In no way does this leave room for proposition of state sovereignty. Romney is criticized for his implementation of a system of universal healthcare in Massachusetts, while the implementation of such bill upheld the obligation of the government in providing for its citizens' right to life; without a breach of Amendment X and Federalist No. 10. Before this becomes a facade of an idignant, moral debate, let us not forget the intent of the United States as not governing by an imperative of utilitarianism. Utility designates the majority will to be the arbiter of social function; thus overriding the concept of a democratic-republic by allowing designation of an ultimate, transcendental morality prevalent in the minds of the majority. Allow for preservation of "beloved" democracy within the Republic by recognizing federalism, not burning the Constitution with the pseudonym of "Moral Martyr." Look to your state government to implement an efficient system with provisions of universal health care to uphold the obligation to the right to life, as it is the state's highest obligation to closely adhere to the concerns of its residents, as federalism dictates. Not a mandate or tax of the USFG. Introspection is very beneficial in recognizing the analogy between "How dare Democrats throw morality away with abortion," and, "How dare Republicans void freedom with opposition to abortion." Connect the stagnant debate to this, and recognize efficient coverage can be provided (Democratically) through the states, as seen with REPUBLICAN Governor Romney in MA. Health care does not necessarily have to be privatized, and the two concepts of publicly-funded health care and privately-funded are not mutually exclusive. Welcome to the Libertarian middle of things.

Now lets discuss your favorite programs, SSI & MedicrE, mtrustees for the programs report that we currently owe $61 Trillion in unfunded liabilities in both of these programs or $528,000 per US Household. ld!! Now, if you take the median income of around $50K for 40 years you'd pay in taxes $380,000 (that includes Q paid portion), now, assuming your married and you take unfunded liabilities + what you paid in and only if were lucky enough to live 15 years past retirement age, that would mean Medi Care would have cost you $22,000 a year!!! So, I'm not buying this notion that Gov stuff is FREE or even remotely affordable while at the same time were running 1.1 Trillion annual budget deficit which doesn't include Medicare and SSI liabilities! Keep in mind, this doesn't include interest you could have earned if it was in an account earning a safe 3% for 40 years and if you were unfortunate and passed away earlier than retirement age you'd have a good nest egg for your family rather than the Gov just keeping what you paid in. Right now, you have an IOU at SSI because they are spending every dime we pay in taxes for the program, don't you find it a bit ironic that we are on the hook for the IOU (which Dems glowing refer to as a Guarantee), its like saying, hey, don't worry, we'll just increase your taxes, make you wait to retire, etc.. to cover that guarantee! Don't forget, SSI tax was 2% at beginning and retirement age was 52. Now taxes are 12.3% and retirement in late 60s , maybe 72 soon. SSI / Medicare programs at best are very expensive and at worst a Ponzi scheme if you die before retirement age, if you think that's extreme, consider that Medicare would cost $98,000 a year if you die 5 years after retirement age!!!!

For those who want a Public option, I have a fair deal for you, the Fed Gov can offer a plan themselves but it has to be funded by those who choose it and not by any other means such as debt or funding from the general budget. Then, we have to be allowed to purchase private insurance policies across state lines (just like I can buy a Ford made in Michigan), Get rid of Cadillac plan requirement that requires coverage of everything, young people could afford to buy low cost catastrophic only plans with high deductible which would be affordable and would go a long way to solving pre-existing issue as more people could afford coverage even if unemployed for while, which also means that employer no longer gets deduction but the consumer does so you don't lose plan when you lose a job you just adjust your coverage to more affordable options until you get another job (BTW, cheaper catastrophic only plans would cover all of the expensive conditions). This would allow you to get your health care from Gov if you want and allow me to get mine where I want! That's competition and choice. But no, were going to get one size fits all plan ran by 500 power hungry people in DC. BTW my plan went from $20 co-pay / $250 max annual deductible / $20 every 2 weeks premium to $3,000 deductible / $45 every 2 weeks to be put in health saving account to cover costs under $3,000 in a year thanks to Obamacare! As for Health Care as a right issue, rights are principles or conditions not services or products, speech is a natural right that we have to prevent Gov from restricting, right to bear arms doesn't mean Gov has to buy you arms, rather, they can't restrict your right to keep or bear them (unless you amend the constitution), you have a right to own property but that doesn't mean that Gov must provide you with property, etc.. An affirmative right to a product or service means someone else's rights will have to be violated in order to ensure your rights are met. When it comes to health care you don't have a right to violate someone's private property rights in order to gain your health care, they're body and their labor are their property and the constitution protects them from a Gov which would violate those rights. When you all talk about pre existing conditions, why not do for car insurance & fire insurance what you propose for health insurance? That way, when my house goes up in flames I'll go get a policy then after it's rebuilt I'll cancel the policy. Also, we already have an example of Obamacare to reference if you want to get an idea of what's going to happen nationwide now, it's called Romneycare and guess which state led the nation in increasing health care premium costs? Yep, it was good ole Mass and Romne ycare. Someone mentioned our universal education as an example of what to look forward to with Obamacare, funny, we kept hearing about how we spend waaaayyy more than anyone else on healthcare which meant its broke yet we also spend waaaay more per student on education than other nations and yet our students score well behind other countries in tests yet I do not hear the same desire to fix that system outside of spending more.

