NO.....If it was not for the greed of the insurance companies and the medical fields, and the drug companies that are all making mega profits for a long time now, taking way more than their fair share and passing the problems as a result of that down to the rest of us...THIS WOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM AND OBAMACARE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN NECESSARY! SO PUT THE BLAME WHERE IT BELONGS!
Totally agree. Seen stories of people having to fight insurance companies for all sorts, shameful.
You like the government to run your life? I like to be in control over my health care. Can you please show me one program that the gov run right?
Honestly not my country but what is so wrong with universal healthcare ? I live in the UK, we all pay National Insurance, the tax for it, not perfect but no huge bill at the end. I feel for people with chronic conditions in your country, road accident, paralyzed from the neck, waist whatever down. They have to use a catheter to pee for instance. Do you know the insurance expects them to wash and re use !!
Nothing's wrong with universal health care....if you can afford it and it's a good plan. Obamacare is not affordable and it's not universal coverage. The UK has socialized medicine. It's completely different.
Like I said not my country but a start at least. Our NHS is not perfect by any means, too many managers for a start. But could not imagine living with it.
No. The Republicans were NEVER operating in the spirit of bipartisanship. The healthcare plan was modeled after Romney's plan, after all, makes no sense they would ob
Well he told the public he was going to do it if he was elected, so I say he kept true to a campaign promise. I think that the Republicans rolled the dice on this one and tried to use it as defining moment rather then having the interest of the public at heart. If you look at any other country that has initiated health care reform to better manage costs and extend coverage you will see none have ever went back, including MA. The Republicans have really painted themselves into a corner here, something you don't want to do as a politician. If this is a success Obama and the Democrats get all the credit (Obamacare) even though the concept is a Republican one.
over 1000 point drop in the DJIA. S and P down $800 billion since the election. Yep, it's those darned republicans at it again.
Well if that is going to be your measuring stick then you might want to see where the market was when Obama took office in 2008 and where it is now.
::hint it is up 67.9%
I'd care less about the Congressional Republicans and more about the American people
Screw bipartisanship if it screws the American public over
S and P has lost $800 billion since the election. Those darned republicans.
no, I wish he had..but the reality is this plan is essentially the republican one...one can see that by the fact that it is in fact very similar to the one Romney (a republican) had in his state. Personally I would have preferred a more "liberal" plan of the single payer systems that insure that everyone has access to care...like in most other western democracies.
That's what places like England and Canada have, single payer systems, and they are not communist. People still end up in the emergency room even if they can't pay. When people can't pay the medical bills and go bankrupt...the consumer is still paying for it. The single payer system just provides that everyone pays into it so everyone can access it. We all pay for people with disabilities and the elderly to get care. If we all pay...which there's no way around..why shouldn't we all get care. I'm not saying we should copy another system...but that we should have created a system of universal healthcare. The only reason we don't is because the medical industry wouldn't make as much money....because less people would choose private care.
I think it's bullshit that you get taxed for not having healthcare. I think healthcare is important, but forcing people to buy it is unconstitutional.
Wait until you get the bill, hon.
It has nothing to do with cost, it has everything to do with forcing people to use their money to pay for healthcare against their will. The reason why Obama presented it as a tax is because he is taking advantage of a loop-hole, which is bullshit.
KayKai, do you drive? Drunk driver hits you (God forbid) how much is that going to cost? How do you think you will even begin paying for that?
pixelbest, I can choose not to drive. I can choose to take a bus! The point is-- I CAN CHOOSE.
Can you choose never to be ill ? Your taxes have already been paying for the uninsured, and if you have health insurance already, it's been more expensive because of the uninsured who use the emergency rooms when they or their children get sick.
The only hope is that the house will defund it. Since the supreme court ruled it a tax, they could strike it from the budget.
