SCOTUS did not rule on the Commerce Clause, as most expected,interestingly they 'called it' on the ability of Congress to Tax. Can't wait to see the spin, as the President and all the supporters of the law said repeatedly that 'it was NOT a tax'.

Mary, who will pay for this, how many more doctors will we need, who will want to be a doctor under this program and can you show me one nation where this type of program "is" sustainable?

I seem to recall a lot of Republicans calling the mandate a tax earlier in the game, perhaps hoping the negative connotations of the word would help sway public opinion to their view. Now that the Supreme Court issued a ruling based in part on considering the mandate a tax, the Republicans are quoting Obama's words. I think the spin is that the Court apparently agreed it was a tax, just as Republicans had claimed... and used that to uphold the law.

Come November, the Republicans may gain the edge they need to repeal, but unless they have a replacement in mind that covers popular provisions --- like coverage of people with pre-existing conditions and allowing people 26 or younger to remain on their parent's plan --- they're going to lose moderate voters. Those provisions will be very hard to take away without looking bad.

I'm not crazy about government being involved with healthcare, but health insurance companies haven't exactly acted in the best public interest. In many ways, they brought this on themselves. I don't see any politically successful strategy to deregulation any time soon, regardless of which party comes out ahead in 2012.

And now the "government will be able to tell you how to live, what you can eat, what you can drink, what activities you can participate in and tax you more if you don't ... The real beauty of this ruling is the whole "tax you for not doing something that (they) want you to". Just lovely. Yes congratulations to all the Progressives out there.

Steve ® - Not just Europe, even high-growth India and China have universal healthcare. And, the U.S. was the last "westernized" country in the world without it. Where would you go to dodge it?.

President Obongo just lost his re election in November, this ensures it.

I'm glad to see all of these brainwashed right-wingers getting their embolisms out of the way before the mandate kicks in.

TC, Your time will come.

Greg, that's either an empty threat (like all of the other 'revolution' and 'civil war' bs getting tossed around here) or just a meaningless utterance. As an employer, I've seen the effects of "Obamacare," and guess what - from where I sit, they're entirely positive. In fact, one of the major insurance companies in SE Wisconsin is actually going to be paying rebates due to low utilization. That's money going back into the pockets of hardworking Americans, thanks to our awesome President.

TC - Obama care doesn't take full effect until 2014, you have seen nothing

It is neither an empty threat or a meaningless utterance. It is a prediction that when you and yours find out what this powergrab really means, you will be getting your embolism. Kinda simple really.

Sure. And when you and your kind figure out that there are no "death panels," and it's not a "government takeover," and the President wasn't born in Kenya, then we'll be living in the same reality. I guess the embolism could help with that; I can't see how it could hurt.

What does the president being born in Kenya have to do with the largest tax increase the world has ever seen and a government take over of the private healthcare system?

Steve, the answer is that all of those things are absolute fiction.

The point about the largest tax increase is completely bogus. Yes, if nobody was currently paying for health insurance, and all of a sudden everyone had to buy it from the government, then it would be the largest tax increase in history. HOWEVER, most people already have health insurance, and there's no reason why those who don't would have to buy it from the government anyway. They can just pay the fine, or buy it from a private insurer.

Just more lies and obfuscation from the right.

Steve you speak like a man who has healthcare. I have not been covered since 2005 when I left my job to become an entrepreneur. I'd love healthcare but I am turned down because of pre-exisitng conditions or the fees are outrageous. My being covered means preventative care. That will be a savings in the long run for all.

How is all of this great health care paid for if everyone just pays the fine? What is the plan for those that can't or won't pay the fine?
Tao, Got a problem with reading things into the conversation that aren't there?

Geez Steve, I thought you would have included a Beatles link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oyu5sFzWLk8

If you are responsible and purchase private health insurance you pay nothing.

That's a tax I can live with.

Most get healthcare from their employer. Most employers will now drop coverage as the $2000/person fine is cheaper. Enjoy your tax

@ Mike Knight, it's a free country If you can afford to live in it. What a joke,by the time the people wake up it's going to be to late. Get informed before November.

But it's okay for the State to make us buy car insurance?

Please explain the difference in your mind.

Is the difference really that hard to see, Keri?

Think about what happens when a car hits something - or someone.

