Florida Federal judge declares Obama Care unconstitutional

Frankly, I think the easiest most efficient way to deal with insurance is to have medicare for all--a version of what members of Congress get now

Senator Jay Rockefeller was the author of the public option that was being considered. Here is a link to an article about that.
Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
What you posted earlier is, IMO, the most important thing we could do: focus on health care, not health insurance, and offer an aggressive preventive plan for optimal health. We could eliminate a lot of the cost of insurance--and as far as I can see, the only people who might have to lose money would be the big insurance companies and the drug companies...and I say, it is about time they put something into the game.

from a political point of view I find it ironic that it was the insurance lobby that insisted upon the mandate--according to the best research on the way the bill was crafted that I can find.

And, it is the Republicans who support the industry primarily for the huge campaign contributions they get from the industry (I know some Democrats also get $$, but Republicans get more), yet the Republicans are determined to try to kill the reform act and the mandate--

so, when the insurance industry complains about that; and the people who are enjoying the benefits of the reform complain about having benefits being taken away...what is going to happen?

not a bad strategy for a public option, I think.

Um, no. It totally depends on who's in charge. Both sides receive large contributions from the health sector. Democrats have been in the funding lead for three years now.

Health | OpenSecrets

Frankly, I think the easiest most efficient way to deal with insurance is to have medicare for all--a version of what members of Congress get now

That would certainly be better than a true single payer system. I want choice, and I want those choices to include private businesses. Government is far better at regulating business than it is at running one. Make medicare available to everyone, sans subsidies except in low income cases. Require that it break even every year and not use taxpayer funds to balance the books. That would make for a fair playing field.

we are comparing apples and oranges. I said insurance and drug industry; you are talking health sector. If you look on the chart you posted, I think you will see that if you separate the insurance industry from the doctors, nurses, etc., you will see that your chart shows the greater contribution going to the Republicans from the insurance lobby.
Regardless, IMO they all contribute too much to all candidates...but, the mandate for coverage was a concession to the insurance industry who said they could not agree to reform unless they got a higher pool of insured.

I am guessing the answer will be the US. So, I will play this game. Can someone give me a private service that another country requires their citizens by law to purchase so that another citizen can get it? Please differentiate between those services that a person pays for with after-tax monies. Not those services paid for by government taxes.

Can't name another country but does the state of Florida and others requiring citizens by law to purchase/supplement property insurance through CITIZENS wind pool insurance count?

Good question. Are all resident's in Florida required to purchase that insurance in Florida, or only a subset.

Good question. Are all resident's in Florida required to purchase that insurance in Florida, or only a subset.

All citizens that purchase property and casualty insurance which i guess is a large subset, pay a 1.3% "emergency assessment".

All citizens that purchase property and casualty insurance which i guess is a large subset, pay a 1.3% "emergency assessment".

I believe those are taxes the state legislature applies to private insurance policies to keep our woefully underfunded state run homeowners insurance program afloat. (Sound familiar?) There are threads on this in the realestate forum.


FWIW Scott is comitted to reforming the mess that is Citizens during his term.

we are comparing apples and oranges. I said insurance and drug industry; you are talking health sector. If you look on the chart you posted, I think you will see that if you separate the insurance industry from the doctors, nurses, etc., you will see that your chart shows the greater contribution going to the Republicans from the insurance lobby.

I'll dig into this, but based on what I'm seeing on that page this doesn't stack up.

Regardless, IMO they all contribute too much to all candidates...but, the mandate for coverage was a concession to the insurance industry who said they could not agree to reform unless they got a higher pool of insured.

270 million people insured in this country, and they needed 27 million more to "make it work"? Baloney. Baloney. Baloney. The system might be flawed, but I can assure you, the problem is not a lack of people paying into the system.