@Bren -- I'm actually not happy about the individual mandate in the absence of an affordable public option. For example, we mandate the parents educate their children, but we provide public schools in which to do it. For those who aren't happy with that, they're free to find education elsewhere.

Without a public option, the individual mandate is a big giveaway to the private insurance industry, and the entire program will be more expensive than it need have been.

The rest of the Affordable Care Act was very necessary. Who would be against it? Only someone who cares more about the profits of the health insurance companies than the welfare of individual Americans.

Using the public road is a choice. Remember, all those people without IDs to vote, they don't drive or need the roads. Or at least that is what you guys argue.

How does forcing parents to hold coverage on their children longer save money?
How does forcing an insurance company to pick up a customer only when they need a treatment save money?

@Steve -- Who said anything about roads? The mandate to carry auto insurance if you're a driver is not really analogous to the health insurance mandate, since you do have the option of not driving a vehicle if you can't or won't afford the auto insurance.

You really don't have an option not to be alive, so the mandate part bothered me. For pity's sake, be honest and say that healthcare will be covered out of taxes -- taxes that relieve you of the expense of purchasing private coverage.

Since when are parents forced to keep on carrying insurance for their children? The only ones being forced to do anything are the insurance companies -- forced to keep an adult child on a family policy until age 26. This saves consumers money.

Steve, why bring up roads?

Also, why do you believe that parents are forced to keep adult offspring on their insurance policy? It's a great way to keep the college grad covered during the extended job searches they are experiencing courtesy of the Great Recession.

And I'm not sure why the Republicans were all about the "individual mandate" in 1993 but have now found it unconstitutional.

@Bren
Why were Democrats for the Iraq war then against it? The same reason, politics.

Partially, but it was also salted by the lies coming from the Bush administration.

I was driving Tom Barrett around on the day of the Democratic Gubernatorial primary in 2002 -- before the Iraq vote. I asked him that based on what he saw from the Bush CIA, were we justified to go into Iraq.

He said no.

"How does forcing an insurance company to pick up a customer only when they need a treatment save money?"

Steve, did you just make an argument for the individual mandate?

Randy, Bren brought it up your only proving my point why you can require drivers to purchase auto insurance.

You do have the option to be alive. Pay for healthcare.

Keith: Only if you require everyone to purchase insurance 100% non medicare life which is why Obama care will fall apart. You certainly can not have a stable situation if you allow anyone to jump in only when they get sick. And it is against the constitution for the government to force you to purchase a product.

The individual mandate is an unsophisticated attempt to fix the issue, but I consider it a baby step in the right direction. Congrats to Republicans for thinking of it. Having lived for a time in a country with a national health plan, I know how well a NHCP can work. Simply alleviating the financial stress of having to pay a premium plus out-of-pocket, co-pays, and worrying about the lifetime maximum in the event of serious illness through a NHCP would help so many Americans. Not to mention the fact that it would cost less in the long run as every American would be covered, and many illnesses could be addressed through preventative care. Those without insurance often wait until problems become severe then show up in emergency rooms. This level of care is more expensive, creates long lines (defeating the point of "emergency"), and often results in more expense involving surgery, etc.).

The other benefit of a NHS is the blessed removal of the third party middleman, the private insurance character, that gets in the way of the patient/doctor relationship and payment. The NHS could negotiate prices with pharma companies and best of all, everyone who provided services would be paid, eliminating long, unnecessary waits due to insurance company duck-and-weaving. It benefits the insurance company not to pay claims.

How much was the VAT where you lived?

Affordable. Did I mention how much less paperwork I had to deal with under an NHS?

Affordable is relative to the individual. How much was the VAT?

I sign my name, and pick my plan online every year, takes 5 minutes.

I can't recall the exact amount as this date but I can tell you that the cost of the NHCP to me was comparable to my current tax rate plus health insurance premiums. What I did not pay on top of that, as I do now, are co-pays, out-of-pocket, deductible, etc. The awful part about those is that is nearly impossible to estimate what the actual total cost of a procedure could be.

The VAT in the UK is now up to 20%

How affordable.

Steve, that's a different country and situation. With our greater population and resoures we should be able to take best practices from around the globe and modify them according to our needs and interests.

They started it at 2%

Again, different country, different situation.

Mr. Kell, I'm not sure what you mean by your post (perhaps because I'm not a liberal democrat). I pay a great deal for my health insurance, and being healthy as the proverbial ox, I never use it. So if we have the same insurance company and you use yours, I'm helping to pay for your care. You're welcome. ; )

So Mr. Kell, you would prefer to keep paying jacked-up prices for those people that go to the emergency room without insurance? That is the situation now. The ACA would persuade many of these people to get insurance, thus lowering the cost for those currently paying into the system.
I would have to say that you and Mr. Hovde need to do a little more research.
I also agree with randy1949 that it would have been better to just call it a tax and include the public option, but that apparently couldn't get the votes to pass.

Bren, do I need to explain to you contract law? My health insurance is a contract between me(the insured) and my insurance carrier(the insurer) for perils that are explained in the contract. You are not paying for me to use my product, nor am I paying for you to use your product. How about mind your own business and stop asking the rest of us to pay for your dysfunction?

