Perhaps my response to the person who goes by the name of "Roger" (from where, we don't know) is helpful. I suspect it has to do with un-funded mandates. In general, opposing the idea of USFG mandates is absurd. the USFG (U.S. Federal Government) mandates all kinds of things, including auto insurance and seat belts. No state has the right to allow one to drive a car without a seat belt or without auto insurance. So, clearly, this states rights argument is flawed. I don't see how mandating health insurance coverage is any different than requiring citizens to wear seat belts. Yes, we have a right to do whatever we want with our bodies, but not when your fellow citizens are footing the bill for your malfeasance. The U.S. government has a legitimate right to mandate insurance, on these grounds. However, my beef, and the attorney generals additional beef, is that the mandates, after taxes, do NOT reduce costs to individuals in the net. And this is the problem we all need to discuss.

Sir, with all due respect, you are not thoroughly reading my posts. First, I do agree with your assessment of right-wing nutballs, but remember that left-wing nutballs were just as extreme about Nixon and Bush. The heated rhetoric was the same. That does not make it right. Secondly, you are unwittingly seconding my point in this post. I am saying, yes, even with my whole foods natural lifestyle, I play sports, I take risks, so, yes, yes, yes, there might come a time when, yes, I will need heroic western medical care. Which is why I've always been saying that we must have mandatory health insurance for everyone. Heck, include illegal aliens in that mix, if you want (since you get way plugged in about them). I do not blame anyone in any of my posts. I simply said that we should incentivize healthy lifestyle choices that scientifically prevent certain diseases (yell at the American Lung Association if you don't believe quitting smoking lowers the incidence of lung cancers; and yell at the American Cancer Society if you don't believe diet plays a huge role in a range of cancers, as well as heart disease). Nobody is taking away your health care, sir. I am just saying the COST of the current system is absurdly high. I should be rewarded on my premiums for making healthy choices, and so should YOU. What's more, you miss the entire point of the article. You say my $250/month is too low a threshold. Surely you don't think what I now have to pay, at above $850/month, is too low. So, your magic number for my premium must be somewhere in the middle I am left to presume. Which, of course, makes my point brilliantly. For, with all the increased taxes I am going to have to pay with ObamaCare (as a single man, and small business owner), the fact is, my net cost will undoubtedly be the same as what I currently pay to the United Health Care/Oxford extortionists, and possibly even higher. So, for a person like me, who is not a child under 26, who is not on Medicaid or Social Security, what, in the famous words of Fredo, "is in it for me?" Especially in matters of cost. Any way I slice it, either I pay hugely high premiums now, or I pay higher taxes under ObamaCare. The net effect is the same. The cost issue for middle class Americans is STILL not solved. I suggested several helpful ways to reduce costs: A. Stop providing free care to illegal immigrants (I am all in favor of mandatory health insurance for illegals); B. Give healthy lifestyle incentives; C. Place higher taxes on un-healthy practices (tanning salons are a good start); D. Tort Reform; E. Break up regional insurance monopolies through changes in anti-trust law and tax code. The Republican far right may be off their rockers, but these mainstream ideas will actually work. As it stands, I don't see anything of substance in ObamaCare that reduces cost for the vast majority of middle class Americans who can't afford health insurance. Naturally, I stand ready to be corrected by folks truly knowledgeable in this area and who are capacious enough to contain opposing points of view.

Margaret, the pooling you describe refers to high-risk, high-cost individuals with existing conditions that prevent them from getting insurance. By pooling together, the plan figures these uninsured folks can get cheaper rates for them all. That pooling does not apply to me or many like me, who are not in a high-risk pool (though if I keep eating late at night I might be soon!!!). Secondly, $250,000 is an arbitrary number. Per my response to Ms. Coyle, it is not effective to punish those making over $250,000 to reward those who do not. That is not an effective way to motivate the kind of job-creating behavior we need in this country. It's robbing Peter to pay Paul. It empirically does not work. Lowering taxes on those who make over $250,000 DOES work because it frees those folks who have the means to actually invest in jobs. No one's taxes should be raised. And no dividend taxes or capital gains taxes should be raised. Taxes need to be lowered. The only bleeding heart thing I recommend to achieve the above goals is to pull back our military footprint from around the globe. We could reduce our defense spending 25% and still be the baddest bloke on the block. That 25% yearly reduction would EASILY cover free national health care for all Americans forever and would require no increase in taxes. The Tea Party freaks don't talk about that. We should also immediately rescind ALL aid to obstreperous regimes like Israel, who publicly spit in our face, though we are their LONE defender and financial backer on the world stage. Even liberal, guilt-ridden Europe despises the Israeli regime. The savings from those cuts is all we need. But Americans don't want to talk about those elephants in the living room. Those are the big cost drainers. Defense and aid to foreign governments. The third bugaboo is how illegal aliens drain the system. But that's a political minefield. But cutting defense and cutting aid to Israel and other corrupt or obstreperous governments is the immediate answer. We don't have any leader with the backbone to make that push, however. Though I have been impressed with HIllary Clinton's conviction in this regard. She's turning out to be stronger than I imagined in areas like standing up to China and even standing up a wee bit to Israel. But she needs to stand up much more to Israel by completely cutting them off. That will finally get the attention of Israel's arrogant far-right leadership, which thinks it has all U.S. politicians in their pocket. Listen to Senator Chuck Schumer's outrageous Arab-bashing speech before AIPAC this past week. This guy sees himself as a "guardian" of Israel. He is not a servant of the U.S. At best, he has divided loyalties. And if Arab government lobbyists were not so corrupt themselves, and so incompetent when it comes to pointing out the dual loyalties of schmucks like Schumer, then this glaring problem, which directly affects U.S. Security (because our garish backing of Israel inflames Islamic extremists and, thus, endangers our security) would get more ink. Thankfully, there is a growing chorus of Americans who are seeing the light, and, going forward, the AIPAC folks will not be able to bamboozle us as they have in the past, using the right-wing Christians nutballs as their dupes. As for the left-wing nutballs, they did burn the Presidents in effigy. There were many assassination threats on Congressmen and other officials. I think the right-wing behavior of late is more boorish, bigoted, and more likely to stir up violence from the modern militia Timoth McVeigh types in their ranks, however, and must be strongly opposed. You can't be wimpy with these types. You have to come down on hard. And were I in a position of power I certainly would.

Oh, Lord, I can't even manage my own CMS (content management system). Laura, I don't have the heart to rewrite it all. Let's just say that, yes, I agree with you, but it would have been nice in this first (and perhaps last) great stab to get cost reductions for the majority of Americans. Because most of the benefits of the plan apply to those with preexisting conditions, who are poor, or who are under 26 and depend on mommy and daddy.