The Gallup poll linked above show the public position is that 52% say at least part of the ACA should be repealed. I'd say the Republicans seem on target.

In my opinion, RobDon, that number will go down when the public becomes more educated about what exactly is in the ACA. The individual provisions seem to be popular.

The question then becomes whether --if public opinion changes in favor of the ACA-- the Republican "target" will change to match the will of the people. Past experience indicates that they don't always do so.

Exactly.

How much more education do we need? I agree several provisions are very popular and should remain...and will. It is not that it is all bad, it is just many feel it is too intrusive and too much government involved...right or wrong.

But, I do see your point.

We are now approaching the 31st year of the Loving decision and views on interracial marriage have improved. In 1991 a Gallop Poll found that, for the first time, more people in the United States approved of interracial marriages (48%) then* disapproved (42%).

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/04needs/s98alouis.htm

Point being SCOTUS ruling Loving v. Virginia was inconsistent with public support. Seems more people got past their aversion to interracial marriage after the court ruled.

I think the American People would do well to consider Constitution and whether or not this tax/penalty/assessment is any different from having a road or a school built if you didn't vote for it but neighbors did. You still have to pay the tax or you could just move.

The alternative is to keep paying insurance companies or doctor office/hospital higher more to cover the uninsured. Unless you want to say there is no moral obligation to treat injuries/disease.

*when did than become then? - I know nit picking is not usually my thing, but… I guess today it is

Why is everyone here so angry and have to resort to insults and name calling? Maybe it's the heat.

Ugh. Don't listen to that jerk, RobDon, your views are well expressed and welcome here. What's not welcome is jerks calling names like that. This blog is usually very friendly. Please disregard the troll and comment freely. :)

I agree that RobDon was being fair and polite with his discourse. The name calling is juvenile and completely out of place. But I do have a question for him. Why are you and so many on the right so opposed to the mandate? Should adequate, affordable healthcare only be available to those that can afford it? Experience tells us that too many will avoid responsibility if not pressured to do so. Do you think the "free riders" should be allowed to avoid responsibility under the guise of individual freedom?

RobDon,

I challenge your analysis of the poll number. A lot of us didn't like Obamacare because we didn't think it went far enough (we preferred a public option or universal healthcare) but unfortunately we are lumped in with the Republicans whose position we totally reject. The pollsters aren't asking the right questions and therefore are getting a spurious result.

I'm sure he knows that, but being what he is, will weasel around the issue.

Speaking for myself, I opposed the mandate because of the justification given for it. The rationale was, under the Commerce Clause, the govt could force people to purchase anything the govt deemed necessary. The Court(Roberts) held that went beyond the powers of Congress, and called it a tax. So, if you don't like it, vote the bums out.

While the goal of giving insurance to all is admirable, my concern throughout has been the method of paying. The CBO numbers are misleading since they only look at a 10 year period. Initially, the numbers looked good, but as the years advance, they look worse. It seems to me if the goal is desirable, then everyone should pay for it without government subsidy. The way to do this is through a universal sales tax

The biggest problem with the ACA is that misinformation abounds, and it's not the easiest thing in the world to find real facts, not just opinion. The Democrats have done an extremely poor job of educating the public on just what's in the bill, what it does and doesn't do. The media has allowed hype, hysteria and outright lies to continue unchallenged, and then everyone wonders why the ACA is so little understood.

Here's a link to the Kaiser Family Foundation report on the ACA (note they've always called the penalty a tax):

http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8061.pdf

Here's an overview from the Physicians Alliance:

http://tinyurl.com/79qr8uj

And there's always the government link, which is supposed to answer questions, etc.:

www.healthcare.gov

I still don't have all my questions answered, but I know a whole lot more than before I stumbled across these websites.

I agree with Tom for the most part. The ideal for me would be excise tax, whatever tax, Medicare for all, perhaps just expand Medicare tax.

The mandate had me squeamish for a long time until I realized it was not going to be universal health care and the penalty would likely be just a tax write off that someone could not take of they file taxes above a certain income.

They want to argue the law, let them argue it as actual agenda, not some invisible theory or idea that their will be better.

