COVID-19 INFORMATION What you need to know about the coronavirus if you are living in Japan or planning a visit.
world

US high court upholds heart of Obama health law

346 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2012 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

346 Comments
Login to comment

Romney said his mission now was to see the overhaul repealed, calling the changes in the system “bad law.”

Your'e quite right Mr Romney, poor people without insurance should be left to die. It's how the market works. What was Mr O thinking about trying to help those less well off?

13 ( +18 / -5 )

The SC ruling was base on politics and not on the Constitution. The SC can not say in one hand it is unconstitutional to force people to buy healthcare coverage then turn around and say on the other hand it is constitutional to penalized people by taxation if they don't have healthcare coverage. The SC rulings is saying it is constitutional to put the fear into people to buy healthcare coverage otherwise they will be penalized by taxation. How is Obamacare going to help the poor if they can't afford the healthcoverage? What happened if people missed their payments on their health insurance? Will that be consider not having healthcoverage and still be penalized by Obamacare? People can go to jail and be penalized if they don't have healthcare coverage???

-13 ( +5 / -18 )

I for one as an American always believed that the system was broken and needed a serious overhaul, but it is a lot more complicated then what people might think, especially if you don't know anything about the American health and financial system. If you lose your job, you shouldn't just throw someone out or cancel their premiums, it's not right, I agree, but easier said than done, there needs to be a middle ground, but Obamacare is the final straw that will financially destroy the country. Who's going to pay for it? Where will the money come from? How can we pay for 300 million+? People never ask these questions! The economy is in ruins, Stockton California filed bankruptcy and now we have Obamacare? This President thinks that the country is awash with Gold, unbelievable

-11 ( +8 / -19 )

Right at this moment, MittBot2012 is being retro-fitted to now support the 'ObamaCare' healthcare law he was recently against that he is ....actually responsible for creating.

Like welcoming home a child you had abandoned.

Mitt Romney - a man for every position! :-)

10 ( +14 / -4 )

How is Obamacare going to help the poor if they can't afford the healthcoverage? What happened if people missed their payments on their health insurance? Will that be consider not having healthcoverage and still be penalized by Obamacare? People can go to jail and be penalized if they don't have healthcare coverage???

@Skipbeat

Exactly! But the funny thing about it is when I talk to liberals or just ordinary people, they think it'll work itself out and we will all be happy and walking in the sunset. Now Obamacare is the law and everything will be just peachy. Again, I want an overhaul of the system and I don't want to see anyone out on the street, but this....

-10 ( +6 / -16 )

@Sushi

So that's your argument, so you want to pin this on Romny as if this was all about him??? Good lord....wow!

-8 ( +6 / -15 )

Simply by drastically cutting its armed forces, the U.S.A. could provide a health insurance system for its citizens. I find it hard to believe that a country that considers itself to be an advanced nation does not have a national health system in place.

14 ( +17 / -6 )

Skipbeat - "How is Obamacare going to help the poor if they can't afford the healthcoverage?"

Subsidies.

You clearly haven't even read the law.

6 ( +11 / -5 )

" How is Obamacare going to help the poor if they can't afford the healthcoverage?"

By requiring healthy people who forego insurance to sign up. A larger pool will create either subsidies for the working poor or Medicaid for those with no income or savings. This will encourage more preventative healthcare instead of the uninsured showing up too late at the emergency room and running up huge bills that everyone pays for.

16 ( +17 / -2 )

Bass4funk - "Who's going to pay for it? Where will the money come from? How can we pay for 300 million+?"

America's about the only developed country on the planet that hasn't got universal healthcare.

Up until Obama got this law passed, the situation has been a disgrace, especially with people whining about it implying that money is more important than health, livelihoods and even lives.

Try facing a major health disability without insurance and then tell us all how bad universal health insurance is.

14 ( +16 / -4 )

Bass4funk - "This President thinks that the country is awash with Gold, unbelievable."

No, he is putting a priority on the health of the people he has pledged to protect.

Republicans and conservatives, it seems, would much rather just leave the uninsured unhealthy and those in need of medical care to die/suffer.

That, to me, is the ultimate disgrace of the conservative position on this issue.

It's not even human.

7 ( +14 / -7 )

Simply by drastically cutting its armed forces, the U.S.A. could provide a health insurance system for its citizens. I find it hard to believe that a country that considers itself to be an advanced nation does not have a national health system in place.

Europe doesn't have strong military and relies on the US for its military power. Europe spent all her money on healthcare instead of military power. Everyone knows that a nation is weak if she doesn't have military power because she relies on her neighbor to help her out.

With Obama in charge, the UN and NATO are the new military powers except they relies on the US military.

Nobody is denied healthcare in the US, the person would end up paying for the full amount unless he/she is low income who can get assistance through Medicaid.

-9 ( +7 / -16 )

You clearly haven't even read the law.

Buddy, no one has.

This law has pages and pages of unread material, passed without even reading it all.

No, he is putting a priority on the health of the people he has pledged to protect.

He wasn't elected to protect the people, he was elected to protect The Constitution!

-15 ( +4 / -19 )

America is a funny country, only DEVELOPED country on the face of the EARTH with out UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE, but hey, if you work for the US Congress, US Senate, guess what?? Not only can you go to the best doctors the USA and this world can offer at anytime of the day, 24/7 365 days a week, but guess what?? YOU CAN ALSO vote TO GIVE YOURSELF RAISES, with all of our tax $$$$$!!!! Let me guess, Romney thinks this is cool, to have the parasite 1% filthy rich of the USA screw the other 99% of Americans who actually have to work for a living. Romney, is a PARASITE with millions and millions of $$$ invested in off shore BANKS!

