WASHINGTON – Summoned to success by President Barack Obama, the Democratic-controlled Congress approved historic legislation Sunday night extending health care to tens of millions of uninsured Americans and cracking down on insurance company abuses, a climactic chapter in the century-long quest for near universal coverage.

Widely viewed as dead two months ago, the Senate-passed bill cleared the House on a 219-212 vote. Republicans were unanimous in opposition, joined by 34 dissident Democrats.

Obama watched the vote in the White House's Roosevelt Room with Vice President Joe Biden and about 40 staff aides. When the long sought 216th vote came in — the magic number needed for passage — the room burst into applause and hugs. An exultant president exchanged a high-five with his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel.

A second, smaller measure — making changes in the first — was lined up for passage later in the evening. It would then go to the Senate, where Democratic leaders said they had the votes to pass it.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the legislation awaiting the president's approval would extend coverage to 32 million Americans who lack it, ban insurers from denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions and cut deficits by an estimated $138 billion over a decade. If realized, the expansion of coverage would include 95 percent of all eligible individuals under age 65.

For the first time, most Americans would be required to purchase insurance, and face penalties if they refused. Much of the money in the bill would be devoted to subsidies to help families at incomes of up to $88,000 a year pay their premiums.

Far beyond the political ramifications — a concern the president repeatedly insisted he paid no mind — were the sweeping changes the bill held in store for millions of individuals, the insurance companies that would come under tougher control and the health care providers, many of whom would face higher taxes.

Crowds of protesters outside the Capitol shouted "just vote no" in a futile attempt to stop the inevitable taking place inside a House packed with lawmakers and ringed with spectators in the galleries above.

Across hours of debate, House Democrats predicted the larger of the two bills, costing $940 billion over a decade, would rank with other great social legislation of recent decades.

"We will be joining those who established Social Security, Medicare and now, tonight, health care for all Americans, said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, partner to Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., in the grueling campaign to pass the legislation.

"This is the civil rights act of the 21st century," added Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, the top-ranking black member of the House.

Republicans readily agreed the bill would affect everyone in America, but warned repeatedly of the burden imposed by more than $900 billion in tax increases and Medicare cuts combined.

"We have failed to listen to America," said Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, leader of a party that has vowed to carry the fight into the fall's midterm elections for control of Congress.

The final obstacle to the bill's passage was cleared at mid-afternoon when Obama and Democratic leaders reached a compromise with anti-abortion lawmakers whose rebellion had left the outcome in doubt. The White House announced he would issue an executive order pledging that no federal funds would be used for elective abortion, satisfying Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan and a handful of like-minded lawmakers.

A spokesman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops expressed skepticism that the presidential order would satisfy the church's objections.

Republican abortion foes also said Obama's proposed order was insufficient, and when Stupak sought to counter them, a shout of "baby killer" could be heard coming from the Republican side of the chamber.

The measure would also usher in a significant expansion of Medicaid, the federal-state health care program for the poor. Coverage would be required for incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level, $29,327 a year for a family of four. Childless adults would be covered for the first time, starting in 2014.

The insurance industry, which spent millions on advertising trying to block the bill, would come under new federal regulation. They would be forbidden from placing lifetime dollar limits on policies, from denying coverage to children because of pre-existing conditions and from canceling policies when a policyholder becomes ill.

Parents would be able to keep children up to age 26 on their family insurance plans, three years longer than is now the case.

A new high-risk pool would offer coverage to uninsured people with medical problems until 2014, when the coverage expansion would go into high gear.

For the president, the events capped an 18-day stretch in which he traveled to four states and lobbied more than 60 wavering lawmakers in person or by phone to secure passage of his signature domestic issue. According to some who met with him, he warned that the bill's demise could cripple his still-young presidency.

After more than a year of political combat, Democrats piled superlative upon superlative across several hours of House debate.

Rep. Louise Slaughter of New York read a message President Franklin Roosevelt sent Congress in 1939 urging lawmakers to address the needs of those without health care, and said Democrat Harry Truman and Republican Richard Nixon had also sought to broaden insurance coverage.

