kudos vennochi for not looking or seeing right or left but rather straight down the middle. ma

Obama spent the better part of two years trying to sell this snake oil to the American people. They did not bite, and will not bite, no matter how many conference calls or tv commercials there are. The American people know that Obamacare is built on a foundation that could only succeed if the laws of economics were repealed. It is is a simple as that, and the American people are not as stupid as the president would like.

do they even know what's in it, have you read the mammoth bill? "We have to pass it to see what's in it", that's not what the people want to hear.

The mish-mash, the myths and the downright lies, the over the top pronouncements relating to the health care law make it impossible to have a reasonable conversation regarding the legislation. Regretfully the desire by some to merely deny the Pres. any kind of success in this area made it almost impossible to really discuss the issue. The President's horrific job of selling this program only made matters worse. If one looks at the program the health insurance industry wins out. Whether the court let's it stand or strikes it down the health insurance industry will win. A good part of the public realizes health care needs reform yet has this knee jerk response to "socialized" medicine, while at the same time a huge number of us receive treatment at the "socialized" VA. Go figure. This is one where I have very little sympathy for the public regardless of which side of the argument they fall on. They hear the word mandate and go all stupid. Either way the public loses on this one. As it should.

KISS! Keep it simple! If all Americans have an absolute right to "free" health care, why not extend the concept to the homeless? It is a smaller group in much worse straits and it would not require every citizen in this country and their great grandchildren to mortgage their futures. Social health is at least as important as medical health. We cannot survive as a nation if we start acting like Greeks. Sad, isn't it, when our nation decries the fact that banks refuse to give mortgages to citizens with bad credit. That is cited as a source of our economic woes by those who seek a solution to our economic malaise. This is all so unreal. We are implored, no, exhorted to ignore what is current law passed by our Congress. Unfair, they say, for Arizona to enforce federal law. Inhumane, they say, to require legal entry into America across our southern borders. Duh! The Attorney General of the United States, gives the finger to Congress. The Tea Party is equated to a facist organization. Anyone who dares disagree, or even debate the merits of limiting the size of government becomes an effigy to be burned in the public square. It has become a hate crime to oppose the economy gulping growth of public employee unions. Well, "folks", even union members in Wisconsin have spoken with their feet.

Point of interest. The VA is earned and free only to disabled veterans. Others pay and receive care. I grew up without health care - Poor white trash in Connecticut. No one denies the need to fix this "industry" and make it better. The question is how to make reasonable improvements that modify health care. I wish someone much smarter than I would provide some answers.

Opps! The law doesn't provide "free" health care. It feels free, however, when it feels like others are paying for it with debt incursion that extends so far into the future we will never live to see those who inherit the debt.

The Press also badly badly shirked their responsibility in explaining this Law. For example pointing out the states that most desperately need the relief from this Act have their governing representatives fighting it tooth and nail. Why? Because they may have to actually spend money on people for whom it is essential and want instead to continue to line the pockets of those who have no problem acquiring care. They are the States with the highest poverty rates and receive more Federal dollars than they contribute. It might have also helped if the 4th estate looked into the nature of health care. Enlightenment was missing from columnists and reporters writings. They decided to take a more morbid interest in letting people's health become a political football game. The mandate was actually concocted by Republicans and the insurance industry so they could further enrich themselves. When some brakes were put on unseemly profit by the Law the big guys began to waiver. So now they oppose it. If people want a system where professionals are well trained and at the ready it needs to be paid for in real time. Right now we all do contribute a large portion of the bill. The remainder is overpriced. Insurers only account for 34% of payments with out of pocket and government making up the rest. In summary this was not the purview of just this administration but the press badly lagged in their duty to explain more carefully the provisions of this bill and how it could be improved and who the players were fighting the public's interest.

The lack of effort by the Obama administration in explaining and selling the health care law to the public has been inexplicable to me. They allowed the Conservatives to frame the discussion and to demonize it. Sad, and I just cannot understand why.

Let me say as a Veteran and one that receives VA care it is a "socialized" system and it is a good one. Did my military service make it earned, certainly in one aspect it did, but the bottom line issue could be presented at the same moral level as the anti-abortionists speak. They hold that an embryo has a right to life, yet on the other hand many oppose the idea that they have a right to medical care. Folks can pick what they want, but personally I find that position to be untenable. I'll force you to live but we won't help you to be healthy. Kinda weird.

