"The wretched US political discourse" is Constitutional; Obamacare is not.

Why was the "smarty, fact - filled, broad conversation" on the government's part called a "train wreck" which was a phrase not uttered once in this discussion?

It was "affirming of American democracy" even though we are a republic because a wholly unconstitutional overreach by the administration that has several power grabs to their credit is being firmly challenged no thanks to the credulous media.

"What couldn't the government do" is a key question because this is about state control and regulation of the individual against a person's will which any civics student can tell you is contrary to the US Constitution.
Will "wretched US political discourse" as defined by "progressives" be the next limitation on the First Amendment like the religious clause while is being done away with by this administration while the media applauds it?

I cannot determine how much health insurance would cost me under ObamaCare. I am single, 55 and self-employed.

How much?

And, if I chose to pay the penalty wouldn't I still get healthcare just like the uninsured do today?

Wouldn't the penalty be, in effect, an insurance premium?

Thank you,

David

I listened to the Florida Attorney General try to discredit the Affordable Health Care Act based on Constitutional Objections. She must have mentioned the Constitution. She seemed to have great reverence for the intent of the Constitution. There is a front page article in the New York Times, today, reporting that that Florida passed a law restricting organizations that register voters. The law is so onerous that even the League of Women Voters had declined to register voters in the state. Apparently the AG of Florida's reverence for the Constitution only applies when it is consistent with here political views and stops short of 'One Man, one Vote".

Does the AG of Florida have health insurance paid for by the people of the state if Florida? just asking.

One more thing: If the Health Care System. does as the AG says, account for 1/6th of the economy, isn't that the definition of something that falls under the Commerce Clause?

George Zimmerman consciously chose to disregard the direction of the dispatcher and continued to follow Trayvon Martin, willfully stepping outside the law, outside the limits of his mandate as a community watch representative. At that point he became a vigilante. It was as a vigilante that he confronted Trayvon Martin. If indeed a fight did ensue, it was a fight between a vigilante and a young man who knew he had done nothing wrong, who was on his way to a home at which he was a welcome guest in the community, on his way to eat the Skittles and drink the iced tea he had purchased and to watch a ball game. Trayvon Martin, if he did hit George Zimmerman, did so because he was being provoked by Mr. Zimmerman who was acting as a vigilante, a thug and a bully. If Trayvon Martin struck Mr. Zimmerman, Mr. Zimmerman is guilty of eliciting an attack that could only have been perceived by Trayvon Martin as an act of self defense. George Zimmerman should be arrested on charges of vigilantism, murder and, if now peaceful protest marches get out of hand, incitement to riot.

Who wants to live in a society where we have a large segment of the population who does not have accessibility to good health care. Communicable diseases do not care who has insurance and who doesn't. It makes me sad that our courts interpret the constitution in a way that protects the rights of people to make money. Where is the morality in that? I would happily give up a little 'freedom' in exchange for a better quality of life for everyone.

The vast majority of comments seem to confuse access to health care, which everyone in the USA has, with payment for health care.

I am of the opinion that if the government is going to mandate anything related to the method of payment I choose / utilize for MY health care then I would prefer that the government mandate that everyone is responsible for the first $5,000 of health care on their own under the HSA high-deductible model.

Our real problem is not access to health care but the cost. When "insurance" shifted from major medical cost coverage to essentially pre-paid medical care sometime ago, costs went out of control. Everyone needs to get some skin in the game.

Affecting the wallets has been proven to be the only way to get people to care what things cost.

A single payer or medicare for all plan would solve the silly "individual mandate" to purchase health insurance.

If the "so called socialist" European type plans can deliver better health care to ALL citizens at half the cost in the US, we in the US are STUPID to accept the dysfunctional systems we have here.

George Bush already told me (as a senior on Medicare)I had to purchase prescription drug insurance or pay a penalty to join if I ever decided i needed drugs. That's his prescription drug law. Remember? Although everyone may not need expensive prescriptions, most will at some time. That pretty close to medical insurance.

This morning Celeste Hedley interviewed a lawyer who is representing Florida as a complainant against the Affordable Care Act. They discussed the mandate and the lawyer said it was unconstitutional. What Celeste failed to ask was if this were the case, then why was it the idea of conservatives to begin with?

I was listening to the FL AG, since everyone is focussed on the "purchase" of insurance (accent on the second syllable please), the answer is have a single payer system like Medicare. Please note that the Preamble of the Consitution says "...promote the general Welfare...". Ergo, promoting the general welfare is one of the primary purposes of our Constitution.