Generally, people who can afford healthcare insurance will buy it. Conversely, those who can't, don't.

I very much doubt that the millions of Americans without health insurance would choose to do without it if they could afford it.

Lower income people (those who can't afford health insurance) are generally not as healthy as upper income people. Insurers will profit more by insuring wealthier, healthier American. The health care Act will Force them to insure less health Americans and those with preexisting conditions and that will cut into industry profits.

This is a fight over protecting insurance company profits. All the rest is smoke and mirrors.

I work full time hours and receive no health insurance or other benefits. I am 57 years old. More than 50% of my income goes to rent a small apartment in a not so safe neighborhood. Every dollar in my budget is carefully accounted for including a small weekly amount for food, utilities, train fare to work, utility payments, etc. There is no money in my budget for shoes or clothing among other things I have learned to do without. According to the scales I've seen, my gross income of $30,000 would require me to pay approximately $150 or more per month for health insurance. That figure would include the so-called assistance from the government. If I had $150 a month, I would have already purchased health insurance (after I bought a new pair of shoes). I do not have $1.00 a month that is not already being spent on necessities. The only way for me to pay $150 a month would be to eat only one week out of each month. I'm not irresponsible. I consider myself lucky to have a job and I consider myself lucky to be barely surviving although it's a struggle. This is Dickensian - I'm tired of being criticized and maligned. As I've been unable to increase my income any further, I would be forced to pay (or not pay) the $700 penalty. I'm certain that I'm far from alone in this position, however I have not heard myself represented in the news coverage of this subject. I am an Obama supporter apart from this issue.

I've been listening & trying to determine if this (individual health care mandate) is the first time ever the federal government imposed a requirement. While I am not as smart as the attorneys and judges involved, I have a question of the audience out there. What type of requirement is it when you are financing the purchase of a home through an FHA guaranteed loan system & you have less than the minimum down payment? You are required to obtain PMI? Is this a federal mandate to have PMI? I know when I lived out on the west coast 20+ years ago I had to have flood insurance because the home we owned was in a flood zone. Thoughts?

The law addresses the wrong problem. It is trying to legislate responsibility. And the only thing that will do is hurt people who are already responsible. The people who are uninsured fall into three categories:

1. People who don't WANT to pay thousands of dollars for insurance and will pay their medical bills out of their own savings. The law completely eliminates their freedom of choice.

2. People who know that they can go to the emergency room and get care by using the money the hospital overcharged ME. This law will not make these people any more responsible and is a big expensive mess using my TAX money to pay for it.

3. People who, because of a medical or financial situation CANNOT get insurance - these people avoid the doctor when possible because they have every intention of paying for their care if/when they can. It is THESE people who need help. While the law USES their plight to push through the law, in reality, it does not fix their situation.

Obamacare was built on sophistry and false promises and had to be defended with demagogic defamation against all those who protested it because it defied facts, logic and the US Constitution.
All of that is coming out now in the legal light of day.
Quick...another racial, gender or class warfare distraction so nobody notices the wheels coming off this titanic waste of time and money thanks to President "you can keep your doctor" Obama and Nancy "Are you serious" Pelosi.

I would also like to quickly address Mr Marino's comment (or angry rant really-- talk about smugness...). Ok, maybe we are truly a bunch of naive bleeding hearts, but I can attest personally that only a few months ago an uninsured friend of mine paid a visit to a local emergency room and ended up with a bill in the area of $10,000. After filling out some paperwork to prove that she is low income, she had to pay 0% of the bill. All of it was covered. Meanwhile, I am paying for a basic health plan out of pocket. So, while I pay $130 a month for insurance, an emergency room visit would still cost me several thousand dollars because of my high deductible, versus $0 for the uninsured person. So it makes me ask why I should even bother paying for insurance. You don't think that some kind of basic reform is called for?

If the goal of this law is to reduce the financial burden passed on to taxpayers by the cost of healtcare for the uninsured (assuming it actually exists), what is in place to ensure that savings is passed on instead of going straight to the coffers of the insurance companies? Additionally, it seems that the overall cost of insurance, for those already insured, is steadily increasing as a result of the passing of the law. Is there a real correlation between the law and insurance costs for individuals that are already insured?

Why isn't anyone discussing the outrageous cost of healthcare? Why is a basic emergency room visit worth thousands of dollars? I would like to hear more about what we can be doing to bring the price of medical care more in line with the reality of the average American.

Complaints about the government coming between the doctor and patient need to be answered -- today, insurance companies come between doctor and patient. How is that better?

Most people can't tell you:
* Who the insurance company's CEO is?
* Who the actuaries are, who decide what care is "reasonable"?
* How much profit the insurance company makes?
* How the insurance company decides what doctors are in the network?
* How their employer decided what insurance company you get?

To argue that the "doctor-patient" relationship is sacred is to deny the way this system has worked for decades.

The takeaway smugness is staggering ! When she says that of somebody goes to the emergency room without health insurance it adds a thousand dollars to her bill .That's WRONG the times that I've had to go to the ER when I didn't have insurance they BILLED me and it doesn't go away and they only would deal with a life threatening situation they thenrecommend
a private MD who only sees you if you pay first . Plus there is money built into the system so that the doctors get paid . YOUR'E a sucker TO BUY INTO THIS . it is a big gift to big pharma Millions of new mandatory CUSTOMERS and paying for it on the backs of the poor and low income people who are NOT able to pay what they call AFFORDABLE CARE or pay "hidden" penalty ( what the hell is it?) This healthcare bill is NOT national health care or even a decent amount of coverage without PAYING in ALOT more after you get sick . The preexisting conditions thing Is basically SURE you can have heath insurance YOU GOTTA PAY or their gonna chase you down or MAYBE who knows put you in jail . Remember that the 99% include MOST PEOPLE including republicans AND democrats FOOL us once your an rip off fool us every time You are a Con man and that in includes Teflon Obama sorry to burst your bubble

I think it's telling that the physicians who are against the ACA are currently the most highly compensated physicians (specialists) with academic appointments, and claiming governmental interference with patient care, whereas the primary care physician (the least well compensated under the current system) who has the most direct interface with patients on the "front line" is in favor of it. I can't help but see that specialists are gravely concerned that the ACA may decrease their compensation by putting patient care dollars to where they should be -- primary care!!

It's interesting how we think about health care - that we think we need to purchase health “insurance.” But we don't think we need to purchase military or homeland security “insurance.”

In the 18th century, Our founding statesmen understood that for the common welfare, we would need to defend our lives, our liberties and our pursuits of happiness with a military force – Because We Could. We Had the military hardware and manpower at the time to defend our borders. But at that time, humans did not have the medical knowhow or means to defend their lives.

Now. In the 21st century, we Do Have the medical means and manpower to defend our lives. And as a society, we expect that when we need this medical defence, we will provide it.

Why should we have to purchase “insurance” to provide what we think we deserve? If we deserve military protection and pay for it with taxes, then we should do the same for health care. If Military protection is not socialism, then neither is Health protection. If we adopt a “Single Payer” type health care system, there is no need to debate “individual mandate” - we're all covered, as we should be.

I laugh when I hear "healthy people" complaining about health care insurance they "don't need" because they take care of themselves. I too "take care of myself" but I have probably had more time in hospitals than most of my friends combined. When you are in an accident you did or did not cause, when you go for your healthy walk or jog and step into a pot hole, when you break your leg skiing, when your golfing buddy shags one into your eye....you get my point.