11 ( +16 / -4 )

Unfortunately, the real issue isn't the tax (penalty) or whether or not it hurts the low or middle class citizens. The issue that people are not quite getting is this: the health care bill like the Obama bailouts, were designed to make many rich businessmen and politicians a lot of money, as earmarks buried in the 2200 pages of health care doctrine. The Health care bill the way it is drawn up, has two agendas planed as goals of the administration. Goverment run Health Care? We just gave our health care plans to a group of career politicians who are still arguing how to balance the budget but consistently vote themselves raises and use a separate health care and life time retirement plan that people have no say in. The people in U.S. are dependent on government handouts, are afraid that if the Republicans take back the White House and Romney gets in, their handouts will be reduced, but if we don't curtail the spending, the money for them, for all of us will be gone.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

SushiSake3: Subsidies. You clearly haven't even read the law.

You read all 2500 pages of Obamacare even Pelosi didn't read it and say to just pass it which they did. It's not like Obama published the 2500 pages of Obamacare.

Since you said subsidies does that mean poor people are going to get a lesser quality care and be pushed to community hospitals who will be neglected. The taxpayers are going to paid for the subsidies. Subsidies are not cheap.

Obviously you haven't read up on Michelle Obama and how she did away with people who didn't have good healthcare coverage. They were pushed to community hospital to make room for those who are the affluent people with excellent healthcare coverage which was published by the Chicago Sun-Times in 2009 and they did away with the article.

Obamacare will divide people where they go get medical services because hospitals that are filled with affluent patients don't want to be with the poor people. That's just the way the world works. The affluent will have their own hospitals and the poor will have their own hospitals. Those two hospitals will have a differences in services and care. Which one do you want to go to?

-16 ( +2 / -18 )

"By letting the law stand, the decision keeps the United States on a course toward joining all other major developed countries in guaranteeing health care for all its citizens."

It's amazing to believe that there are a lot of Americans who don't want their fellow Americans to be covered and their nation to join the modern world instead of screwing itself.

johninnaha: Do you have to bring cutting the US military (and it's clear you're referring to Okinawa and the bases) into EVERY thread?? It makes it pretty hard to take you seriously.

8 ( +12 / -4 )

the only people who oppose national health care are those who have monetary interests in the health care system

2 ( +7 / -5 )

No, he is putting a priority on the health of the people he has pledged to protect.

Republicans and conservatives, it seems, would much rather just leave the uninsured unhealthy and those in need of medical care to die/suffer.

That, to me, is the ultimate disgrace of the conservative position on this issue.

It's not even human.

So now when you need a heart-transplant, you can go on a waiting list, this will create a gridlock nightmare! This will be a huge tax increase, so still for the rich, they can afford it, but with the economy ins shambles, how will average Americans be able to pay for Obamacare, the same socialized medicine that is supposed to be affordable, what happens to those people that CAN'T afford it, with an unemployment record of over 8%? And you are wrong, Conservatives and Republicans don't want anyone to suffer. They just want to keep the country from falling over the cliff. Let's face it, this President is THE MOST radical Far-left President ever in US history! When you look at Clinton, he was smart enough in his 2nd term to move towards the center and thus was able to achieve a lot, working with Repubs and Conserv. But Obama, NO way! The government is so intrenched in our lives now, in November, seriously people need to decide what kind of country they want, either more BIG government, big apparatus that has its hands in everything you do or want small government, that promotes self-reliance and more personal growth and empowerment. With the debt that we have, the high unemployment, this is something the country doesn't need right now!

-3 ( +5 / -9 )

"the only people who oppose national health care are those who have monetary interests in the health care system"

Debucho: And those people use" individual mandate imposed by the GOVERNMENT" as way to get the far right wing frothing at the mouth.

3 ( +6 / -2 )

smithinjapan: It's amazing to believe that there are a lot of Americans who don't want their fellow Americans to be covered and their nation to join the modern world instead of screwing itself.

The modern world is a liberal world so you can keep that part. Blame the healthcare insurance companies for not having cheap plans and for not covering pre-existing condition. The health insurance companies are at fault because they are greedy businesses that makes a living off of people's health. Blaming on your fellow Americans is wrong because a lot of people want to be free of government controlling their life. That is why the American Revolution took place because the founding fathers were tired of paying taxes to King George III who didn't even live in America.

Don't be surprised if the government doesn't want to keep your loved one alive and they say to unplug. That is how much the SCJ ruling have on someone's healthcare. It would be too much to keep the person on life-support for the government and the easy answer for someone who has no bloodrelation is to unplug.

The healthcare insurance and the health care providers are the real winners. They have the say in the premium, the deductible, the co-pays, and the percentage for medical procedures. They are not cheap for one person much less for a family.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

the only people who oppose national health care are those who have monetary interests in the health care system

Like who. Definitely not the health insurance companies because they wanted the mandate in order for them to cover the pre-existing condition.

Hospital Stocks Jump After Obamacare Ruled Constitutional By DANIEL WAGNER @ http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/06/28/hospital-stocks-jump-after-obamacare-ruled-constitutional/

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Seriously, if health care were truly free, then NO one would oppose it, right?

Don't be surprised if the government doesn't want to keep your loved one alive and they say to unplug. That is how much the SCJ ruling have on someone's healthcare. It would be too much to keep the person on life-support for the government and the easy answer for someone who has no bloodrelation is to unplug.

The healthcare insurance and the health care providers are the real winners. They have the say in the premium, the deductible, the co-pays, and the percentage for medical procedures. They are not cheap for one person much less for a family.

Right again!

Obama has succeeded in creating an entitlement culture in the US! More than ever you have Americans that want FREE stuff. Since when is ANYTHING for free??

That is why the American Revolution took place because the founding fathers were tired of paying taxes to King George III who didn't even live in America.

The sad part is, this man probably never cared or even considered that or was asleep during history class!

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Well done to President Obama. I'll be watching Fox News today and be loving the hysterical reactions - creeping socialism, European-style nanny state, Castro-inspired thinking etc.

5 ( +10 / -5 )

@Jimizo

With that kind of statement, you prove my point of what is wrong with people like you that just don't understand the issue and what's at stake here. If you can't see what's wrong with this Obamacrap, then you really need to study tax and the American health care system, because if you did, you wouldn't have made a childish illogical statement like that.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

I'll be watching Fox News today and be loving the hysterical reactions - creeping socialism, European-style nanny state, Castro-inspired thinking etc.

