More Americans Want Health Care Law Repealed: Poll

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2011 2:46 AM GMT
    http://www.cnbc.com/id/45322201

    As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to review President Barack Obama's healthcare reforms, more Americans want it repealed than want to keep it, a poll released Wednesday shows.

    A Gallup survey of more than 1,000 U.S. adults found that 47 percent favor the repeal of healthcare reform, versus 42 percent who want the law kept in place. Eleven percent had no opinion.

    But the survey also showed that 50 percent of Americans believe the federal government has a responsibility to make sure everyone has health coverage, compared with 46 percent who do not.

    The results, which have a 4 percentage point margin of error, suggest a sharply divided U.S. public as the Supreme Court prepares to begin hearing legal arguments next March from 26 states and an independent business group that want the law struck down as unconstitutional.

    The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would extend health coverage to more than 30 million uninsured Americans by expanding Medicaid and establishing special state-run insurance markets called exchanges.

    The law is Obama's signature domestic policy achievement, and a high court decision to overturn the reforms could deal a severe blow to his re-election prospects in the middle of the 2012 presidential campaign. A ruling to retain it could help his campaign. The Supreme Court would be expected to rule by July.

    Obama, a Democrat, is opposed by a field of Republican candidates who want the healthcare reform law repealed as a symbol of an intrusive government seeking to raise taxes and burden businesses with new regulation.

    Public opposition to the law, particularly among the elderly, helped Republicans wrest control of the House from Democrats in the 2010 midterm elections.

    But advocates of the reforms say the law will reduce the soaring growth of healthcare costs over time and provide medical care to millions of families who currently have no protection.

    The Nov. 3-6 Gallup poll also showed a small reduction in public support for private insurance as the basis for gaining medical services in the $2.6 trillion U.S. healthcare system.

    The findings said 56 percent of adults continue to prefer private insurance versus 39 percent who would favor a government-run system. That compares with a 61 percent to 34 percent margin a year ago.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2011 2:52 AM GMT
    And just what do you think the pool said Riddler, spin it for us!

    It is rather obvious that it doesn't quite say what you think or want it to.. But lets hear your spin on it anyway..
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2011 2:58 AM GMT
    This is no surprise as was seen in Ohio last week. The people dont want this bill forced upon them. Also people are tired of all the spending in Washington. Hopefully Anthony Kennedy will recognize that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2011 3:16 AM GMT
    TropicalMark saidAnd just what do you think the pool said Riddler, spin it for us!

    It is rather obvious that it doesn't quite say what you think or want it to.. But lets hear your spin on it anyway..


    A significant majority now want the bill in its current form repealed: 47 to 42%. This opposition has been solidifying with time - not fracturing. Don't you remember when Nancy Pelosi claimed that people would be happier to learn what was in it after it was passed?

    That simply hasn't happened.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2011 3:43 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark saidAnd just what do you think the pool said Riddler, spin it for us!

    It is rather obvious that it doesn't quite say what you think or want it to.. But lets hear your spin on it anyway..


    A significant majority now want the bill in its current form repealed: 47 to 42%. This opposition has been solidifying with time - not fracturing. Don't you remember when Nancy Pelosi claimed that people would be happier to learn what was in it after it was passed?

    That simply hasn't happened.


    Try and take away a single piece they like. Go ahead.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2011 5:24 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark saidAnd just what do you think the pool said Riddler, spin it for us!

    It is rather obvious that it doesn't quite say what you think or want it to.. But lets hear your spin on it anyway..


    A significant majority now want the bill in its current form repealed: 47 to 42%. This opposition has been solidifying with time - not fracturing. Don't you remember when Nancy Pelosi claimed that people would be happier to learn what was in it after it was passed?

    That simply hasn't happened.


    Try and take away a single piece they like. Go ahead.


    Take away a single piece? I believe when they say they want it repealed they would rather it be um repealed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2011 5:32 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark saidAnd just what do you think the pool said Riddler, spin it for us!

    It is rather obvious that it doesn't quite say what you think or want it to.. But lets hear your spin on it anyway..


    A significant majority now want the bill in its current form repealed: 47 to 42%. This opposition has been solidifying with time - not fracturing. Don't you remember when Nancy Pelosi claimed that people would be happier to learn what was in it after it was passed?

    That simply hasn't happened.


    Try and take away a single piece they like. Go ahead.


    Take away a single piece? I believe when they say they want it repealed they would rather it be um repealed.


