JMS

What you are describing is a byproduct of US laws designed to tie insurance to employers. Designed to favor larger companies who can commit a full time human resource person or two to interface with insurance companies. You see if you are IBM or the federal government and one of their employees were getting the shaft like you are, the HR person would call up the insurance comany and tell them to do a better job or risk loosing the account entirely... And the insurance company would do a better job too because if they didn't their profits would be hit.. You don't have that option so basically you get what they will give you or you will do without and they are fine with that. Ultimately what it means is you don't have the option to really get insurance, because what is being offered to you would not help you if you actually needed it. It is why medical expenses are the #1 cause cited in personal bankrupcies, including for people who have "insurance". Because the "insurance" is fundimentally broken. Frankly what you are describing is the fact that insurance offered at an affordable rate to individuals ($400 / month) sucks. It doesn't cover much, and what it does cover it doesn't pay much. And yes, many informed people left with the decision to buy terrible insurance which covers little or nothing, opt for no insurance. This is part of what Obamacare is designed to address... (1) There are new minimums which insurance policies must cover.. so no more of that covering 6k on a 17k bill. (2) There are no preexisting conditions anymore so gone are insurance companies ability to charge folkls who use their insurance more than healthy folks who have not yet begun to use their insurance. (3) There are caps in overhead costs... so the profit incentive for insurance companies to screw you are gone. 80% of all their revenue must go towards claims. so now profits, salaries, advertising, etc all have to come out of overhead costs and can not amount to more than 20% of total revenue... (4) There are also new guidelines in how to list benifits so it will be easier to compare costs from one insurer to another. Also each state is required to stand up a web portal to break down comparisons for consumers. (5) The little guy buying insurance for his family has had the ground levelled significantly so his rates cant be raised, his policy can't be canceled, and his insurance has to meet certain standards. So the affordable care act is designed to address some of the problems people like yourelf who were non standard 30-40 years ago, but who really have become the norm for many American healthcare consumers today. Insurance will become more effective, but the trade off is you will have to own insurance.

If at this late date you think Obama is a liberal much less a socialist, you really aren't subject to reality and thus should not effect the debate at all. You are going to twitch when they poke the vodoo doll and vote GOP and go back to your dark damp hole in the ground and lement some makebelieve occurance... The dirty little secret nobody is taliking about is liberals in the democratic party are pretty unhappy with Obama. He's basically a competent Bush. Don't get me wrong that's better than the incompetent Bush, But it still makes him pragmatic and right leaning guy as head of a centrist left leaning party. The flip side to this is Mitt Romney who first ran for Senator in Ma to the left of Ted Kennedy, and was a pro choice, pro gay rights governor of one of the most liberal states (common wealth) in the uniion. A left of center moderate guy at the head of the right wing party. It seems to me if you voted on these guys records, Mitt makes a stronger Democratic case and Obama makes a better Republican case.... Which is why I say Americans today don't vote based upon the candidates. This election cycle for most Americans is purely driven by their distrust and loathing for the other party.

Also if we follow one of the european models we save about 50% of the per capita costs on healthcare, while covering every american, and doctors will make house calls again!!

Yeah I don't know what McCain is thinking. Healthcare is one of the most heavily regulated / controled segement of the economy and has been since 1940's. Every aspect of the system requires certifications, liscenses, and government oversite..... The government even interfears with competition in our healthcare system via the McCarran-Ferguson Act fo 1945. fundimentally what makes obama care pragmatic and conservative is it is a reform of the existing system, not blowing up the existing system and creating something new.

I think anytime the court overturns decades of precident like it did on campagn donations and freedom of speech, the activist label applies... whether they are always activitst or not. There is no doubt this court is changing things (activist) the only question is whether you think that's for the better or not.

I agree too, this was incredible painful for the administration and the country. This is with Obama being a pragmatist, proposing one of the plans originally and recently championed by some in the GOP. One wonders if Obama had actually attempted substantial reform what would have happenned? Likewise Obama here got Hospital companies, and drug companies on board in his favor ahead of time agreeing to a bill. The one oponent to this package was only the insurance companies. It's amaizing the fight they were able to mount on such a modest proposal. ---------- Post added June-28th-2012 at 12:41 PM ---------- Why is that quote so bad? It's modest, but it is something.. Pre-existing conditions go away... young people can stay on their familly plans longer, profits for insurance companies are capped at 25%, minimal services are established on policies, and a sort of competition is established..... I think all of that is a good thing for the consumer... Not as good as it could be, but better.

