The individual insurance requirement that the Supreme Court is reviewing isn't the first federal mandate involving health care.

There's a Medicare payroll tax on workers and employers, for example, and a requirement that hospitals provide free emergency services to indigents. Health care is full of government dictates, some arguably more intrusive than President Barack Obama's overhaul law.

Most of the mandates apply to providers such as hospitals and insurers. For example, a 1990s law requires health plans to cover at least a 48-hour hospital stay for new mothers and their babies. Such requirements protect some consumers while indirectly raising costs for others.

One mandate affects just about everybody: Workers must pay a tax to finance Medicare, which collects about $200 billion a year.

It's right on your W-2 form, line 6, "Medicare tax withheld." Workers must pay it even if they don't have health insurance. Employees of a company get to split the tax with their employer. The self-employed owe the full amount, 2.9 percent of earnings.

High-ranking Republican legislators are referring to the health care reform law as “a government takeover of 17 percent of the economy.” They, GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney and their allies such as the lobby group 60 Plus Association also call the Medicare changes in the that same law as devastating for seniors. (Romney and the others fail to mention that the 10-year House budget crafted by Rep. Paul Ryan) includes the same Medicare cutbacks to bring the budget in line while waiting for Ryan’s deferred blockbuster Medicare reform.) Harsh rhetoric is tempting, to rally one’s supporters and to inflame the public, but these charges are silly.

The Republicans would have the public believe that the 2010 law is a government takeover of health care, which they see as a giant step to socialism [or a great campaign issue.] But first a reminder: The health care reform bill is essentially the 1993 Republican alternative to the President Bill Clinton’s health care plan, crafted by the late Sen. John Chafee (Republican), former Sen. Dave Durenberger (Republican) and current Members such as Sens. Chuck Grassley (Republican) and Orrin Hatch (Republican) — not exactly a group of raving socialists. Add in the other elements of the bill, which are taken directly from the Romney plan in Massachusetts, and the fact that the law, to the dismay of liberals, did not include a public option, and the charge of government takeover doesn't ring true.

And then there is the Medicare plan of Ryan and Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), championed by Romney and other candidates as the free-market alternative to Obamacare.

It is basically regulated insurance exchanges that would enable seniors to purchase health insurance, with Medicare as one option along with the private plans and with premium support for seniors. The exchanges are indistinguishable from those in the health care law.  Some have called it "Obamacare for Seniors."

Funny things happen during an election year, don't they?

Members of the Senate Tea Party Caucus on Thursday announced a plan to balance the budget in five years, cutting spending by nearly $11 trillion compared to President Obama’s budget.

The plan, dubbed “A Platform to Revitalize America,” is a wish list of conservative policies.

Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) also back the proposal, which would overhaul Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.  

The lawmakers said they would turn Medicare into a premium support plan that would give seniors the same healthcare plan as members of Congress. They say this would save an estimated $1 trillion over 10 years.

The proposal would fund Medicaid, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, food stamps and child nutrition programs through block grants.

SIOUX CITY, Iowa — As Mitt Romney finished up an early morning town-hall-style meeting in Iowa, finishing up an answer on entitlement programs like Medicare and Medicaid, he offered a casual confession: “I have to admit, I didn’t know all the differences between these things before I got into government, and then got into it and understood that Medicaid is the health care program for the poor, by and large.”

When reporters pressed the Romney campaign on the comments, aides clarified that what Mr. Romney meant was that, until he ran for the Senate in 1994, he didn’t know all of the nuanced distinctions between Medicare and Medicaid, but he was certainly aware of both programs and understood how they worked. Mr. Romney himself added that he had run a health care consultancy, and was aware of how the programs functioned, even if he didn’t know all of the particular differences.

For the rest of the story, click here.

While many Americans view the debt deadlock in Washington as a national stumbling block, advocates for Social Security and Medicare saw it as a victory when the congressional supercommittee declared defeat last week.

The programs they view as vital to the country's safety net were spared serious cuts when the committee failed to issue a plan. Yet experts warn that changes to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will have to be part of any solution to curtail the country's $15 trillion debt.

