"In contrast, the average premium in Massachusetts for those seeking non-group, individual coverage dropped by 40 percent following reform." Where in the world did the writer get this statistic. This is the first I have seen anything near this percentage. When reform went into effect, my premium went up for worst coverage. Blue cross would not continue my old coverage which was much better. Tracy Jan, please cite your source.

This is a timely article but unfortunately a poorly written one. There are many opinions here, but what is important to us, as Americans who will have to live with the consequences of this legislation or it's partial appeal, is the facts, the TRUE facts. Tis lacks about as much substance as a campaign speech. Lots of rhetoric? I was looking forward to a mature, accurate assessment of the historic adjudication upcoming this week in the Supreme Court; instead, we have what amounts to a newspaper intern's first draft in Journalism 101. Medicare prescription savings a result of Obama's mandate? Sorry, that's actually Medicare Part D, put in by the previous administration. Lat's get our act together, Globe. We should expect some accuracy in your publications.

You see, there are The Facts, The Emotions, The Slogans, and The Principles. The Facts say we need universal healthcare. It's a moral question (no one should be unable to attain care for their health), a cost efficiency question (eliminate the waste of healthcare administrative overhead, marketing, advertising, uncovered emergency room visits, etc), and an individual security question (we feel better when we know we can get treatment if we get sick). The Emotions say Don't Force Me To Pay. The Emotions are just as real as The Facts -- you just address them differently. If I pay automatically as part of my general taxes then -- guess what -- I don't FEEL like I'm being forced to pay. (Remember, unlike The Fact that I am paying somehow anyway, The Emotion is that I am not.) The Slogans are things like "Every State Must Have It's Own Solution", "Someone Shouldn't Be Forced To Get Healthcare", etc. The Slogans, however, are not really like The Principles because they are used more as rallying cries. Unlike a Principle the deep and nuanced meaning of a Slogan is not a concern. So, the answer is a deep and nuanced dialog about The Slogan (an exploration of The Principles, if you will-- the kind of discussion Fareed Zakaria hosts on his weekly show and does so well). So, the answer is "blowin' in the wind": it is Single Payer. For the detailed implementation we can look at the systems in Switzerland, Japan, Canada, France, the UK (as Fareed examined this week) and chose the best aspects.

By the way, when I email an article it never arrives. Are others having that problem?

I'll sign up for healthcare with my cold, dead hands.

This is full of deceptive statements: 1. Individual premiums did not go down because of the individual mandate as this biased Globe reporter says but because the individual and small group markets were merged. 2. And the biased Globe reporter completely ignores the fact that drop in individual rates only affected 40,000 (0.5%) out of 6,500,000 of us anyways , and was for only one year. 3. How often is "routinely" in the Methuen hospital ER. The biased Globe reporter doesn't mention that the free care pool -- not the hospital -- pays for this anyway? 4. Do the 12,900 uninsured that came from other states to Massachusetts ERs come to Massachusetts ERs because of RomneyCare as this biased author implies or simply because they live close to them? After all, under Federal laws, they could stiff any ER in the country. 5. Did all 12,900 uninsured out of staters that came to Massachusetts ERs fail to pay their bills 6. Seniors are saving a lot of money on prescription drugs because the Republicans passed (while the Democrats opposed) the Part D prescription drug plan in 2003. Before 2then, seniors had no drug coverage from Medicare. Typical Globe.

@ windseeker Tracy Jan can't give you a source for the claim bout a 40% decrease in individual insurance rates. It's a well documented lie repeated over and over again by the RomneyCare/Obamacare profiteer Jonathan Gruber and spread by left wing media such as the Boston Glove. Gruber failed to read the fine print in an American Healthcare Insurace Plan (AHIP) research study that said 1.) do not compare state results from one year with state results from another year because our methodology does not support such comparisons and 2.) particularly don't look at Massachusetts results for this year (2008) vs. the last similar AHIP report (2006) because Massachusetts merged its small group and individual healthcare insurance markets. Here's what really happened: In 2006-2007, the state allowed 26,000 people (out of 6,500,000 people in Massachusetts) who used to buy insurance individually at special individual rates to buy insurance at small group rates. This lowered this small number of individuals premiums by 20% for that one year (while raising the rates of the small group people, of whom there were about 700,000 covered, by 2%) Since then of course everyone's rates have continued to skyrocket. Among many reasons for your increases is the rating system Massachusetts uses. It allows age rating. So as long as you live another year, your rate goes up double digit even if the base rates are flat.

The fact is that those who choose to gamble by not getting insurance will get their healthcare free while those of us with insurance will pay premiums, copays and deductibles. What can you do about that? These people should be forced to pay the bills if they don't want insurance. There is no good solution to the lack of personal responsibility that is running rampant in society.

Under Obamacare, the scandal riidden IRS will be the agency that collects all of your personal medical data. This law must be repealed and the IRS must not be allowed to be involved.