Republicans attacked the bill without let-up, warning it would harm the economy while mandating a government takeover of the health care system.

"The American people know you can't reduce health care costs by spending $1 trillion or raising taxes by more than one-half trillion dollars. The American people know that you cannot cut Medicare by over one-half trillion dollars without hurting seniors," said Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich.

"And, the American people know that you can't create an entirely new government entitlement program without exploding spending and the deficit."

Obama has said often that presidents of both parties have tried without success to achieve national health insurance, beginning with Theodore Roosevelt early in the 20th century.

The 44th president's quest to succeed where others have failed seemed at a dead end two months ago, when Republicans won a special election for a Massachusetts Senate seat, and with it, the votes to prevent a final vote.

But the White House, Pelosi and Reid soon came up with a rescue plan that required the House to approve the Senate-passed measure despite opposition to many of its provisions, then have both houses pass a fix-it measure incorporating numerous changes.

To pay for the changes, the legislation includes more than $400 billion in higher taxes over a decade, roughly half of it from a new Medicare payroll tax on individuals with incomes over $200,000 and couples over $250,000. A new excise tax on high-cost insurance policies was significantly scaled back in deference to complaints from organized labor.

In addition, the bills cut more than $500 billion from planned payments to hospitals, nursing homes, hospices and other providers that treat Medicare patients. An estimated $200 billion would reduce planned subsidies to insurance companies that offer a private alternative to traditional Medicare.

The insurance industry warned that seniors would face sharply higher premiums as a result, and the Congressional Budget Office said many would return to traditional Medicare as a result.

The subsidies are higher than those for seniors on traditional Medicare, a difference that critics complain is wasteful, but insurance industry officials argue goes into expanded benefits.

____

Associated Press writers Jim Kuhnhenn and Erica Werner contributed to this report.

There was a motion which was drawn up by the Republicans to have the bill recommited again. That was being debated in the House but that was voted down a little while ago.

so i pay $ 1400/ month
anyone know what my new payment will be?

This Bill will do NOTHING but increase costs and entitlements ... and result in more unemployment (despite the massive increase in IRS employees) ... increase malpractice costs as well drive up hospital costs.

Do you think that the majority of those who do not pay for ER visits will change their behavior because now it is free to go to a clinic (where they have to get an appointment?)

It is a sad day for the taxpayers of the US.

I'm naturally skeptical of most things done by the government, but I just hope this helps more people than it hurts. I'm crossing my fingers.

Next time someone tells you how the USA is a free country remind yourself of all the rules and regualtions and this one takes the prize.

This time the federal government is requiring the people to purchase a product that they set the rules on. Not at anytime during our history has that been the case.

Please read the tenth amendment.

Our individual liberties are being taken away step by step and people continue to fall for it with the concept they know what is best for us.

This is a sad day in American history for people who believe we should be free to live our lives as we see fit.

I know it's not a perfect analogy, but most states require you to purchase auto insurance. Yes, that requirement usually only pertains to liability coverage that would protect other people from damage you cause but it's similar in some respect. Then again, that's not a federal mandate, but a state-by-state one and the rules vary. I also hear people saying that the federal government has no right to get involved because health insurance is not portable across state lines, therefore it is not interstate commerce. It's a tough situation and I can understand both sides of the argument feeling the way they do.

well not for nothing, if it cost me $1300 for the entire year to cover my health insurance, then i'm on board.

You're right, it's very different. And we don't use our auto insurance for every little thing we have done to our cars. Oil changes, basic maintenance, new tires, etc. No claims for those things.

Nearly 61% of this poll (at the time of this post) are angry about this bill. Personally when a President is actually led by the Speaker of the House and has to go to the ends of the earth, literally bribing swing voters you know it's a bad piece of legislation. Pelosi actually led this thing in the end. Even Obama was ready to settle for much less reform and frankly the latter was the much better way to go.

http://politics.newsvine.com/_question/201...xcited-or-angry

Interesting picture here. I couldn't find it on NY Times.com so I scanned it. Who looks like the President to you in this photo. Pelosi looks like this in so many photos. This woman's ego is beyond anyone's imagination.