Ditto@jimizo. And let's hope that come November we can also enjoy watching Rupert Murdoch's Right-wing Propaganda Inc. (aka Fox News) slink away with its tail between its legs after the West Coast states give him a majority in the Electoral College.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

This is actually bad news for Obama. He is now "The One" who presides over the largest tax increase in the history of the world. With the wildly unpopular Obamacare -- 2/3's of the voters want it repealed -- he's going to be losing votes hand over fist.

Since no provision was included in the original ACA calling for a federal fine (i.e., a tax), it now goes back and new legislation will have to be passed in the Congress to make this all work. That ain't gonna happen with this House of Representatives.

It'll be interesting to see how many democrats will start coming out against Obamacare in this election given anyone who supports it will be labeled as supporting massive tax increases.

RR

-10 ( +4 / -14 )

@Jimizo

Question to you and other warm-hearted liberals, where will we get the money from? Who's going to fund 300+ million people. Who's going to pay for the illegal aliens that sneak into the country? So now I have to wait longer for a new Kidney, what happens if the doctors think, my life ain't worth a darn, I guess, I'm going to be SOL, right?

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

The healthcare insurance and the health care providers are the real winners.

Now that SCOTUS have deemed that forcing people to buy a service from the private sector is legal proper way of taxation by the Government by upholding the mandate, the healthcare insurance industry now has no incentive to compete for business, innovate better and lower cost effective plans or have to do anything to improve their services.

Which in the future since regular market forces now have legally distorted and will longer provide any sanity check on prices through competition by companies that want to attract customers to their business. The result now means in the future crappier healthcare, crappier service from the insurance industry and a Healthcare system that is just going to suck up consumer dollars to deliver nothing resembling good healthcare overall for anybody and survives on the back a taxes now.

-2 ( +2 / -5 )

SimondB: poor people without insurance should be left to die.

I have health insurance to now and having health insurance is more of a hassel than it is worth. Having health insurance does not guarantee good services. Even though I have health insurance I feel like I don't have health insurance. That may not make sense to a lot of people on JT. Health insurance is just a big scam and it is up to the doctors if they want to treat you or give you poor services, and it is up to the health insurance if they want to cover it.

The health insurance is hardly ever used except for two years that went and saw the doctor about 12 times times during those two years. This is the second doctor that I switched to because the first doctor left the network. The doctor was great but my illness could have been taken more seriously. There were no x-rays taken and the only advice was go see a chiropractor or a back specialist who was booked. You can't go and see the doctor if you have a cold or the flu, the doctor office would schedule an appointment for 3 months later. What good does that do me and that would be a waste on the insurance. One time, I have a neck crick and couldn't turn my neck and went to the urgent care. They didn't do anything other then questioned me about it. The doctor says to take a couple of Tylenol. About 4 months later I get a called from the insurance investigation department about the urgent care visit. They says they wanted the responsible party to pay for it. I told them to send me the bill. What's the point of having health insurance if the services is bad and get hassel by the insurance company? The second doctor left the network. So now I am in between doctors. The last time I went for a consultation with the third doctor he charged $245, paid my co-pay and the insurance picked up the rest.

For the liberal to disagreed on my comments that is up to you. For people to not believe until it happens to them it is a sad state. It reminds me of the Holocaust when nobody believed the escapees from the death camps until it is too late. The state of the healtcare industry will only get worse not better. Discriminations plays a big part in getting good services to bad services depending who you are.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

There is no free lunch. Of the 40 million plus uninsured in the US, more than half will not be eligible for government subsidy, which means if their employer chooses not to offer health care (and pays the fine) said employees will be required to purchase their own health insurance at the minimum Bronze Level (60% coverage). In order to receive any subsidy you have to be earning a ridiculously low salary. There is no simple answers to health care mess in the US. Its no good comparing the US system to countries with universal care -- come to think of it, I haven't seen any cutting edge drug therapies or medical procedures coming out of Cuba, Canada, U.K. etc. You get what you pay for comes to mind...

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Great victory for the insurance companies. Have fun being forced into expensive health care packages everyone under my salary bracket. I can practically hear the insurance executives celebrating over all the new slaves...ahem...customers that the US government is delivering to them along with a basket full of subsidies. I can almost hear the clacking of adjustor keyboards finding new and creative ways to increase premiums to make the best of this new treasure trove of funding.

The government and SCOTUS have declared that you, my fellow Americans, are far to ignorant to take care of yourselves. But they're not going to provide you with healthcare, oh no, even they have limits. Instead they're going to impose crippling fines on you if you don't buy an insurance package that you can't afford as it is.

It's amazing to believe that there are a lot of Americans who don't want their fellow Americans to be covered and their nation to join the modern world instead of screwing itself.

Isn't the rest of the modern world a debt ridden crisis zone right now or have the past few years of national bailouts been a terrible dream?

And I can't stress the point enough that this doesn't provide healthcare to anybody. This isn't a single payer system, not even close (thank God), it just makes it illegal to not have insurance. If a family cannot afford a proper package they still won't be able to afford it, but now they are being forced to buy it or face a fine that goes up every year through 2016.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

And let's hope that come November we can also enjoy watching Rupert Murdoch's Right-wing Propaganda Inc. (aka Fox News) slink away with its tail between its legs after the West Coast states give him a majority in the Electoral College.

Nice try, but that will never happen, being from California, born and raised. California had the 7th largest economy in the world, that is until the states went belly-up with liberals and out of control spending and now, it's a land occupied by a socialistic, entitlement culture. No one expects Romney to win California. People need to decide what kind of country they want. California choose to reelect (barf) Jerry Brown AGAIN!!! Thought they learned the first time, but some people want to go back for sloppy seconds. Let me guess, you want to blame Republicans for California's demise. Funny, that you mention Fox, you have every other network that is left leaning or faaaar left leaning and when traditionalists and conservatives and also liberals watch Fox, that's just bad. So now we have to be forced to watch Madcow and Sharpton on MSNBC?? MSNBC that would rather slit their own wrists than say anything and I ANYTHING against Obama or his mindless policies! Are you serious?!