President Obama has given us a very good start towards Universal Health Care; changes will be made as necessary, but it will be chanes of more benefit to Americans, not as the repub/tparty wishes - which is to severely curtail or destroy our health care. I keep wondering, how much money is enough for a repub/tparty? With the repub/tparty talk of God and Jesus, all the Christianity coming out of their mouths, when does that kick in? How many lies will the repubtparty spread, how many avenues of hate will they create and nourish? Never has there been such a web of deceit, except in Germany - the Third Reich of Hitler. Is that where these very wealthy want? A Fourth Reich? OBAMA-BIDEN 2012 and a strong Democratic Congress for good health care

I believe that there is a profound difference between people with Liberal and Conservative convictions. I tend to believe that we humans are born with a tendency to lean one way or the other. Some people are born with greater intensity in political convictions while others inherit a less intensity. There is probably a similar DNA connection to religious beliefs.

When our Republican friends gripe about "Obamacare," it reframes the discussion by categorizing universal health care as a human right, just like universal education. Yes we need to adopt the policies of more progressive countries who acknowledged that right decades ago, but until we ban the insurance, pharmaceutical, and medical association lobbies, Medicare for all is tough to attain. I live in a small Southern college town, and my family physician said his income hasn't changed since 1984---insurance companies have bled his practice to this level. He advocates for universal Medicare, and that's in Alabama! Also, two of my siblings were among the 50 million uninsured, and they died too young from preventable causes. My brother suffered the serious complications of diabetes---congestive heart failure, fluid retention, high blood pressure, reduced kidney function. He'd develop painful abscesses and seek help at the ER, only to be turned away. They don't have to treat him unless he has a raging fever.. So he'd return in a few days running a 103 temp and his treatment cost is higher for the hospital, the damage to his body increases. He died in 2008 at age 49 because, by the time he was eligible for treatment, the blister on his foot caused fatal complications. My sister died in November 2011 from two separate types of metastatic cancers; she was 66. Every day I appreciate the excellent insurance my husband's employer provides (he's one of those "bloodsuckers" ---a state-employed teacher) and am able to have whatever exams, treatments and medications necessary for my collection of auto-immune diseases. It's no stretch to ask, Why doesn't everybody?

This is a complicated issue. I think some of the best results have been achieved by accountable care medical associations of doctors and hospitals, such as those in Grand Junction, CO, and at the Mayo Clinic. These are organizations that place patient's health needs first, use real research into what is most effective, and employ effective communication techniques between all parts of the medical community. Their costs come out lower and their care comes out better in studies comparing them with other types of medical systems. No - I'm not in the medical field, nor am I associated in any way with the two medical systems I mentioned before. I would suggest that anyone interested read "The Cost Conundrum" by Atul Gwande in the June 1, 2009 issue of the New Yorker for more information.

Lawyers are required to donate time to represent those who can't afford representation...why not doctors and nurses also? It could relieve much of the cost...

At least add the "Public Option," otherwise it continues to boost insurance companies outrageous profits on illness.

The Healthcare law does not go far enough. We need single-payor Healthcare, Medicare for all. If Taiwan can do it, then we ought to be so able.

Donald Berwick, who until December 2011 served as administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, where he helped implement early provisions of the Affordable Care Act. "The implications of the law going away are dire for millions of Americans." Given all the provisions already in place, any changes spurred by the court would also be an administrative nightmare. "It would be logistically very, very difficult," Berwick adds.

There are parts of PPACA that definitely help several groups in the US: seniors, young people up to age 26, no discrimination for children up to 19 who have pre-existing conditions, small business credits, funding for medical homes(community clinics), requiring culturally and linguistically appropriate care, and many more incremental improvements. The main flaw is keeping the insurance swimming in millions of dollars and charging those with pre-existing conditions ridiculous premiums until 2014 when they can't discriminate. We need Single Payer, Medicare for All and get rid of the profit out of health care which no other country has. When folks say we have the best health care system they aren't aware that there are thousands of medical errors in our country and thousands who die due to no insurance or denial by the insurance countries. There are pockets of good care but they are only available for those who have health coverage, either through an employer or are wealthy. There are 50+ million uninsured. Are we going to turn our backs on them and let them die? No other country treats their residents like this. It's appalling and the Republicans just don't care. They have never come up with solutions for the health care crisis. They are self-centered and cruel.

It has also been opposed in several States by other judges. BTW, what ever happened to Republicans being opposed to judicial activists?