Reply to a comment

I don't know where you picked up the 10 million added to medicare because I can't imagine who they might be as the poor have always had medicaid to fall back on and still do. If you are thinking of children or the infirm who were not insured, they too were likly illigible for medicare under state social protection laws. Your "freedom" perspectives remind me of those who faught against the mandatory use of seat belts, speed limits and helmet laws. None of those mandatory laws improves ones driving ability nor do they hamper it. They do however save millions of lives and endless amounts of money. You are required to purchase automobile insurance even if you feel you will never have an accident, why? Not so much to protect you, but to protect the lives and property of those your carelessness and sometimes just bad luck could cause harm to. As to ones willingness to take personal risk, how many families have been grateful for the death of a relative because they were willing to take the personal risk of not wearing a seat belt or helmet? That is not a freedom, that is a lack of common sense not to mention the obvious lack of concern or respect for those you leave behind. We all still have the "freedom" to shoot ourselves in the head if that's what you want to do. None of us are immunne from illness, no matter how young we are. I think that all of us would have been happier if the Republicans had actively participated as a full partner from the git go, but they chose to exercise their "freedom" to stand on principal. Everyone lost because of that decision. Fortunately, the Democrats moved forward without them but had good sense to use many Republican ideas in the bill. Unless you are makiing money off the insurance industry, you too will be glad this bill was passed. Take a look at the Romny bill, it is pretty near the same one. Nixon also advocated a bill like this one, but he included a large single payer player.