►I'm not a liberal democrat◄

It never gets old hearing this

Mr. Kell, if an individual pays $500/month for health insurance over 12 months, that's $6,000. Now if the individual requires a $100,000 surgery during that time, and meets her/his deductible, out-of-pocket, responsibility %, etc., for that policy, there could still be a significant amount paid by the insurance company (assuming they pay it instead of trying the typical loophole duck-and-weave). Where does the insurance company get the money? Again, you're welcome! ; )

And if everyone "minded their business" as you request that I do, the Patch blog and comment section would be desolate indeed. ; )

Your utility bill costs and other purchase prices also fund ordinary business expenses and shareholder dividends.

Where does this belief that you pay for liberals come from?

Mr. Kell,
Your examples don't wash. If someone doesn't pay for their electricity it is cut off. If someone steals bread they are arrested. This keeps the price low. But thanks to Reagan if someone can't afford medical care they can get it legally at the emergency room. But ER prices are much, much higher than preventive care. These costs are transferred from the hospital to the insurance providers to you.
As for calling me 'dysfunctional', it only shows how little you know about me and how weak your arguments are.

If you don't think there is costs built into everything for inventory loss you are mistaken on how pricing of goods works.

Energy used for heat by law can not be cut off from Nov 1 to April 15th
http://psc.wi.gov/thelibrary/publications/general/consumer02trifold.pdf

I feel like I am talking to 5th graders here with Bren and St whatever...did you two attend any schooling beyond the gubmint schools? Do I need to get out the crayons for you two?

@ Mr Kell ..... The concept of insurance is that it spread the risk across a multitude of insured, so that if it is needed, the bills are paid.

You continue to mention contract law, which is not an explanation for insurance. Yes, there is a contract between you and the insurance company --- you agree to pay so much in premiums, and they agree to cover your losses for "x" amount. Implicit in that contract is that the insurance company can cover your losses that exceed the amount you paid in, by using the proceeds from other participants.

The Insurance company does not have a checking account with the name Mr Kell on it --- they have one that has everyone's name on it, and they charge premiums so that the amount of checks they write do not exceed the amount that is deposited by all the insured. The excess is their profit --- and in health care, it is quite a healthy profit margin thank you!

Now I have known people who ran naked and did not have insurance. A doctor I knew Never had automobile insurance, he bet that any losses he had to pay would be less than insurance premiums he would have paid. If he had a catastrophic accident and lost a $1 million settlement --- he would have been screwed -- but he took the chance.

If you have insurance, you are not taking a chance -- you are throwing your money into a pool with other insured, and if you have a 1$ million judgement, the money the others put in will be used by the insurance co to pay it

@Mr. Kell...You lack the needed insight as to how various systems work. Insurance is mandated by law to have so much in reserves to back up possible claims. Actuaries determine risk and based on the risk, they determine what the rates are per person or classification of persons. All premiums are pooled and paid out as claims are made. If premiums exceed payouts, then the insurance company wins with higher profits. If payouts exceed premiums, then the insurance company will increase subsequent premiums to remain liquid and above the reserves. Anytime your claims exceed the premiums paid, then you are taking from the premiums paid by others. For example, if your homeowners insurance rose after Hurricane Katrina, it was from the loss of the event spread across the entire insurance pool.

@Craig....It is clearly time for National Health Care. One of the problems under our current system is there is nothing in place to control cost of goods and services. Healthcare providers have no regulation or control for setting the prices that they charge. They are also self regulated. If you want to get control of healthcare, then you start at the head, which is the providers. Do you realize the vast majority of 1% are healthcare professionals. In the state of Wisconsin, the entry level into the top 10% is $358k. If you want to look at the situation realistically, the tax money paid out for healthcare is a subsidy paid to greedy healthcare providers. Why should we continue to allow uncontrolled pricing and complain that it is ever growing, when we don't put limits on the providers.

Lyle: Obama's plan keeps in place the insurance companies, and does nothing to control costs. So all we would be doing is shifting the cost burden- which is going to allow the costs to continue to rise.
If everyone were held accountable to the first 10% of their income for a deductible, this would help reduce the costs. I do not like our current system, but I dislike Obama's plan more. To implement ANY health care plan for the sake of getting the ball rolling is just a sales tactic.
A true National Health Care plan would have all medical professionals as Government Employees- that isn't going to happen without a fight.
Something has to change, but the right change is key to affordable success.

As much as I'd like to see universal health care, sometimes you have to consider the environment and go with it, realizing that it could morph into what we need. Again, this is what Republicans originally wanted and the Heritage Foundation wanted until, like children, they were against it when Obama came around to the idea.

It works in Switzerland, with a good dose of cost control for good measure.

@Craig....I agree that ObamaCare doesn't address the structural problem and is a band aid only. Create a NHS, put all healthcare professionals in the civil service and eliminate all for profit clinics and hospitals. Like you said it would be a fight, but well worth the battle. Eliminate medicare, medicaid, all self insurance plans and health insurance plans. Covert all the premiums paid over to tax and there will be more than enough money to pay for high quality healthcare without breaking the bank.

