First, we all I gues read that Pelosi, when asked if it was constitutional asked if the question was serious, then moved on. Later her COS said it was not a serious question.
Then, I read that it will indeed be challenged constitutionally, and likely it will fall, because, where other loose constitutional things passed involved ACTIONS, this one involves punishing Americans for INACTION. You can be fined for sitting comfortably at home doing NOTHING!
It took mutiple times for the VAWA to pass constitutional muster, and that was FAR less far reaching and FAR MORE politically correct in that it is gender specific which right or wrong tends to favor passage.
If this thing passes and the SCOTUS shuts it down, it would be a delicious rebuke of the president....historic in scope

It will be affirmed all the ay to SCOTUS. They will smash it.

No way no how is thing constitutional!

Thats same I said elesewhere, they could raise taxes, "offer" healthcare, and use tax incentives to coerce buying...that would pass constitutional muster...sadly.

Nope. There are 2 things that will lower premiums.
1. Fiat (what we are doing w/ this boondoggle)
2. Competition

Number 2 would sort the entire mess. If they all can compete everywhere, and one company is known to dump folks when they get sick....folks will buy elsewhere, to the point it would even be an advert "we will not drop you". ALL performace issues will sort with competition. Premiums would lower as well, as government created monoplies in states would face outsiders coming hunting new customers.
Its a biz like any. Competition does wonders

Well I agree with those two things but I don't see how those are the "only" two things that could possibly impact premiums. If everyone is buying insurance, then the insurance companies have more revenue, have a greater economies of scale, and if one person is not insured then the system is not forced to make up for it by charging more to those who are paying (it spreads the risk). A close (but not perfect) example is car insurance. Yes owning cars is optional and your life is not but the underlying principle is the same--if everyone is ensured premiums go down.

For example the state of Wisconsin has no mandate requiring all drivers to have car insurance. All of Wisconsin's neighbors do have such laws. Lets compare liability insurance premiums: In Wisconsin (no mandate) the average premium is $339. In Iowa (with mandate)--the closest state in terms of demographics and concentration--average premiums are $290. There is no car insurance mandate in New Hampshire but there is right next door in Vermont and Maine. New Hampshire's average liability premium is $431, while Vermont's is $368 and in Maine it's also $368. There are a zillion variables and local cost of living differences that could explain these numbers but it is at least possible that mandate contribute to lower premiums and the economic theory behind it makes sense.

Well a public option isn't like medicare, it would simply be an insurance company that strives to break even rather than make a profit and people would pay monthly premiums like a regular insurance plan whereas medicare is mainly funded by the people who are currently working and not receiving the medicare benefits. The problem with medicare is that raising FICA taxes on the people working is unpopular while the number of people receiving the benefits is increasing as more and more baby boomers retire.

So if I can prove that you not you not buying something is making it more expensive for me then I have a government mandate to force you to buy it!?! Unbelievable. And this is supposed to be the land of the free.

Yeah, my laptop cost me more than I think it should so I'm going to get the government to force everyone to buy a lap top to lower the price of it for me and everyone else. Now I've heard everything! Forget freedom of choice and freedom to be individuals and live our own lives. Socialism has us by the stones and people are too stubborn or dim to see it!