In addition to that, if you have a problem with being forced to buy car insurance, don't drive and the government won't hit you with a punitive monetary penalty for not carrying car insurance. You have a choice. Not so much with the health insurance mandate.

Keri - States are sovereign and law is different. You choose to drive so you can be forced to buy products or services. If you do not drive well then you can avoid those product and service fees 100%.

You will now be taxed just by being born in the USA and you can not avoid the tax by just not choosing to do an action.

You walk into a store, offered to buy a gallon of milk. You say no I don't need milk. The store charges you a fee for not buying the milk.

Can you say per-existing condition? What a fool you are.

Pre-existing conditions are no longer an issue under Obamacare. People can buy insurance only when they need it without paying higher premiums.

Considering that the fines for not having insurance are much cheaper than insurance, I expect lots of people to drop their insurance and pick it up only when they need it.

CowDung, my point is that for all of Steve's hatred of the law, he's relying on aspects of it to save him once he gets cancer. Those previously without insurance will now at least be contributing SOMETHING to the cost of their healthcare, instead of the rest of us shouldering ALL of it once they go to the ER.

You go to the ER when you get cancer?
You only make my point. Go to ER after slicing yourself doing yardwork, hey you have cancer. Crap.

Purchase insurance tomorrow, insurance company can't deny me. Put 150,000 into my body, pay insurance company only a few thousand. Die, drop insurance. Cured, drop insurance. Cancer comes back, buy insurance again.

Steve, no, you are making my point.

1.) You wouldn't be able to get insurance with cancer without the ACA.
2.) You will be helping defray costs via the no-freeloader tax.

No you made my point, and you just did it again.

1.) You wouldn't be able to get insurance with cancer without the ACA.
NO kidding, read my example above
2.) You will be helping defray costs via the no-freeloader tax.
I can't afford insurance, now what, now who pays it's a mandate that we all must have it. Your employer drops you from their insurance because the $2000 fine is cheaper per employee. Now what now you pay more. Enjoy your tax.

Its a 5-4 decision . So clearly that was debated among the Justices. It's the law because the current makeup of the court said so .Citizens dont have to agree with the law. That's the 1st amendment. It's also a 500 billion dollar tax increase on the american people . Obama's anti capitalistic ideas are choking the economy and opportunity from the citizens of this country. Expect the slow to NO recovery to continue.

Steve ® - Very odd. You claim to be a 1%'er, and on Patch nearly every minute espousing Republican "values", yet you have never donated to a Presidential election before?

Did I stutttter?

An excellent example to his employees, demonstrating community interest. Careful Steve, you might be setting up a volunteer employee team to serve meals at a homeless shelter next. Philanthropy sort of sneaks up on you that way! ; )

Ken, are you saying that now that people will have insurance, they will not use emergency rooms for their primary care? I would claim just the opposite. People without insurance currently are by and large irresponsible. If they were responsible, they would have insurance. They have, through a series of life decisions, made poor decisions, leading to a choice of not having insurance, or being economically unable to attain insurance.

Do you really think that that behavior is magically going to change, now that they are insured? What would indicate that this is so?

Ken... Since the passage of Romney-care in Massachusetts the use of the emergency room has ++increased++ by 7-10%. The prediction was, just like you said, with mandatory insurance the ER usage/costs would be reduced. Supporters of the law,now proven wrong, had calculated a drop of 7-10% in ER usage.

1) Since the law requires individuals to obtain health insurance and since it's highly like the cost of paying penalties for not providing employees with health insurance will be less than the overall cost of providing the benefit, this pretty much assures the end of employer provided health insurance for many people.

2) Requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions and allowing for the purchase of insurance posti-diagnosis is going to cause the overall cost of insurance plans to skyrocket. Those who can't afford it now most likely won't be able to afford it under the new system and will, in addition, be forced to pay a penalty for not having insurance. On top of that, a whole new class of individual, those who previously had employer supplied insurance and who are now forced out into the open market, may also be forced to opt for the penalty versus purchasing expensive insurance.

The net result could be less people actually covered, less people seeking healthcare when they need it, more people in financial straights as a result of healthcare costs and an actual worsening of the negatives created by our current system.

Your last statement is utter B.S. America is not about me paying for your stuff.

Well said...

Of course it's a tax. It always has been. It is also a volunatry tax. If you choose to be irresponsible and not purchase health insurance from the private sector you are subject to the tax. Life is full of choices.