My friend the Civil War is over. It was unfortunately decided once by spilling blood because cooler heads could not come to agreement on allowing the central government to have certain authority over the states. You are asking for 50 different countries instead of a united country. If that is your argument this is exactly what happened to Greece. They were left to dither away while their so called partners let them. Instead of understanding they were suppose to be a European Union they decided to be a free for all. If the states here expect help when their poor policies get them into hot water then they will have to follow certain rules(disasters, sanitation, security for example). It was private banking and large financial institutions that muddied the waters by playing games with people's shelter. The housing bubble was used to play roulette with a variety of derivatives. When the bets of the big guys did not pay off, millions lost their jobs below them, and then they could not pay their overblown mortgages. No the States can not do things that violates Federal Law but you are right that the Congress should be doing more to fix things. I believe your heart is in the right place but we have to go through the messy job of Democracy or we will have chaos.

So... the Republicans plan is to just let people suffer and die, right?

"...frame access to decent, quality health care the way Kennedy framed it — as a fundamental American right, not a privilege." That "right" would be philosophically indistinguishable from a right to force other people to pay for your groceries.

Its telling that, even when trying (somewhat sincerely I think) to write a somewhat even-handed piece, this column is riddled with bad assumptions. First of all, it continues the undeserved deification of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy- a man who shouldn't have had his seat to begin with, let alone the great reputation that came after it. Then, it repeats the lie that the individual mandate *must* be a conservative idea, since so many Republicans and right wing think tanks advocated for it in the past. Perhaps this is why the left is so startled by the GOP today- it is not used to confronting genuine conservatism. I don't care who thought up the individual mandate, nothing that so vastly increases the power of the federal government can be called "conservative". The fact that it will soon be ruled unconstitutional is not a testament to conservative hypocrites engaged in a right wing conspiracy- it simply shows that the mandate is unconstitutional, even if Republicans thought it was a good idea in the past (compared to Hillarycare at least)

Sounds like you aren't upset that the media didn't "inform" the public, but are more upset that the media didn't sell the bill to the public. That is, do Obama's job for him.

"Explaining" a 2700-page law would be just about impossible, but people are perfectly aware that, regardless of the details, it's going to make their expenses go up just to subsidise the expenses of others. That's just not going to play.

Joan, I think you are (mostly) correct, but your viewpoint is not a new opinion. Many posters (I am also guilty) have been saying that the administration's efforts explaining the ACA were seriously wanting years ago. This sentiment has been appearing since the ACA was introduced. One valid foil was Sen. Brown, who wanted to be the 41st vote before he was elected and never read the bill! And if he had, he would not have understood it. But enough about Sen-lite. A new poll showed that people do not know or understand what is in the bill, but they LOVE the coverage they now enjoy and want some kind of national health care to preserve the benefits they now enjoy if the SJC strikes down all or part of the law. People will argue that it is not a right. They neglect the facts of health care and confuse it with health care delivery. They are different. Health care is not a right, or privilege ...it is a necessity. You cannot "buy" or "create" optimum health the way one buys food, drink, shelter or clothing. You work with what you get and try to preserve it. We, as a country, spend plenty on health care, but the expenditure does not translate into better health or delivery of care: "The U.S. Census Bureau reported that 49.9 million residents, 16.3% of the population, were uninsured in 2010 (up from 49.0 million residents, 16.1% of the population, in 2009).[1][2] According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the United States spent more on health care per capita ($7,146), and more on health care as percentage of its GDP (15.2%), than any other nation in 2008.[3] The United States had the fourth highest level of government health care spending per capita ($3,426), behind three countries with higher levels of GDP per capita: Monaco, Luxembourg, and Norway.[3] A 2001 study in five states found that medical debt contributed to 46.2% of all personal bankruptcies and in 2007, 62.1% of filers for bankruptcies claimed high medical expenses.[4] Since then, health costs and the numbers of uninsured and underinsured have increased.[5] Winkipedia" Clearly, our health system needs re-tooling. The cost, in human consequences, is too great to ignore. The answer is the ACL.http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/daily-report.aspx It may be too late for the SJC, but it's not too late to start a pablum-like feed of the ACL to the American people. There is a greater good that I believe will come from this, regardless of the SJC ruling: a new awareness of what was lost/gained and a renewed effort to put some legislation into place to get the US into the 21st century. P.S. I think most of the posters correctly blame the Obama administration AND the media for its lack of information (not controversy) surrounding the law. Birthers, heritage or centerfolds, anyone?