I'm not so sure that doctors would put up the same level of fight they would have in the early 1990s, because they are probably as tired of battling insurance companies as the patients. Remember that the pharmaceutical companies also pledged financial support. Friends in the health care industry say that bills aren't being paid, people are cancelling routine check-ups and tests, and even needed procedures. The insurance companies are pulling in lots of cash. That's the industry that would put up the barriers now, in my opinion.

Did we see a great amount of willingness on the part of the public employees in this state to accept the minimal changes that were asked of them? Did we not hear how these minimal changes were going to effectively reduce the quality of our state's teachers, for instance? I just love how the same folks who bemoaned those cuts are all over slashing the salaries of those in the healthcare field without a concern in the world for the effect it's going to have on that industry and those in industries tied to it.

If you think the kinds of changes that would be required to provide affordable NHC are going to go down with any ease whatsoever, or that something has so radically changed since "the early 1990s" that those who pull in a healthy salary now are going to sacrifice the lion's share of it at any level for the good of the nation's healthcare, you're not really thinking it through.

The only way NHC goes through is through brute force government intervention. It will create a state of (hopefully) short term chaos for those employed in the healthcare industry, including those in the health insurance field and amongst those who supply goods and services to those fields. It will effectively lower the standard of living for many, which will have a ripple effect across the country that could very well offset any benefit derived from the savings it would provide (assuming the taxation necessary to support the system doesn't take care of most of that on its own).

You seem to look that a lions share of the opposition to NHC as it stands now who are single payer people. So if combine those with the people who support NHC, it wins hands down.

Minimal changes for public employees? Nonsense. The real aim was to cripple the political power of the union, which really helps all of us since they are a major source of funding and organizing for progressive policies against the plutocracy, versus the GOP which has their vulture capitalist sugar daddies.

Take away that, and all of us will be affected negatively. Read your history. I know it pleases you when you think that your imaginary "elite liberals" and "hippies" are upset, but when income is severely and unequally distributed as it is today, we will all suffer and this country goes nowhere.

@Bob McBride....You and everyone else knows the answer to out of control healthcare is to completely restructure the system. It is a fight worth making. Several of the things that could be done to offset the impact is to provide free medical education for those that decide to go into the field. Another would be that physicians could continue some private practice for treatment and procedures not covered by NHS. The public could purchase supplemental policies to cover nonstandard procedures and medication, just like with Medicare supplement insurance. However, the fight is worth fighting and the sooner the better.

Keith

Are you suggest that the changes inherent in going to NHC wouldn't have those effects? Or are you just playing your usual class warfare game here?

The effects are real. Even Lyle has acknowledged them in the past. You take an industry that employes the millions of people this one does, you create employment displacement, you effectively slash the earnings of those in it to the degree necessary to make NHC "work", and you create economic chaos.

If you honestly think that's not going to happen, then this discussion is way over your head. It's not a judgement on whether or not NHC is good or bad. It's economic reality.

Actually, you're the perfect example of what I was talking about. No perspective whatsoever.

Lyle,

We're seeing right now what happens when the government attempts to fix things. We've got an "affordable healthcare law" that nobody's really happy with and that, frankly, has the ability to create a bigger problem than we have now by leaving us with more uninsured people than we have now. We have no assurance that the best intentions of anyone, regardless of who comes up with them, are going to end up with the desired results being achieved at the end of the day because of compromises and changes to parts of whole that destroy the application of those intentions.

This is the pattern with everything we do at the government level. Propose something potentially workable, make compromises to the system through the process of implementation that effectively cripples the proposal, created collateral damage and then start a series of rounds of finger pointing to assign blame for said damage.

What on earth makes you think a quantum change like this one would be any different? We can't even get the fairly limited changes that were part of the original "affordable healthcare" package through unscathed?

You guys really have to get out of your worlds of wonder and start dealing with reality and the effect of the actions you call for. You can't rail about the minimal changes we've had here on a state level on the one hand and then turn around and propose something like this and ignore the much more consequential negative effects it would have.

Establishing a NHS in this country would be quite a task. There will always be a place for private/supplemental health insurance, but the industry would necessarily and appropriately shrink.

A database of individuals and medical practitioners who wished to sign on for the public option would have to be created, and an account created to hold the direct deposits that once went to a private insurance company. The expense would come in devising a streamlined method of transitioning insurance employees into government contractors with benefits or civil service employees to lessen job displacement.

The primary difference between the two systems once complete is that without the profit motive, an entire tier of leadership among private insurers would be redundant, the individuals whose work it is to weave through policies and find reasons to decline claims. In the doctor's office/clinic, those employees whose job it is to battle insurance companies all day would process claims for the NHS. The challenge in NHS (which also exists now) are "creative billing" techniques to maximize profits for medical practitioners. They will have to accept a payment standard for services, but a cleaner payment/cash flow would make up the difference.

@ JB --- although this type of plan was originally endorsed by both Republicans and Democrats, the Republicans would not vote for it, if it included the T word -- hence the Political Semantics --- kind of like Social Security is not suppose to be a tax -- yet it is what has supported the General Fund for decades --- and in reality is a Flat Rate Tax on lower income earners

@David
I know there were some misguided republicans that were for this. They can't be perfect all the time.

