...

SCOTUS has been and is interpreting law based on things other than the Constitution. I consider that, alone, an act of usurping more power than is proportionally valid.

SQUIRREL! I don't understand the incredulity.

Great, a diversion from the central, albeit wavering, narrative. You try and make a point about SCOTUS that has nothing to do with the context, yet feel obliged to, essentially, claim I am out of order. Should I just leave the thread, then, because you can't admit you were interjecting needlessly?

Those who believe mainstream news is unbiased?

1. Slavery was protected by the Constitution, which is, or was, the law of the land. 2. Yes! Definitely. Sometimes the division will drive people to extremes - which is the exact word being used now to describe this silly government shut down. Whether they upheld the ACA or not is not germane to the point; you are being cute because you know how to push buttons with letters on them on a keyboard.

Is it not his Constitutional duty to abide by the laws of the land? Tell that to the SCOTUS.

Goodness, some of you act like the government has never been shut down before. Didn't the country, at one point, go to war with itself over a law? Didn't the country nearly let all of Europe fall because of a "policy"? Didn't members of organized crime become folk heroes, and didn't average people go to great lengths to break the law, because they didn't agree with it? This is politics and society; it gets dirty sometimes. A lot of you are simply digging in and not willing to budge, ironically like Obama, out of principle rather than reason.

Capping costs is what is happening now! The insurance companies and the feds decide what they are willing to pay and the providers then increase the price to cover the losses and it's an upward spiral. This has been gone over already. The opposite must happen...set up health savings accounts, remove the insurance companies or bind them to open market prices, and allow the open market to set the price. Costs will drop nearly instantly.

Really...so I am the one who is reading it wrong. Good, sure.

This IS the problem. There are people, on this board, let alone in this country, that do not care you don't want this "product". They believe, reducing it to its simplest form, that they know what is better for you than you do. Therefore, you MUST purchase this product because they know better than you. There are also people here who clearly have not paid for their entire health insurance bill, and do not believe the costs associated with that bill. At this point, it's only a matter of time before they're in for a rude awakening, unless, of course, the Republicans prevail.

Pfft, that's hardly a majority of Republicans, let alone a Conservative among them. You're playing fast and loose juxtaposing "Republican" and "Conservative". And, I dare say a few Wiki paragraphs probably aren't the best source for accuracy and context. With Clinton in the White House, don't you think if the idea had any traction, especially among Conservatives (who were pulling the Republican strings in the '90s), don't you think this would have been a done deal long ago? Welfare:inner cities. Case closed. Who decides what is "good"? Is it good this program was essentially rammed through congress in the most un-transparent manner possible? It's immature to believe that all things seemingly good out on the outside/in the short term, are ultimately good at their core/over the long term.

Which is one reason why costs are, what 3x or more what they were projected to be while the democrats were selling the idea to the country? With all due respect, what does this matter? Do you not see that Obama has stated several times he refuses to negotiate? Do you not see, at all, that Obama and the democrats have refused to enact a budget in years, which is his Constitutional prerogative? Do you not see that Obama ignores the Constitution and tries to "rule" through executive privilege? Why are the Republicans "at fault" here, exactly? Why, as a registered Republican, do you not see this from the point of view of those who, ostensibly, share some of your political beliefs and look at the democrats and Obama as part of, if not most of, those who "are to blame"?

Source on this? Because, if Republicans wanted anything like this, they had the opportunity with Clinton in the '90s.

Two reasons: 1. The damage it inflicts between now and whatever time in the future you postulate will be incredibly thorough. 2. Once a program has planted roots, the public would prefer it is "fixed" rather than taken away. This is, among other things, a last push to take it away before it's "too late". Stewart doesn't like what he hears from Sebelius over Obamacare: http://hotair.com/archives/2013/10/08/video-stewart-rips-sebelius-over-obamacare/ I like the second, short clip, which is curiously disabled now, but you can find it. But, the point is, even a self-admitted administration defender is finally getting how this will be bad, bad, bad...

Hire him as an assistant.

She used a car as a weapon...anyone can get a car. They should ban cars.

I think you underestimate the breadth and scope of political dissent (giggle). You need to brush up on it.

Anyone smart enough can manage to learn how to succeed within the margins they have to work within. But, saying a non-for-profit brings in money only paints a small portion of the entire picture. A not-for-profit, by definition, doesn't have to be profitable. But, whatever is being cited to make this claim, is old, now, with Obamacare. This is changing the landscape for everyone, even these "profitable" non-profits.

Or buy beer and liquor and smokes. Damn, I forgot, and FIREWORKS! You can't buy fireworks without an ID.

That's probably not true, or the context is so watered down it probably doesn't mean what you think it does. But... So do oil companies, despite consumer costs skyrocketing. Oh, and the Sabres are profitable, too, despite being a crappy team.

Not to mention the government is not supposed to force you to purchase anything. Or at least that was true when America wasn't Amerika.

It's because "we" "allowed" insurance companies to become the primary payment vehicle for health care. Damn, do none of you know a doctor, or have ever run or know people who run a health care clinic of any kind? Between Medicare, Medicaid, and the insurance model, health care providers were not receiving the appropriate payment for services rendered. Those providers, over time, kept increasing prices to try and balance out payments. So, payments rose to the point where they became outlandishly high relative to what you'd pay in a balanced, non-third-party market. Again, you could negotiate paying your health care costs without involving a third party and actually see the difference in costs.

How do they buy their beer? What would these people do if they won the big lotto drawing? How do they get into the casinos? Jeez, I almost forgot, how do they buy their smokes without ID?

And why is that?

You're supposed to be smarter than to resort to hyperbole like this. I would have thought you can discern the difference between political dissent and base prejudice. So, I can't complain about anti-Christian prejudice? Does that mean I can characterize all Muslims as willing to kill all Christians? Can I characterize all Jews as man-handlers of the economy for their own gain? Can I say all secular humanists are advocates of sex with minors?