The Cost of Doing Business Has Just Gone Up
By Eric Bolling
- FOXNews.com

Small businesses will be hit hardest of all by Obamacare and the consequences won't be pretty.
Here are my thoughts on the just passed health care bill.

Caterpillar Inc., a company with 94,000 employees, recently suggested that in the “first year alone” the new health plan would cost them $100 million.

McDonalds, IBM, United Parcel Service have around 500,000 employees and Walmart with 1,900,000 employees will be hit extremely hard.

But those who will be hit hardest of all by Obamacare will be small businesses. Many small businesses have been reluctant to add workers to their payrolls because the legislation was unclear. Now they know some of the massive new costs coming at them will be borne by them when they hire new people.

Small businesses employ nearly 70% of America’s labor force; nearly 100 million people work for and/or own small businesses in America.

In the past, a “fully employed” America has traditionally meant an unemployment rate of five percent.

Expect that number (the fully employed unemployment rate) to be at 8% going forward because the cost to insure new employees will prohibit hiring.

The difference between 5% unemployment and the new 8% rate translates to an additional 4,600,000 Americans out of work. These same Americans will also STAY unemployed for much longer periods, too.

Possibly the most infuriating aspect of the new health care plan is the method of enforcement. It appears that the IRS will be hiring an additional 16,500 auditors to administer compliance and assessing fees/taxes/penalties

Here are a few more things to keep in mind going forward:

The Senate version of the bill (what the House voted on) contains:

Mandates: (For Individuals)
*Individuals must purchase insurance or pay a penalty that would be the greater of $750 or 2% of income by 2016.
Mandates (For Employers):
*The Senate bill requires companies with 50 or more employees to help defray the cost. Note: there is no exception for Part time versus full time employees.
How It Is Paid For:
*The reform plan would be financed through billions (suggested $500b) in Medicare cuts….. and new taxes, including a tax on insurance plans that are worth more than $23,000 for a family. Couples making more than $250,000 would pay additional Medicare payroll taxes.
* Fees, penalties and new Social Security taxes may be assessed as soon as enforcement agency (see below) is ready. Also, the benefits don’t really kick in, kin 2014. So for the first decade after passage of the health care bill, there will be ten years of paying into the system and six years of benefit withdrawals.
Exchanges-
*50 different exchanges to be set up, administered by the states, where people without employer-based coverage will buy insurance.

Medicaid

*Medicaid would be expanded to cover everyone earning under 133 percent of the federal poverty level ($29,327 for a family of four).

Medicare Drug Program

*The Medicare drug benefit would expand to partly close the “doughnut hole” in coverage for retirees.

Abortion ** Subject to Stupak promise of Executive Order (President Obama will the clarify abortion language after passage of Senate version through House.)
*The new insurance exchanges can offer plans that cover abortion, but people who choose those plans must pay for their coverage with separate checks — one for abortion coverage, one for the rest of their health care services.

Eric Bolling is a Fox Business Network anchor.

The states have no budgets to do this. I read somewhere that it would cost $4bln a year for California to process this data. California is almost broke as it is. So state taxes are going to rise. The problem with the math on this bill is it doesn't take into account the domino cost effect on all adjacent spaces. There's a lot of uncounted friendly fire here and some of it is very damaging. But this bill is not the one you will get. Reconciliation will make major changes and reconciliation takes into account increased deficits which this bill will certainly cause. I'm really amazed at all this. This is the ultimate example of getting an elephant to step on and kill an ant. What was needed was minor corrections. What we got was a total overhaul that most people wanted no part of. Obama and Pelosi are counting on momentum getting this thru as is and I doubt it happens. Also the fact that the bill literally forces folks to buy insurance is absurd and s/b unconstitutional. Many folks that d'ont buy insurance (and are counted in the 32mln) simply feel it's cheaper to pay a doctor rather than enroll in a plan. I have a cousin that does this and is up in arms about the bill and feels misrepresented as being included in the 32 mln. This is a make or buy decision that many are being forced out of. A lot of folks in that 32 mln are young folks who choose to pass on health insurance and only want catastrophic coverage. I remember reading that the real math on folks that can't get insurabce is about 8mln, the rest choose against it. So we did this bill for less than 5% of the population. We couldn't help and protect that small percentage in a better way than this??