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Wow, its amazing how uninformed the rightwingers are on this matter. On all matters. Study and study has proven that.

First, all dirvers pay auto insurance. Same thing. Get over it. Second, the act will save money over time as the CBO has stated over and over again. Third, 20000 Americans die each year due to lack of health insurance. Republicans can live with that for some reason but people with any dignity cannot. Fourth, the bill includes a provision that forces insurance companies to spend their money on their customers, if not they rebate funds back. That is happening now. So service is going to improve. I can go on an on but I know the radical republicans willl never get it. They want the USA to let its own people die for some imaginary political point that even they do not understand.

Its like supporting failed wars to support the troops who get killed and injured in the failed wars. Does not make any sense to anyone other than rightwing loons.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

There is a rather "silver lining" in all of this. We have an election in Nov. and we don't have to worry about this possibly being implemented in 2014, there is still hope.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

As with numerous previous bad SCOTUS decisions, this is not the end of the issue by a longshot. This bill was barely passed when dems controlled both houses of congress. And then the 2010 election gave republicans 60 congressional seats. Obama and his supporters may think they've won today, but the independents will weigh very heavily in November. Since the majority of Americans(sorry, but non-Americans have NO standing nor say) oppose the (un)Affordable Health Care Act, it wouldn't be surprising if the voters send more democrat congressmen packing, along with Obama. The Act will be replaced or repealed. The economy will tank severly if this law isn't repealed.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

First, all dirvers pay auto insurance. Same thing. Get over it.

Not the same thing at all. Drivers pay auto insurance, non-drivers do not. The mandate for health insurance says all will buy insurance regardless if they actually need it or not. Though if car care gets too expensive in the future for the average American we might now be able to "subsidize it through a mandate" that now requires all non-drivers to have auto insurance to increase the pool to lower costs by forcing them to have auto insurance policies.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Wow, its amazing how uninformed the rightwingers are on this matter. On all matters. Study and study has proven that.

Uninformed? It's the leftist that that are bankrupting the country to the point of oblivion.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

@Zurcronium

Don't you think it's funny how our President want is FORCING us to take and do something that is highly unpopular with the public over 63% of people DON'T WANT IT! I thought the government was there to service the people. Obama is saying, I don't care what you want, you are going to take this pill and like it and if you can't pay for it, we'll charge your family or we'll just keep adding to your bill until you pay for it! Don't you just love democracy?

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

It's a start......so everyone just relax.

5 ( +8 / -2 )

Yes, we can! Now, forward!

1 ( +4 / -3 )

zurcronium: Wow, its amazing how uninformed the rightwingers are on this matter. On all matters. Study and study has proven that. First, all dirvers pay auto insurance. Same thing. Get over it. Second, the act will save money over time as the CBO has stated over and over again

All drivers may hold a driver license, but they are not required to buy car insurance. The owner of the car is required to buy car insurance. Are you asking that all drivers pay for car insurance even though they don't own a car? That have not been made into law yet.

Third, 20000 Americans die each year due to lack of health insurance. Republicans can live with that for some reason but people with any dignity cannot.

I am not a Republican or a Democrat. I know when I get bad services when it comes to the healthcare industry. I have health insurance and I don't use it because I get poor services. The last time I saw the doctor his attitude was nonchalant. How about addressing quality services instead of blaming Republicans for people not having health insurance. Prior to the Obamacare, people could buy health insurance there was nothing stopping the 20000 Americans from not getting health insurance. Just because you believe people have health insurance doesn't mean the health insurance is going to allow coverages for everything. The problem was the health insurance was too expensive and if the health insurance wanted to provide coverage for people then they just had to lower the price but you get what you paid for. Again, hospitals can not turn away people who don't have insurance.

How much is the premium for the Obamacare health insurance plans? In the ideal world it would be cheaper since everyone is required to buy it, but will the insurance company offer afforable insurance policy? Just because everyone is required doesn't mean the insurance comapny will lower the prices or that the health care provider will not charge $40,000 for knee surgery. They are not going to drop knee surgery $40,000 to $2000. That is very unlikely.

Fourth, the bill includes a provision that forces insurance companies to spend their money on their customers, if not they rebate funds back. That is happening now. So service is going to improve. I can go on an on but I know the radical republicans willl never get it. They want the USA to let its own people die for some imaginary political point that even they do not understand.

Does anybody remember those rebates for sd card 1GB when it was $100 and mail the rebate to get $20 back. The wireless phone rebate from $50-100. How many people remember to do that. The rebate is a scam because a lot of people either forget to do it or will lose the form. Why not give the patient upfront the disccount price instead the rebate if they want to save the patient money?

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Allegedly speaking Obama was a lie (he said no taxes) and wrong ( Claiming individual mandate base on commerce law). Supreme court corrected him by using taxing system to survive this controversial law. Now, there will be more taxes on the way for Americans, and may be not illegal immigrants. The devils are in details, how the implication of this law will carry on in days to come. Remember nothing is free, we all pay as a package for cable channels that we do not want to watch. Insurance companies need to make a living and profit as any others. The Feds are in biggest deficit in history and where the money come from? Well, more taxes right? Eventually, government will have to bear all these burdens, and guess what? the entitlements will program Americans close to many failed European nations. There have to be a better way in creating an affordable healthcare for all by being honest of how much we want to pay for the unfortunate thus allowing companies to compete and reducing the scam bag lawyers from taking advantage of us. NOTHING IS FREE.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Yes, we can! Now, forward!

Actually, financially, NO, WE CAN'T!

All drivers may hold a driver license, but they are not required to buy car insurance. The owner of the car is required to buy car insurance. Are you asking that all drivers pay for car insurance even though they don't own a car? That have not been made into law yet.

