question answered! per wikipedia, effective by 01/01/2014 the law will "Impose an annual penalty of $95, or up to 1% of income, whichever is greater, on individuals who do not secure insurance; this will rise to $695, or 2.5% of income, by 2016. This is an individual limit; families have a limit of $2,085. Exemptions to the fine in cases of financial hardship or religious beliefs are permitted"

It's only a tax if you refuse to buy insurance!

Actually, that's only a small part of it, Joe. The high court’s ruling leaves in place 21 tax increases in the health care law costing more than $675 billion over the next 10 years, according to the House Ways and Means Committee. Of those, 12 tax hikes would affect families earning less than $250,000 per year, the panel said, including a “Cadillac tax” on high-cost insurance plans, a tax on insurance providers and an excise tax on medical-device manufacturers. The "Cadillac tax" is especially obnoxious, creating one class of health care insurance for gov't workers and a fining any non govt worker who attempts to by the same level of insurance for his or her family. A true caste system now, if you dare to aspire to the health insurance all gov't workers can have, Obamacare fines you in the "Cadillac tax."

Plus all the other tax increases associated with this bill...

I agree with the ruling. My children will be able to stay on my insurance as long as they are in school, and will be able to continue taking their medications. When they are ready to purchase their own insurance, they will not be denied because of a preexisting condition. Right now those of us who have insurance have to pay for those who can afford it but choose not to purchase it. We all pay for the emergency room visits of the uninsured. Same reason we have car insurance - so those who have it don't have to pay huge premiums for covering those who don't. I would like to see this law go further and have single payer insurance for everyone - that would be fair and compassionate.

No, you have car insurance to protect the other drivers lol My whole family doesn't have health insurance because WE can't afford it. If my wife went to the emergency room she would be billed... NOBODY would pay the tab but us!!! Nice try.

The law does not add 31 million people to health care rolls. People, like me, who make too much to qualify for government assistance, but make too little to afford health insurance will get shafted. We make up the overwhelming majority of these 31 million you speak of. We STILL can't afford health insurance. Only now, we have to pay higher taxes because we can't afford health insurance. This idea that it will provide "universal coverage" is complete and total farse. It's a lie. You have been suckered. These 31 million people will still not have coverage, hate to break it to you.

I'm with you Mr. Osbourne, because I too make too much to to qualify for gov't assistance, but can't afford to have health insurance. So I must either pay bills and buy food to put on my table or I pay my bills (including health insurance) and go hungry. So now if I want to make a better life for myself, I will have to seek better employment opportunities outside of the United States.

I just got off the phone with the VA, and because I'm a 50% disabled veteran and qualify for full VA health care benefits, I am officially exempt from Obamacare. This means I am not forced to pay the tax. Spread the word to all the vets you know!!!!

So you are saying, Mr. Osbourne, that your original comment was ignorant, made without any research or fact-finding, and now you are changing your tune because you have done some digging and found that you will be receiving free healthcare benefits? Next time, maybe you should do your homework first, before parroting what you hear Rush Limbaugh complaining about? Hate to break it to you.

Congress (Democrats) violated the Constitution when they used the commerce clause to pass ObamaCare. This was affirmed by the SCOTUS and is correct.

SCOTUS affirmed the power of Congress to raise taxes. This is also correct.

The mandate in ObamaCare is a tax by definition contrary to what Obama, Reid and Pelosi have been taped saying. They lied.

The destroys Obama’s statement that he has not raised taxes on the middle class. ObamaCare did this and will continue to increase that tax burden on the middle class at an accelerating rate from 2014 on.

Your health care costs will rise as a result assuming your employer does not drop coverage and just give you a voucher to go find health care on your own or just pay the fine since it will be less than paying their portion of your health insurance.

Larry - this is not a tax - the supreme court did not say it was either. It is simple if you choose (as you can as an American) not to buy insurance - you will have to pay a penalty to help compensate all us tax payers for the money we will have to pay because of your ignorance when you go to the emergency room with a heart attack. What the decision means is we no longer have to support stupid people that have the money for health insurance and choose not to buy it.

"The mandate in ObamaCare is a tax by definition contrary to what Obama, Reid and Pelosi have been taped saying. They lied."

No, they didn't lie. You, as usual, are full of crap (and when it comes to lying, you are one of the LAST people who have ANY room to talk).