That's different. That involves protection and rights of others and is set up that way so that drivers are more cautious. Otherwise the courts could never deal with the lawsuits. Health insurance and what you want out of it is personal and limited to you and your family.

So in 2014, if you don't get insurance you'll be fined $95? So you pay the fine and then what...does the federal gov't pick up the tab if you go to the hospital? Why would anyone actually get insurance then? It'll be infinitely chaeper to just pay the fine as opposed to the premiums (let a lone a trip to the ER)...even after it goes up in subsequent years.

Exactly. It really isn't a good comparison because the protection afforded is for 3rd parties, not for yourself.

Good point. What makes people think that someone (especially young people) will pay several thousand dollars annually for a policy over a miniscule (by comparison) fine? You still won't be turned away at the ER, as you stated.

thats for poverty level i think it goes up to bout 700 bucks, or 2% of income?(not sure) but ur right, i'll pay a fine of $1000 bucks, then the rest is free? yep doesn't make sense, why buy insurance?

over 60% on msnbc don't like..now if that don't tell you public opinion...

http://politics.polls.newsvine.com/_questi...angry?GT1=43001

That's getting worse and worse. I first saw it at 50% last night than 60.8% when I posted it. Now it's over 65%.

Wow. And that's MSNBC saying that, a left-leaning network to say the least. It could be a bloodbath for Democrats come November. A lot of guys went over the cliff for Obama and Pelosi. He better have a lot of jobs lined up for these guys so they have something to do next year.

Supposedly 38 states are already enacting legislation to deny this bill. I can't ever remember seeing anything like this.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-D...b-Approval.aspx

For the first time, more than 50% now disapprove of the job Obama is doing.


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/...bid=CH0Xgs8vuWU

All this and still very little in the way of policies that will create jobs. Has he forgotten that unemployment is still near 10 percent? Whatever happened to that "laser-sharp focus" on jobs creation that he promised in the State of The Union speech?

This is not about jobs or deficit or even healthcare, its about creating a society that is more and more dependent on government so the people will need to cater to the government.
Your freedoms are slowly being taken away.
First the Government sends a questionaire asking about mortgages in a census, now governemtn will demand you buy a product they approve of, what is next?

Patriot Act, oh right, that was passed already.

I have mixed views about the health care bill. There are definitely some good things in the bill and I'm glad they are now law. However, it could have been done with far less baggage and money spent. It would be nice now, if Washington would put more time and effort in getting the economy moving.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/03/22/...-vote-election/

Another opinion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbOQE8hsQpo...feature=popular

I must say, I'm not a Ron Paul disciple but sometimes the fringes on both ends see through issues with the greatest clarity.

I think he nails the core issues well in this short interview.

But what does that have to do with mandating people to buy health insurance?

Did not like that either, but many people complaining about that are falling in line with healthcare which is amusing.

This is the first time I have to buy something otherwise incur penalties.

What's the connection, Milke. One was a reaction to a terrorist strike. When Pearl Harbor happened the reaction was a declaration of war. By comparison the patriot act was much less. Healthcare reform is like tearing down a building that has a few broken windows. Just fix the damm windows. Anyone that goes to this length is doing it to control the system, not fix it.

well my 60 year old parents have recently given up their health care due to costs, and are fast approaching foreclosure and the lose of his business. 60 years paying taxes anddoing the right thing, so these political fools can bail out gm, aig and give the rest of the money to ILLEAGAL border crossing aliens. THEY can get free health care and free schooling. pass all the bills you want, when we support people that don't have the RIGHT to be in AMERICA, 30 years from now some of us may be in the same position. i just don't get the idea of giving out what you don't have, to people that have broke the law and don't deserve it. wish my parents well(and me too if the end up moving in with me gotta have humor) and all the other AMERICANS that may fall to the same revolting demise. at least the millions of ILLEAGAL LAW BREAKING FOREIGNERS will be taken care of.