Makes perfect sense to normal rational thinking people, but for liberals, they think even if you are NOT a drivers should pay for car insurance, then that would be as in Obama's words "the fair and right thing to do."

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

First, all dirvers pay auto insurance. Same thing.

@ zurcronium: It's not the same. You don't have to pay auto insurance if you don't drive. If you have no car, you don't pay. If you get into a taxi or a bus, you are not paying auto insurance. To use your analogy for Obamacare, now if you don't have a car, you still have to pay for car insurance as with Obamacare and health insurance.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Good thing we're now all covered, cause a lot of fighting's going on.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The health insurance is hardly ever used except for two years that went and saw the doctor about 12 times times during those two years. This is the second doctor that I switched to because the first doctor left the network. The doctor was great but my illness could have been taken more seriously. There were no x-rays taken and the only advice was go see a chiropractor or a back specialist who was booked. You can't go and see the doctor if you have a cold or the flu, the doctor office would schedule an appointment for 3 months later. What good does that do me and that would be a waste on the insurance. One time, I have a neck crick and couldn't turn my neck and went to the urgent care. They didn't do anything other then questioned me about it - - - - blah-blah-blah

This proves a lot more has to be done to make health insurance work for all Americans. We can only hope a next president will be more successful in doing that. Doing what all people are entitled to. Why does it cost so much now? Simple answer. The States have been dragging their feet on the issue for decades. If so many 'lesser' nations can provide proper care, why not a country which considers itself advanced? That is a question the answer for which I am looking forward to.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

America's about the only developed country on the planet that hasn't got universal healthcare.

Up until Obama got this law passed, the situation has been a disgrace, especially with people whining about it implying that money is more important than health, livelihoods and even lives.

Try facing a major health disability without insurance and then tell us all how bad universal health insurance is.

As I said before, I understand and I always have felt the system needed to be reformed, but NOT the way Obama is going about it. Try being forced to pay for something that you don't need if you have your own existing coverage. This will NOT help, but further the debt that the US already cannot get out of.

As I said before, none of you liberals can tell me who's going to pay for all of this. Again, it seems like you guys think that America is awash with Gold, so it's all good.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

For the liberals who are happy for Obamacare to pass, so all you guys cared about is passing it and that everyone gets health insurance, but don't have an opinion on how some people get better services than others due to economic status, race, and age.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

This proves a lot more has to be done to make health insurance work for all Americans. We can only hope a next president will be more successful in doing that. Doing what all people are entitled to. Why does it cost so much now? Simple answer. The States have been dragging their feet on the issue for decades. If so many 'lesser' nations can provide proper care, why not a country which considers itself advanced? That is a question the answer for which I am looking forward to.

It's kind of rude to quote me and say blah-blah-blah at the end of the quote. I didn't want to say the doctor was racist and discriminate because of race. If it was you presto345, you wouldn't have been treated like that. Not sure if presto345 is a white male or white female, but the doctor would have taken an x-ray or send you to the ER and have test done. The point is that white male get far better services than a minority.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

It's not the same. You don't have to pay auto insurance if you don't drive. If you have no car, you don't pay. If you get into a taxi or a bus, you are not paying auto insurance.

If you have a car, you need car insurance. If you have a flesh-and-blood body, you need health insurance. Same thing.

If you use a bus or taxi, the cost of the insurance is included in the fare.

1 ( +10 / -8 )

I hope this landmark decision by the US Supreme Court will force Michael Moore to remake his newest upcoming movie!! Since the last time I checked he was putting President Obama on the same low dirty level as Bush!

0 ( +3 / -3 )

If you have a car, you need car insurance. If you have a flesh-and-blood body, you need health insurance. Same thing.

Not true! If you don't have a car, you don't need auto insurance. If you are forced to do it, it is unconstitutional. Needing, wanting and being forced to take something by force are completely and entirely different things.

If you use a bus or taxi, the cost of the insurance is included in the fare.

Obama care costs a heck of a lot more than a Bus or a Taxi. WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY!

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Just wonder if supreme court might side with Obama to tax Americans for not eating enough broccoli. If so, "Bruise Lee" will not be happy since his a cousin who name is "Broccoli" might be a target by all activists.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

'"While we would have preferred to see Obamacare struck down, this decision will drive Republican voter intensity sky-high," Steven Law, president and CEO of American Crossroads said in a statement Thursday.'

More proof that Republicans don't give one iota about the people at issue here -- simply the politics and how they can benefit from it. If the Dems say yes, they say 'no'... that's all there is to it. Zero thought goes into the actual issue on their part except how they can capitalize on the opposing view.

Alphaape: "@ zurcronium: It's not the same. You don't have to pay auto insurance if you don't drive. If you have no car, you don't pay. If you get into a taxi or a bus, you are not paying auto insurance."

An extremely poor analogy. Newsflash: while not everyone has a car, we all have our health -- until we're dead, which many more would be and a lot faster if Republicans had their way.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

I hope this landmark decision by the US Supreme Court will force Michael Moore to remake his newest upcoming movie!! Since the last time I checked he was putting President Obama on the same low dirty level as Bush!

I wish they would do a movie on Moore being one of the worst hypocritical film directors to ever make a movie based on one-sided opinions.

@Smithinjapan

The republicans DO care about the issues, but guess what, what is more important now at this critical moment. Worrying about Obamacare or Jobs?? Now we have Obamacare and now what, the economy is in the toilet and how will people pay for this, since the Democrats are NOT thinking about the people in the long run. Why would ANY sane republican agree with Obama and his deep debt and still is borrowing from China to pay for something we cannot afford!

An extremely poor analogy. Newsflash: while not everyone has a car, we all have our health -- until we're dead, which many more would be and a lot faster if Republicans had their way.

I see...so without money, it'll just all work itself out. I think many more people will die because of this bill.

Still waiting on an answer to my question liberals, where are the funds coming from?