Romney sold this concept in Massachusetts as a 'tax on the freeloaders'

If you have insurance like I do we already pay a hidden tax in the form of higher premiums to compensate for the care received by the uninsured freeloaders of our society.

It's a strange world indeed when the GOP becomes the defender of freeloaders. Must've woken-up this morning in an alternate dimension...

What happens when the freeloaders still don't buy insurance?

Love the logic that the only way to get free-loaders to stop free-loading is to give them something for free. Brilliant!

Gas Pains...how about people don't get services they choose not to pay for. Now that will stop the free-loading!

Hoffa does not have health insurance, but rather pays cash as he utilizes certain services. Hoffa always pays his bills and has never stiffed a health care provider. Does that make Hoffa a "freeloader" or "personally irresponsible?" Now, I no longer have the right to chose to pay as I go - I must buy health insurance or face a penalty, even though it's unclear how the IRS will enforce such a penalty. My freedom of choice was taken away by President Obama and Congressional Democrats and I'm being punished just because there are low-lifes out there that patronize health care services and then don't pay for them.

Is that the new American way - to punish the righteous just to kowtow to the low-lifes?

@JRH...Yep! Your on the hook now. Your financial responsibility has finally come around to bite you in the backside. But knowing you, I am confident that you'll figure out away to remain free and debt free. Just don't go and get married and have kids, that's when you really lose financial freedoms.:-)

Hoffa, You will still have a choice, stand in line to get into the ward or black market.

Brittany, are you saying that now that people will have insurance, they will not use emergency rooms for their primary care? I would claim just the opposite.

People without insurance currently are by and large irresponsible. If they were responsible, they would have insurance. They have, through a series of life decisions, made poor decisions, leading to a choice of not having insurance, or being economically unable to attain insurance. I have no faith that those previously too irresponsible to have insurance, will now be responsible and take the time to find and utilize a primary care physician. Your premise that ER usage will go down is built on a rainbow wishes and unicorn dreams.

Do you really think that that behavior is magically going to change, now that they are insured? What would indicate that this is so?

Brittany, I pay for a lot of stuff that I should not have to. There is no personal responsibility in our country, and it shows.

What will that penalty be exactly, as the law states that it CANNOT be a forfeiture, seizure, and/or criminal prosecution, but doesn't state exactly how the IRS can enforce the penalty - isn't that strange that it states what they can't do but not what they can do?

Ken,

No, I'm not saying all uninsured are that way because of choice. I'm saying that the vast majority of uninsured are that way because they have made irresponsible choices. Some have literally chosen not to buy insurance, whether individually or through an employer, and some have made such poor choices throughout their lifetime that they are economically unable to afford it, or can't get a good enough job that offers it.

So, my statement is that we are hoping that people who have shown, through personal choices to be irresponsible, will now, magically, with absolutely no incentive what so ever, be responsible, and that is where we will see this massive savings on healthcare that this law is touting.

The spin from the WH will be; Obama will get in front of the camera and say "This is a good thing for the American people", that's all, same as always.

State rights not equal to federal

Hell just make them 1099 employees like I am going to do, let them pay the fine.

As I understand it, as a small business owner you will be eligible to participate in a health insurance purchasing pool which will keep costs affordable. Some years back I worked for an organization that participated in a similar pool operated by the local chamber of commerce. It worked well.

Not to tell you how to run your business but most full time employees want health care. I think you will be very pleasantly surprised at what's possible for your company and employees.

So, Michael, why wouldn't you have stopped offering a health plan BEFORE there was a fine? If costs alone were driving your decision, then you would have dropped the health plan already.

Is it because, thanks to the ACA, there's now going to be a more affordable public option for your employees?

►why wouldn't you have stopped offering a health plan BEFORE◄

Competition in the free market. Obama care removed that equally

Steve, at least try to make sense. How did the ACA hurt competition? Bonus points if you can respond without contradicting yourself or parroting GOP lies and propaganda.

I don't' need your bonus points.

When trying to find full time employees one way you bargain with them over compensation is offer benefits. Our Obama economy is still in the dumps so there is no shortage of workers unless you need a welder. Once the first large corporation dumps their healthcare plans and pays the $2000 fine/employee, the rest will follow removing that completion or way of luring an employee.

There was none of this before because there was no obama care mandating you purchase a product or service.