And, once again, you are misconstruing the ruling to fit your narrative.
You clearly don't know anything about basic law. Just like many others acting like they do.

Tom Tucker (if that is your real name) try reading the ruling. the mandate was declared a TAX by the SCOTUS. Resorting to name calling shows your ignorance rather than having and adult conversation of the issue.

Larry,
I read all 191 pages as soon as it was put up on the SCOTUS blog.
There's another reason you got embarrassed running for Mayor. You're clueless.
Your cluelessness (as also displayed by many on this subject) is further highlighted by your post. What happened here happens every day in courtrooms all across the US. Where something doesn't apply here, but it does here.
Again, your spewing is slanted to fulfill YOUR objective.

And, please spare me the default responses about "name-calling" as a way to deflect. It's not name-calling when it's the truth. Suck it up or shut it up, Larry.

"The Affordable Care Act describes the payment as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label cannot control whether the payment is a tax for purposes of the Constitution,
but it does determine the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not bar this suit...CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable. The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance. But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. It is therefore necessary to turn to the Government’s alternative argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power
to “lay and collect Taxes.”
direct quote from----NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT
BUSINESS ET AL. v. SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

"I read all 191 pages as soon as it was put up on the SCOTUS blog."---Tommy Tucker, showing the difference between reading and reading comprehension. Thanks Tommy!

Welcome to the Socialist Republic.

Well said, Valerie!

"Welcome to the Socialist Republic."

Wow. With that kind of intelligence, I'm presuming you struggled trying to get your GED.

Unfortunately for those who support Obama Care, it does not address "the health care needs of ALL AMERICANS." Members of Congress, Indian tribes, unions, over 18 million Americans and a few other segments are exempted or will not be covered by this broad sweep of government power. If the issue was medical access, every person legal or not already in the US had access by law. if the intent was to control premium costs - it clearly will not do that, if the intent was to reduce our national medical expenses as a percentage of GDP - it clearly doesn't do that and if it is intended to reduce our national debt - it doesn't do that either. Of course, there some coverages in the law that are good which like preexisting conditions, catastrophic illnesses that could have been handled much better in a sane and cost efficient manner but one thing is for certain - Obama Care isn't the answer.

Actually, Al, 90 percent of those who recieve medical treatment but do not have insurance doesn't get it "free". They will pay three to four times what an insurance company will pay. Over 85 percent of all non insured medical bills are paid in full over time which means you and I are not footing the bill. If this Obama law is so good why does it increase insurance premium cost, reduces medicare payments, imposes a "tax" where non existed before on those who do not purchase or have insurance, imposes 21 hidden taxes where non existed before and increases the national debt while not covering everyone? How is this a good thing?

"a" pre-existing condition

Please cite for us ANY law that is not poorly written.

It's called the Bill of Rights Tommy. Even though well written, that hasn't stopped nitwit socialists like you from pretending it doesn't exsist.

AMEN Chris! Lets be heard before they take that right away!!

Chris and other who see socialism rampant:
I am baffled by your use of socialism. We have had socialism in many programs, such as cities collecting trash, providing water and a national post office. However, healthcare through private insurers is not socialism. Somehow I don't see how communities provide service limiting liberty.
I always found wisdom in one's liberty ending when others are hurt. I have no right to shoot anyone and having that limited is not socialism. I would not mind you not wearing a seat belt if you paid more in health insurance and/or Medicare premiums so I am not stuck with the cost of your liberty. Similarly I like having cities inspect houses and make my neighbors keep theirs presentable.
The benefits of community are not free and holding all to reasonable standards that benefit all is not socialism. Now we can and should debate what is reasonable to benefit all but in the process use political terms correctly.

Its nice to see someone get it right !!!

THEY will eventually take 100% of our income.
At that point, it will be SOCIALISM.
This is just another way of collecting yet MORE taxes under the GUISE of true Healthcare For All ...

If you want to drive a car, then you should have insurance. Comparing auto insurance to health insurance is apples and oranges. Either way, I should NOT have to pay for YOUR irresponsibility.

"Socialism"?

Crack open a dictionary...for once in your life.

Are you kidding? Don't wear your seat belt and risk your life. Don't get car insurance and end up having to pay out of pocket when you get in an accident. Don't buy health insurance and get saddled with tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills - or worse, be unable to get medical care because you can't pay for it. Which decisions that you site actually HURT YOU?