    A couple of things you're overlooking that are key:

    1) "bill in it's current form repealed" which could easily include people like me who think it's a giveaway to insurance companies and want single payer or, minimally, a public option

    2) Removing that percentage, Americans overwhelmingly like keeping their kids on their insurance till 26, do not want the return of preexisting conditions and, in general, hate health insurance companies.

    So once word gets out preexisting conditions are coming back and their kids are getting booted off their insurance, they will not be as enthusiastic about repeal.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2011 7:08 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark saidAnd just what do you think the pool said Riddler, spin it for us!

    It is rather obvious that it doesn't quite say what you think or want it to.. But lets hear your spin on it anyway..


    A significant majority now want the bill in its current form repealed: 47 to 42%. This opposition has been solidifying with time - not fracturing. Don't you remember when Nancy Pelosi claimed that people would be happier to learn what was in it after it was passed?

    That simply hasn't happened.


    Try and take away a single piece they like. Go ahead.


    Take away a single piece? I believe when they say they want it repealed they would rather it be um repealed.


    A couple of things you're overlooking that are key:

    1) "bill in it's current form repealed" which could easily include people like me who think it's a giveaway to insurance companies and want single payer or, minimally, a public option

    2) Removing that percentage, Americans overwhelmingly like keeping their kids on their insurance till 26, do not want the return of preexisting conditions and, in general, hate health insurance companies.

    So once word gets out preexisting conditions are coming back and their kids are getting booted off their insurance, they will not be as enthusiastic about repeal.


    It's quite clear that given the option of whether or not to have it, they would rather it did not exist as law. That's what's clear.
  • gbc59

    Posts: 90

    Nov 17, 2011 9:14 AM GMT
    why are the Americans so against this bill, Australia has had a national Govt health system for nearly 40 years no one gets turned away at a Hospital rich or poor even the homeless get t
    free medical treatment. the govt taxes us a % of our wage (very low) say yes to it!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2011 1:54 PM GMT
    gbc59 saidwhy are the Americans so against this bill, Australia has had a national Govt health system for nearly 40 years no one gets turned away at a Hospital rich or poor even the homeless get t
    free medical treatment. the govt taxes us a % of our wage (very low) say yes to it!


    I think that it's just because it is just a bad bill. I think there are a few issues when it comes to the US government and healthcare which are important to know that contribute to the opposition.

    1. When the government provides healthcare, it always moves towards a "one sized fits all" approach theoretically treating everyone as equal. Wait times grow because services are mandated by numbers as opposed to willingness to pay. People are widely suspicious for instance of recent rulings that preventative testing are not useful and therefore should not be done for a number of cancers.

    2. People are already generally happy with their private health plans but they are either being forced off them or changes are being forced such that premiums are rising (I would acknowledge that these increases could occur anyway without the plan but I doubt they would be as large only because of the political pressures to offer certain services). 89% of Americans said they were satisfied with their own personal medical care (2006, http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-10-15-health-poll1.htm). Thus, if we're going to talk about equity, Americans aren't surprisingly asking why 89% of them are sacrificing their own plans to take care of the 11% who are dissatisfied with their plans - and that they may be for various reasons.

    3. The US government spends money rather poorly. It may surprise you to know for instance that the US spends more per capita on Medicare (public healthcare) despite only 1/6th of residents being eligble for it, than Canada and Australia. Despite this spending, Medicare isn't a good system. As with public healthcare in the UK there are constantly scandals of outright malpractice that plague it. If it were able to spend money well, the US would already have a superior public healthcare system than the rest of the world. e.g. here:
    Total healthcare spending per Capita (http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/OECD042111.cfm)
    OECDChart1.gif
    So just because the Australian, Canadian, etc systems are better - it doesn't mean that if tomorrow the US switched, it would be either as cost effective or even as operationally effective as either of those countries. It just wouldn't. One can already see this from the current healthcare plan where a number of politically connected firms - many of them unions themselves have been exempted from the provisions of the healthcare plan by the current Administration.

    4. The US faces unique challenges in the obesity of its population (and arguably the lack of smoking) that others do not - which makes spending less efficient. There are numerous studies that show that smokers expire much faster than non smokers thus contributing less to healthcare burden in their dying days (where a significant portion of spending is done elsewhere). It's actually kind of scary how large the effect of obesity is (and I would argue that it's not in small part due to ag subsidies that result in cheap high fructose corn syrup being added to practically everything). This is Wikipedia's take on the obesity problem for instance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity_in_the_United_States):
    Obesity in the United States has been increasingly cited as a major health issue in recent decades. While many industrialized countries have experienced similar increases, obesity rates in the United States are the highest in the world with 74.6% of Americans being overweight or obese.[2] Estimates have steadily increased, from 19.4% in 1997, 24.5% in 2004[3] to 26.6% in 2007,[4] to 33.8% (adults) and 17% (children) in 2008.[5]
    The direct medical cost of obesity and indirect economic loss to obesity has been estimated to be as high as $51.64 billion and $99.2 billion in 1995, respectively;[6] this rose to $61 billion and $117 billion in 2000.[7] Researchers for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and RTI International estimate that in 2003, obesity-attributable medical expenditures reached $75 billion.[8]

    Again, this is something that a public healthcare system just wouldn't change.