I still say I want universal health care, then it might be called government run (private entities still used, not ALL federal employees).

I accept what we have as an American that lives with what we have, which isn't all bad, unless you have nothing, or next to nothing. It seems they want more people in that category, so I will never vote Republican because they have no problem with the "have not/ have little", having less so the "have lots and have mores" have even more. We in America used to push for people having more.

Haddie,

I went to all your websites, but since you obviously understand this better than I do, maybe you can explain some things to me. 1) I have a pre existing condition and make over 400% of the Federal Poverty Level. I've gone to all the websites, and it appears they will only give me quotes ONLY if I have been without insurance for a year - that ain't going to happen! So how do I find out how much my insurance will cost if I have to pay for it myself?

2) My son make about 400% of the poverty level and he has a wife and three children. His out of pocket expenses are now $5800 a year for insurance and deductible. His company (a small employer) has already stated that they are going to drop insurance coverage so he has to go out on the open market and buy it. From what I can figure, he is now going to have to pay $8200 out of pocket expenses.

So how is this better???? What am I missing????

But I do have a question for him. Why are you and so many on the right so opposed to the mandate?

dbtexas, thanks for the kind words and questions, too. I don't believe only those who can afford it should get healthcare, nor do I think the government can run healthcare. America pioneers so much in healthcare because of the free market (IMHO), so there is some advantages to all that money buys lots of advancements.

That said, the answer doesn't have to be so extreme. No time here to outline all but I don't think the government should be able to force citizens to buy a product. What will it be tomorrow? If 60% think the other 40% need something and voted for that, would it be okay no matter what it was?

In the free loader category you have those who can't afford it and those who choose to take a gamble and spend money on other things. Agreed?

I challenge your analysis of the poll number.

The question in the link above was if part or all of Obamacare should be repealed. I would think the category you are talking about would not want to repeal but expand. I have seen the question(s) you are referring to though.

As far as I know prices have not been decided and when they are it will be

the insurance companies who do it ; private insurance will be the same as it is now; it should go down with time. You can't find an answer to your questions because they won't be available until the exchanges are set up. If you have company insurance nothing should change. Your sons company maybe able to get a money incentive from the government if they keep insurance

Pantleg,

I think you are right - I am trying to use "interim" rates from the www.healthcare.gov website to try and figure this out but I can't seem to find better information to help me understand this. One website mentioned a tax credit equal to the amount my son would pay to help him find insurance which would make the cost of his insurance zero, but I'm not sure if that is right either!!

If anyone has better websites, I would sure love to see them!!

Looks like I am going to have to print out the law and figure it out for myself!!! Would be nice if someone had a "ACA for dummies" though!!!

From what I understand subsidies from the government don't kick in until you pay 8% of gross income. In other words if you make 40k a year the government doesn't start helping till you've reached about 3k. Then it gradually assists.

I've been asking this very same simple question from the begining and can't seem to get a straight answer. "Exactly what will this cost and what services can I expect for my money?"

To believe a couple would be charged between 6-10k a year for health insurance from private corporations is not unreasonable and the services provided will not be the same as available today. They are talking rationing and cuts in benefits for the same money.

We are now all in this together!

Thanks - woohoo!!!!!!!!!!!!

The other side of this we don't get is if we think the government is going to give us money to help pay our monthly health insurance premiums, not so true. We will be expected to pay the full amount throughout the year and the tax money we pay at the end of the year (which supposedly is not enough as in fact with deficit spending, national debt and cry from congress to raise taxes on certain citizens) will be reduced.

In other words they will be using our tax money to pay for our health insurance. What will happen to the deficit and debt?

Apply simple math and you will get that real answer.

I believe the concept is long term and no, all the information is not available yet because the antics in Congress demanded the long timeline. Plus people keep talking about repealing it, so they sit on hands until election.

The higher premiums will be offset on income tax deductions. I know I have (luckily) never been able to use the medical deduction because I was in the lower premium and fairly healthy (thank God and the union).