Nice job. Joan, the way the sold this to the public was lame. He wasted almost two years on this, when he should of created jobs and focused on growth of the economy.

Pardon my cynicism but the fight is more about partisanship than the merits of the plan or the constitutionality of it. Had McCain won, and proposed an identical bill, it would have enjoyed 100% GOP support, and at least partial opposition by the Democrats, at least those holding out for a single payer option or an employer mandate.

I dont necessarily oppose the bill but like the majority of Americans, we have little doubt the government could manage it. The Democrats would just give it away to everyone, citizen or not, without any regard for cost as usual. They, Rs and Ds, broke SS and Medicare/medicaid, and that is the reason no one trusts them with another huge entitlement program.

On one point I will disagree with you. The R's and D's broke SS and Medicare/Medicaid not through direct mismanagement, but by raiding the trust funds and writing IOU's rather than balance the budget for the rest of government operations. SS and Medicare/Medicaid have very low overhead and low rates of abuse/corruption, as compared to investment firms and insurance firms. Enron didn't squander SS funds, but the 401k's of their employees, for example. Of course, it engenders the same mistrust regardless of such trivial details.

Joanie, babe, you're pretty much on target with these sage words. You do disclose your own preference for Obamacare, but you also describe without hyperbole a pretty accurate nonchalance by the Barry the O folks. Sebelius has usually acted like other Obama and Democratic Party staff - arrogant as if nobody dares to oppose the wisdom with which they toss out their diktats. Personally, I worry about the increased costs that Barry the O wants to inflict on me and my fellow retired Americans, saying nothing about the similarly higher spending younger people will experience. I really doubt that there will be many benefits so I can justify the financial outgo. Anyway, good luck, Joanie... I think there should have been a midway break in this entire debae over Obamacare, but both sides were so wrapped up in trying to strangle each other that neither could envision what was good for the public at large. Both sides have avoided the very deep need to settle on some sort of new policy so the government can offer its share of U.S. health care, with some sort of private insurance participation. The Massachusetts approach - enactg a law to offer anything that some pol thinks is a goodie for his consituents - is very unwise and unaffordable. We need something far better and more imaginative, but I am durned if I know how to do it.

Amen. Once a week, for the last year or so, a simple ad mentioning what's in effect right now because of this law. Maybe (I approximate the language)begin with- "Your kid is now covered on your policy until age 26. It was 22 before 'Obamacare'" Then next week- "Your insurance now HAS to cover your preexisting conditions.It could refuse to cover you before 'Obamacare'." And so on........ Simplify, simplify, simplify....... But no..............

"Once Ted Kennedy's booming voice was silenced, no progressive in Washington — and certainly, no one in the White House — stepped up to frame access to decent, quality health care the way Kennedy framed it — as a fundamental American right, not a privilege. " Joan, well said with a lot of heart. Now. lets stop for a minute ans use our minds. using High School social studies, where do we Americans refer to understand our rights? The Constitution. If you want something to be a "right", then draft and promote a constitutional amendment for same. Otherwise, call government funded healthcare what it is, namely a "benefit". Otherwise, words lose their meaning, and Joan, you surely dont want your words to be meaningless?

Maybe there are some other reasons why a majority of Americans oppose this law. One is that it was passed without allowing any Congressman, Republican or Democrat, to actually see it first. Do you really believe that's the way laws that take over 1/6 of the economy of the country should be passed? Do you agree with Nancy Pelosi that Congress should pass laws so they can find out what's in them? Then there was Obama ordering insurance companies to provide "free" birth control to all women. This is the act of a dictator, not an American President. If this law allows the President to simply order an industry to provide "free" products to a large group he wants to buy votes from, it is a terrible law. What industry will he order next to provide some other "free" product to some other interest group? "Free" groceries to welfare recipients to improve their health? Then there is the claim that this law will somehow lower costs. Does anyone believe that requiring the industry to comply with tens of thousands of pages of additional regulations is somehow going to reduce their cost of operation? Anyone with at least a tenuous grasp on reality should be able to understand that having to comply with an avalanche of new regulations and the tens of thousands of bureaucrats that go with them will drastically drive up costs, not lower them. One could go on in this vein, but it is clear that the problems with this law couldn't have been solved by a better sales job. Most Americans understand that.