Well, it's a good thing you don't need my bonus points, because you're not getting any - not only were you incoherent, but you didn't answer the question.

So, Steve, the question remains - If an employer didn't dump their health plan when there was NO fine, why would they be motivated to do so now that there IS a fine? What is it about "Obamacare" that will make employers drop their health plans? I'll give you one more chance to answer before I enlighten you.

Boo hoo. I'm sure the establishment is just trembling in fear of your impotent rage.

Not sure what your point is.

At first you stated that this law will help people not use the ER because they have insurance and can use a primary care doctor, yet now you state that you see people with insurance using the ER for non emergency care.

.

by ER you mean urgent care?

I guess you have a choice, what a great concept. Wait until Obama wants to tell you that you must or must not have that bias.

I understand what you are saying...you just contradict yourself, that's all.

Here is what you posted above "Case in point individuals without health insurance who go to the emergency room for care cost taxpayers in today's market.".

The cost is the same, whether they have insurance or don't have insurance if they are subsidized. But, as seen with Mass., ER utilization has gone up, not down, thus driving costs higher, and not lower. Medical services utilization across the board also goes up with the more people insured...which makes sense...but that doesn't drive cost down...just drives demand up, without increase supply.

This bill is not affordable, and does not lower costs. It will help people get insurance...and that's all it does. It won't change their behavior to utilization, there will be no benefit to paying for a policy that fits your personal needs, will not change lifestyles, and further takes personal responsibility away...but other than that, it's fantastic!

Brittany,

You know the answer to your question, but you need to provide context. Employers offer insurance as a benefit to attract employees, plain and simple. However, under the ACA, if the plan is too good, you know, to attract really good employees, that business gets taxed. So, the effect of the law is to make basically all insurance plans the same, regardless of who supplies the plan. If all the plans are essentially the same, there is no longer an incentive to offer insurance benefits...so then it comes down to strictly dollars, cents, and sense. Why pay $10,000 per employee, when I could pay $2,000?

@Chris...As one retired business owner to a current business owner, let's look at your logic. As you say, offering benefits to employees is and has always been a means for attracting the best employee candidates. Let's follow what you are offering to a prospective candidate through a mock employment interview:

Employer: I don't offer healthcare insurance anymore, but I will pay your fine of $2000.

Prospective Employee: If I understand what your saying is that you used to offer healthcare, but now you don't, why?

Employer: Because it is cheaper for the business to pay the fine than to pay the employer portion of the premium and I don't have to negotiate with insurance companies.

Prospective Employee: So what you are saying, if I come to work for you that you will be saving money by making me purchase healthcare coverage for myself and my family. How much more will you pay me since I have to purchase my own? Seems to me you should pay me what you would have been spending of healthcare coverage.

Employer: I can't afford to do that, it will cost me more money.

Potential Employee: Thanks for your offer, but I think I'll pass, Good day.

Chris, besides attracting good employees, offering benefits instead of salary saves the employee and employee money. The employer doesn't have to withhold SS or payroll taxes.

If you don't offer a decent benefit package, you'll not get the quality of employee that you will need to maintain and grow your business.

Lyle, I believe Chris was referring to his penalty of $2K, not the employee's.

I think you're also assuming an employment marketplace where the potential employee holds a bigger bargaining chip (I'll go elsewhere) than is actually the case. In addition, the provisions in ACA that will most likely cause premiums to jump significantly (as insurance companies attempt to regain some of the additional costs associated with them), will provide employers with the perfect (and in many cases, legitimate) excuse for not only not providing health care insurance for new hires, but for discontinuing to offer it altogether, thanks, in part, to a penalty that encourages them to do so. Not only that, but that same penalty also provides the perfect excuse for doing no more than not charging the employee for their portion of the insurance going forward.

The goal obviously is NHC, however this is a pretty brutal way of getting us there and one that may, ultimately, end up making the situation much worse before it gets "better".

If they do, it is the insurance companies using the ACA as an excuse.

Your "acquaintance" was too stupid to call the insurance company before hand and see if this new doctor was covered?

Yes we know you want to take over the private healthcare industry so you can control 1/6th of the economy.