Call it what you want...
They are ONLY interested in MORE taxes...
Soon, they will take 100% of our income and spend it for us.
Furthemore, they will tell us what THEY are going to do with it.
Is that a FREE MARKET Democratic Society?
What kind of government do you call that?

Hey Chris, You must be one of the 1%, or your thinkin' is stinkin'. I imagine you watch fox noise on the boob tube. This will NOT make the country socialist. If you have parents, do they get SS and medicare? Well, why not medicare for everyone? Every civilized country in the world has medical care for everyone, except for us of course. Joh Boehner was on the T.V. just now yakking about how bad the Affordable health care act is going to be for the country. He's full of it, he has no ideas, just like the rest of the republican teabaggers, they think they can fool the masses, and it seems as though they are. You are being fed disinformation. Do alittle research for yourself and find out what the bill really entails. By the way, Richad M. Nixon was the first to advocate for a mandate for healthe care, because people need to be responsible for themselves.

Evan:
Healthcare reform is much less expensive than the War on Iraq or the tax cuts granted in the first year of the Bush administration. Without those two items alone the deficit would be much less. And in a deep recession the government should run a deficit. The problem is when good times return most refuse to raise taxes to pay for the deficit during bad times. Trying to limit debt in a recession can be counter productive and is best done with a combination of tax increases and program reduction.

we dont have a revenue problem. we have a spending problem. when more people receive than pay in, we're on the road to ruin. We've conditioned our thinking that the government has to cover us for any hardship we encounter in life. There's no way that's sustainable.

Laurie, I have no problem with helping those less fortunate if they are doing everything to help themselves and not simply using the system. However, if the less fortunate go to the hospital, they are not turned away and get medical treatment for free and guess who pays for it! This law doesn't change anything. The middle class will pay for it too. My husband has worked two jobs all his life to have what we have now. He is 70 and still working because health insurance is so expensive. Is this fair?

It is different because it is a tax for being a breathing human in the U.S. The automobile insurance mandate is for voluntarily choosing to drive under a system of laws regulating such.

Mr Palmer - it's also the same because as a living breathing human you can walk into an ER and get medical treatment with my tax money - so now you will have to pay a penalty for wasting my money. I'd be ok if the law required a person who refuses to buy insurance only get treated if they pay cash before the treatment. Then I would waive your "tax"

ok you just made a point. We HAVE to have car ins. but we pay extra for those that don't. Now does that make sense? It's a LAW that we have to have car ins. but lets pay more for those that break that law!! Now, the health ins. is the same way. If you can't afford health ins., you're not going to have it, but those that do have it will pay more for those that don't obey this law too???? You're right, it's no different!! Does it make sense? NO!

"legally, if you own a car you are required to insure it."

Wrong.

Tom Tucker

8:12 am on Friday, June 29, 2012

"legally, if you own a car you are required to insure it."

Wrong

More proof you are full of it. If you are cited, try telling the judge you are not required to be insured.

The fact that it may have been an Republican idea doesn't make it correct or incorrect. If you wish to drag history into this, Republicans got their way when slavery was abolished and that was a good thing we can all agree on right? Quite possibly this could turn out the exact opposite. An idea both parties had and ran with that turned out to be a bad idea.

or equally possible, this could turn out to be a good thing. I guess maybe if we could just all give it a try we would know. But the political parties involved are so full of hate for the other party we may never find out. Imagine if the Democrats successfully blocked the emancipation of slavery. Do you believe health care is good now? if not what are some of your common sense reform ideas? At least Obama had one.

The Waaaaahpublicans are just whining because it wasn't their plan.

Oh wait. They didn't even bother to try to pass a plan when they were in charge, knowing full-well that health care was BHO's primary point during his campaign.

Joesph & Tom, you obviously did not read the verdict. Chief Justice John Roberts explicitly says it is a tax. In fact he goes further to explain that it is only constitutional as a tax. Whats most worry some of this exactly language is that the government now has the ability to tax all decisions of citizens. Literally, the government can tax you for not purchasing goods, such as GM car or whatever ridiculous example you want. The interstate commerce clause continues to erode our individual freedoms!

"The Affordable Care Act's requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the ruling.