"It's just a fantasy to think that you can address this problem over the long term without looking at the entitlement programs," said Bob Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan group dedicated to eliminating budget deficits.

Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid make up about 40 percent of federal spending, he said. And they are only expected to grow as more baby boomers retire and health care costs continue to rise.

For the full story, click here.

For those of you with anything left in your 401k -

The stock market was not exactly surprised that a so-called supercommittee in Congress failed to reach a deal to cut the federal budget deficit. But since summer, investors have sold at the first hint of trouble.

So on Monday, they sold big. The Dow Jones industrial average lost almost 250 points on a day when investors despaired over debt problems at home and abroad.

Members of the special committee, created in August to come up with $1.2 trillion in deficit cuts over 10 years, indicated all day that there would be no deal. After the market closed, the committee's bipartisan leadership made it official.

"They're essentially giving up," said Robert Robis, head of fixed income macro strategies at ING Investment Management.

The supercommittee stalemate is supposed to trigger automatic spending cuts across the government, but there were already hints that Congress would find a way around them. Analysts say that could lead to another downgrade of the U.S. credit rating.

In addition, the failure raises the question of how a gridlocked Congress will find a way to renew a cut in the Social Security tax or agree on whether to extend long-term unemployment benefits.

For more on this story from MNSBC, click here.

Washington (CNN) -- Members of the congressional "super committee" -- the bipartisan panel tasked with finding at least $1.2 trillion in budget savings over the next decade -- will likely announce Monday that they have failed, according to both Democratic and Republican aides.

"No decisions or agreement has been reached concerning any announcement or how this will end," one senior Democratic aide said. "But, yes, the likely outcome is no agreement will be reached."

Legally, a majority of the 12-member committee has until midnight Wednesday to reach an agreement, though any deal needs to be announced for legislative reasons by the end of Monday.

For the full story, click here.

The Super Committee’s negotiations on Wednesday appeared to have fallen off track with only stumbling badly, with only six calendar days left until the deadline for action.

Republicans on the Committee resurrected the Medicare privatization issue.  Democrats angrily accused the Republicans of insinuating that they’re unwilling to address any entitlement reforms.

Each side accused the other of pushing negotiations backward but then refused to make the first move.

Further complicating hopes of staving off across-the-board cuts and finding a plan to trim at least $1.2 trillion from the national debt over 10 years was a dispute—and confusion—over sidestepping sequestration triggers.  

Sequestration issues continue to complicate things, as talk of repealing that process altogether continues.

Discussions about putting a two-step process in place have prompted disputes over whether the standing Congressional committees with tax jurisdiction could also deal with Medicare and Medicaid, which appears to be the Republican position. Democrats want those committees to address only the tax code.

Some lawmakers on the Super Committee acknowledge that whatever plan they might agree upon in the next week will likely leaving gaping holes to be sorted out next year.  Details as crucial as which taxes to raise and how to control spending on entitlement programs could be pushed off into the poisonous political terrain of a presidential-election year.

Rep. Xavier Becerra of California, one of the Democratic panel members, said at a press conference on Tuesday that he was open to relinquishing final say on issues as varied as taxes and Medicaid and Medicare to the rest of Congress

One of the founding concepts of the super committee was to resolve the difficult tax-and-spending questions before election season. If a consensus cannot be found now, on a panel empowered to bypass all the procedural issues that often delay or destroy controversial legislation on Capitol Hill, not many experts are optimistic that such a deal could be finalized next year, either.

The 12-person, bipartisan, bicameral panel has largely splintered into “micro-discussions,” Becerra said. The last full committee meeting, in public or private, was on November 1.

Becerra said he wanted to continue to work to find common ground through the Super Committee process rather than surrendering to the sequestration process that would result in $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts over a decade that would go into effect if the deficit panel misses its Nov. 23 deadline. Procrastination on some of the more difficult issues by shifting them back into the normal Congressional process could avoid those across the board cuts.

Republicans are open to punting on key issues as well. Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas, the GOP co-chairman of the panel, acknowledged in an interview Sunday that there could be “a two step process”.

But wait, there’s more  – Rep Bacerra also said  Tuesday that the deficit dance could be even more prolonged than that. “It could be a multi-step process.”