater Ginsburg hasn't alligned herself with Liberal causes? Sotomayer? please. You get caught talking out of all 5 sides of your mouth all the time here. Pleeeeeze.

And Brian..THANK GOD the justices decided Bush V Gore for Bush. Gore only wanted to recount a few counties that were likely to favor him. This was clearly unconstitutional and was correctly ruled so by the court. Of course you also left out that a time after the election all the ballots were counted and Bush won. But leave it to the left-left-left-left wing hysteria propogandists to slam a conservative for no cause.

Bob, I just can't think of anything that parallels Ginni Thomas' extreme activism. She has been directly involved with efforts to defeat Obamacare. Justice Thomas has openly supported his wife's activities. How do you not let that influence your thinking on this case?

It's well documented that both Thomas and Scalia were honored guests of the Koch brother's annual Palm Springs gathering of right wing billionaires, pundits and lawmakers the year Citizens United was decided. Again, I can't think of any similar breach of decorum from the left.

I didn't even have to think hard to come up with a parallel. You are concerned about lobbying by a Justice's wife and the possible impact it might have on his rulings. Yet there is a sitting Justice that was initimately involved in the drafting and initial phases of ObamaCare in Justice Elena Kagan. Hard to believe it wasn't 1 - zip before the case was even heard.

What is even scarier to me is that when the rumors came up that she spilled the beans to Obama I asked one of my more liberal friends what he thought and his appalling reply "of course she did it, they're tight!

Which is worse, I'll leave for you to decide. I stand by my opinion that it is happening on both sides of the fence (the middle too if you want to nit pick) and that nobody has clean hands.

Doh....well that was obvious. While I think it's incorrect to say Kagan was "initimately involved in the drafting and initial phases of ObamaCare", I can certainly understand why her tenure as Solicitor General gives you the same queasy feeling Thomas gives me.

An interesting article on Justice Kagan.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/05/us-usa-court-kagan-idUSBRE83410E20120405

A moment here to deviate from the topic at hand. Isn't it funny to hear democrats wax on about how bad the Bush Tax cuts were and how they were for the rich. One of the things in the package was an expansion of the Child Tax Credit from 500 to 1000 per child. Funny...it's actually Democrats who want to increase taxes on working middle income families.

I fact-checked the Democratic country statement (made apparently by Dean in 2009). It's untrue; India, Mexico, and Turkey have none; while many other countries (especially in Europe) are beginning to falter under their universal health care. I "get" that there may be a better system, but we can't be a democracy part of the time; medicine needs to face free market as well, and we as a country cannot afford this program. Especially when we are a nation of hypochondriacs that you don't find in many other countries.

Even many countries that DO have universal health care allow for people to get private as well. I was actually talking to our friend from Sweden about this; basically healthcare can take weeks to get, so many citizens that can afford it pay privately because they can't afford to wait that long.

Finally, I'm against ANYTHING that punishes you for being healthy. Americans already have problems taking care of their health :).

Actually David, according to the GAO we as a country can't afford not to do it (Obamacare). http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/589835.pdf

I hate to break it to you but we already have long waits for much advanced care here in the US. It takes a minimum of 2 months for me to schedule an appointment with my Cardiologist and I had to wait 6 weeks for a hernia repair last year.

When you talk about healthy Americans you're really talking about young Americans. Many folks, even those who live healthy lifestyles, are genetically predisposed toward illness. Before my forties I rarely went to the doctor. Things change as you age. Most folks under 50 have no clue about the realities of our health care system.

I don't know enough about that document to comment; other than it seems a bit of a stretch to have it skyrocketing without Obama care and a flat level on it.

I will disagree on the healthy adult think; my parents are in their 70s and very healthy; and we have a lot of members of the Atlanta Outdoor Club in their 60s and 70s that are active, healthy, and fit. I don't really think age is an excuse here; that is just when people who have not practiced preventative care their whole life begin to see their bodies decline. As American's we spend the lowest % of our income on food in the world, and the highest in medical. It's not a coincidence; people need to change their mindsets in this country to make healthy eating priority #1.

Brian...you will grasp at literally anything to try to make a half-point. Did you actually READ this document from the GAO? I wonder...

Early on it starts with this assumption which I quote "Further, as the economy recovers, revenue increases and spending decreases". Can we all laugh together? Spending decreases...yeah right. This is Barak "1.3 trillion dollar deficit a year" Obama. He can't use "spending" and "decreases" in the same sentence. What a hoot.

But here's the kicker and you have to read to page 5 to find it...again...I quote "Under the Baseline Extended simulation, revenues as a share of the economy are higher and discretionary spending is lower than historical averages".

MAGAWD BRIAN...discretionary spending is lower than historical averages? Under Obama??????