"Joesph & Tom, you obviously did not read the verdict."

Yes, I did. The moment it was put up on the SCOTUS Blog -- all 191 pages. Hush now.

"Yes, I did. The moment it was put up on the SCOTUS Blog -- all 191 pages. Hush now."

Well read it again and this time open your eyes!

Did you even watch the President today? You cannot be serious? Go to YouTube and watch the President speak on the Health Care decision as he describes his own opposition to the plan and then ultimately changes his mind. Or as you put it became a hack and changed his opinion with the wind.

Just like the bum Obama promised to change government and make it more transparent. But I guess he takes no responsibility for his failures...keeps blaming Bush. Has been four years and nothing has gotten better. Only thing I see is people at walmart arriving in their $50,000 cars, wearing their designer clothes, with their huge wads of cash paying with their OHIO DIRECTION CARDS. Lets get four more years of this.

"...keeps blaming Bush."

Just like Republicans were blaming Clinton for stuff more than EIGHT YEARS AFTER he left office. So, please, shut up with your selective partisan amnesia, wingnut.

Oh wait....I see Republicans blaming Bush because he appointed Roberts.

Oh the right-wingnuts -- never ceasing to show everyone just how uneducated they really are.

Jean, I hope everyone remembers to vote in November!

yep look at new york banning 16 oz pops and popcorn at the movies (carrot sticks and apple juice at a movie)

The government also has said for quite some time (through EMTALA) that hospitals/doctors must treat a person in an emergency situation or active labor, regardless of their ability to pay, but I never heard anyone complain about the infraction on healthcare providers' rights. Now they still have to help you, but they actually have a chance at being paid, as more individuals will be insured.

Eileen:
You don't have to get insurance; just pay the penalty and any medical bills you incur. Similarly if you want to drive without insurance, just pay the penalty. All these requirements for insurance makes sense if you live in a community. And with companies dropping healthcare benefits it makes sense to divorce it from employment. It is going to be a painful change as any change is but it is a start.
Does my neighbor have the right to let his/her house go to ruin? Can they wire their house anyway they want to? I would hope not as it affects me directly. Bad wiring can burn down a neighborhood.
Finally, government is us - it is just a process for how we want to operate our community. None of us can do what we want how and when we want to. The issue is to dialogue and see how we can make community life work well. This does mean we all will have limits placed on what and how we do.

Dr. Kelley, unlike in your example about auto insurance, I don't exactly have a choice to be alive where as I do have a choice to drive a car or not. Same goes for your housing example. One choose to buy a house in a community with restrictions, one does not choose to be alive. Moreover, if you don't like your communities rules on the color you can paint your house you can go argue your point at city hall or yell at your mayor. Its not really feasible to go hell the whole senate and congress and president. Health care should remain a State issue.

They already force people to buy energy efficient windows (building codes) and a whole lot of other things. If you want to be free the way you describe, go find an island.

"The Supreme Court has fundamentally misread ObamaCare,"

Please -- just STHU. No wonder someone like you hides behind only a first name. You should be too embarrassed to be so stupid to use your last name. People like you who think that YOU -- who is not even educated in law at all -- can say that SUPCO misread the ACA.

Please stop. Or then again, keep spouting stupidity. The next time I go into a gas station on 91, and if the name tag says "Chris", I'll presume it's you.

Chris and Steve:
Liberty and similar terms have meaning only in the context of a community. Lord of the Flies is an interesting story of no government. As long as we can debate it would seem liberty is fine. What fascinates me about the healthcare debate is that Obama compromised and gave up the public option which I preferred as part of passing the reform. Also, superpacs and others have spent billions of dollars villifying the law, much more than has been spent supporting it. I don't find it surprising that many think it is bad. I would be curious how many who either support or don't support it actually know its contents. My guess is except for the individual mandate and prohibiting pre-existing conditions to disqualify one from insurance most have few clues as to what is in it. The Supreme Court received an amazing number of amicus curiae briefs from healthcare providers supporting it. It is going to be very costly trying to replace it.
I suspected that if the court had struck down mandatory insurance it would have paved the way for a general medicare program. As the Republicans realized in the 1990's private insurance is too costly unless all are required to participate. So no mandate may well lead to the feared socialism in healthcare. I must admit I love such ironies.