The premium costs should go down, first by refunds due to the regulation of 80% must be health CARE spending. Up to then, the Execs pocketed their profit. This is commerce regulating. There are people out there (my sister in law) who has Cobra (we pay it now) which will expire. It's hard to say lucky with that amount, but she needs medical insurance BIG time. Breast cancer. She is still unemployed (can't work due to her health-frequent infection/hospitalization) and her Cobra will expire right about the time of implementation of preexisting conditions cannot be excluded. All I can hope for is she heals, gets a job and this preexisting condition does not keep her from being insured.

Meaning- If the Republicans do manage to repeal this, she is screwed.

So, yeah... death panels are in the insurance companies as things are.

The slow movement of government, we should all agree that things do not always happen over night, due to checks and balances and that is mostly a good thing. Change is scary, but it seems Mass. loves their plan.

The cost of health care itself will go down, including Medicare patients being used for throttling profit (Scooters, etc). My Mom is on Medicare and supplemental, they always make sure to call her to come in for some test or another. I don't say not to go to get tests, but doctors have said some are unnecessary.

The debt is going to take a very long time, even though it was fairly quickly amassed. Beginning with Bush tax cuts and current war and economic recovery spending is needed.

I do not think the law is perfect (I am for universal), but I do think it will help cut costs while adding more paid insured to pay into this system.

On another note, having more employed people in this country should help with revenue, then add the other taxation issues and then spending cuts could be cut overseas, I heard contractors are still in Iraq.

With Romney, he sounded eager to do the bidding of neocon hawks, so what happens back here? I am (along with most people) mostly concerned with our condition here in the U.S. I do not see Romney doing anything other than more war spending and more job cutting, because his specialty is making money from cutting American jobs.

You are correct, the 6% did know or refused to answer (I think that's what the "ref." abbreviation stands for). What's interesting is that less than 60% even knew about the Supreme Court decision at the time of the survey. Seems like that would make the response of the audience suspect at best.

"What's interesting is that less than 60% even knew about the Supreme Court decision at the time of the survey." And therein lies the problem. Thank you!

@RobDon (#2.1)

What's interesting is that less than 60% even knew about the Supreme Court decision at the time of the survey. Seems like that would make the response of the audience suspect at best.

I think you misread the charts. The first (from the chartpack) presents that "six in ten" (more accurately, 59%) knew the Supreme Court upheld the law.

Jupiter...I take from that chart 59% knew of the ruling and that the ruling upheld ACA. 41% did not know of the ruling, 18% thought they had not ruled, 17% didn't know if the court had ruled or not, and 6% knew the court had ruled but didn't know how.

Given that the rest of the questions in a large part was about the ACA and the courts ruling, given that 41% had incorrect information about the ruling, I would think that would influence in a negative (unreliable) way their opinions.

Don't think I misread the charts...maybe miss communicated my thoughts.

Actually, the trend has been slightly in the other direction but pretty flat with a few hiccups. Source.

http://bobcesca.com/blog-archives/2012/07/the-supreme-court-bump.html

The new Reuters/Ipsos poll shows a five percent bump in support for the ACA following the Supreme Court decision last week.

The number of registered voters who support the law rose from 43 percent before the decision to 48 percent afterward. Opposition went down to 52 percent from 57 percent.

The observation by Ray was that people would support the law as they become more familiar with it. Over time that has not been the case.

You introduce a new point which is people will support it more now that the Supreme Court has ruled. This might very well be. I think it is too early to tell yet.

The public should have known about it long before this.

Or the information the public was given should have been more honest.

But as per usual, the public got scare tactics of death panels/job killer/bureaucrats between you and your doctor/ups premiums, etc etc etc, none of which have been verified as having any accuracy.

also see 1.6

the people are usually responsive to leadership, when the SCOTUS rules or President supports gay marriage it gives legitimacy.

Just as Chris Christie gave legitimacy to children to call people names. Church leaders perpetuate bad treatment of LGBTQ or other churches that show compassion and happily support LGBTQ.

Health Insurance to cover preexisting conditions and out caps on health care, or the same ones that covers preexisting conditions and remove caps.

RobDon, the problem with the idea you're positing ... that, people have become more familiar with "the law" and yet they still don't like it ... tells me that you've got ahold of the wrong end of the stick.

