How to Build—or Blow—Support for Healthcare Reform

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Please i want to get An America Visa

Umar Yusif of GA 8:07AM April 09, 2010

The President needed a political victory and the speaker wanted her name written into the history books. The Democrats are so disconnected from the American people that they were unswayed by the polls that clearly indicated the majority did not support the bill. Now, the ship of fools is swarming across the USA trying to convince us of the wonders of the bill. VP Biden wants us all to be patriots and do our part. Electorally, the passage of the bill will be a major fight leading up to the November elections. The campaign promises of "transparency and change" did not stand. This will be remembered.

Phil Suhadolnik of WA 6:47PM April 02, 2010

how can any one support something like this, nobody even knows whats in the healthcare bill, how can the republicans support the bill when the people behind the closed doors "dumocrats" don't even know whats in it. hell the president signed it and never even read it he even said himself he did not knows whats in it even nancy did not know she said when everybody sees it they will be happy they signed it. "HOW GOOFY DOES THAT SOUND" DUH

john burgess of NY 5:19PM April 01, 2010

If Obamacare is so good, people would be flocking to it. In contrast, the IRS is going to hire 16000 new agents to FORCE compliance with Obamacare!

Ed Johnson of TX 1:01PM April 01, 2010

Rick Newman writes: "The IRS gets the thankless job of verifying if people have coverage and imposing penalty fees if they don't. It's not clear how the IRS will do this, but a light touch would be a good start."
Actually, many voters are absolutely baffled and befuddled as to how this individual mandate (also known as the "You Better or Else!" provision) is going to be enforced, and without rendering the insurance policy contracts completely invalid.
While not a lawyer, it's generally accepted by most laypersons that a mandate, complete with threat of fines for non-compliance, is coercive. Whether or not this falls under the legal definition of true "duress" in terms of contract law is certainly a topic for true legal experts to determine, but it does seem to represent a form of duress by proxy (the federal government doing the mandating and the private insurance companies merely reaping the rewards of having many new insureds sign up, thus instantly expanding the insurer's customer base).
How, then, does this mandate NOT completely clash with the basic guidelines of contract law, specifically in terms of how the contract was entered into (by force)?
Is the "option" of being able to pay a fine considered a legitimate "choice" under contract law?
Honestly, this is one of the most bizarre provisions of the overall reform package (not that there aren't some good ones, of course, because clearly there are).
It is that mandate, specifically, that irks many people, even those without a particular party affiliation. Hopefully, there will be court challenges to that provision so that further clarification is (hopefully) forthcoming.
Finally, many fail to see how the federal government is engaging in regulation of "interstate commerce" by requiring those who opt to remain uninsured to finally get themselves insured. Those individuals are acting passively (they are non-participants), and therefore, the "interstate commerce" regulation explanation seems absurd.
Washington has already lost the battle for "hearts and minds." That is precisely why it felt the need to use a sledgehammer.

Angie Koutrotsios of IL 9:32PM March 31, 2010

this bill is far from perfect,but hopefully it;s postive start to improve a broken system.
bruce b

bruce b of NV 9:17PM March 31, 2010

1) When has the Federal Government EVER done anything for the price they estimated. Not to mention the Pay Now...Benefits to follow "shell-game" of Budgeting this mess.
2) 83% of Americans are already Insured. Best estimates are that 11% more will be covered by this Sweeping change affecting everyone. Public Good to make 83% suffer for the sake of 11%?Not to mention the "Mandate", might as well order every household to buy a GM car every year! SAME legal principle. Sounds pretty damn Socialized to me.
3)As far as the Republicans go...I certainly HOPE they actually are listening NOW since it will soon be their chance again.
4) We ALL know just how warm-n-fuzzy the IRS can be. Nuf said!
The true thing that infuriates Americans is the Shady, Backdoor way all this was handled and THE HUGE mis-directed energy spent pursuing the "Obama Agenda" instead of worrying about the Economy and Jobs and some feeling that things will get better.

Chris Petty of GA 8:58PM March 31, 2010

The Medicare Oversight Board is not health rationing if it uses one size fits all; doctor-patient confidentiality will be a thing of the past once this board has access to patient records in order to qualify them for care; IRS doesn't need 16,000+ new employees to enforce the INCOME tax laws all of a sudden, no light touch there; employers will drop insurance and pay the fines to save their bottom lines, so people won't be able to keep their current insurance; doctors are already scarce and none now have any incentive to endure years of expensive training; Big Pharma will not be able to afford to create new drugs for the same lack of incentive; and when the insurance companies finish crunching their numbers they will fold, and by that time China will be knocking at the US Treasury door. Shall I stop now?

Jill of CA 6:04PM March 31, 2010

Of those who oppose HCR in its present form or are disappointed it passed, I wonder how many feel that way because it didn't include a public option or single-payer, particularly among self-identified Independents and Democrats. I suspect a significant portion of those who don't like HCR in its present form do so because they feel it didn't go far enough, or because it includes too many "goodies" for insurers, big pharma, or other interests.
That said, I find myself in substantial agreement with the thoughts of Ron W Smith of UT, above. Well said, sir!

Will Fentem of VA 5:51PM March 31, 2010

Some of the comments on Newman's post raise the issue not just of the cost of health care in its newly minted, reformed state but the larger issue of what we're spending on the combination of national defense, homeland security, nation building, and foreign aid designed to gain the military cooperation of other countries. Some while back I'd have thought that a bad pairing off of major areas of national expenditure. Not any more.
Comments abroad ever since Obama's election and subsequent initiation of the debate over health care reform have figured into why my mind is changed. So many people elsewhere have wondered out loud as to why we feel no guilt at spending twice as much per person for health care coverage than is spent anywhere else in the Western world AND more than the rest of the world combined on the four areas listed above for national "security" while not even coming close to health-care insuring everyone in this country.
Well, I do feel guilty. What kinds of priorities do we have--failing our own people in health coverage and year after year pouring money into foreign adventures without end in sight? Whatever happened to good, old-fashioned debate meant to encourage thoughtful resolution of such matters? And where, for Pete's sake, is the conscience of a nation so easily involved in "war" without bothering to sit ALL parties down for the hope of diplomatic resolution rather than "resolving" with blood and treasure at every opportunity?
Is it any wonder we can't come to easy agreement over health care "reform" when we're so quick to "solve" conflicts abroad with bullets and blood without bothering to discuss, at whatever length necessary, the grievances and possibilities?
Where are our wise leaders--the ones unconcerned with political advantage and eager to do what is best for each and every American? I think I've been looking in the wrong places, how about you?

Ron W. Smith of UT 4:08PM March 31, 2010