The government lawyers argued against it being a tax in the Supreme court. That will be its downfall. Semantics or not, they unwilling to change their stance even before the highest court in the land.

I find it obsurd that insurance covers routine office visits. Can you imagine how much your car insurance would be if it covered oil changes and routine maintenance? We couldn't afford our home owners insurance if it covered things like painting the siding or replacing windows do to wear. Why do we treat health insurance differently?

I will back those who fight for the repeal of Obama Care. I hope that the supreme court sees the individual mandate unconstitutional due to the commerce clause. If not, what will we be forced to buy next? Solar Panels from Solyndra? A Chevy Volt? A seat on a passenger train?

@porttreiss...I think you would find it amazing to find that those things we consider rights are actually privileges which are granted as alienable rights. The only true rights are inalienable rights granted by the creator. All else is alienable granted through a social contract. Therefore, your argument that healthcare is a privilege and not a right is only partially correct. Just like with the other amendments to the constitution, a consensus could agree that healthcare is an alienable right and make it a part of the constitution.

@porttreiss -- Back when I had health insurance it didn't cover routine office visits either. But it makes sense. Catch a condition in its early stages and you'll save money in the long run.

If auto insurance had to cover catastrophic events like a seized engine, you can bet that oil changes would be covered.

@Keith Best...Again, nothing original here. Straight Republican talking points.

@Lyle Ruble---I post what I believe in, plain and simple. And I am NOT afraid to express what I believe.

Keith has a right to voice his opinion and not being labeled with "Straight Republican talking points". I see a lot of comments here that are "Straight Democrat talking points".

@Keith Best -- Choose how you want the country to go bankrupt. By paying for everyone to get basic healthcare, or by paying higher and higher premiums and costs to cover the people who got sick, went bankrupt, and either died or had their treatment cost more than it would have if their illness had been caught early and maintained.

We're paying one way or the other. And your company could drop its coverage any time it liked before this bill, leaving you scrambling.

@mau...His opinions are those of the parent organization and I have not seen anything except for Republican talking points for over a year. I would criticize Democrats for doing the same.

@Keith Best...No smoke screen to deny reality and fact, but to deny your perception and beliefs. Of course your conservative principles make sense to you, they are yours.

@Jay Sykes....I didn't state that he paid more or less SSI, but he pays substantially less income taxes. I thought I was clear about that.

@Menoparent -- Who, other than those on Medicaid and with extremely good employer health coverage, receives healthcare free? There are those of us in the cracks of the system. I have no health insurance. I pay for my medical care out of pocket and hope for the best. If something catastrophic were to happen, I would pay out of pocket until I was bankrupt, and then my healthcare would be 'free' but not until then.

In addition, my out of pocket expenses are raised not only by the bad debt a hospital or physician has to cover -- they are raised by the negotiated discount these entities give to various insurance companies for their services.

Please don't give anyone ideas -- I think Social Security is next on the Conservative hit-list after Medicare. Although, frankly, Medicare Part D required every recipient to purchase a drug plan which is subsidized to varying degrees. A mandate, if you will, and I never saw any challenges to that.

Is there a penalty imposed if they don't enroll in Part D?

When can we start to make SS illegal? I'm on board I can do much more with that money that the gov can. Lead the charge Menoparent i'm with ya.

@CowDung -- Good question. My mother was under the impression that she HAD to enroll in a drug plan. In her case, she has huge prescription drug costs, so it was to her benefit. But I honestly don't know if it's a requirement.

@Steve...At your tender age all you can see is investment growth. Wait until you go through some really major downturns and see how well you fare. At one point or another you get too old to recover your losses. But that will never happen to you. You will also find that Social Security is legal and has been challenged on a of number fronts. Therefore, you'll continue paying in as long as you have earned income. However, that shouldn't matter to you since you are under 30 and already part of the 1%. The only motivation I can see is that your greed is all that drives you.

I did a little researching before I commented here. According to this you are not required to sign up for Medicare Part D.
http://myhealthcafe.com/reminder-do-you-need-to-sign-up-for-medicare-part-b

Wisconsin offers an optional SeniorCare.
http://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/seniorcare/factsheets/phc10074.htm

I can remember helping my mother-in-law sign up but only remember how complicated it was to choose. Picking a drug supplier was also a headache.

@Lyle
You keep coming after his age. Kids are more likely to tell the truth over adults. It might be your chronologically challenged life that has left you tainted.

We could start to phase out SS Paul Ryan style and those under 55 would be better off for for.

Lyle:

The great thing about a 401(k) is that one is free to move from high risk investments to low risk investments as one gets older and less able to recover from market downturns. Even young people don't put all their investments into a single area where a market drop won't be unrecoverable...

All the plans to reform SS keep the program the same for those above a certain age. Younger people would have had the choice to stay in the current model, or to move to something more like a 401(k) program. Even those who went with the 'new' program would only get to divert a small portion of their SS tax payment into the new program. Certainly not the recipe for disaster that it is being portrayed to be.

@J.B. Schmidt....If Steve was a little more mature he wouldn't make some of the claims that he does. I'm not sure he is everything he claims to be.