While you are technically correct, people have not yet embraced "the law" ... it's because all they know of "the law" is that it's called Obamacare and therefore, as decreed by the GOP and Fox News, must be "bad". The actual provisions in "the law" they like just fine. "Obamacare" not so much. Just wait until they find out that the provisions they like and the dreaded Obamacare are one-in-the-same! Egads!

You are (generally) more rational than most conservatives here so I'm not trying to slam you. Just trying to point out that the reaction on the right is amusing to us on the left in part because if it had gone the other way ... well ...

Except that, @RobDon, the chartpack that you used as sources states that confusion about the law accurately described 53% of repondents (March 18, 2011) which was only two points lower than tha 55% that said confusion was an accurate description of their understanding in April 2010. Essentially, at that point, people did not understand the ACA any more than they did right after it became law.

Does anyone think that its possible that as the public becomes more familiar with the law that they are becoming more comfortable with it?

Of course it's possible. In fact, it's normal for people to first be wary of new things and then become more relaxed and accepting when the new thing fails to jump up and bite their nose off. That's how most people are.

I think part of the problem is humans in general are leery of change to begin with. People were against Medicare when it was proposed, people were against giving education grants to Verterans. Computerization was rebuked untill it was tried. Representatives from Mass. have admitted the health care law introduced by Romney (the same law the Affordable Care Act was based on, including the mandate) has worked in Mass. to reduce the cost of health care. Why can't people just give it a chance to work? All the benefits don't even go into effect until 2014 & 2015. After 3 or 4 years, if there are areas that don't work for the benefit of the people the law can be amended in those areas down the road. It's better than having insurance companies dictate who qualifies for health insurance. I worked for a state agency. Seeing what was deducted from my paycheck and what my employer contributed to the health insurance was unbelievable. And that was at a group rate.

80sGirl, I recognize rational and well meaning responses and your comments always seem to fall in that category. Take me to task, I don't mind at all. It's just the name calling and comments that avoid making any point other than their disagreement that puzzle me.

As to your point, yes, our understanding and opinions are shaped in part by the sources of our information. Applicable to both sides. I agree.

80sGirl (#3.6) -

While you are technically correct, people have not yet embraced "the law" ... it's because all they know of "the law" is that it's called Obamacare and therefore, as decreed by the GOP and Fox News, must be "bad". The actual provisions in "the law" they like just fine. "Obamacare" not so much. Just wait until they find out that the provisions they like and the dreaded Obamacare are one-in-the-same! Egads!

Exactly. The Democrats need to get out there and employ some marketing techniques -- catchy phrases, short descriptions, maybe even a jingle that people will hum to remember the ACA means everybody wins. Advertise it like any other commercial product. The GOP has garnered all sorts of support for its agenda by simply branding the ACA as "Obamacare". That one word, spoken snidely, has done more to damage the people's acceptance of the ACA than anything else.

The GOP's agenda may be morally questionable, but its bullying marketing/propaganda technique is very effective. Hope the Obama administration and DNC learn to compete in this marketing race. The new Obama ads highlighting Romney's Bain activity are spot on, and are a good start. But the President/administration needs to do some marketing of the ACA, quickly.

Why can people like you, RobDon, other than Willful misunderstanding keep misconstruing and mischaracterizing the facts. The SCOTUS did NOT say theat the ACA was a Tax, nor did they say the Mandate portion was a tax. What they said was that the PENALTY for noncompliance with the mandate--a fine only effective for the small number of people who even though they could afford insurance, refuse to buy it--was constitutional to levy under the taxation powers of the Congress. So if you insist there's a tax involved, it's ONLY a tax that freeloaders CHOOSE to pay! People too poor to buy insurance will receive assistance (not a tax!), People who have health insurance will not be charged any penalties (not a tax!). People who sign up for lower cost government ordained pools of health insurance (private insurance companies, not govt.) will not be penalized (not a tax!) leaving only the people who think the emergency rooms are their primary care providers yet refuse to pay for insurance will be fined. If you choose to call that a tax, then so be it, but the ACA and the Mandate are PLANS not taxes! Dork! Get it straight before you gumflap and spread bull hockey!

