You mean 60,000 AARP membership cancellations. Not that surprising, really. AARP isn't a Republican PAC. They're an advocacy group for elderly issues and insurance. It's no secret that they used to have tens of thousands of members who have become Teabaggers, so all they had to do was turn on Rush Limbaugh or any other hate radio jock and they get their marching orders to drop their membership.

Also, being conservative and Libertarian are not mutually exclusive. Stossel's still a conservative hack, even if he does self-identify as a Libertarian.

Obviously you have no clue about anything..Conservative would be almost 180 degree's from a Libertarian.
Your mis-guided information about ObamaSCARE comes from the kool-aid you been drinking at the progressive-liberal fountain of Scam.

As an injured, uninsured, unemployed American, one would think I'd be chomping at the bit for this 'free' Obamacare. Not so. While I haven't read the giant tome of a bill (who could?), I do know that government controlling decisions that should be left up to medical professionals is nothing but a recipe for disaster.

I had a job and insurance. I got hurt, not at work, and needed tests to diagnose my back injury. Okay, I have insurance, lets do this and fix me up so I can get back to work. That was 9 months ago. Still haven't gotten tests done. Insurance I had would reimburse after 6-8 wks...test givers wouldn't accept IOU for 8 wks, cash up front ($1,500!) or no tests for you! So I lost my insurance 'cause not working and paying premiums. Still hurt, can't get tests done, lost job after being off payroll for 30 days. Perfect! Still hurt and now no insurance, no job, no income to pay bills. Applied for disability. Need proof that I'm hurt...in other words get the tests done. Explain that I didn't have money for tests which caused me to lose job and insurance, have to apply for disability. They say they'll send me to doc. Think Yeah! Get tests, find problem, fix problem, go back to work, no disability needed, lets do this! Go to their doc...he checks my eyesight, heart rate and has me squeeze his fingers. No x-rays or MRI ordered. Thank you, come again.

Still waiting for the government to subsidize my health care because I'm hurt. They'll deny me I'm sure, no proof without the tests, so here I sit, in pain everyday and waiting for this same inept government to now impose a fine on me for not having health care. Just dandy!

'Free' health care is not the answer, not for me or this country. Just my story and my opinion.

Obviously you have no clue about anything..Conservative would be almost 180 degree's from a Libertarian.
Your mis-guided information about ObamaSCARE comes from the kool-aid you been drinking at the progressive-liberal fountain of Scam.

Didn't read the bill, no kidding, but you clearly watched Fox News or listened exclusively to people who get their information there.

The Affordable Care Act isn't about putting the government between you and your doctor. It's not even about getting you your reimbursement for the bills you paid. Your problem also appears to be an issue with care that might not be covered with your current plan, but will be mandatory coverage under the ACA. That sucks for timing. Frankly, once the ACA kicks in, next year, your next insurance plan won't be such a joke, and thanks to the elimination of the exclusions for pre-existing conditions, they won't be able to turn you down and your plan would certainly have lower co-pays.

I'm sorry about your unfortunate tale, but you really can get the details about the ACA from valid sources. For example, you can get the details from your state's insurance exchange within the next month or so. Actually, with your inept governor, Rick Scott, you'll probably be waiting much longer than most states. Sorry again. Check it out at http://www.healthinsurance.org/florida-state-health-insurance-exchange.

With all due respect Mr. Mortman, did you happen to read the bill? Pretty sure nobody on God's green earth could read that thing! Seriously. The thing is how long? How many regulations will be imposed upon us THAT THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS OPPOSE????

I don't watch Fox news, or any news stations for that matter. The media is bias, owned by the same big money that controls our very corrupt government. Why would I trust anything they say?

I glean my information from ALL sources...I research on the net and I listen to BOTH sides of the debate. I try to use logic and reasoning on what's best for all parties involved when I look at an issue. What's fairest for the majority, not what's fairest for a select group of individuals. I believe in our country, in the principles it was founded on, and that we should be free to live our lives as we see fit, provided we don't harm others.

I don't need to read the entire bill, if such a feat is even humanly possible. I know enough to know that the government should NOT be able to tell me I HAVE TO have health insurance, or whether I can or can't have a medical procedure done. My doctor should be the only one to advise me on my health care. That's simple enough for me.

My situation sucks, for sure, I hate it more than anybody! But it doesn't sway my opinion that I should have free health care or that this country should have it. Nothing is free Mr. Mortman. Nothing! Somebody pays. If not us, our children and our childrens' children. Is that the legacy we want to give them? It's not what I want to give my son and future grandchildren, provided the government still allows my son to procreate in the future so I can have grandchildren!

Yes. I read the bill. It's well over 2,000 pages, but they're double-spaced with huge margins, so it's not as tough a read as you might think. It also contains an index so you can go back and look up what some parts said on whichever concerns you.