As far as Ryan's plan, even if we adopted it, it would turn out to be a total failure. Like you, he only practices "pocket book morality" and because of greed your generation will not step up. It's not that we didn't pay enough in, but the elected officials decided to use it to bank roll the Cold War, the Reagan Weapons build up, and Bushes two unfunded wars.

Not sure if that's the whole story Lyle. Certainly, it doesn't help matters to raid the SS funds for other stuff, but we do seem to have a rather small number of workers paying into the system compared to the number of retirees being supported by the system.

@Lyle
My knowledge of SS is that there is no 'lock box' of cash that can be raided. Instead, tax collections come and the money gets paid out. The problem is that we have too many people needing support and to few paying in that the system cannot support it. "Greed" is assumed that we are ending the program as a selfish act; rather, the 'greed' exists within the Democratic power structure unwilling to end a program that will end up collapsing anyway. My morality suggests we end it now without harm to those depending on it, then transition the rest of the public to their own retirement.

@Gentlemen -- My understanding of the Social Security Trust Fund is that FICA (a dedicated payroll tax on earned income to pay specifically for retirement and Medicare) was doubled in the early 1980s to provide ahead of time for the retirement of the Boomers. The program has been taking in more revenue than it paid out since that time and the surplus has been 'invested' in T-bills. We retirees and soon to be retirees are among our government's creditors. This talk of 'crisis' seems to me to be an attempt to lay the groundwork for not repaying the trust fund, or for paying it back more slowly.

I hear younger workers complain about having to support us Boomers in retirement, as if this is a unique situation. We've been supporting our parents and grandparents in retirement for all these years with little complaint, and the money the government has borrowed in the form of T-bills has helped to keep income taxes lower.

401Ks and individual IRAs are wonderful things, but there's one problem -- you have to have the money to invest, which people don't have when they're unemployed or working at low wage jobs. Yes, you have the freedom to switch from high risk to lower risk investments as retirement age approaches, but will that leave you with enough money to support yourself? Life seems so bright and simple at age 30, but you never know what's in store.

@Randy
I would argue that life is simpler for a retired free loader.

I will never see the money I put in and I could use that money now. You liberals always look at this as some sort of charity act we should embrace. What about the fact that you are taking money from my family? Were are your good deeds in that? My family could benefit from not supporting those on SS who have had an entire life time to prepare. Instead, you can some how justify your forced extraction of money from working families as some deserved.

When social security started it was 159.4 workers per persons receiving benefit. In 2006 it was 3.3 to 1. By 2030 it projected to be 2 to1. How can that be possible while those two people are trying to support families?

By the way, it is pay-as-you-go, unless people died early then there is some carry over.

@J.B. Schmidt....The money put in under Social Security has been invested in T-bills and bonds. When congress made the changes to the payroll tax during your blessed Reagan years all of the projections were made including paying out for the "boomers". I paid into the plan for nearly 50 years in good faith. Now you come along and don't want to pay your share so you can use it for your family. For one I didn't tell you to have such an expensive family with five children. When the program started it had as you said 150+:1 payees into the system. But you have to remember that when the program first started there were very few recipients.

I would like to compare my and Randy1949's federal and state income tax returns to yours. I'm retired and Randy is self employed and I'll bet you dimes to donuts that either one of us are paying more in federal and state income tax than you are. I think either Randy or I would love to have 7 deductions. So who is the government really supporting more, you or us?

@Lyle
I must have struck a nerve with old man freeloader comment.

If it is my choice to have kids, then is it not also your choice to have income and investments which requires the payment of high taxes. While I do take advantage of the progressive tax system, I am also a strong supporter of the flat tax with zero exemptions. I, however, don't get a choice whether or not I must pay for old people. I must be forced to be charitable. Now you are upset that I won't be a lemming in the ponze scheme you bought into. Isn't it your fault you chose to be liberal and accept the failed SS scheme?

Right, evil Reagan. You mean that guy that had Democratic support for what he did.

@Lyle... JB is pays the same amount into SSI regardless of the number of children(exemptions) that he has.

@J.B. Schmidt...Social Security is not a failed system. You have bought into a total falsehood with that. You want to talk about a failed scheme, that's 401(k) ripoff. It is time to take off your blinders and look at things anew. Everyone has a responsibility to prepare for retirement, disability and death. The program that Bush was proposing is already covered under Social Security and qualified retirement programs. It is time to understand that all the aging citizens will unite and keep Social Security and Medicare and that will be the end of that. Besides the system will self correct over the next thirty five years with the death of the baby boomer cohort. Boomers were much more responsible by having much smaller families and you'll find that by the time you retire your benefits will be there, unless you make some stupid decisions.

I understood that Social Security was designed to be able to compensate for generational population shifts by generating interest. It's the borrowing for non-Social Security items (such as the Iraq War) that cause challenges. If left alone there would be no problem, but as Lyle indicates, borrowing has been taking place since the 1960s.

The idea that Social Security being a "Ponzi" scheme is disrespectful to the U.S. Government and to every citizen. I believe it is atrocious for "conservatives" to go on the offensive about Social Security and Medicare when thanks to the recession, a generation of working people's financial paths have eroded, if not collapsed.