-6 ( +1 / -8 )

Buddy, no one has.

This law has pages and pages of unread material, passed without even reading it all.

This is a Supreme Court Case of today. I was very surprised that Chief Justice Roberts went and joined liberal justices. I can hardly wait for Justice Scalia and Clearence Thomas to retire.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

National Federation of Independence vs Sebelius

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I am glad that the law was upheld for the most part. I have acquintances who were laid off from their jobs and lost their health insurance! This law will give them a chance to get affordable insurance.

What is also ironic is how the conservatives are calling this "socialism" when they are in fact living "socialism" since their health insurance is paid for by the gasps government!

This law will make it so that US Senators and US Representatives will have to receive health insurance from their home state insurance exchange sites just like the rest of us.

A wise choice so that our elected representatives will understand us regular folks plight with finding affordable health insurance.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Thank you Chief Justice John Roberts. This was clearly the right of Congress to pass such a law. It broke no rights of individuals. These uneducated folks who say the quality level of medical care will be reduced are just squawking because they LOST AGAIN!

1 ( +5 / -4 )

What is also ironic is how the conservatives are calling this "socialism" when they are in fact living "socialism" since their health insurance is paid for by the gasps government!

Moronic would be the proper way to word it. And the money is coming from..... Not to mention forcing people to take something that they don't want, something that is very unpopular, so since we are forced to take this crap, I definitely would call it Socialism in its purest form.

-5 ( +1 / -7 )

It is not socialism since we are relying on private insurance with government subsidies to the poor and middle class to help afford the premium.

And you do realize that Social Security, public roads, public schools, postal service, police, and firefighters would be considered socialism, right?

How idiotic to try to use "socialism" to input fears since it is not the same as communism.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

It is not socialism since we are relying on private insurance with government subsidies to the poor and middle class to help afford the premium.

And you do realize that Social Security, public roads, public schools, postal service, police, and firefighters would be considered socialism, right?

How idiotic to try to use "socialism" to input fears since it is not the same as communism.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

What is also ironic is how the conservatives are calling this "socialism" when they are in fact living "socialism" since their health insurance is paid for by the gasps government!

Define which conservatives you are talking about. The majority of people health insurance is covered by their employer/employee some who happens to be conservatives.

gay sailbreeze retired navy homo: These uneducated folks who say the quality level of medical care will be reduced are just squawking because they LOST AGAIN!

I just hope that you and the people on JT will never get discriminated base on your race, gender, and economic status and get crappy medical services. If you are white you got nothing to worried about so don't worry about what I say about the lack of quality healthcare since it doesn't applied to you.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Most Americans dislike the current healthcare system while still not exactly being too thrilled with the mandate while still supporting most of the law's provisions!

Not all jobs provide health insurance.

Otherwise, we would not be having 50 million Americans un-insured.

Conservatives as in Republicans.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

It is not socialism since we are relying on private insurance with government subsidies to the poor and middle class to help afford the premium.

And you do realize that Social Security, public roads, public schools, postal service, police, and firefighters would be considered socialism, right?

How idiotic to try to use "socialism" to ...

Come on it's not their fault that they don't understand definitions. Sarah Palin learned 'em that way.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

I just want all fire fighters ( over 1200) to have a health insurance who have been working 16 hrs shift in mud, dust, fire and sweat to kill Waldo Canyon Wildfire. Unfortunately, most of them have no health insurance as they are in risky business.No insurance companies want them. This community has just lost 346 homes within a couple of hrs on Tue evening but no single life has been lost because of their sacrifices and commitment. My house is still standing okay. It is very fair to provide affordable insurance to all of these fire fighters. We need to share their burden. They deserve it.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

@FruitsBasket

And you do realize that Social Security, public roads, public schools, postal service, police, and firefighters would be considered socialism, right?

How idiotic to try to use "socialism" to input fears since it is not the same as communism.

Again, NOT true. For SS, public roads, schools, postal service, police, firefighters, you are looking at salaries that the tax payer is footing and to the vital repair of roads, which we need to get people and goods across the country, no one has an issue with that, however, having to pay for something where you won't even see the benefit for a few years and to pay for something you don't want, but the government is implying that you need...of course it is socialism. NOT putting fear, the fear was already put in when the Supreme Court made its decision and now we have NO jobs, but have to pay for this monstrosity.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

They are socialistic because they are paid for by the federal, state, and local governments.

Someone has not been using a definition.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Healthcare is a basic need because if people do not have adequate care, then they will wait until they the critical point when it is most expensive for hospitals to treat in a emergency and since they cannot pay the bill, the cost would bankrupt that person or would shift to you when you have to go to the hospital because they raised the bill!

That is why healthcare is so expensive!

2 ( +3 / -1 )

This law will make it so that most people will not go bankrupt and able to receive preventative care since their insurance has to pay for most preventive care with no co-pays.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Sailwind, others . . .

Are you serious? Do you think maintaining health is an option like owning a car? All of you just proved my point about how clueless the conservatives are on almost any matter in politics today. Case closed. Just amazing how deluded people can be.

You republicans cry out for personal responsibility but in this case want to let people who can pay for healthcare pass their costs to others to pay for them. Thats call welfare and clearly you republicans are for it unless its not you getting the benefit. Amazing hypocrisy.

The fact is that Japan has socialized medicine, single payer, with better outcomes that the USA at less than half the cost. Obama blunted some of the more horrific practices by the US healthcare for profit industry but its not even close to being as good as France, Denmark, Italy, Greece, Iceland, Ireland and on and on. The USA is barely ahead of Cuba in terms of healthcare outcomes while being number one on dollars spent. Only the deluded would try to defend the current US system. By claiming being healthy is an option like bucket seats.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Technically, Greece is not doing so well with its services.....but it is not because of healthcare. It has a older generation and not enough young people working to pay the taxes.

But overall, you are correct.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@fruitbasket, "It is not socialism since we are relying on private insurance with government subsidies to the poor and middle class to help afford the premium." So, how do you differentiate socialism from fascism? Just asking.