@Bren... For health insurance purposes the uniform national coding standard exists today and its called a DRG;this coding system started in 1980. Got yourself broken leg? -- Fracture; upper end, closed; tibia alone -- that an 823.00 .

http://www.findacode.com/icd-9/823-00-fracture-upper-end-closed-tibia-alone-icd-9-code.html

Steve, my acquaintance was indeed given to understand that this was an in-network provider when she learned at the time of her appointment that her PCP was not available. It was a highly unusual situation. Typically a clinic, a partnership of doctors, affiliate with one system or another. The insurance companies affiliate with systems, clinics, and doctors. (For example, when Aurora was starting up United Healthcare originally refused to accept Aurora's prices.) It's ridiculous for a health insurance company to be splitting hairs within a clinic in that way. My acquaintance is definitely not stupid, the rules are written casino-style, so that the House always wins.

Steve, not sure what type of "job creator" you are. I always look for direct services to cut out the expense of the middleman. The three issues with the U.S. healthcare system (in my opinion) are these: 1. We have a for-profit industry administering a human need (medical care). 2. That industry took advantage of the post-WWII trend of employers picking up medical costs as a recruiting/retention tool (companies can typically pay more than individuals). 3. The combined issues of the cost of medical training, business start-up and overhead, health insurance-related opportunity costs, etc., have caused prices to rise out of control. 4. Patients have a hard time getting up-front estimates--that's illegal in the car repair industry.

Right now corporate interests mostly support the GOP. A NHCP would be apolitical.

I think the insurance companies had their hand in the writing of the ACA. The car repair scenario that you present is real, but not yet mandated by our government.

It's not too out of line with the cost of insurance even with your employer discounting it to you. Obama care will probably rule this as not the correct kind of insurance and they will be gone like all the rest in the free market.

This a bill of incredible importance, so all Americans need to take a deep breath and wait and see the real impact on all of us,insured or not, before either side claims "victory", Because there is absolutely no "victory" if the vast majority of "we the people" ,the real govt. benefit from Washington's actions. I hope more of us start getting really educated on this subject instead of just watching/reading what we agree with on tv or the radio.

What many of us don't remember is that when the single provider (read a differrent type of medicare) was proposed, the Pres. caved and let the ins. industry write this bill to cover their interests after they figured the tides had gone against them and they better get on board.

Jim, please tell me how these"death Panels" that you are terribly worried about are worse than the exisiting system where ins co.. can basically deny any claim and make you prove (with a lawyer) that you have a viable claim.

Not to mention that a reversal of the ACA would have left millions in the lurch without health care coverage that have been added since its passage in 2009. What is disturbing are the Republicans who have flipped out and seem totally unmindful of the tragedies this would visit on a vast number of people.

Worse than 9/11? Get a grip.

The "death panel" he is referring to is a panel in each specialty that decides if care for a condition is appropriate to cover or not. Think of it like this... An example: PSA testing and prostate treatment in men. If a treatment doesn't affect your expected lifespan (men, thats 76 years old) why cover it? So when the man lives two 77 and then gets metastatic prostate cancer, the treatment will be conservative because he has already lived a "full life." The push for conservative medicine has already started. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57438590-10391704/u.s-panel-recommends-against-psa-tests-for-screening-prostate-cancer-in-men-of-all-ages/

@Ken ... at least you GET the care, the otherway "they" decide you don't get the care and die .. seems like a no-brainer .. well you probably can't understand

Does anyone remember Hillary Clinton and Al Gore's attempt at a National Health Care System. I do. My sister-in-law was diagnosed with advanced cancer. Her chance of survival with treatment was low. I don't remember her exact survival number. But under their proposal she fell below the acceptable percentage for survival and thus would have been left to die with no treatment. Luckily their proposal failed and my sister-in-law is alive today. That is a death panel.

The so-called "death panels" are insurance company "appeal" committees. If a claim has been declined (because of coding errors, clerk who forgot to open the "notes" tab on that patient in the database, etc., which I observed numerous times when working in the industry), the patient may appeal for a review. The process may take months, and if the patient dies, oh well, less money to pay out. Seldom are declinations reversed, and if so, they are a compromise (at best). Panels are comprised of doctors who are paid by the insurance company and probably better than they ever were while in practice. So there is a broad constituency that profits from industrialized healthcare coverage.

If a treatment is turned down by the Appeal panel because it is "experimental," etc., the patient has little recourse. Litigation, another time-consuming enterprise that could further compromise health, try to get on Medicaid or wait until the point of collapse and be taken to a public hospital on the taxpayer dime, or go without treatment and die.

mau, if you have any links to back up your claims about the Clinton/Gore NHCP please provide them. I had no idea that their concept had reached the point of personal diagnoses.