And the ACA still stands, Rob. It really sucks to be you, with your sour grapes and all.

Definition of a Republican Troll: continuing to make multiple posts throughout a thread, irregardless of replies. Sort of the way you wothless scum run your politics.

I'm not the one name calling and sounding pissed. In fact, other than being hot, I feel just fine.

I didn't say anything about who or how many would have to pay the tax. I would note that some people self-insure (or save for healthcare) because they have the means to do so. I would not call them "free loaders." But the point that it is a small percentage is accurate.

I'm not spreading any "bull hockey." Are you saying that the administration has always taken the position that it is NOT a tax? If so, you need to go back and read the argument it gave to the court. It argued BOTH ways and even used the term penalty and tax interchangeably at times.

Previous posting didn't show up. In fact I got an error message. What follows was my attempt to recreate it.

I'm not the one calling names and sounding pissed. In fact, other than being a little hot, I feel just fine.

I'm not spreading "bull hockey." Are you saying that the Administration has not called it a tax? If so, you need to go back and read the Administrations argument before the court. At times they even used the term penalty and tax interchangeably inviting some ribbing from the court.

I have my facts straight. And to the name calling, I can be a little "dorkish" at times. Calm down. Take a few deep breaths. This is just a blog.

The Court did not rule that the mandate is a tax; it ruled that Congress can levy the penalty under its taxing authority, which includes the authority to levy taxes, fees and penalties.

Oh, Rob, every one of your multiple posts show you are really upset about the Supreme Court's ruling.

Sour grapes, Rob. Sour grapes.

Another part of the definition of a right-wing troll is that they whiiiiine when anyone calls them out too bluntly on their trollery.

Yet another example of progressive tolerance of diversity of ideas. Call it a tax, penalty, same thing. In the whole of this, it's a tiny piece of funding. The real issue is the total cost

Spreading malicious misinformation (a specialty of the american right) cannot legitimately be considered a "point of view" or "differing opinion".

You can't spread misinformation when there is no information. For example, where is the savings from Medicare coming from. Can't all be fraud.

I'm not "upset" with the supreme court ruling but I don't agree with the majority conclusion other than the ACA could not be upheld under the commerce clause.

Seems no one wants to acknowledge, though, that the administration's counsel called it a tax in their arguments. So to just readily reject that it is not a tax without acknowledging that the own administration lawyers made the case for it being a tax if the commerce clause was not applicable. Just my opinion, though, that I realize.

US Solicitor General Donald Verrelli, who in arguments today kept calling the mandate's backstop a "tax penalty" (the government's position is that it's a bit of both).

And that is what the ussc agreed with , and ruled in favor of , twisting it into something else is just lame , typical gop re write of history a week later , to 200 years later

@RobDon,

Before I start comparing poll numbers, I look at these statistics.

An estimated 26.2 percent of Americans ages 18 and older — about one in four adults — suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year.

That statistic covers about 50 million US citizens, all of whom purchase products shown in TV advertising.

Somebody has to cater to the crazy people.

I always fact check political coverage to ensure that I'm listening to the right source on every topic.

Sanity is not a prerequisite for voting.

That reasoning lead me to look up the following.

Summary of tax increases:

• Broaden the Medicare tax base for millionaires: $210.2 billion
• Annual fee on health insurance providers: $60 billion
• 40% tax on "Cadillac" insurance over $10,200/$27,500 per year: $32 billion
• Fee on manufacturers and importers of branded drugs: $27 billion
• 2.3% on manufacturers/importers of certain medical devices: $20 billion
• Raise AGI floor to 10% on medical cost tax deduction: $15.2 billion
• Limit flexible spending cafeteria plans to $2,500: $13 billion
• All other revenue sources: $14.9 billion
• Uninsured through 2015: $95, or up to 1% of income
• Uninsured after 2015: $695 or 2.5% of income

The tax for uninsured US citizens will provide funding for physicians and emergency rooms that are going bankrupt in low income communities because the recession has made it impossible for most of their patients to pay for care.