    5. The US system is not an example of private markets at play given how it is regulated. In fact, one might argue it's rather screwed up. In a proper market the people who consume a product are more directly responsible for the payment or costs associated of that product which results in greater accountability. When a third party pays - either by government or in this case business, you have a more convoluted system of incentives. Because only businesses get tax deductions for it while individuals cannot pay the same. As a result businesses have been encouraged to bear the burden of healthcare and there has been a rise of HMOs who cover them who attract clients not by providing better and more cost efficient options but by attracting more and "better" hospitals. Hospitals attract HMOs with better doctors by spending on technology - much of it that gets underused. As a result you have a system that caters more to doctors and employers than to patients. Technology in any other industry reduces the cost of a service - not so in healthcare in the US - and to my knowledge that's the only industry where this is the case.

    I'm sure there are more reasons and I am sure I could find more... but these are just a reasonable starting point.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Nov 17, 2011 5:56 PM GMT
    Ummmmm....... Try and take away the portability claus that was recently put into place
    try and take away the ability to keep your college age kids on your policy
    Try and take away the restriction that insurance companies can no longer exclude you or drop you for an existing illness

    Go Head. ..... Lol ..... TRY
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2011 6:20 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    gbc59 saidwhy are the Americans so against this bill,


    Because it is unconstitutional. The government has given itself the power to force a citizen to purchase something (in this case a health insurance plan) from a private company. If the citizen does not, the government will impose a fine on that citizen. If the citizen does not pay the fine, the citizen can be put in jail.



    Ignore, SB, he thinks everything he doesn't agree with is unconstitutional but doesn't mind when American's civil rights and First Amendment protections are violated if it's in pursuit of something he likes. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2011 6:26 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 said
    gbc59 saidwhy are the Americans so against this bill,


    Because it is unconstitutional. The government has given itself the power to force a citizen to purchase something (in this case a health insurance plan) from a private company. If the citizen does not, the government will impose a fine on that citizen. If the citizen does not pay the fine, the citizen can be put in jail.



    Ignore, SB, he thinks everything he doesn't agree with is unconstitutional but doesn't mind when American's civil rights and First Amendment protections are violated if it's in pursuit of something he likes. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Then that would make you the left's SB. Of course there are a number of contenders for that title - many of whom exceed SB's record on this count.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2011 8:43 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    gbc59 saidwhy are the Americans so against this bill,


    Because it is unconstitutional. The government has given itself the power to force a citizen to purchase something (in this case a health insurance plan) from a private company. If the citizen does not, the government will impose a fine on that citizen. If the citizen does not pay the fine, the citizen can be put in jail.





    Then Romneycare is unconsitutional too.
    Yet you shameless and hypocritical Repubs are going to nominate Mitt Romneycare to be the Repub presidential nominee!

    LMAO!
    You illogical irrational Repub hens make no sense!

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2011 8:49 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    RickRick91 said
    southbeach1500 said
    gbc59 saidwhy are the Americans so against this bill,


    Because it is unconstitutional. The government has given itself the power to force a citizen to purchase something (in this case a health insurance plan) from a private company. If the citizen does not, the government will impose a fine on that citizen. If the citizen does not pay the fine, the citizen can be put in jail.





    Then Romneycare is unconsitutional too.
    Yet you shameless and hypocritical Repubs are going to nominate Mitt Romneycare to be the Repub presidential nominee!

    LMAO!
    You illogical irrational Repubs make no sense!




    RickRick,

    The Constitution applies to the Federal government. The government of Massachusetts is a state government.






    LMAO!
    The fact remains that we need to keep Mitt Romneycare out of the White House so he can't ram Romneycare down the throats of the American people!
    Right?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2011 9:57 PM GMT
    http://www.fitsnews.com/2011/05/12/mitt-romney-repeal-obamacare/

    “If I am elected president, I will issue on my first day in office an executive order paving the way for waivers from ObamaCare for all 50 states,” Romney wrote. “Subsequently, I will call on Congress to fully repeal ObamaCare.”
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2011 10:43 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidhttp://www.fitsnews.com/2011/05/12/mitt-romney-repeal-obamacare/

    “If I am elected president, I will issue on my first day in office an executive order paving the way for waivers from ObamaCare for all 50 states,” Romney wrote. “Subsequently, I will call on Congress to fully repeal ObamaCare.”