Now, I'll accept that you may not watch Fox News, but the misinformation you typed earlier was some of the same lines used on picket signs at anti-Obama rallies. Especially the line where you thought government shouldn't get between a doctor and their patient. The PPACA is just a new law that sets insurance standards and puts some new taxes into place. It doesn't tell a doctor to do less or more. There are also regulations on what insurance companies can get away with. No more crappy policies and lifetime caps will be history. If you don't buy insurance, you can continue to stay uninsured. You won't qualify for the tax break, but nobody's going to prison over it.

Clearly the PPACA isn't perfect, and a better system would be a single-payer system, like in Canada or even a government run healthcare system, like in the UK. At least the ACA stops a lot of the crap the insurance companies were pulling.

PS also bit naive to think there is such a thing as a totally free healthcare system. With 28 million ppl, where would the money come from to cover the cost? If healthcare was to be free, the country'd go bankrupt within a year, everyone with a sore tooth, a cut and a bruise running to hospital, running up bills.
A proper, lasting healthcare system can only work if everyone pays their fair share towards the system.

Here are some facts for the clueless.

You can't add a huge percentage of people who pay little without making the system WAY more expensive.

The burden of the extra cost will be felt and carried by the young middle class, who may not be able to afford it.

The current estimated increase in medical cost due to Obamacare is between forty and eighty percent.

No one with a working brain thinks at this time that the affordable care act will bring costs down.

Will premiums be affordable?
Few economists can answer this question. Although the ACA has set no guidelines on premiums, the theory behind the law is that a broad pool of policyholders and market competition will keep prices down. Early indications are mixed. Premium rates in California are averaging $331 per month right now, according to the Urban Institute; but in states like Indiana, Florida and Georgia, premiums are higher than the $359 average employee family premium for 2012 (as calculated by the Kaiser Family Foundation).

“Premiums are coming in lower than expected,” noted Linda Blumberg, an economist with the Urban Institute, speaking at a webinar sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation on August 13. “We can expect competition to increase over the next two to three years.”

UPS dropping spouses from healthcare

http://www.businessinsider.com/ups-dropping-spouses-health-coverage-2013-8

Explain that to us Mortman.

I'm sorry, but you cannot read the article? UPS's policy change is that spouses who can be covered by their own employers will no longer be covered by UPS. If those same employees of UPS want their spouses covered, they'll now have to pay the difference. Other spouses who are not covered by a separate employer are left unaffected by the new policy.

I'm sorry, but you cannot read the article? UPS's policy change is that spouses who can be covered by their own employers will no longer be covered by UPS. If those same employees of UPS want their spouses covered, they'll now have to pay the difference. Other spouses who are not covered by a separate employer are left unaffected by the new policy.

I'm sorry, but you cannot read the article? UPS's policy change is that spouses who can be covered by their own employers will no longer be covered by UPS. If those same employees of UPS want their spouses covered, they'll now have to pay the difference. Other spouses who are not covered by a separate employer are left unaffected by the new policy.

Those points are mere suppositions and not facts.

The added people will obviously cost more, but each uninsured person going to an emergency room for care is several times more expensive than the same number of people going to a clinic or doctors office, or even getting a regular admission to the same hospital.

The burden of the extra cost of the above point is already covered by the ENTIRE POPULATION in the form of higher prices and longer wait times in emergency rooms.

I know you're going for hyperbole with your "no one with a working brain" crack, but several sources point to cost savings, overall, under the ACA. Of course, it's nowhere near the savings we'd see with a single-payer plan, like opening Medicare to all citizens, but it's still substantial.

Yes, some Republican-backed groups are announcing that medical costs will rise 40-80%, but they don't tell you how they got those numbers. Numbers for identical insurance policies with vs. without the ACA mandates are generally expected to lower in the new system. Anecdotally, I can confirm that the published prices for an individual policy for my wife now are about 25% lower than they were when I shopped about 8 years ago (Blue Shield for a then 35-year-old woman, compared to a 43-year-old, today).

From an article I found on MSN Money, I found this bit:And that's from a person in the business.

There really are several reasons costs will go down. (1) More insured people means more paid bills, so hospitals won't have to pass on so many losses to the customers, leading to lower medical costs. (2) More insured people means a wider spread of the risk, so while many people will be paying for insurance, but not using it up, others who are using it up won't drive up prices. (3) Under the ACA, people spending more than 8% of their income on health care will get federal subsidies for health insurance. (4) the ACA mandates removing caps on lifetime coverage and (5) forces caps on out-of-pocket costs. Admittedly, those last few mostly just lower costs to the individual customers, but points 1 & 2 carry some weight in the later points.

Yes I read it, it's called comprehension of what you are reading not just picking bits and pieces.
Oh but what would we know about reading something in its enitierty because it wasn't done with the ACA and thus all these unintended consicuences.
So it's going to cost the family more because they will have to pay for separate single health plans instead of a family plan.
And what was their reasoning for doing this?