@JB Schmidt -- "Old man free-loader"? Unbelievable. Your parents and grandparents were happy enough to take the 7% (and later the 15%) I paid on the first dollar earned all my working life. That's money you didn't have to pay out to support them and money they may have been able to leave to you, thanks to a guaranteed income in their old age. And now you want to call a halt to the process, just like that.

I managed to raise a family with that 'forced extraction' and still put aside extra money for private IRAs. So I say, fine. Absolve retirees of the school levy on property taxes. Because they're your kids not mine. Give me a payout on my SS contributions with a rate of return the same as I got in the market, and we'll call it even.

@Randy1949...It is amazing that these young conservatives are so untrustworthy. I would never knowingly enter into a contract with any of them; they just don't honor contracts and will figure out a way to keep from fulfilling them. .

@Randy.... If you want everyone to think SSI is 'wonderful' you need to send them a statement that shows the NPV that they will/can receive vs what they paid in. The big problem is when you show the separate cash streams the 'retirement' portion is a failure. If you invested your SSI monies in Tbills/Bonds FDIC insured savings account you would get double what SSI pays you in retirement including the fact your estate gets to keep the principal balance too. The survivors and disability payments are a reasonable value(similar to the private market), but are only about 1/6 of your SSI contribution.

I never said it was 'wonderful', Jay. I merely said it was guaranteed, and if the returns are so poor why is the younger generation complaining about the high cost of maintaining us oldsters? The government is making it up somewhere else in the form of lower taxes.

@Randy... Note, again, that if you put the monies that SSI takes for your 'retirement' benefits and you, yourself put it in t-bills/bonds or a FDIC savings account(all guaranteed by the government just like SSI) you have double the total monies. Again, that is without -any- additional risk. JB wants 'market returns', probably not realistic for a 'guarantee' but shouldn't we a least get the same as we could do on our own with an identical risk level? When 15%+ is taken from my wage, I guess, I expect much,much better results.

Yes, Bob - I do have an answer, because I went to the trouble of researching the law. You can either do the same, and answer your own questions, or continue railing against the law in your confused state.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that you've never had to make payroll, and never had employees who counted on you to make good decisions about their well being, And since you haven't, I shouldn't be surprised that you have so little understanding of the problems inherent in employer-based health care.

@Jay -- What's the rate of return? When I started out, a savings account paid 4%. It's less now. I heard the same thing back then -- give me the FICA to invest and I can do better. I'm sure that's true, as long as you're paid enough to have something left over to save and invest. In addition to the FICA, I had money to put into IRAs, which I invested. It meant luxuries not acquired, vacations not taken, nose to the grindstone. Market manipulations ate a lot of it.

So now you GenXers are suggesting that we Boomers just eat the money we put into FICA. Or not eat, as the case may be. I really don't think so.

Taoist, I'm not confused at all. I completely understand how employer based health insurance works and it's why I've correctly identified this as an attempt to entice employers to do away with it and force those who are benefitting from it now into a pool of folks who have to purchase it on the open market at a price higher (or not purchase it, if they can't afford it) than what they're paying now through their employer based program so that, in theory, those now in that same market would be able to purchase it at a rate lower than what they're paying now (again, supposedly).

If I'm wrong, prove me wrong with numbers. Or retreat once again into the rarified air of something that's really not as complicated as you make it out to be.

@Lyle
Yes, my generation cannot be trusted to uphold a contract we have no say in and has been perverted multiple times between its inception and our arrival on this planet.

@Randy
Same excuse as Lyle, the system sucks, you had to do it; therefore, everyone should. I am not expecting SS to pay me anything. That money that has been taken from me is gone. My generation understand and accepts that. You two got to play the big government nanny state your whole lives. I refuse to play that game and will make every attempt possible to change it. Not because I feel you don't deserve to get your money back, but because it is an archaic system that takes freedoms from me. You guys had many more years then I to change the system to something better and did nothing. Lyle claims we just need to wait till your dead and then everything will be better. I am not that patient.

@Taoist
The problem with opting out under Obamacare is you will again create a 2 teir system. The wealthy paying only in cash and the poor sucking on the government teet. Without forcing the wealthy on to the plan, they can't pay for the poor. Not to mention all the good doctor would gravitate to the cash system as they would not be as heavily controlled by the government or have to wait for government payment, assuming it comes at all (which is already a problem with medicare/medicaid).

The problem with opting out under Obamacare is that one is now able to 'un-opt out' when insurance is needed to receive treatment. Insurance companies cannot have higher premiums or deny coverage for pre-existing conditions anymore. It's likely cheaper to pay the fine and carry insurance only when it is needed, dropping it when it is not.

Dung, that's the point. They should change the law so that you can opt out, but then you can never opt back in.

It's a bit late for that now, isn't it? Perhaps if Obama hadn't pushed it through so quickly, we'd have something worth having...

@Bob McBride -- Your employer could kick you to the curb any time s/he wanted to. And you might find yourself understanding why we need a change.

