'There 'you' go again'-to quote 'Ol Ron'--actually, and in fact the ACA is meeting with very favorable results so far. And it is very early in the game-so to speak. The overwhelming response is so much greater than expected there are delays. So?-the result for you if you are just a little patient-- will be health care a whole bunch cheaper than those 'benevolent' insurance companies are providing--or should I say 'denying'. Here is a question: howcum my Medicare costs me not quite $100 dollars-that is for eighty percent of the coverage --but the remaining 20 % costs me $175 dollars. Hint-a whole lotta profit being made by someone. And I will not even need it (the ACA). American insurance companies are taking about 20% right off the top just for administration costs. Other countries with -ooops--'socialized' or 'nationalized' medical delivery systems have administrative costs that average around 4 to 7 %. The US has the most expensive health care on the planet-but not the best by a long shot. WHO studies show health outcomes using our delivery system are ranked way down the list. Hmmm--so if we pay the most -shouldn't we be getting the best? As 'Ol Ron' also said -you get what you pay for---well- do we really?--don't you believe it--the facts prove otherwise-we are getting screwed royally by US health providers and not even getting a kiss!. Wake up America-there is NOTHING not to like about the ACA. The folks who have the most to lose are just plain outright lying about the program (gosh-like competition) and what it is and isn't and what it will do for us!

Come on--if we're talking about derangement, Palin is the crazy one, even if often cutely so. Obama is serious--so serious that he goes on and on like a boring professor sometimes.

Apologies for being off subject in the first place...the question is not Palin or Obama but the Affordable Care Act. Thus, whether Palin is a joke or Obama serious is irrelevant, and I'm the deranged one for going off subject. ha.

Universal health care and its affordability are serious subjects quite aside from personalities involved. Also, quite aside from affordability for us as individuals, there's the question of national budget "affordability"--that is, the extent of government funding or taxation financing of affordability for individuals. As I understand it, one goal of this health insurance measure besides universal health care is partial addressing of upcoming problems in medicare financing for this disportionate retirement generation. (Actually, I'm not sure I understand the complexities involved at all, so should probably leave that discussion to those who think they do...except they probably don't either--ha.) Medicare itself was in effect a rescue for insurance companies who would otherwise either have to cancel insurance for persons over 65 or raise premiums beyond affordability. Medicare has the workplace generation paying in specified taxes to make affordable the more expensive health costs for the retirement generation--the problem being that our current retirement generation will be disportionate in size and thus present rate of medicare taxes insufficient. Same problem obviously with social security funding from specified taxes. One solution is increased specified taxes but one problem there is the corporate share in that taxation and keeping corporate taxation at a rate where our corporations can be competitive in the international marketplace. That there's a trust fund from surplus that delays the crisis is, I suspect, a myth, because the surplus revenues funded national defense during the Cold War. Some reduction in Social Security rate of payout and some increase in taxation seem inevitable. Other measures like the proposal by Rep. Ryan to have individual social security accounts would in effect end funding for SS payouts for my own problem disportionate-number generation.

Obviously the general public wants to care for their parents and grandparents, and the argument will be made that the retirement generation already paid for the benefits they are supposed to receive. It will be very difficult to balance all these complications out. Pragmatic solutions exist. Ownership by the very wealthy has supposedly doubled to 50% since taxation on higher incomes and inheritances were drastically reduced and rates to recover parts of that unreasonable gain would not only restore some social balance but also partially get us through the disportionate retirement generation crisis. The important thing, however, is that the workplace generation's welfare shoudn't be handicapped, which may require some sacrifice by my retirement generation and by the new grossly wealthy part of my generation.

The Affordable Care Act shouldn't be prejudged. Like green eggs it can seem repulsive on sight but may prove quite delicious when tasted. That's the lesson I took from Sen. Cruz's reading of that story, but success is not guaranteed, only a hope. Let's see how it works out, and in the meantime lets look for pragmatic measures to deal with the larger funding crisis rather than calling names and creating only fog that hides the real issues involved.

No, Palin is not the " crazy one," you are. I do not believe you know anything about her. And to say that she is, that's plane stupid. If your going to try and be intellectual, You have started out wrong all together.

To suggest we all follow blindly down some path that we do not know anything about is Ludacris at best, and fool hardy to boot.
What you want to do is jump right in feet first, never mindful of the consequences of your actions.
Over 2700 pages of regulations. This fool administration,
has had over 3 years to get started on this ACA, and is not even close to being ready. And you tell us all that Gov. Palin is crazy. Tell me, is this how you run your life, as a sheeple. How did you manage to get to retirement age, without falling off a cliff?