Brian, as usual, you help me make my point but frankly I don't need the help. Obamacare is not only unconstitutional but is terrible legislation otherwise. We could do the good parts of the bill (and yes there are some...you can't make people eat poison if there's no candy) and SO MUCH MORE if the real reason for the reform wasn't a power grab and "transforming America" into communism.

Brian...if it takes you 6 weeks to get an appointment with a cardiologist you should look for another cardiologist instead of trumpting obamacare. I don't have that problem at all.

Floyd, you've obviously read the report and yet STILL deny the facts. Yes, as the economy improves and more people go back to work tax revenues increase and safety net spending decreases. This is ECON 101. Seems pretty easy to understand to me.

Go back and read the definition for the Baseline Extended Simulation which includes current assumptions on entitlements plus the impact of both Obamacare and the recently passed Budget Control Act. It also assumes the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.

Under that scenario the GAO does indeed project that for the next decade "revenues as a share of the economy are higher and discretionary spending is lower than historical averages". I'm pretty sure those folks know a lpt more about this stuff than you or I. Sounds like Obama's doing a pretty good job to me. Sorry if the truth is in conflict with the GOP's manufactured version of reality..

Brian...I do agree...as more people return to work, *all other things being equal*, revenue will increase. However, you confuse terms with regard to spending. The GAO uses "discretionary" and you use "safety net". Not the same things.

The key here is that all other things are not equal. We have President Obama who has successfuly increased the national debt by more than any other President in history. He makes the previous President look like a spend thrift. Projections for FY2012 are 1.3+ trillion dollars alone. Taking OC out of the equation for a moment...how much do interest payments ALONE increase? Monies going for interest payments are funds that could otherwise be used for business investment/expansion. That means a stronger economy which means a LOT more revenue. Consequently ObamaDebt is raping our economy which is one of the reasons for this pathetic "recovery". Revenues will not expand above historical averages and discretionary spending falling below historical averages are words President Obama can't use in a sentence. Won't happen.

You also note the assumption of the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts. That would be a further drag on the economic "recovery" making it even more unlikely for the senario predicted by the GAO to occur.

That'd be great; if it wasn't for the fact that people just wouldn't do it if it wasn't there. We're simply lazy in this country; sad but true... I had trouble remembering to get my health insurance during my layoff period a decade ago, and wouldn't have if my parents had not hounded me. Plus, they would need to increase incomes to compensate for what we always took for granted. And while I may pay $20 a week, asking me to pay a few hundred or more per month might get me to just want to "take my chances"; especially as a person who hasn't been to the doctor's office in 13 years.

Anne - you hit it on the head! Do we go to our employer or government for homeowners insurance, or auto insurance? Of course not.
As for David's comment below that most people wouldn't do it - that's OK David. Your choice! But you get to live with the consequences of that decision. Maybe you'll come out ahead, maybe not. But we should all be responsible for our own health care.

Obamacare has to be the most thoroughly vetted, over analyzed piece of legislation in history. Dozens of CBO and GAO reports have repeatedly reached the same conclusions. Obamacare bends the curve on medical expenses and reduces the deficit over the next decade. Those are conclusions generated by non-partisan, fact based analysis.

I hope your right Brian, assuming you get the chance, because I haven't seen anything that has come to those conclusions. My concern is that the attempts to place price controls on the system, Obama's primary cost containment mechanism, don't drive primary care doctors, those that get paid the least, out of medicine because they can't afford to pay back the costs of their education.

Actually Bob, Obamacare attempts to address that problem with the Primary Care Incentive Payment program: http://www.acponline.org/running_practice/practice_management/payment_coding/bonus.htm

The report you link to says that those providers can expect to receive $8,000 in Medicare payments each year with a 10% bonus, or $800. Doesn't change my concern at all.

I'm pretty sure that first paragraph meant to say "$8,000 in additional Medicare revenue", meaning an $8,000 bonus, I can't imagine them making a fuss over $800. I'll see if I can clarify that.

Brian...your statement about ObamaCare reducing the deficit has only one small problem...it isn't true.

When the CBO, ***as required by law***, scored the bill it had to take it as written. The bill contained 10 years of revenue funding 6 years of services. Unfortunately that senario doesn't continue and once the system has to be fully funded it costs about twice what was advertised. But leave it to Obama and his socialism/communism to try to make the public believe that you can lower the debt by spending more.

Only problem with the WHOs report is that it grades based on what it calls humanitarian criteria, like access to free care and such. For the truly important numbers (to me, at any rate) like survivability rates for cancer and such, and length of wait for doctors, especially specialists, the US comes out best. We have the technology and the innovation that comes from having a free market system - or at least as free and we can still be with the current level of government involvement. I'd personally rather pay a bit and live, thank you....