No, it is not new. They've been trying to get this thing passed for decades.

Note I did not say it was a new idea or concept. It is new because it has just recently been passed and will not come into full effect until 2014.

You quoted a District Judge and then attacked Conservative Pundits.

Yes. Do you have trouble following more than one subject in a paragraph? What's the problem?

It just seems like a REALLY bad way to support your argument. It just makes you sound like a.... Liberal.

No. It's called using complex language. Do you have a substantive objection?

I don't watch or read Conservative News. I used to watch all the Cable News Programs all the time, but I pretty much stopped at the end of 2008.

Well, if you want a condensed version of what I am talking about, look at this:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Obamacare

It looks like every wealthy interest group has used information (mass media and the ears of politicians) to have the bill killed. This really upsets businesses because it mandates that large ones provide healthcare. It upsets insurance providers because they cannot exclude you due to preexisting conditions. It angers the religious right because it provides a woman's legal right to abortion. It angers the libertarians because they want zero regulations on the healthcare industry (seriously).

So we see pundits spreading misinformation, fear, worry, and alarm.

Lately it's been blogs, Reason, and just news off of the internet (Wikipedia, Google, and recent studies are my favs). I don't care that much about punditry and such. They never effected my opinions; information did.

It may behoove you to take a look at what they say, just so that you know what's circulating in public opinion if you decide to have a political discussion. Otherwise you'll be taken aback from the sudden sheer stupidity.

And I'm more angry at this shitty Bill that was released. It was broad enough to NOT stop Insurance companies from eliminating coverage in order to not go bankrupt (I mean, going bankrupt would suck for everyone, but it sucks that people who payed for their insurance are now losing it just because government doesn't understand what the real world is like).

As I said before: the bill would have been better, but it had enough trouble getting passed as it is. We have too many businesses, corporations, and churches who have effectively bought out our government legislators with campaign donations, lobbyists, and social connections.

Actually, everyone has the opportunity to accumulate wealth.

Wealth acquisition is a positive feedback mechanism. The more wealth you have, the easier it is to acquire more of it. Therefore there can never be an equal opportunity to acquire wealth, because nature favors those who are already well moneyed over those who are not. Then if you add the social aspect of it, the working class is the least capable of securing wealth for itself because it has the least amount of per-person wealth, which translates into political power.

The fact that the number of people who would rather get a handout outnumber those who actually work for it does not mean that only a few are given the opportunity to advance themselves. Everyone is given the same opportunity.

If you are working class, then it means that in the last thirty years your income bracket has lost around seven percent of its total private wealth to the hands of the richest one percent of the American population. This means that far from the image of the wealthy going broke supporting social programs, the wealthiest one percent of our nation have increased their personal wealth from thirty-five percent of all private wealth in the country to forty-two percent. The middle class has stayed relatively stagnant.

In other words, the wealthy plunder the livelihoods of the working class, and put a lot of money and resources into politics which support their ability to keep this wealth. Now eighty-five percent of the population has a mere fifteen percent of the nation's private wealth at their disposal. When trying to fight against forty-two percent of the nation's private wealth focused in the hands of a much smaller population, there is no chance for equality.

There is no equal opportunity here, just the mirage of it.

Also, wealth redistribution does NOT magically create a socially healthy society .

I never said it does. It depends on how you distribute the wealth. By the way, capitalism is a form of wealth redistribution. It doesn't create wealth out of thin air, but distributes wealth in a way that prioritises selfishness and greed. You just know that that cannot be good for a healthy society, and we see it now as the United States and Europe are full of wealthy, well-fed people to contrast the utter poor in the developing nations who sell goods to us and act as cheap labour.