What this boils down to is a Breathing Tax.

The outcome will be higher unemployment, particularly for the younger people as employers will further delay hiring or extend hiring freezes which have been happening since ACA was passed in 2010. The percentage of wealth-producers will continue to decline while the entitlement-dependent non-producers suck the last breath out of the economy. When the public sector becomes so large a parasite, the organism withers and dies. Obamacare will be the new plague to reduce the population.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Do you think maintaining health is an option like owning a car? All of you just proved my point about how clueless the conservatives are on almost any matter in politics today.

Maintaining health is an option, some people just don't do it. They smoke, drink over eat and get lung cancer, cirrossis of the liver and diabetes. Liberals have no problem using other peoples money to pay for their unhealthy lifestyle choices if they don't have insurance out of "compassion." Might as well use other peoples money also to pay for their cigarettes, booze, and twinkies while were at it, oh and lets throw in "free birthcontrol" from the Government as a woman's health issue so we help spread sexually transmitted diseases into the mix and come full circle on this.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

I love how the word 'socialism' sends the right wing into a flap. One of Bush's most mealy-mouthed answers ( a very competitive field ) was trying to explain why the state bailout of banks and the motor industry wasn't 'socialism'. Right wingers seem to have an ability to label what they disagree with as socialistic, in this case Obama's health plan, while using the 'technically, a banana is a herb' argument when it suits them. @bassfunk You have very interesting views on what socialism means. I'd love to borrow your books.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

And once again, the US Supreme Court has proved to be unpredictable as ever. Of course, a big reason for that is that the Justices are there till they retire, and so they can decide without minding political consequences.

This Supreme Court is still a conservative court; Chief Justice Roberts is still very conservative. Not only is this decision a surprise but also the way it went down. Pundits thought Justice Kennedy would be the deciding vote - instead, it turns out to be Chief Justice Roberts, with Justice Kennedy writing a scathing rebuttal.

Here's the gist of how it went down: in the announcement, Chief Justice Roberts put forth whether Congress has the power to levy an individual mandate to purchase healthcare or face a penalty, based on the powerful interstate commerce clause - he said no. At that point, everybody thought the law is over. But then unexpectedly, Roberts continued whether Congress has the power to levy a national tax - and he said yes. Then everybody just turned silent - did he just mean what we think he means?

So Chief Justice Roberts called it a tax - and thus allowed it. (Of course, Obama would not call it a tax since that'd be raising taxes, so he was calling it a penalty.) Surprise of surprises, nobody thought of things going that way.

So for once, judges weren't acting like activists - in that, judges aren't "making up" what the laws should be, just deciding on them. As Chief Justice Roberts put it, he's not the one throwing the pitch or swinging the bat, only just calling strikes or balls.

So basically, the Supreme Court put the onus, whether to keep or repeal the law, the same way it was created - back on the Executive and Legislative branches. If those branches don't want the law, then pass a law repealing it, instead of having the Supreme Court to do it for them.

So Obama got his victory, but Romney also got his victory, since this will fire up his Republican base because now they have a cause to fight for. How this will affect the independent base --the swing votes in a close election-- remains to be seen..............

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Eventually the "Affordable" health care act will just have to be scrapped altogether when the inevitable crash happens. dolts like ElbudaMexicano make the absurd claim that the U.S is the "only developed country without uni care". Of course in light of medicare and medicaide there is hardly any truth to such a statement. The Europeans are learning the hard way what happens when you build a society o a social safety net, especially Greece the hard way. Which means things are going to get very ugly the years ahead due to such entitlements.

Wow, its amazing how uninformed the rightwingers are on this matter. On all matters. Study and study has proven that.

http://mises.org/daily/3737/Why-ObamaCare-Will-Fail-A-Reading-List

A compilation of everything you need to know on why you are wrong.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Chief Justice Roberts wrote, "The Court does not express any opinion on the wisdom of the Affordable Care Act. Under the Constitution, that judgment is reserved to the people."

Justice Roberts gave, in code, all voting middle class Americans their marching orders. In November, if we don't want government taxing us for our healthcare, we'd had damn well better vote Obama and every democrat lawmaker who initially voted for Obamacare out of office so America can get this bad law repealed.

RR

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

"They smoke, drink over eat and get lung cancer, cirrossis of the liver and diabetes. Liberals have no problem using other peoples money to pay for their unhealthy lifestyle choices if they don't have insurance out of "compassion." "

These habits aren't limited to poor people Saliwind, but it is telling that this should be your argument to deny less advantaged people life saving treatment. Some people live perfectly healthy lives to be cut down young with a horrible disease - to fellow American people the Hippocratic oath that all doctors swear is the height of selfishness, if not hypocrisy.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

"to deny fellow American people" whoops

2 ( +3 / -1 )

So, for the Supreme Court, this is pretty much over. They hardly ever go back to "re-try" challenges. They would leave it to the lower courts to iron-out the interpretations of the details and how to enforce the law. And yeah, this is the law of the land now; that's gone and done. The only way to retract it in the future is with another law repealing it, and until/if such time, this is the law as it is.

In the meantime to move on to the jobs, which is what concerns most voters anyways. That's where the energy would be mainly focused in these times.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

This law will make it so that US Senators and US Representatives will have to receive health insurance from their home state insurance exchange sites just like the rest of us.

@ FruitsBasketFan: You didn't read the fine print of the Bil. Congress is exempt from it. So they don't have to worry and will not pay any penalties. Not so for the military retirees like myself. We have to use TRICARE which bases its rates on Medicare rates. Already you have had some doctors no longer take TRICARE patients due to the low rates that MEDICAR pays for reimbursements, and the difficulties in actually getting paid from TRICARE so they have stopped seeing those patients. What will probably happen is more doctors will start doing that, since now they will be able to have an even more clearer definition of the medical "haves" and "have nots" to choose from.