Nothing to do with healthcare. It was in line with the sentiments of his previous post regarding freedoms being taken away, and what's gonna happen next.

It allows searches through which law enforcement officers search a home or business without the owner’s or the occupant’s permission or knowledge; the expanded use of National Security Letters, which allows the FBI to search telephone, e-mail, and financial records without a court order; and the expanded access of law enforcement agencies to business records, including library and financial records.
It also involved the use of NSLs by the FBI. They allow the FBI to search telephone, email, and financial records without a court order. In November 2005, BusinessWeek reported that the FBI had issued tens of thousands of NSLs and had obtained one million financial, credit, employment, and in some cases, health records from the customers of targeted Las Vegas businesses. Selected businesses included casinos, storage warehouses and car rental agencies. An anonymous Justice official claimed that such requests were permitted under section 505 of the USA PATRIOT Act.

It was another bill that was hurried through with basically no Senators reading it because it was so massive.


Another one that was passed but states have gotten extensions in enacting because of so much controversy is the REAL ID Act. Controversy over a National-ID card is one of the issues, and something that everyone may need to get one day.

It was not officially voted on as it was inserted into a conference report that was passed. Many states refuse to implement it because "Real ID is an unfunded mandate that violates the Constitution's 10th Amendment on state powers, destroys states' dual sovereignty and consolidates every American's private information, leaving all of us far more vulnerable to identity thieves." Real ID Act increases the chance of such data being stolen and thus raises the risk of identity theft.
"Former Republican U.S. Representative Bob Barr wrote in a February 2008 article: "A person not possessing a Real ID Act-compliant identification card could not enter any federal building, or an office of his or her congressman or senator or the U.S. Capitol. This effectively denies that person their fundamental rights to assembly and to petition the government as guaranteed in the First Amendment."

Another privacy concern raised by the privacy advocates, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, is that the implementation of the Real ID Act will make it substantially easier for the government to track numerous activities of Americans and conduct their surveillance.

Seriously, i couldn't care less about the things people complained about with the Patriot Act. You want to tap into my phones? Go ahead, I have nothing to hide. Just stop tapping into my wallet.

I understand all that but what do they have to gain by doing that to law abiding citizens. They simply d'ont want terrorists porotected by the same laws that protect law abiding citizens and I fully agree with that. I know of no one this affected and in fact the only people that need to fear it are the folks in the crosshairs of its intent. I never viewed the patriot act as a violation of rights and except for a few minor inconviences of providing extra ID support I'd never even know the bill existed. Now forcing someone to buy something and knowing there's a great intent to control here, that's scary. What's next, telling us what cars to buy, what TV stations to watch, what websites to go to. I mean we've already heard veiled threats against Fox and other stations and Biden, in another stupid moment of his, has already stated "we're (the Government) taking over healthcare". Do I have any faith or trust in Biden's judgment - absolutely not. Do I think Obama's a good man. Yes I absolutely do and personally I like him a lot, but so far he's been a lousy President IMO. I think he does things that are pushed on him, I think he's constantly changing his mind, lacks true leadership (except in speeches where he excels and is obviously the most comfortable) and I think he's unaware of collateral damage when he makes his decisions and I think this is the reason he reverts them and then re reverts them and then re re reverts them.

The patriot act to me is a very simple decision among two points.

Point 1 - Do you prefer terrorists to hide in our midst and be able to take advantage of the freedoms and protections that US citizens have and to use those protections totheir advantage and kill as many as they can?

