I say let it happen. I'm so tired of fighting what seems to be a lost cause that sometimes I can't help but letting people get screwed just so they can see how stupid they really are. So may say I fear that this may actually work but I tend to be the kind of person who would rather play it safe and approve something that is more likely to work than something that I have to many doubts with. In this case, I am willing to take on Captain Jean-Luke Picard's mentallity and take my chances. Let them have it, sometimes people need to fail in order to learn how to avoid it next time. It may hurt us big time, but I'm sure we can survive it.

Worst politician in history, passes worst bill in history.  Megalomaniacs are dangerous, elected or otherwise.  While I've never considered doing so before, I'm afraid I'd be seriously tempted to spit in her face should it ever get in range.  But I'd probably remember in time that she's not worthy of my spit.

What a terrible, 'divisive' thing to say.

And Dems are 'determined' to not let that Stupak Amendment Kabuki Theater episode get in the way of funding abortions with our tax dollars.

It's really sad almost nobody is reporting on the fines and jail time.  Makes me think they have no problems with it.

Bob Beckel ridiculed the notion of jail time, claimed it wasn't true, mocked the person who brought it up.  I'd expect that to be their strategy, pretend what's in the bill isn't, betting not enough people will figure it out in time.

These things already exist, if you don't pay your taxes. Everytime you get a pay check unless you've adjusted your claim in the beginning money is taken out for taxes, and if you don't pay you'll get thrown in jail or face fines. What do you people think the irs does? As it stands right now if your working American you have paid something into social security, you might not live that long hell you may not see the age where your eligible to start recieving it, yet you pay it. Why? because if you don't you face jail time and fines. So Why does that even matter, its not like it's anything new. People in the UK, France, and other countires which offer national health care are not broke poor and living in ramshackle homes.

What you fail to realize is that without affordable health care for all most people don't get preventative medicine, hence they get sick and die. But when everyone has healthcare they aren't affraid to go the doctors because they might not be able to pay the bill. Most times your last resort is to go the ER where they are obligated to see you but in return charge a few thousand dollars which most likely they will never see. Nobody benifits from this scenario, the hospital doesn't get paid and the consumer suffers from bad credit because they can't pay the bills, so they don't buy houses or cars or other things which make the economy go around.

If people can have health care and don't have choose between pay the doctor's bills and paying the rent, then it saves more money in the long run because people are able to get things like flu shots and cancers can be detected earlier when they are easier and cheaper to treat.

There's quite a difference here.

I am unfortunately required to pay into social security and the like.  However, I don't have much of a choice.

This bill is dictating that I must choose or carry a government approved health plan or else I will fined and possibly go to jail.  Un-Constitutional.

This is a false assumption.  Widespread adoption of preventive measures increases overall healthcare expenditures.  Prevention is highly cost-effective for the individual and should be an available option, but the notion that society will save money through prevention is false.  We're really not talking about 'prevention' in the dictionary meaning of the term, either - we're talking about risk reduction.

Requiring everyone to pay into the whole assures that there will be enough for everyone get help if they need it. Even if I personally never have to use it I see nothing wrong with helping those that are less fortunate than I am. Regardless of what some people think not everyone who needs help is in that situation because they choose to be. If your intent on having mankind live together in a society then it's in everyone's best intrest to insure that we all are healthy and able to bring more into the society. If we all have the opportunity to be healthy then we all have the opportunity to be productive members of society.

Maybe I didn't word it properly, but My point wasn't that it would cheaper in medical expenditure my point was that with less sick people and less people getting sick due to not being able to get care, then more people would be able to continue to work and continue to spend money in the market.

Not if you're Charlie Rangel, or numerous members of the administration cabinet. The ruling elite appear to be exempt.

Glad you feel that way, because if your profile age is correct, the social security you're paying won't be their for you when you retire. Why not health care too? Since the government knows better than you who is less fortunate, and spends your money accordingly, because they do it better, lets hope they are so compassionate should you need assistance in the future. 

Government loves "free thinkers" with lots of money to appropriate, keep up the good work.

That sounds nice, but in reality it doesn't work that way.

Everyone is not paying into the "whole" because as usual, it's being stuck to businesses and people who actually work and produce.  I don't think you have read into this much.

One point I do agree with... it will be a (w)hole that we will be throwing a whole lot of money into if it passes.

Some folks will say, "Insurance will just keep going up in cost". Sure, because medical costs continue to rise. For the people that believe in the big bad insurance company theory ask yourself this question, what business prices themselves out of business? When someone can no longer afford insurance, they drop their coverage. The insurance company can either, raise premiums on existing customers (and risk more dropped policies), reduce coverage (and risk more dropped policies), or absorb the loss which will eventually catch up to the company. The industry has to find a balance or it will be gone to someone that can offer a better price or service for the money. When has the government worried about profitably? If they loose money they raise taxes, if their is a surplus they find a way to spend it. Neither are good for the taxpayer. And this is the beast so many want to surrender their options to?

What's the issue with this as a principle? If the government already has to provide healthcare to people who can't afford it (in effect an emergancy insurance), then it should make sure anyone who could be in such a position (i.e. someone without suitable insurance) should then have to pay an 'insurance premium', which since it is from government will likely just mean an additional tax or fine. Jail time can then be used for people who refuse to pay such a premium.

The main problems I'd see are firstly using jail time as a punishment for not getting the insurance instead of using taxes/fines (which would be more efficient) and then using jail for refusal to pay these, and secondly having too many requirements for acceptable health insurance (that is, you'd want an acceptable health insurance to be anything that covers everything the government would cover in an emergency anyway, but not any more than this, to ensure people aren't forced to purchase unnecessary services)