If you choose not to get health insurance and you all of a sudden need health care, I should NOT have to pay for YOUR care. And quite frankly, many of us (like me) are sick and damn tired are paying for the free loaders.

The mooching is about to come to an end. But then again, if you have insurance, this doesn't affect you one bit. In fact, if the cost of your insurance winds up costing a specific percentage more than you make, you can join one of the exchanges.

But, just like any other wingnut screaming the rhetoric you are, you take more pride in being ignorant.

"Thomas Jefferson is rolling over in his grave."

Proof, please.

"Don't we have a Constitution any more? Time to read it again and see just what the government is really supposed to do for us."
Or, in cases for people like you, read it for the FIRST time.

You do realize that the overwhelming majority of "freeloaders" you speak of will pay the tax instead, because it is cheaper to do so, and they will continue to stay on government assistance programs?

I like how you blindly restate liberal garbage and than accuse anyone who disagrees with you of spouting conservative garbage.

The fact of the matter is that Obamacare will NOT cover these people. It will simply force them to pay higher taxes for not being able to afford coverage. By the way, there's a provision in the law that allows low income people to have a much lower penalty, or even be forgiven if they cannot afford to pay the tax.

So, these "freeloaders" will still be freeloading.

"I like how you blindly restate liberal garbage and than accuse anyone who disagrees with you of spouting conservative garbage. "

You have not a clue what you speak of. If they choose to pay the tax instead, fine. THEY ARE PAYING! THAT IS THE POINT!

Now, shut it, fool and stop acting like you know what you're talking about. Or, you can continue to spew. I laugh at stupidity from people like you. HA!

How can you make such vile remarks and call people names simply because disagree?

Mr. Weems,
Mr. Tucker can do that because he's a liberal, it's what they do. It's what they live for.

Chill out Mr. Osbourne. You clearly have a perspective that is against anything OUR President does. Therefore you comments are void. Educate yourself about the facts - open your mind - and then if you disagree, you disagree. Look at the facts and statistics in Massachussetts if you want to see how the implementation of this program will look. Afterall, your man Romney put a similar program into place there, and it is a success. As to the "tax" issue. We are taxed in this country for not being married, for renting instead of carrying a mortgage, and on and on. Think about it. (Oh, and just for the record, I don't have health insurance now either.)

Evan:

The main spending problem in terms of spending is the military. Most of the budget goes to three or four programs, including interest on the debt. The amount of cuts needed would send us into a depression without increased revenue. I don't understand those who claim to love the country but don't want to pay for government.
I would be interested in what programs you would cut and how much that would save. I would like to see less federal involvement in education, for example, but even eliminating all education spending by the national government would hardly make much of a difference.
I agree that current spending is not sustainable. However, some deficit is needed for the economy. As I noted before I would like to see that paid back in good times rather granting tax cuts.

John:
You are much more likely to have affordable insurance if it is decoupled from employment and all are required to purchase it. Moreover, a public option would have benefited you. I can only imagine what my insurance premiums would be without medicare. Seems sensible to me for all to help pay for healthcare for all. I would have no problems paying taxes to have Ohio provide a decent healthcare insurance plan for you through Medicaid. That is less expensive than having ER or other care you eventually opt for paid by me.
I am less concerned by who pays - and a single payer system makes lots of sense - than all have access to decent healthcare. If we prefer not to have private insurance than I would favor a public program at either the state or national levels or a combination.
As long as we can elect those who make laws government is responsive and cannot force anything that a large portion doesn't want. As this discussion illustrates Americans are split over healthcare - other than all see it as a problem - and so the complexity of the healthcare reform should not be a surprise. Any reform in such a situation must be filled with compromises, such as Obama dropping the public option. Compromise is the only way forward and any problems that arise can be addressed as we move ahead.

hear hear

What VA disability % do you need for FULL health care coverage?

CHOOSE WISELY. Oust The Usurper.

For someone who is using a word they don't know the meaning of, you shouldn't be acting as if you know what being "wise" is.

The only people who are against this are irresponsible, loser deadbeats who think everyone else should pay their bills.
It appears there are a lot of said irresponsible, loser deadbeats.

Tom, it’s actually the people that are FOR this that are the "deadbeat losers." Let me break it down for you, those with insurance or access to Medicaid/care, that would be me and 265 million other Americans, are now going to be FORCED to pay a TAX to subsidies those 46 million Americans w/o insurance....the people you are referring to as "irresponsible deadbeat losers."