Point 2 - Do you prefer terrorists to hide in our midst (as the 9/11 terrorosts did) and be hunted down before they can kill if law enforcement and the militar are onto them?

D'ont know about you but I'll take point 2 until the day I die. If you prefer the first one than you have no business complaining about a terrorist that does anything from killing a loved one to nuking a city. Bottom line is that the moment a strike occurred on our soil that was an act of war, rules had to be adjusted.

I honestly understand and agree with the points you make. But the personal information and records that anyone corrupt can get their hands onto now is incredible. You can't tell me that you believe that all this information is being used for good and not for business/lobbyist dirty methods/issues. Too many corrupt individuals and organizations in the gvt that will use your info or sell it. Plus if any of it gets into the wrong hands, millions of identities/records/financial records are at stake. Even financial terrorism.

So yes I do understand what you're saying but there has to be a boundary somewhere.

I understand your point too. But this is life unfortunately. Someone or some group will always take advantage of something to their benefit.

So the Dems used loopholes and technicalities (not to mention bribes) to get this thing passed. Now the Reps are using technicalities to block it. Putting aside where I stand on this issue...I swear, every time I read about or see a report on TV about what's going on in Washington, I feel like the Looney Tunes music should be playing in the background.

or maybe the tune from "life goes on" with corky

Both parties are a joke. They treat this like it's some kind of athletic event and they're just trying to beat one another, regardless of whether or not the other side's ideas have merit. We're all in this together, Democrat or Republican notwithstanding. Wish these guys would start acting like it.

This needs a "Like" button like on Facebook haha. But seriously, what you said is 100 % true.

agree

lol

I've liked Obama personally till now but it was disturbing to hear him say today how he signed the bill and then looked around when he signed it and didn't see any asteroids on the horizon that would serve up the armeggdon or the end of the world like others promised. I'd expect this type of talk from an immature 15 year old, not the President of the US. Meanwhile more and more terrible things are coming out about this bill and it seems like there are going to be a lot of unintended casualties, some of which the President himself was unaware of, and that's a pretty scary thought. The one thing for sure is the IRS will get bigger, and I don't know who could be happy about that, as the bill calls out for a hiring of 16,000 employees to enforce penalties on anyone that chooses not to get insurance. I didn't realize that was in the bill the other day. But any bill hiring 16,000 more IRS agents to enforce compliance on what should be optional choices has bad policy written all over it. I think we are going to see a lot of friendly fire casualties develop, including many the authors of this bill have not even contemplated and I think we also will hear nothing but bad things going forward. The bill needed only the best things to come out to get passed, and all the bad were swept under the rug and will come out from now on. I'd expect a lot of dems that voted for it to sidestep comments about it and put as much distance between their vote and this bill going forward. If so then you have all the proof in the world that they were never for it. I anticipate a lot of bad news none of us will like on this bill from here on out. Hope I'm wrong but I rarely am about things like this.

Did he really say that? Very juvenile if you ask me. You just signed the thing; let's save the sarcasm for later and see how this all plays out, OK? That's like saying "I told you so" to critics who said your team would finish last just because you returned the opening kickoff of the first game of the season for a TD.

I'm really worried about all of these major corporations who are already coming out and saying how much more this will cost them. Didn't Caterpillar say they're looking at an extra $100 million per year in expenses right from the get-go?

The passage of social security met with cries of increased taxes, horrific repercussions to the US, the end of capitalism, etc, etc. but you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that doesn't believe in the benefits and sefety net it affords today. Same goes for this first step in health reform. Is it perfect? Of course not. But it's a first step. This two shall pass (no pun intended). We've had a health system that hurts this country economically in many ways that far exceeds the cost of increased taxes. As for Obama's comments, that's pretty tame sarcasm and doesn't even compare to the vile and vicious barbs that have come out of the mouths of the opposition party.