Yes we all pay the tax in the UK, not a huge amount cos we ALL pay it. You are on the bus and a drunk driver hits the bus then !! Anything can happen in life and you require help. There were people who went to watch a Batman film not so long ago and ended up in a shooting spree and requiring treatment. Who pays for that if you have no insurance ??
My beef isn't with making healthcare affordable for all, it's with the government telling me I have to spend my money on something or pay it through a tax. Either way they are forcing me to pay something, which is unconstitutional. The government can't force people to buy something, which is the reason why Obama had to make it a tax, because it is unconstitutional to force citizens to buy healthcare. I'm not saying it's smart to be uninsured, but I am saying it's wrong for the government to force any citizen to purchase something, regardless of the good intentions.
Sorry but your rationale makes no sense to me. At least it is a tax and you know where it is going. Who exactly picks up the bill for people given emergency treatment but can't then afford to pay the bill ? Again we all pay this tax in the UK, no big thing. Think of it as an investment for yourself. Like I said anything can happen in life, one day fine next day in ER and requiring treatment that will cost big bucks. Your friends and family will not have to do fund raisers to help pay for your treatment.
In America, we do not get the pleasure of knowing where are taxes are going. In fact, most of us know the social security funds that are being taken out of our paychecks aren't being put aside for us, but are actually being spent by the American government for other things. Maybe the UK is different?
My arguement isn't "who is paying for what". Personally, I think insurance companies are corrupt, and if hospitals weren't being sued, people were paying their medical bills, and there wasn't so much profit making money off of sick people while denying others with pre-existing conditions the healthcare system would be more affordable.
The bone I have to pick is this: we have checks and balances in our government. One of those policies is that the government can't tell you what to spend your money on. That's one of those policies that keep the government from abusing you financially. Even though paying for healthcare is a great thing, and making it affordable is awesome, it's still forcing you to buy something. What is stop the government from forcing citizens to buy anything else they want? Nothing. And that is unconstitutional.
Driving without car insurance is illegal, therefore the Government is forcing people to buy car insurance correct (although of course not everyone). Sure you can ague you do not own a car, but do you own your health? Can you absolutely guarantee that you will never at any point in your life require medical assistance that you will not be able to fully pay for? So it is just another insurance really. A tax that will be fair for all. Like I said not my country, just glad we have what we have here.
He certainly didn't do any good by this. As a religious I see a lot more than meets the eye here with this President.
You don't sound like a very compassionate religious person.
On the contrary I am more compassionate than you know. I am also human - like everyone else. :)
No mitt the **** and lying ryan did that by claimming 47% of amercians are free loaders well thats almost half the country bafoon!!! they shot their own self in the foot.by making stupid remarks like that.It makes me want to laugh they are so stupid to know better. they are their own worst enimy.lets see Channey shoots hunting parner in the face very clever,palin I can see russia from here. very smart in deed bush in a third grade pretending to read a book upside down.very smart.Mcain aww!!!!! joe the plummer joe the plummer and it turn out joe was not even a plummer.sir you can keep all your dumb azz republicans
the Republicans are the ones who are blocking everything. we are tired of insurance companies ramming their exorbitant prices down our throats
do know who your are bud but sick-em tell 'em like it is. now good boy settle down
Yes Anybody that watches whats going on in this country can see what he has done. The country is more divided more than ever.
Bush divided this country putting two wars on crited cards put blame where blame belongs
in 2008 Odumbo campaigned on promises of "open government" and "a new era of bipartisan cooperation." In 2009 he told the Congressional Republicans "Elections have consequences" and refused even to talk them about cooperation on anything.
In 2012 Odumbo campaigned on promises of "open government" and "bipartisan cooperation." As soon as the election ended he promised "cooperation." In the same sentence he demanded acceptance of his own far left agenda without compromise. Odumbo has never agreed to any cooperative solutions.
The Congress should wait for Odumbo to lead by offering a financial solution that can be accepted, and if he doesn't those who voted for Odumbo will suffer the most. .