Here is an idea, instead of a massive expansion of the federal government, further erosion of our civil liberties and the largest increase in taxes in decades, we come up with a solution that we can actually afford and doesn't involve the theft from savers and wage earners to subsidies other people's healthcare. One solution might be tort reform, but seeing how our government is run by lawyers I doubt that will happen.

You want to see the rich get richer??? Go ahead and vote for Romney whose only focus is his billionaire buddies running this cpountry and getting richer buy making us work for NOTHING as far as wages--- Billionaires OWN us and we are their slaves. I am not talking about the small businesses either I mean BILLIONAIRES. They have it all and intend to break the middle class down to being their serfs. They can buy everything they want including this country. They do not care about us we are expendible chattel

Sorry Ed, but this isn't a partisan thing.

Politicians are stealing your money--republican, democrat--it doesn't matter.

The rich are getting richer and we're paying for it.

Sorry you're too blinded by partisan politics to see that.

Edward you have every talking point in your rant...EXCEPT the main one ....Its all George Bush's fault

There are many more items in the bill, open up the pages and take a look so that you can appear somewhat educated instead of mouthing off and knowing nothing.

Sorry, sounding educated is nothing something that partisans (mainly the right) are not interested in.
They're like a crying baby. Except an actual baby actually stops. Many on the right have been crying for 3.5 years.
Oh. Did I hurt someone's feelings? Truth sucks, doesn't it. Call Dr. Phil and I'll look for some of you on a future episode.

"Beware, this country is headed down a very slippery slope to communism."

Not before people like you -- sounding as ignorant/uneducated/borderline-retarded as you and others do who spew this stuff you have no clue about -- take this country as one of the least-educated. You're certainly proving that.

Etienne's "3 page law" is brilliant - it makes great sense! Contrary to Dr Keller's positions, socialism is a system of social organization in which the means of production and distribution of goods are owned and controlled collectively by the government. Marx defined socialism as the "stage" that follows capitalism." Are we there yet, you be the judge.

Eileen;
Well stated. Tucker is from the kool-aid filled left who feels anyone who doesn't think like he does is an idiot. I usually just pass over his comments.

Maybe if his rants are flagged enough, he'll be kicked off.

While I hate to admit it he does sometimes state his ideas without resorting to name calling and derogatory terms. These comments are legit. Since that's only about 5% of the time I'm going to Flag- Away.

Tom Tucker (former alias was Troy McClure) is no longer on the Patch.
Wonder what new name he will be using to spew his name calling and anger.

Sorry folks - guess I was wrong. Don't celebrate too soon.
Looks like he got a comment through about an hour ago.

Tom Tucker http://www.tvfanatic.com/characters/tom-tucker/
Troy McClure http://www.tvfanatic.com/characters/troy-mcclure/

tom m thats too funny, BUT whatever his name is he is probably just getting prepared to cast his multple votes for his hero, The community orginizer

I was wondering about that. I suspect (suspect only) he might also be the "Thomas James" who has been shadowing a few posts of mine. Has any other Patch contributor had such a thing happen to them?

Careful Jackie,
Because Tommy doesn’t agree with you, he will call you nasty nasty names , followed by an exercise in psychological projection that labels you a “freeloader.” Tommy is special & has special problems. We love you anyway Tommy~~~~ Keep cashing those union checks buddy!

I agree richard!!! they are going to lynch obama on the campaign trail with that TAX word (remember the first bush) "read my lips no new taxes" clinton took bush to the woodshed over that

Correction: Our highway system was created after WWII and initiated by Dwight D. Eisenhower. Interestingly enough, he was attempting to recreate/mimic the highway system of Nazi Germany.

Also, another correction: Congress does not need to amend the Constitution in order to simply repeal a law. Had the Supreme Court struck down the law as unconstitutional, then Congress would need to amend the Constitution in order to maintain the law.

spoken like a true socialist

Yes, we do have some "socialist" programs here in the U.S. The use of land by and for the public does technically fit the definition of a socialist program.