Why is it then that insurance companies have people on staff to find ways not to pay claims? Why health insurance is the one thing this country that you pay for -- a lot -- and you have no guarantee that they will honor their promises?

Keith:

You seem to be posting a lot around here. Are you a Koch sponsored paid blogger or something?

Waukytalk, claim declination is the standard procedure for handling any irregularities in a claim. The patient becomes the insurance providers' unpaid employee whilst attempting to determine the actual purpose for the declination (suspected other coverage, provider/procedure code error(s), subjective interpretation of coverage, etc., etc.). The location of the service can also be an issue. A few years ago a relative had their foot stepped on by a horse after a riding lesson. Because the Urgent Care Center was located right next to the Emergency Room (both were clearly marked), the UCC employee mistakenly coded the stomp as an emergency room visit. If the relative hadn't been friendly with the plan administrator at their job they would have paid hundreds more because of the mistake.

Remember that billing and claim processing mistakes are always the fault and responsibility of the paying customer.

Your assumption is that ACA is going to work, others may not share your view.
As of now I have not had a problem providing for health care for my family, and there is no indication that that was ever going to change. Now is the first time that I am unsure. If you know the content of this bill, in it's entirety, please share it with us.

Greg - Oh yeah, like someone needs to read and study the entire bill in depth to comment on it. That is why we have competing political parties, news organizations, political analysts, academia, etc. to listen to.
You already have health coverage, so you do not need to sign up. What do you fear exactly? Or are you just trying to encourage fear in others? You are not exactly a sage and neutral observer, quite the very opposite.
If the Republicans win the control of Congress and the Presidency, they will not dare get rid of the bill in its entirety, or replace it with a much weaker version. Everyone that has a health crisis or even hears about one after that will blame the Republicans for eliminating something that may have helped. Sob stories woule proliferate in the press, and the Republicans would look evil. Obama would go down in history as the great but denied visionary. Obamacare replaced by Romneycare would be a mostly a name change, and a bit of tinkering would convert one to the other. .
It is all over for those against universal healthcare,as, in one form or another, it is a done deal. That is the way world trends in healthcare have overtaken America. Some details would change, but Obama is at least the man that got the ball rolling downhill, and history will be kind to someone like him, versus the unprogressive Tea Party. .

I agree, Obama is leading our country downhill.
Dirk, Your blind trust is probably touching to politicians, but the majority of the country does not agree with you.

Greg - Most people will say they are against universal healthcare, but when they hear the individual provisions, e.g., pre-existing conditions not preventing you from being covered, you cannot be dropped from coverage, etc., they are mostly all for it.
Obama does need to push the individual provisions, and Romney will not be able to say he is opposed without political repercussions. And wait until those millions of rebate checks for insurance companies are mailed later this year!

Well said Dirk! If you already have insurance, there's nothing going to change. Hey Keith, ask Romney. He has the same law in Massachusetts!

Jack, the difference is that it was passed at a state level vs. Federal. The way I read the US Constitution, a state has a right to do that.

Romney thinks so, but won't say. Its the same law he signed in Massuchesetts!

Jack, the difference is that it was passed at a state level vs. Federal. The way I read the US Constitution, a state has a right to do that.

Shouldn't you add Romney in your comment? He passed the same law in Massuchesetts...

Jack, the difference is that it was passed at a state level vs. Federal. The way I read the US Constitution, a state has a right to do that.

Uh oh, you forgot to add Romney in your comment....I wonder if he was in office, would you complain about the same law he passed?

Jack, the difference is that it was passed at a state level vs. Federal. The way I read the US Constitution, a state has a right to do that.

Please provide links supporting your talking points, so I can read more.

Greg....http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/08/investigating-mitt-romney-offshore-accounts... ....You should already be aware of the Massachusetts health care law. Also, the lost of jobs in Massachusetts and the outsourcing of jobs. The internet is easy to find information on what ever you seems to not want to see. I am not saying President Obama should not have focus on jobs. But, you have to be aware of both candidates before selecting base off of political parties. I am not a democrat, but I do believe in knowing both parties!

Jack, the difference is that it was passed at a state level vs. Federal. The way I read the US Constitution, a state has a right to do that.