I must extend my apologies once again. In the fourth paragraph I wrote "The political left's rhetoric has grown to include the financial collapse..." It Should read The political right's rhetoric has grown to include the financial collapse.... Again my apology for lack of editing. I wrote it early and hadn't had my first pot of coffee yet.

So what you are stating is that even if it is the will of the people to repeal Obamacare (vote in a majority of Republicans), the Dems will obstruct it for purely political reasons. I must agree.

Remember, there are already many Dems abandoning the sinking ship. If there is one, and only one thing a politician wants, it is to be reelected. If the Dems in swing States see a tidal wave election in November, they will opt to save their own hides and vote with Republicans.

@Lyle Ruble... I don't know if this is exactly a correction: The Republicans could use the same procedural tactic as the Democrats used to pass the ACA to see to its reversal. The 'Budget Reconciliation Provision/Act' allows 50 Senate votes rather than the filibuster proof 60. So, if Republicans gain the Presidency and retain the House they could accomplish their goal with the same tool that the Democrats used to get ACA passed.

Rather typical. Liberals institute emotion based social reform and then leave it up to others to straighten it out and clean up the mess that is left.

I am also surprised at how many Democrats are ok with the US government being able to levee a tax on things citizens don't do. I am more concerned with the destruction (or as you the liberals call it 'interpretation') of the constitution, then I am about the upholding of Obamacare.

It is a loss for the Constitution - our Constitution.

The ACA could not have been held constitutional under the Commerce Clause, as there was no possible way to define the non-purchase of services as interstate commerce.

No legal precedent exists for holding it constitutional under the Taxation Clause. The non-purchase of services does not qualify as one of the taxations currently permitted under the Constitution, namely direct, excise or income taxation.

Now, through an incoherent decision by Chief Justice Roberts, we have a dangerous legal precedent for using the Taxation Clause to further erode our civil liberties. Such a precedent, handed down by this nation's highest court, will survive any possible repeal by Congress of the ACA.

I too was critical of the right for not having a plan B, but last night Michele Bachmann laid a plan out. I thought, why doesn't the American public know about this? But then I realized that the American public really knows nothing about the ACA.
I think even the President was shocked by the SCOTUS ruling. The true reaction of the left was best stated by Democratic National Committee Executive Director Patrick Gaspard, "It's constitutional. Bitches." In reality the overall reaction to the SCOTUS decision and the reaction to the recall election were in some cases similar, but it is really like comparing Liberace's death to 9/11. As to the rhetoric and the commentators, did you watch MSNBC on election night? Ed was a real piece of work. The CNN cry baby was priceless. Over reaction is not my game, and I still think that some that are celebrating may be in for a rude awakening.

I have a lot of concerns over how this entire process is playing out.

First of all I believe that medical care has reached the point where it should be a basic service provided by the government, just as the government provides for the defense of the nation.

At the time of our country's founding,in the days of bloodletting and leeches as hi tech medicine, our country's founders could not have envisioned what medical care has advanced to, or that it is simply beyond the reach of individual citizens, just as buying an F15 to protect us has to be something the government does.

But one thing that hasn't changed since our country's founding is the role of Special Interests in affecting the decisions made by Congress.

Medicare has a 3% administrative cost (and could be lower if Congress didn't make sweet deals on the side) while the average insurance company or medical provider (hard to tell the difference anymore) the administrative costs are at least 10%.

We have ended up with a program that is unduly complicated --- doesn't save enough --- and only able to pass when it was said not to be a tax.

It is a tax --- walk like a duck yada yada --- but now the question comes down to whether it should be regarded as a "legal" tax --- referencing @Patchreader and Jay above ----

It was the right thing for SCOTUS to do --- but for the wrong reason.

There is little hope that Congress will ever clean this mess up and do the right thing in the right way ...... Sad

What really matters is whether or not this program improves the availability of healthcare for all or just shuffles the deck while creating new classes of winners and losers. From what I'm able to gather, it appears to be more of the latter than the former.

It relies too heavily on the good graces of those very institutions that the left, who for the most part are the authors and supporters of this program, continually point to in all other instances as being untrustworthy and bound and determined to destroy the middle class - namely, large corporations. The best defense offered by those who support it when its suggested that it sets the stage for the elimination of health insurance by employers (the source of health coverage for most in this country) is that, if so, it's the fault of those employers for taking advantage of the incentive provided by this program to do just that.

The hope seems to be that the less desirable aspects of it will force a call for UHC. It may very well do that, however in the process of making that happen we may also very well end up with many more people uninsured, financially strapped due to medical costs and resisting seeking healthcare when necessary.

