To everyone?  Hell no.  Medicare as an insurance sucks.

I think they should expand medicare to cover more people if reformed... and really that's about it.  Just so people without healthcare have the option.

That and limit what counts as "Preexisting causes" and possibly pass a law that states that "Prexisting causes don't count if you were born with them, or insured when they were first detected."

Such laws would cover most prexisting people, and would likely force more people into the market since you couldn't "hide" injuries or diseases.

Furthermore it wouldn't force people to stick with the healthcare plan they had when they got sick.

It'd still probably increase costs modestly... but you really aren't going to end up with a system that both expands coverage and reduces costs. 

Not even a single payer system.  You'd have to rewrite like half the laws in the country to pull it off and greatly change peoples expectations of healthcare.

Tell the average person in the US they're insurance doesn't cover an procedure because they're too old, and they'll flip out at you for sure.

Although to be fair a large portion of those without Healthcare actually do qualify for medicare and just don't take advantage of it.... I'm guessing that's one of the big goals of the individual mandate.  To force the poor who qualify for it to join medicare.  (They don't because there are some copays and premiums and deductables, although they are very small.  This is needed to stop vast overtreatement.)

I still think single payer is the way to go. Do you ever post in anything else but politics. Go to my ted thread and have a laugh bro. Maybe you don't have that sense of humor but I almost pissed my pants. Watch second tailer it's longer and more in depth.

Rarely anymore, I don't like argueing or having opinions on stuff without easy to parse data.  So the removal of the graph feature makes it way to much work to have kind of opinion on how games are selling or if games are selling well etc.

That said, Harry Reid's numbers are somewhat off.  Which is not unexpected, because he's Harry Reid.  The only reason he's still in the Senate is because the Republicans couldn't of picked a worse perseon to run against him.

The number is 62%... and that's bankruptcys that INCLUDED healthcare costs.  Which rounding up to 70 is quite a bit.  The 80% bit is right, but really... which actually furhter points out why the ACA is shit and will only make things worse but that said....

I'd rather have people going bankrupt then people being denied healthcare other people on the same plan get to save costs.

Which is what happenes under government plans.

Sure in America the Old guy has to pay more for treatment then the young guy....

but the old guy isn't going to be sent home without treatment because he's too old.  The UK has just had to put in measures to try and combat that.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2157867/Elderly-denied-NHS-care-sue-Ministers-outlaw-age-discrimination-hospitals.html

Nevermind though... that they still will decide whether or not you deserve treament based on your odds of success.

Me... if I have a disease I'd rather go bankrupt trying every method to cure it.  Rather then to be denied because it might no work and a 40% chance just isn't worth the money the government would have to spend to try it.

I don't like a system where doctors are forced to worry about the government's bottom line in deciding what treatments are best for their patients.

And this is coming from someone with health insurance that would likely go bankrupt in case of huge illness.

Interesting. Looks like they're upholding the individual mandate BUT it's NOT constitutional under the commerce cause. They're treating it as a tax... which is odd cause even the Obama administration abandoned that line of argument in the debate.

Also amusing, Howard Dean thought the ruling should go the same way as me. So much for me holding an "extreme right wing view"

Seens like the best ruling if your hellbent on keeping the individual mandate but don't want to expand the commerce clause to all government to make people buy Kenny G Cds.

As it's a tax, does this mean that they cannot rule on it until it gets enforced? Like 2014?

Or is it constitutional, 100%

Sounds like they're saying it's constitutional.  They're still sorting through it though.  It's funny both sides argued it wasn't a tax.   Then the Supreme court rules it a tax.

As expected, although I'm surprised Roberts went along for the ride. Good news for Romney, I guess.

Seems like a good compromise to me.   Looks lik Roberts REALLY wanted to pass it, but couldn't find a good legal path to do so.

So they went with it being a tax, which put it in line with legal precedent.

The only issue really being that it was specifically legislated to NOT be a tax, because Obama didn't want to raise taxes before the election seeing it as a negative thing.

Either way, I'm happy that the commerce clause's point was upheld.

Feel bad for a few of my friends who can't afford health insurance though and basically can't afford ANY price per month, but likely won't qualify for subsidies or medicare/caid because of assets.

That's a load off my shoulders, i must say. Now this country can move forward to a more acceptable health-insurance alternative.

What are those assests that make this happen?