Have you by any chance read Ursula LeGuin's 'Those Who Walk Away from Omelas'? Are you comfortable with paying a few dollars less per month knowing that it means some people have nothing at all?

Randy, again you refuse to answer the question. Have you run any numbers on this? Does it work? Or does it only work if enough "jerk" employers are lured into dumping their health insurance programs?

Why do I have to read a book to get a straight answer on whether or not you expect to benefit at the expense of those who haven't found themselves in the position you've found yourself?

And again, I go back to how pitting one segment of the middle class against another as a result of the intent of this law to encourage employers to be "jerks" is an example of Democrats "standing up for the middle class"?

And just for the record, Randy, I've been self-employed and paid for my own insurance. Fought my way through every claim. Had my rates go up 100% in one year. Worked with a 5K deductible back when those things were unheard of. So it's not like I don't know what it's like. It's also why I don't believe for a moment that what I'd be subjected to if I had to go back to that market because "affordable health care" made it "affordable" for the employer that currently provides my insurance to drop it like a hot potato would be anywhere near "affordable" for me. I also, don't for a moment, believe you'd find yourself in the position of saving enough as a result of the subsidies to be any more able to purchase it than you are now.

That's why I asked if you had any numbers. Not some reading reference designed to reinforce the theory.

@Cowdung, you hit the nail on the head. There are parts I like but those could have been implemented without this draconian measure. There was no reason they couldn't have had the insurance exchanges before. I like that the lifetime limit has been removed. And we still don't know what all is in the legislation and what rules have to be written yet.

How is an individual who can't afford to pay for unaffordable health insurance going to have the money to pay the fine? Are they going to be thrown in prison?

"It's a bit late for that now, isn't it? Perhaps if Obama hadn't pushed it through so quickly, we'd have something worth having..."

@mau -- The bill was pushed through quickly? It was actually debated and amended in the Congress from summer until December.

It seemed to me that they were writing it as they were calling for votes on it. It was pretty clear that nobody knew what the final form of the bill would be until shortly before the vote. It wasn't even complete enough to post online prior to the vote (as Obama's 'transparency' policy required it to be).

@Taoist
Obamacare is already costing more then Obama told us. After he said premiums would come down, they went up. The same thing happened with Medicare, it originally cost $3billion and was projected to cost $12billion by 1990. In 1990 the actual cost was $107billion, if my math serves me that is almost a 10x miscalculation. Because of cost overruns they have had to lower the amount they pay to doctors. Because of this, some doctors have refused medicare patients.

Since Obamacare already has cost overruns and it is not completely in place, what will the overruns be in 30years. How will they correct the overruns? Not pay Doctors? Cut services? Would it not be beneficial for the wealthy person to get out of a system that is falling apart and go to a Doctor willing to put 100% into his job because he will actually get paid cash?

JB, what would the benefit be? You're still not making any sense. The cost of the system at large has no impact on the decision of a rich person to buy or not buy health insurance, especially when they can buy it from WHOMEVER they want. Wouldn't the magic free market provide a health plan that would meet the needs of a wealthy person? A boutique health plan that provides exclusive access to private, happy, well-fed, stress-free doctors is perfectly compatible with the ACA.

Again, you can disagree with the size of the program, but all of this outrage over the mandate is just a nonsensical side show.

Not really a 'nonsensical side show'. If Obamacare is struck down as unconstitutional (if one part of the law is found to be unconstitutional, the whole thing is invalidated), then perhaps we can craft a more reasonable approach to getting coverage for the people who cannot afford insurance--like fixing the Medicaid program that is supposed to provide that coverage...

Dung, you don't seem to understand how the Judiciary works. That being said, the fact remains that this was originally a conservative idea (including the mandate), and was implemented in one state by a Republican governor. The fact that it's now decried as "socialism," plus the fact that Romney couldn't be running from his achievement faster, just shows how rapidly the republicans have become a frothy-mouthed joke. But hey, if it results in us winding up with a single payer system, then I'd be fine with seeing the mandate struck down and the law abandoned.

@Taoist
You are assuming the private health insurance still exists. The way that Obamacare is structured makes the fines on businesses for not offering health insurance less then current premiums. If we have a mass amount of businesses unloading their employees, those employees will have two options 1) Expensive private health care concerned about not losing money 2) Cheap government health care that has no loss restrictions (ie unlimited overspending potential). Which would you choice? Like everyone, you will go with the cheaper version. Without a pool of insurers, private insurance companies will be phased out. Therefore, leaving either a cash system or Obamacare. As I pointed with the failing of Medicare, Obamacare will suffer the same fate. Hence, the rich person will have the option of paying for all medicine themselves and getting better service because Doctors are already saying that Obamacare will be worse for them. While the rest of us unable to pay for all medicine ourselves will be stuck on a failing system. Just like the socialist 2 teir system in Europe.

Taoist:

If you feel that I don't understand how the judiciary works, please explain.

There is an issue of 'severability' that they are supposed to be arguing today. That will decide if the rest of the law can stand if one part is invalidated...

@JB,

Well, your meetings with your company's benefits provider must be different from mine with mine. Last year, when we discussed the expected effect of the 2014 changes on the insurance market, they were of the opinion that small employer plans would start to go away, but large employers would continue to provide health plans.