There are, I feel, false hopes born of the most unfavorable aspects of our current system driving this insistence that we adopt a truly flawed program. I'd like to believe we're not rushing through something that's worse than what it's designed to fix, but I honestly can't.

We are screwed. Obama and his minnions have shredded our constitution!

It's simply a smoke-screened tax increase. Chicago politics 101.
Fortunately, Roberts decision may have enabled the Romney landslide; just like the irresponsible actions of the unioncrat puppets did in Wisconsin. The silent and responsible majority spoke. Let's hope for a repeat on Nov 6.

I don't see how it's anything close to the end of the world, since the law had long since been passed and many had already worked out how to handle its effects. As some of the others have said, this shifts things around a little without actually doing anything to address the excessive rising cost of health care. In theory some of the provisions might at least slow down cost increases if/when they take effect years from now, but still not get to the roots of the problem.

We have a vicious inflationary cycle in health industry whereby each link in the chain can raise its prices every year and always increase profit because the consumer literally can't live without it.

We also have an increasingly unrealistic attitude toward death - to the point that many are willing to sacrifice all the wealth of a community for a chance to extend the life of one dying person, or even an elderly pet. Shame on the industry for offering such terrible "deal with the devil" choices to suffering people in the first place, knowing that even if their loved ones survive it will likely not be for long and they and many others will be ruined financially. Yes, we need to have some compassion for the sick, but we can't survive as a society without enlightened compassion for the other people asked to bear the costs as well. And please don't tell me we can just make rich people pay for all of it - they don't have unlimited money either.

I believe Justice Roberts realized that his seditious activism over Citizens United undermined the integrity of the Supreme Court and destabilized our system of government. If he has a conscience he has realized that and has bucked his puppet masters. Well done, I say, as the vast majority of Americans approve of the main points of the Affordable Care Act (aka "Obamacare," "Obamneycare."). The stats I saw a month ago indicated 55% of Republicans, 80%+ Democrats and independents (once the bill was broken down into its composite parts).

The world has been heading toward an oligarchic plutocracy for centuries. It's not for nothing that greed is considered one of the seven deadly sins.

Its not the end of the world , But Act 10 made the state better and Obamacare makes the country and world MUCH MUCH worse. However, this is not a battle that has ended yet.
Many states now appear to be exploring the opt out option as they recognize the long term costs are unsustainable . The Court ruled they can do this without Obama's imposed penalty of funds lost for medicaid. That was ruled Unconstitutional. Hence, if they opt out as a state. The exchanges are not created and than it be hard to enforce the tax because those payers wont have that option as the law prescribes. This is likely to happen in some states if Obama is re elected.
Hopefully voters will recognize that only one candidate in the upcoming election supports repeal of the law. His history in Massachusetts is irrelevant as he is the only option voters have to stop this DEFICIT exploding bill which actually hurts the entire healthcare system , it's COSTS, innovation , delivery, patience rights and doctors ability to stay in business. Its terrible for healthcare. Its terrible for patients and doctors. It's terrible for tax payers. Its great for freeloaders who will continue to not pay anything and have no incentive to improve they're life on the merit of there own activity . As entitlements pay them not too. If you can get the milk free why buy the cow. TRY AGAIN LYLE TRY AGAIN..........Kool aids on me.

Well, Chief Justice John "Citizens United" Roberts is all about activism, isn't he. I support AHA but believe Roberts should be held to account for his actions since taking the highest judicial office in the land.

The rationale for a lifetime appointment was to prevent political activism.

@Bren
No one says what RomneyCare was unconstitutional . That was an issue of states rights. As to ignorance Bren I think you qualify.
Romney in the white house will work to repeal the bill . He is the only candidate in the race that will do that.To think the Romney Care talking points hurt him in the vote tally is not rational . He is the only hope for conservatives to kill the bill . He has many options as President to effect it dramatically. Anyone that doesn like this bill in a big way will not vote for Obama . I know that and you know that. So the lame talking points have no real meaning other than to fill space. Its pointless in the BIG picture.

@Lyle
I heard on the radio today you are correct that if the state opt out the federal government can set up the state exchanges. However, I was right as the bill is a Monster. The review of that part of the bill shows the democrats set up these exchanges in a way that will cause issues. As if the state set up the exchanges the bill allows for subsidies to buy it . Ironically these exchanges if the Feds set them up do not include the subsidy language. This would take further legistlation and its unlikely anything would be done with a republican congress and Obama as president . It would be a battle to be sure. Just thought Id pass it along as that is what RUSH was stating. This battle will go on and drag out . Most likely way to end it is if one party gets control .If its gridlock this will likely be an issue.