    LMAO!

    Now Mitt Romneycare is AGAINST "unconstitutional" "Socialist" health care reform legislation?
    After he signed the "unconstitutional" "Socialist" health care reform legislation Romneycare into law when he was Governor of MA?

    LOL!
    ANOTHER flip-flop from the KING of flip-floppers - Mitt Romneycare.

    Mitty will say ANYTHING to try to get elected president.
    Which is why he has no chance of becoming president!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2011 11:09 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    RickRick91 said
    LMAO!

    Now Mitt Romneycare is AGAINST "unconstitutional" "Socialist" health care reform legislation?
    After he signed the "unconstitutional" "Socialist" health care reform legislation Romneycare into law when he was Governor of MA?



    RickRick,

    The Constitution applies to the Federal government. Mitt Romney was the Governor of the state of Massachusetts. (Well, technically, the "commonwealth").






    That's why Mitty needs to be kept out of the White House.
    So he can't apply the "unconstitutional" "Socialist" policies he implemented while MA Gov to the federal government!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2011 1:12 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 said
    gbc59 saidwhy are the Americans so against this bill,


    Because it is unconstitutional. The government has given itself the power to force a citizen to purchase something (in this case a health insurance plan) from a private company. If the citizen does not, the government will impose a fine on that citizen. If the citizen does not pay the fine, the citizen can be put in jail.



    Ignore, SB, he thinks everything he doesn't agree with is unconstitutional but doesn't mind when American's civil rights and First Amendment protections are violated if it's in pursuit of something he likes. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Then that would make you the left's SB. Of course there are a number of contenders for that title - many of whom exceed SB's record on this count.


    Given your penchant for arguing for limits of Americans basic civil rights, you might want to stick to arguing about economics, where at least you can fake intelligence.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2011 1:14 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    RickRick91 said
    southbeach1500 said
    RickRick,

    The Constitution applies to the Federal government. The government of Massachusetts is a state government.






    LMAO!
    The fact remains that we need to keep Mitt Romneycare out of the White House so he can't ram Romneycare down the throats of the American people!
    Right?



    Actually, I didn't think it was funny that you - supposedly a well educated American citizen - didn't know that the Constitution applies to the Federal government and not to the government of Massachusetts which is a state government.

    It's rather sad.


    The Constitution and 235 years of jurisprudence say that federal law trumps state law. I know it's hard for you to understand what a federated constitutional republic is, but you may pick it up eventually.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2011 2:12 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 said
    RickRick91 said
    southbeach1500 said
    RickRick,

    The Constitution applies to the Federal government. The government of Massachusetts is a state government.






    LMAO!
    The fact remains that we need to keep Mitt Romneycare out of the White House so he can't ram Romneycare down the throats of the American people!
    Right?



    Actually, I didn't think it was funny that you - supposedly a well educated American citizen - didn't know that the Constitution applies to the Federal government and not to the government of Massachusetts which is a state government.

    It's rather sad.


    The Constitution and 235 years of jurisprudence say that federal law trumps state law.


    Yes. And that has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote.


    Your argument is that Romneycare is different from HCR because it's state v federal, except that the aforementioned 235 years of jurisprudence has resoundingly said federal law trumps state law with very few exceptions.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2011 2:23 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    gbc59 saidwhy are the Americans so against this bill,


    Because it is unconstitutional.


    More courts say the Affordable Care Act is constitutional than agree with you< /a>

    Most recently
    D.C. Circuit Affirms Constitutionality of ACA which is especially notable because it was written by Laurence Silberman, a judge with impeccable conservative credentials.

    southbeach1500 said
    The government has given itself the power to force a citizen to purchase something (in this case a health insurance plan) from a private company. If the citizen does not, the government will impose a fine on that citizen. If the citizen does not pay the fine, the citizen can be put in jail.



    If you had actually read the Affordable Care Act, you would know that nobody can be jailed for not paying the fine. Only stupid people will be subject to the fine anyway, because the rest of us will have Health Care Insurance.

    I suppose you hate George Washington too; he sign the Militia Act of 1792 requiring citizens to purchase muskets, powder, etc.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2011 2:59 AM GMT
    southbeach1500, you are such a LIAR.
    Nowhere in the 2nd militia act of 1792 does it say that only federal employees must purchase muskets.

