The opportunity for growth in the university paper seems to have been sidestepped, it is properly labelled as an opinion piece but shouldn’t this be a forum for intellectual debate and discussion. It seems to me that the tone of the responses was civil, and there was an opportunity for university level discussion.

Here are 2 points that I consider fairly important that were not made.

The administration has taken 750 Billion from current Medicare recipients in order to fund 1/3 of this new entitlement program. President Obama has said as much in 2009 in an interview.

TAPPER: Are you willing to pledge that whatever cuts in Medicare are being made to fund health insurance, one third of it, that you will veto anything that tries to undo that?

OBAMA: Yes. I actually have said that it is important for us to make sure this thing is deficit neutral, without tricks. I said I wouldn’t sign a bill that didn’t meet that criteria.

Justice Roberts upheld the law and the individual mandate because he viewed non-participation of citizens to be assessed as a penalty tax from the IRS. This Bill uses the commerce clause to sidestep the 10th amendment and infringes on states rights.

This is a very slippery slope no matter your party affiliation. The governement can now use this tax clause to make us do anything they want by imposing a severe enough penalty if the behavior they request is not executed.

By upholding the penalty tax, they have paved the way for future leaders to follow suit.

How would you feel if a future president imposed a penalty tax for having an abortion? It’s not illegal to have an abortion but if you do, you have to pay a penalty tax because you have eliminated a future tax payer. Sounds incredulous doesn’t it? This is the example the current administration has set for us.

As per Urethane’s comment. This is another loophole/backdoor initiative to nationalize/federalize health care. The average insurance plan costs companis between $5000 and $7000 dollars. The penalty for not offering insurance is $2000. Giving companies an incentive to cancel their healthcare plan offerings is merely a way to grasp onto more government control of another industry.

This is where the accusations of socialism are born from. To quote your article Mr. McGee….

“With this ruling, the United States enters into the same club as nations like Canada, Russia, Brazil, Australia, and almost every European country that already has some sort of universal healthcare system in effect. The individual mandate represents a shining beacon of humane and ethical treatment for everyone in this country.”

Look at the state of affairs in Europe right now, this is the path we want to emulate? These policies have not worked out very well for them. Candians and Europeans often come to the United States for Health care because the waiting list to see a doctor in their own countries is just simply too long.

It amazes me that so many college students support this policies so fervently. Your unemployment rates are high, with many having to move back home after graduation, while staying on their parents Helath Insurance until age 26 while the grasp on your lives continues to tighten .

This I do know: there are no new health care workers created by the law; the IRS has it considerable powers expanded; the congress has exempted itself from this law; Senator Reed exempted the entire state of Nevada from the act; unions, industries and major political special interests have been exempted from the act; the benefits and costs of this act will not go into effect until after the 2012 election – I wonder why?; the Congressional Budget Office has revised the costs upward to almost double the initial estimate .

For these reasons alone I do not think such a large scale package makes for good legislation.

Some of the editorial anger should be directed to the do nothings and perhaps know nothings of both political parties who are running for re-election in 2012 – many of whom in the administrative and legislative branches take contributions from the the healthcare industry. We need new ideas and faces in D.C.