Heck, even some private programs are socialist in nature. Think about private health insurance for a moment. A large number of people pay a monthly premium. This premium is pooled together with the premium of others. Those who need to see doctors have the bill sent the insurance company and the company takes some money out of the general fund to pay for expenses. It's a privately owned socialist network. When I'm not sick, my money is still being used to pay for the expenses of those that ARE sick. When I become sick, my hospital bills are covered from the general fund, which I have also paid money into.

The same can be said of any form of insurance, be it car insurance, life insurance, home owners insurance, etc. People pay into a general fund, the money is dispersed to those currently in need.

The companies themselves make profit a number of ways. One way is to try to pay out as little as possible from the general fund. Another means of profit is to invest the money in the general fund in things like stocks and bonds.

People are okay with a certain level of government social programs, the use of public land being one of them. But, we all know how horribly inefficient and wasteful the government can be. We have to draw the line somewhere when it comes to government social programs.

@John

Our highway system was modernized after World War II by President Eisenhower.

President Jefferson is responsible for the Cumberland Road which is the first national highway that was put in place in the United States.

http://www.cumberlandroadproject.com/
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/146426/Cumberland-Road
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/back0103.cfm

You're correct on the second matter. It just requires Congress to pass legislation which the POTUS then has to sign into law in order to overturn a SCOTUS decision.

Seeing as Congress can't even manage to agree on what kind of lapel pins make you patriotic enough...

I say again. Good luck.

@James Murphy
I'm not a socialist. I'm someone that understands how economic systems work which clearly you are not.

We don't as you may or may not know live in a purely capitalist economy. It's called a mixed market economy.

Ask any economist about economic systems and at some point you will get into the discussion about pure systems whether it be capitalist, socialist, communist or other wise.

Pure systems will fail every time unless they are world wide. They are to rigid in their own structure and lack the ability to compete with and interact with mixed market economies.

The USSR was a purely (mostly) communist economy and look how well that went over. Just like the shifts in our own economy towards pure capitalism have serverly damaged our own economy.

@John

There are places to draw the line but this is not one of them. Private insurance companies have entire departments which are dedicated to finding ways to get out of paying for procedures through often times ridiculous pre existing condition claims which have been decimated by this legislation.

Private insurance companies are currently allowed to spend as much of your premiums as they want on advertising and profiteering. Under this legislation insurance companies will be required to spend 80% of your premiums on you.

According to the CIA Factbook the United States is 121 of 222 in Infant Mortality, 87 of 230 in Death Rate and 50 of 221 in Life Expectancy.

I am in full support of your right to dissent, please don't misunderstand. However, don't just dissent, come up with something better to replace what you feel is wrong. Don't just let the old and broken system persist because you don't like the fix for it, come up with something better.

The only way to truly fix our entire health care system would be force people to eat nutritious food, instead of all this chemically processed food people eat now. It's our toxic food system that is at the heart of the health care crisis in this country. The only things people should really be eating are whole organic foods. Just say no to pesticides! Just say no to processed food!

Since it highly unlikely that most people will return to a whole foods diet, and since you could never actually force people to do so, chronic disease will continue to flourish in this nation. It seems to get worse with every passing year.

The industrialization of food and farming needs to end. You can disagree with me on this if you want. People often do because they feel industrialized farming is superior and will somehow feed people better than traditional organic methods.

We could seriously drive down the cost of health care this way. We probably wouldn't need socialized medicine.

The Federal Government which files this under highway history, The Encyclopedia Britannica which calls it the first federal highway and The Cumberland Road project which documents the history of the road and refers to it as the first federal highway disagree with you on that point.

It is not required for a road to have eight lanes of asphalt to be considered a highway.

There's no doubt that it is currently classified as a highway. I'm not arguing with that. I'm just questioning whether it was a full blown highway SYSTEM . . . Is a single long dirt road enough to refer to it as a whole system. They named it the Cumberland Road, not the Cumberland Highway System.

In your initial comment, you gave credit to Jefferson for creating the highway SYSTEM. He build a long road/highway (call it what you will). Is that enough to state that he created the highway SYSTEM? My personal opinion is no. Eisenhower gets credit, in my opinion, for the highway SYSTEM.

It's really a shame that your personal opinion doesn't override the fact that recognized historical sources point to the The Cumberland Road (Route 40) as the origination of our national highway system.

I'll let you have your opinion now and go back to my silly credible historically accurate sources.

A single road is not a system !!!!!!!