    As for your condescending comment "please think" maybe you should ask your wise ass why the US Supreme Court is going it hear it? Despite your wish for poor sick people to die while Insurance CEOs buy yachts, the court sees several unanswers questions worth deciding, including the Personal Responsibility clause.

    The National Law Review explains better than you could ever wish.

    But here's the full ruling, if you dare [url]http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/055C0349A6E85D7A8525794200579735/$file/11-5047-1340594.pdf[/url]
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2011 4:50 AM GMT
    From the United States Supreme Court's Docket of November 14, 2011 there is Questions Presented link to PDF, the relevant portion is
    11-393 ) NAT. FED'N INDEP. BUSINESS V. SEBELIUS, SEC. OF H&HS, ET AL.
    )
    11-400 ) FLORIDA, ET AL. V. DEPT. OF H&HS, ET AL.
    The petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 11-393 is
    granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 11-400 is
    granted limited to the issue of severability presented by
    Question 3 of the petition. The cases are consolidated and a
    total of 90 minutes is allotted for oral argument.
    11-398 DEPT. OF H&HS, ET AL. V. FLORIDA, ET AL.
    The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. In
    addition to Question 1 presented by the petition, the parties
    are directed to brief and argue the following question:
    "Whether the suit brought by respondents to challenge the
    minimum coverage provision of the Patient Protection and
    Affordable Care Act is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act,
    26 U.S.C. §7421(a)." A total of two hours is allotted for oral
    argument on Question 1. One hour is allotted for oral argument
    on the additional question.
    11-400 FLORIDA, ET AL. V. DEPT. OF H&HS, ET AL.
    The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to
    Question 1 presented by the petition.


    This means the Supreme Court has agreed to hear all of petition 11-393, Question number 3 in petition 11-400, petition 11-398, as well as whether the Anti-Injunction Act applies to the Individual Mandate. The Anti-Injunction Act question is basically asking why anyone who has not yet been affected by the Personal Responsibility provision can sue before it affects them.

    Here's the question from petition 11-393
    The question presented is whether the ACA must be invalidated in its entirety because it is non-severable from the individual mandate that exceeds Congress' limited and enumerated powers under the Constitution.


    Here's the question from petition 11-398
    Whether Congress had the power under Article I of the Constitution to
    enact the minimum coverage provision.


    Here's question number 3 from 11-400
    Does the Affordable Care Act's mandate that virtually every individual obtain health insurance exceed Congress's enumerated powers and, if so, to what extent (if any) can the mandate be severed from the remainder of the Act?

    Sorry, southbeach1500, the Supreme Court is not asking you (or me) what is or is not constitutional. But they are asking the 4 questions indicated above. You are quite certain that the Personal Responsibility provision is congressional overreach. 3 district and 2 appeals courts seem to reach a similar conclusion. Even more district courts and 4 appeals courts disagree with you, the most recent being the DC Circuit. Several plaintiffs who initially felt the same way you do decided to drop their cases after they gave it thoughtful consideration. Others were found to lack standing. Standing is a legal term you probably don't understand.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2011 7:32 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    2) Removing that percentage, Americans overwhelmingly like keeping their kids on their insurance till 26, do not want the return of preexisting conditions and, in general, hate health insurance companies.

    So once word gets out preexisting conditions are coming back and their kids are getting booted off their insurance, they will not be as enthusiastic about repeal.


    Yes, Americans hate insurance companies. So it's odd that Obamacrats tried to mandate Americans to buy the services of these predators.

    The vaunted "they must cover pre-existing conditions" provision is a Trojan Horse. Under Obamacare, insurance companies can STILL refuse to cover pre-existing conditions; they just have to pay a fine. The fine is not particularly high. Insurers have inevitably found the fines less expensive than covering the chronically ill.

    One more ill-advised provision in an ill-advised bill.

    It's clear the mandates in the bill cannot fly without some form of public option. I favor a Medicare buy-in, but any form of taxpayer contribution would have to come after deficit reduction because we cannot -- right now -- afford to subsidize health care. The need for budget surpluses to sustain health reform gives one more reason why Obama should have 1) pressed for a infrastructure-based jobs bill instead of the phony "stimulus" and 2) let the Bush tax cuts expire rather than extending them.

    Liberals and conservatives alike can applaud the Supreme Court when it inevitably strikes down the Obamacare mandate. Then we can have a conversation about real reform that includes tort reform, a public option, and cheap drugs.

    The recycled right-wing Romneycare ideas embraced by Obama are not real reform; these are taxpayer bailouts of health insurers and pharmaceuticals. Everyone knows it, and that's why Obamacare is hated left, right, and center.