Why? Because the fines on large employers are greater than the fines on small employers, and if a large employer has a choice between paying a fine to the government for no benefit, or paying employee benefits with that money, then it makes more sense for them to offer a health plan. Why? Because it's part of a competitive benefits package. Salary + benefits > Salary - cost of fines. It's pretty simple; anyone who's worked in management or HR can understand it.

What the ACA will do is expand the private insurance market, since more people will be armed with vouchers and shopping for their own insurance. And to your point about competing with a cheaper product from the government - well, I sincerely doubt that the government products will offer much variety, and the vouchers will be able to be spent on private insurance.

Incidentally, as much as you disparage Medicare, it's a widely loved program, and isn't going anywhere. If you think a majority of people will accept Medicare cuts before progressive tax increases, then you aren't actually thinking.

@Taoist
Please define big and small. The majority of employers in the US are not very big.

Also, the fact that the Obama Administration handed out like 2000 waivers to businesses hoping to not be included in Obamacare immediately goes against your assumption that this will be a good thing.

It's an absolutely ridiculous idea and works counter to the concept of making healthcare more affordable. I thought all you Dems were out to help the middle class? Who do you think is going to be hit the hardest when employers of any size are encouraged to no longer provide insurance and more folks are out fending for themselves?

This is precisely what happens every time we do the government "Design by Committee" dance in an attempt to fix something.

@ JB - Do your own homework. I've done my research on the law, so I could make a good decision for my business.

@ Bob - Small employers are currently in an ethical dilemma. Provide health care or not? If you do, you're opening the door to a world of headaches, and the real possibility of lawsuits as you get up the learning curve. If not, you're throwing your employees into a situation where they need to find and buy their own health insurance, and they're probably not making enough money for that.

I thought you right-wingers were supposed to be pro-business? Who do you think is hurt more by the current system - large employers who can staff an entire HR department, self-fund and take advantage of operational efficiencies, or small employers who have none of those advantages? The one NFIB meeting I went to was a joke - all of the members wanted something done about health care, but that fell on deaf ears.

Tao, so the solution to that ethical dilemma is a system that encourages them to do the latter. Brilliant. Those who don't offer insurance now aren't going to start doing so if the alternative is a tax fine that's less than the cost associated with offering it. Those who do are going to continue to do so for the same reason.

Again, where's the increase in "affordability" there?

@Bob McBride -- At least the fine helps the uninsured employees afford private coverage of their own. Unlike the previous system, where no one could afford private health insurance for a family on $8 per hour.

We really need to scrap the employer-based health insurance system, especially when employers don't really have to provide it. You'd think this would be such a monkey off the backs of business that the private sector would jump at it.

Randy, how does the fine help people afford insurance on their own, if the net effect is that they're laying out more money than they were in the past via a company plan (assuming they can afford to do so)?

@Bob McBride -- The fines help pay for the subsidies to lower income workers. If their employers want to be jerks and not provide the coverage (which they could use as a legitimate business deduction) then so be it. It helps the ones whose employers declined to provide coverage at all.

Without the business deductions for insurance, those companies will pay higher income tax, which in turn pays for the subsidies to the workers.

@ Bob: You should also do your homework. Your questions amount to "I don't understand the law, so I'm afraid of it."

Tao, I'm asking a question. Do you have an answer?

So what you're saying, Randy, is that the employee whose employer is a "jerk", as you call it, for taking the government incentive not to provide insurance (i.e., going with the penalty) ends up paying more for their health insurance (assuming they can afford it) to make it easier (supposedly) for those who currently don't have insurance to afford insurance (again, assuming it actually does so).

Are there any hard figures out there to support this? I know what my employer based insurance is costing me a month right now.

In other words, Randy, I'd like to figure out just how much more I'm going to have to pay out of my pocket so that you can "afford" health insurance.

Nothing, McBride. I pay more out of pocket so that you lucky folks with employer-provided health insurance get the same hospital room I would pay full price for. Until I run out of money, and then it's Medicaid for me. I also pay extra for whatever service the business that employs you provides.

I really feel for you, having to pay that employee contribution for pool insurance. It must be awful.

Randy? You know what I meant. Don't get all huffy. Assuming the "jerk" (again, your term, not mine - I don't think anyone would consider them jerks) employer who provides my health insurance bites at the hotdog dangled in front of their face as a result of "affordable health care", how much additional can I expect to fork over on the open market so that you can avail yourself of this new, "affordable" healthcare.

Don't tell me you're buying this scheme without having run the numbers?

And what happens if there aren't enough "jerk" employers out there to fund the subsidy for guys like you? I mean, that is a possibility, isn't it?

Or does this whole shell game hang on the assumption that employers, by nature, are jerks? And that folks who get kicked to the curb as a result of it are going to direct their anger at them, rather than a system that set the process in motion.

Completely off point here, but the Acuity building was a work of art before they decided to super size it.

If you really want to see your insurance premiums at work, check out the most recent American Family Insurance building just NW of Madison proper. All that's missing are the munchkins. Insurance, in all its forms, affords the creation of impressive monuments to the art of actuary,