Yeah Go figure? Now Insurance is affordable tor people who actually need it. What a revolutionary idea.

Tax, acording to the supreme court.. although Obama has a quote saying it's not a tax, didn't catch when he said that.

Expansion? I don't understand that term' date=' hasn't the commerse clause been used broadly since 1937 to justify everything from regulating safety rules in the work place, to civil rights, to parts of the New Deal. Conservative position isn't to tread water and leave its interpretation wide open, it's to have it narrowly reinterpreted in order to only apply to good which cross state boundries like it used to be interpreted prior to 1937 and FDR's threat to pack the court. So the status quoe is exactly what conservatives find objectionable. ( That's a question ). Yeah that's how I interpret it too. does that conflict with what you read in this decision? which I refferenced below. Is there a conflict here to your mind with Gonzoles which says congress can regulate people not directly involved in commerse.? So I guess that is what I don't understand, not having read the decision yet. The Executive's arguement was if you don't have insurance you are still in the healthcare market because if you get sick or injured you will seek payment, thus they can regulate you ( mandate you get insurance). The opposing position was if you don't have insurance you aren't in the market and congress can't touch you under the commerse clause. So given what you said above, it sounds like the court agreed with the Executive that somebody without insurance was in the market ( ie Gonzolez?) while reaffirming the opositions point of view that if you truely weren't in the market congress can't touch you under the commerse clause... And upholding Obamacare Did I get that right?

I have not read the current opinions... I was commenting on Prosperity's statement "Kennedy, Alito, Thomas, Scalia agree w/ Roberts that the commerce clause can't compel people into commerce. " Noting that Kennedy and Scalia in 2005 GONZALES V. RAICH did apply the commerse clause on somebody who was in fact not involved in commerse but was growing medical MJ for personal use. This was discussed in the oral arguments. If you have read the current decision could you explain the distinction you are making please.

GOP House leadership is pointing to this decision saying it's now more important than ever to expand the GOP majoirty to repeal Obamacare...

The commerse clause is pretty much wide open and has been since 1937.

Liberals didn't have a dog in this fight. This was a fight between moderates and extremists on the right. The liberals favor a single payer option which would have been the only "reform" left available to us if the court has blasted Obamacare. Liberals are not at all happy with Obamacare, first proposed by the Heritage Foundation, First championed by Nixon (and defeated by liberals), First Implemented into law by Mitt Romney in Ma.. Not at all a victory for liberals.

Which is interesting because in 2005, GONZALES V. RAICH the court found the exact oppisite Scalia wrote in his opinion that a woman growing MJ for personal use was in fact commerse thusly.. Here Kennedy and Scalia voted with the majority to find someone not involved in commerse, could still be regulated under the commerse clause... It will be interesting which case will be precident... I suspect the former because it's backed up by many decisions since the New Deal.

What you are talking about is spin. If Obama wins he should spin it as good for him, If he had lost likewise he would have spun it as good for him; cause the nation needs healthcare reform and Obama's still the only guy with a viable plan. Just like the GOP declaires victory either way... I don't think this ruling will have an effect on the november election. It hurts him as much as it helps him, weather he won or not.. Ultimately and interestingly Mitt has turned a proclivity to flip flopping to his advantage. Now whenever he speaks people think he's just saying what he has to say, and that he "really" believes in their position... As such the election ceases to have anything to do with Romney. The election is entirely shapping up as a mandate in favor or against Obama. Like him or hate him.

It was a majority who decided to uphold 80 years of precident on broadly interpretting the commerse clause. The commerse clause thus interpreted broadly has been used to justify everything from social security, to labor standards, to civil rights. Interpretting it narrowly would have significanly changed the nation.. Coarse this court has shown it's willingness to do that with their recent rulings on money equating to freedom of speech.

