You assume things that are not necessarily true and again conflate heath insurance costs with health care costs.It is possible for health care costs to increase while health insurance costs do not.

Here's the full quote: It's the kind of cheap stunt you'd expect from a political opponent in a campaign, not an impartial judge tasked with determining whether an act of Congress is constitutional. The insurance companies maintain around 7% profit margins. the quote from Obama is absolutely funny given what he actually did. It will do nothing to reduce health care expenditures overall. Obamacare does nothing to address overall health care cost increases. Again, you are confusing two separate issues and you are conflating "cost savings" with affordability. If you pump 32 million new people into the system, you are dramatically increasing demand while not seeing any increase in supply.

the full quote only makes his comment more hilarious. That is not going to be changing due to this legislation. Someone has to PAY for those subsidies, hence they are neutral to overall health care costs. He did nothing to address cost increases to the system, at the same time he mandated people buy coverage. When you also have continuing cost increases in overall health care expenses, premiums go up.

I am confident if people have a chance to buy high-quality health care that is affordable, they will do so.

That's what our plan does and nobody disputes that.

I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that, If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house, Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of his 78-page ruling Monday. though i suspect nigel will not be able to see the humor :awesome: No, I don't see the humor, mainly because it is more than slightly dishonest. If you haven't made it affordable, how are you going to enforce a mandate.

I mean, if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house.

thanks for providing it, i had no idea obama was THAT full quote only makes his comment more hilarious. It will do nothing to reduce health care expenditures overall. Obamacare does nothing to address overall health care cost increases. You are also quite ignorant if you think the low risk side increases are going to be the majority of those 32 million. You are simply playing a shell game of HOW people pay for that health care. WHERE the money comes from for those subsidies you mentioned? It's silly to say that people are paying "this" money here, therefore it "costs less"... It just hides that cost through forced "contributions" to your care. You are simply playing a shell game of HOW people pay for that health care. WHERE the money comes from for those subsidies you mentioned?

thanks for providing it, i had no idea obama was THAT stupid. In context, it shows that Obama did not support a mandate absent affordability measures and with affordability measures he didn't think one was necessary. What I do find funny is the idea that the judge felt it necessary to include that quote, which pretty clearly states that mandates are not necessary, in an opinion which finds that the unnecessary mandate is not severable from the rest of the bill. I'd also note that it's common knowledge that among the three major Democratic presidential candidates Obama was the only one that did not support an individual mandate. If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house. :) On a more serious note the whole idea is to ensure everyone has medical coverage. Again, you are confusing two separate issues and you are conflating "cost savings" with affordability. Like I stated, you are an idiot when it comes to economics. Like I stated, you are an idiot when it comes to economics. I answered that; it mainly will come from the rich. "Affordability" in the context of Obama's remarks, or my own interpretation of the word in almost any context, deals w/ the individuals who actually pay.

Actually, the law has a lot of affordability measures. Since the bill has 'lots of affordability measures' I am certain you will be able to list a few of them for us.... what is it that health insurance 'insures' us against? 1) yes, I believe there is a board for UNJUSTIFIED rate increases. It just says there can't be unjustified cost increases. Sorry, but these are not cost reducers either.1) yes, I believe there is a board for UNJUSTIFIED rate increases. It just says there can't be unjustified cost increases. If there is a way to reduce unjustified cost increases, the natural consequence of that is better affordability. I won't deny that this is a tax the rich to pay for the poor & middle class kind of plan. I just think the premise of the thread is misleading, given the full context of Obama's remarks & the fact that there ARE affordability measures in the plan, like it or not. what is it that health insurance 'insures' us against? That's not the discussion that is being had here, though....

You can pretend they don't exist if you want to, but they're in there. There is NOTHING in there that will address the cost increases. It does nothing to stop continued justified increases in health care costs. It does nothing to stop continued justified increases in health care costs. What's inane to me is someone taking my words about affordability & pretending I'm talking about cost reduction. I don't disagree w/ you about the problems we face in healthcare.

You are conflating two separate things: the cost of health insurance and the cost of health care. Regarding Obama's quote, the cost of health insurance is the relevant cost and the bill has lots of affordability measures to allow people to obtain affordable health insurance. "Affordability measures" in the form of "from those with the ability to those with the need" are not anything we should be celebrating here in the US. you truly are a fucking moron when it comes to economics.