You won’t have to pay the tax if:

• you’re not in the U.S. legally;
• you’re in prison;
• you’re poor (measured two different ways);
• you’re a member of an Indian tribe;
• you’re in a period of being uninsured that’s less than three months long;
• your religion forbids getting health insurance; or
• you get a waiver from HHS.

Are you okay? Because like the Supreme Court you had to do some fancy moves to make that work. (Okay, just kidding...I like civil discouse.)

The Supreme Court was all over the place in this area. It's not a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act because Congress called it a penalty not a tax. It is a tax for constitutionality purposes because it's the only authority in which it is possible.

I'm sure we could play semantics back and forth all day but it was approved constitutional under the power to tax. The old walks like a duck seems to apply.

In the end, even the Administration lawyers called it a tax during arguments.

it's nuanced. Perhaps that is why you don't understand.

I have no doubt that he understands full well, but one of his specialties on this blog is half-bright misrepresentation. He absolutely is a troll, even if some of the more gullible people here can't or won't understand that.

Rob has more staying power than your average tr0ll. I don't like what he brings to the blog, so I ignore him, but I wouldn't call him a tr0ll. A tr0ll says rubbish just to get a reaction, and Rob clearly doesn't get off on the reactions he provokes as a genuine tr0ll would. I suppose that means he really believes what he says, because he's certainly getting no joy out of saying it.

Au contraire, I have no doubt that he gets off on the reactions he provokes. The more blunt reactions give him a flimsy excuse to whiiine about how terribly he is being treated. Those on the right clearly love to blubber about the way they are treated by self-respecting non-conservatives who are fed up with them and their all too numerous transgressions.

Maybe I'm wrong. I haven't bothered looking at what he's written for a while, but I don't think what he does falls into what I think of as tr0ll behavior. I'm sure he has the love of feeling 'persecuted' that all wingers have, but I was talking about something else where tr0lls are concerned.

A genuine tr0ll provokes people just to get a reaction. That's all they're after. They get a kind of malicious joy out of having provoked a reaction, but beyond that they don't much care. Right-wingers need to feel 'persecuted' because that's one of the main ways they get validation. But there's nothing enjoyable about simply feeling picked on.

So, I see a tr0ll as basically being someone stirring up an anthill simply to see the ants scurry, and they find the scurrying amusing in itself. Right-wingers also seek to provoke a response, but instead of doing it out of a sick sense of fun, they use the strength of the reaction to gauge how righteous they are. I'm sure they love feeling righteous, but I don't think they really enjoy the blowback.

to whiiine about how terribly he is being treated...

If I am whining then I need to re-examine my wording. I am genuinely puzzled by name calling and insults here because we really don't know the person on the other end. Just seems like a waste of effort to me.

I'll try to be less whining and more direct and fact based. I appreciate the tolerance and comments back. As I've stated before but not recently, I like to have my thoughts and opinion challenged. It either makes me more confident because I have to examine them more closely, OR it makes me adapt and/or change because they don't hold up to the scrutiny.

Meddling, for the most part, you have it right.

...Monk,

I think your definition of troll is way too narrow. As far as I'm concerned, all the right wingers who show up on non-conservative blogs in order to spread right-wing propaganda are trolls, whether or not they pretend to be nice. Some of the right-wingers pretend to be "nice". That just makes them more phoney than the ones who don't pretend to be nice. I have yet to see one of them that was seriously interested in political/social issue discussion. That's what politics has become in the US. Those on the right have made political discourse essentially impossible.

I say let's yank his access to affordable healthcare and see if he still thinks it's a matter of cost cutting.

Cute, jones...I've been busy and had less time to read, relax, and comment. Adequate medical coverage but may be considered by some (even professionals) as a basket case.

I wish more people would wish to find the facts instead of getting all worked up about evil government.

It was viewed by some as evil when they decided we had to invade Iraq and the National Guard was called to shoot non violent protesters on campus.

It is not evil to work to get uninsured people health insurance. You are right ben, masters of confusion.

Just had a friend sneer about weather/climate change watching Ed. It is often confused that climate is different from weather. I explained: talking about climate, not weather.