That's really how the Skins of the 80's were assembled by Bethard. Yeah that would mean we get a Tim Duncan type player with the #3 overall. Coarse Michael Jordan went #3 in 1984, he would be good too.

In football I agree wth that philosophy, not in the nba when you are taking 18 yo kids.... remember when we had Juwan Howard, Ben Wallace, Rasheed Wallace, Cheney, on the team ? Coarse we had very little else except depth at F. Think you could throw in Webber in there too. Don't stack up 3-4 deep at a position. first get 5 good starters.. then add depth.

Well no doubt Snyder's model has won in the NBA. Go out and buy the biggest named free agents you can find... I don't think Leonsis is cheap though. Rather I think he wants to build in the draft which is also a proven way to win. The argument can be made we will never land a high priced free agent because we suck, have always sucked, and no body can ever remember a time we didn't suck.. Why would Lebron come here? Not for money... He really could get money anywhere... thus draft is our best option... get competent even good, then try to attract a free agent....

How many front court players can you take on this team. We already know how to develop great teams with 3 power forwards 2 never getting on the floor for us becoming all stars elsewhere.. Gett a shooting guard we need shooting baddly.. If not get drummond because if he hits he's a potential game changer we could ride into the championship... nobody else in this draft available at 3 goes beyond competent long term starter. Draft for need, if you can't do that get an athletic big guy.

like I said, Drummond has the highest upside in the entire draft. If that is guy ernie ultimately wants, it makes sense to trade down because he will likely still be there at 6. You don't have a shot at a championship without taking chances and hitting ocassionally. Drummond would be a huge win if he developed. Much better than MKG/Beal or TRob who are all more sure of being competent professionals. Only you don't win championships with just having a team stocked with competent guys. You need a super star. A super star at center is still the surest way to NBA sucess.

cause Drummond might still be around at 6 and he probable has the highest up side of anybody in this draft... you could also still get a good outside shooter at 11 too.

You need to be in a position to attract a big named free agent. Which let's face it, the Wizards never will be in that position. LA, Boston, Miami... not DC. If we are going to have a contender, we will have to get our stud in the draft. Wall is a support player, everybody else on this team are role players. I'm not seeing that one indespensible guy. Maybe one of the youngsters will grow into that role, more likely not. That's why I advocate for Drummond if he's there. I also advocate for separating out player development from the coaching staff. If we miss on drumond that will be too bad, but if we don't take a shot we will never have a shot at getting a truely dominant inside presence. No such player will ever come here in free agency.

Earnie is saying in the newspaper today that the guy they take won't need to give them serious minutes immediately. That they are going to bring him along slow... Which I took to mean Drummond was the pick... Although the rest of the article was more about Beal and they didn't even mention Drummond. I think if they take a guard or small forward you would expect to get more minutes out of him year 1. Big men are more projects.. Course the Wiz have had a lot of projects and none have really come threw.

Now as we wait the final few hours / days until the Supreme court anounces their finding on Obamacare I thought we could discuss the next steps... If Obamacare wins and is upheald, clearly the GOP will continue to try to kill it... Seems like it will be harder without the "unconstitutional" argument... But I suspect they will continue to try... I think Obama will get a bump in the polls as a reward for a hard fought victory.... I expect that bump to be very short lived however and not a factor in November.. I also expect the Democrats to get on to phase II of healthcare reform and try to work on more savings. If Obamacare looses and is found unconstitutional. The President and congress go back to the drawing board anyway... regardless of who wins the Presidency the country will be bankrupt in a decade if healthcare waste isn't addressed. Both parties know that. If Obamacare / mandate is tossed out; that only leaves a government run system as a viable alternative... Which will be very unpalatable to the Republicans... but before that occurs I look for the republican to cherry pick popular items out of Obamacare and try to pass them piece meal... Figure it won't extend coverage to nearly as many people, or cut costs nearly as much, but we will still get some of Obamacare's core features. If the court just drops the mandate, then that's your basic disaster as they are syaing insurance premiums would jump by 10-30% likely greatly increasing the number of folks without insurance, further increasing the pressure on rising premiums. Anyway, It's like Churchill said... We are not at the end, or even the beginning of the end, but perhaps we are at the end of the beginning.