Agreed, but both sides are pretty good at trading barbs and taking shots (sometimes literally) when things don't go their way. I remember Harry Reid calling President Bush a loser in front of school children. Look at how anti-capitalists act during G8 conferences, smashing storefront windows, inciting riots, etc. The Iraq anti-war protests turned ugly on occasion. Humans get downright destructive at times when they feel that their voice is being ignored. Maybe it comes from a feeling of powerlessness; no one feels they're being listened to.

Anyway, I just hope this bill helps more people than it hurts. I guess they're hoping that the amount of younger people (generally lower-risk, lower-cost patients) entering the insurance pool will offset costs that come from people who are ill and need a lot of medical care. However, if the fine for not buying a policy is less than the premium for coverage, why wouldn't younger folks just take their chances and deal with paying the fine? It's less expensive, and many young people think they're invincible anyway, so I can see a lot of them just sending their check to Uncle Sam instead of puchasing coverage.

That is the essence of what Obama and the rest of the Dems want. Instead of money/profits going to corporations, they want it all going to a much larger Federal Government. I don't know how Obama can ever talk of creating jobs again when every other statement he makes or action he takes is 1000% anti-business. Does he plan on putting everyone back to work as federal employees?

Agree. Every action I'm seeing him take is for Government to control everything. He's coming across to me as anti-capitalism and I'm having a hard time understanding how liberals reconcile with Government takeovers of things that were handled by public entities in the past. D'ont get me wrong - there are things the Government has to do - such as limit large positions in smaller commodity markets like oil. But I think a better way to do that is put a 2:1 leverage ratio on those markets. You'll see Europe follow if we do that. Put a much lower leverage ratio max on those markets and you keep them free - at least to folks that seriously want to buy commodities rather than pt up a 5 or 10% bet on them and then speculate their money elsewhere in other commodities. All this does is cause unwarranted inflation in things needed on an everyday basis. We have to buy them with 100% cash while an investor can buy them with 5% cash. Does that make any sense to anyone. All we've done is create a middleman that sets prices with 5% down. Sick. Basically cut leverage to 2:1 and you take the gambling out of those markets, you set the rule as market leader around the world and you make bubbles hard to develop because borrowed money is limited. Someone who is supposedly setting a market price should be doing it with a lot money at risk. My big problem with Obama is he passes up the easy route and creates monster legislation that is all about Government control and this is scary as hell to me. The healtcare legislation and social security are two very different things to me. Social security was new and needed, healthcare is old and just needed modification. I remember Obama making a speech about how he was going to make laser beam fixes to things that were in need of being fixed. Well why doesn't he use his laser beam to fix healthcare instead of try and tear down the entire system and force things on people. Had he used the laser beam approach the bill would have featured a simple solution that would have been popular and gotten Republican support. Now he's going to attack capital markets and that's really scary. A laser beam approach to cutting leverage to 2:1 is all he needs to do. But this is not a President that takes the logical view and fix of things and that's because his mission IMO is to control, not fix. And when was the last time anyone saw Government execute anything well? Government is the worst chief operating officer you'll ever see.

I disagree. In 1949 the social security tax was 2% on the first $3,000 of income, today its 12.4% on the first 106,800. The base has increased about 6% a year which is fine, but the 6 times multiple of the rate itself is insane. All this and the unfunded liabilities and I for one have serious concerns. Like most programs of this nature the concept and intention is noble, the problem is in the execution. I fully expect social security to be a welfare program when I retire with means testing involved and it will sold as the only fair thing to do.

Government by its nature is inefficient and can not run anything well. This bill will not reduce cost and retain the same services, one or both will suffer. The fundamental problem with health insurance is its too much. People need not be invovled in the process since most have only co-pay and get insurance through company. Government is already the largest health insurer in the US and we will ultimately be doubling down on them, which is insane. This is the first step. Neither party wants to address the fundamental problem.

I find it amusing that one side wants to complain about comments when for the last yera and half there has been no person in the US who has had more attacks than Sarah Palin (and we know where they came from). Although I do not care for her, its the pot calling the kettle black and that is sad. Obama would get a technical for taunting if he pulled his act on the basketball court and then has his teammates complain. Amsuing.