So your friends like Pelosi and the rest are covered for life, the rest of us aren't. Congress normally passes laws like that to protect themselves.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Justice Roberts gave, in code, all voting middle class Americans their marching orders. In November, if we don't want government taxing us for our healthcare, we'd had damn well better vote Obama and every democrat lawmaker who initially voted for Obamacare out of office so America can get this bad law repealed.

Damn skippy, RR.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

About 70% of Americans are against Obamacare. The SCOUS decision was not a referendum on whether it was good it was just a decision on constitutionality. The GOP is not against overhaul of the health care system they are just against THIS overhaul. 70% against....that's probably a lot of undecided voters.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

These habits aren't limited to poor people Saliwind, but it is telling that this should be your argument to deny less advantaged people life saving treatment.

My argument in no way shape or form is to deny less advantaged people life saving treatment or medical care. This is a typical red herring when tackling health care reform or medicare reform "they want to throw granny off the cliff!!!!!" . My argument is that Obama's way to reform healthcare is totally wrong, bad for the future and will make healthcare more expensive, less effective and worse than it already is. You don't take a pretty disfunctional system as it is with it's bureaucratic bloat spread over fifty states and jam 2000 plus pages of more regulatory bureaucratic bloat on top of it and expect a good outcome. Medicare is bilked out of 50 billion dollars a year on average in fraud as it is right now, thats over 200 billion over the past four years! Clean that house first with our taxpayer medical dollars. Show that the Government can manage the Medicare healthcare system that it has in the first place before embarking on getting its mitts into 1/6 of the U.S Economy.

There is a much better way to control costs and make insurance more affordable for all. It starts with tackling the horrid practice of having medical professionals practice defensive medicine to prevent lawsuits.

Here are the facts:

In recent studies, more than 90 percent of physicians reported practicing positive defensive medicine in the past 12 months; unnecessary imaging tests accounted for 43 percent of these actions. More than 92 percent of surgeons reported ordering unnecessary tests to protect themselves.

Another study found a direct relationship between higher malpractice awards and malpractice premiums and Medicare spending, especially with imaging services. The increased spending, however, had no measurable effects on mortality.

In a recent Gallup survey, physicians attributed 34 percent of overall healthcare costs to defensive medicine and 21 percent of their practice to be defensive in nature. Specifically, they estimated that 35 percent of diagnostic tests, 29 percent of lab tests, 19 percent of hospitalizations, 14 percent of prescriptions, and 8 percent of surgeries were performed to avoid lawsuits.

http://www.aaos.org/news/aaosnow/dec10/advocacy2.asp

What a waste of medical resources and bloated costs. Start reform here first and get the costs back down. Then tackle the uninsured problem after we get insurance back to being actually affordable again. Obama's plan does nothing to tackle defensive medicine, his approach makes it an integral part of the bloated waste system.

You start with real reform to contain and cut costs

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

zurcronium: Are you serious? Do you think maintaining health is an option like owning a car? All of you just proved my point about how clueless the conservatives are on almost any matter in politics today. Case closed. Just amazing how deluded people can be.

You were the one that brought up the car analogy up. It was a bad analogy. Your point is moot. That can be applied to the liberals on JT when it comes to politics due to the thumbs down on my comments.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

As we Americans all know, we are required by law to report to the Internal Revenue Service annually no matter what. I saw on TV this morning where the "penalty" for not buying health insurance will be set up in the form of a tax ... and if you don't get the health insurance then your taxes will be much higher when filing. I wonder if this covers Americans living overseas, too? I don't see how they can approach us on this issue, but Obama's health insurance stuff says that all Americans must take it or else (the penalty, aka the tax). Like those of us living here in Japan, many of us get our health insurance via the Japanese health plan. We don't need the U.S. health insurance as wanted by Obama. Wonder how we will have to deal with this issue?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Having just been released from Hospital for Gall-stone removal I am thankful for the medical aid here in Japan that covers 70% (Private & Goverment).

You will be thankful for the social safety net when you truly need it, unless your name is rockefeller, etc.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Sailwind,

Your earlier post argued that healthcare should be denied to poor people because they have a monopoly on unhealthy lifestyles which isn't necessarily true.

Then you swerved to birth control and sexually transmitted diseases as if these were also a monopoly of the under-privileged. I'm surprised you didn't throw homosexuals in the mix too for a trifecta.

If you're worried about cutting the costs and preventative medicine, it might be time to look at the national adult obesity rate of 35% and GROWING.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

I'll never understand Americans. Here in the UK we have healthcare which is free at the point of delivery. Every person of working age pays National Insurance contributions, or if they are on benefits have them credited. This allows everyone access to healthcare without having to worry about finances. In addition some people have private health insurance, where they can use BUPA facilities/services for example.

Why can't the US system be like that? Everyone deserves access to the same levels of healthcare, no matter their social status or income.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

@thunderbird

The US is Not Britain! There was a reason why we left that country!

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

If socialised police, prisons, courts, fire service, education and military are ok, why not health care?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

bass4funk: "The republicans DO care about the issues, but guess what, what is more important now at this critical moment."

Well there you go. You don't care about the issues now at this critical moment, only the politics. Exactly what I said. And no, I never said 'we'll all die' without health care, I said a lot of people will because they are not insured and cannot afford any health care under the current system. The usual Republican twist... not surprising.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

bass4funk: "The US is Not Britain! There was a reason why we left that country!"

Clearly not for the benefit of the people on this issue at least.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

bass4funk: It's an interesting retort you make about 'there's a reason why we left that country', but like most Republicans you can't say why. Thunderbird points out the benefits of a national health care system and you can do is say you're different -- clearly different for the worse.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Thunderbird2 writes: Here in the UK we have healthcare which is free at the point of delivery.

I have read where the U.K.'s health care system is in financial trouble. Also, I have read and seen on TV where it is full of problems, such as long waits for treatment, long lines, overworked doctors, etc. If this is true, something isn't working right there.

Japan has a great system ... but, it too, is losing money. In brief, that's one reason why the government wants to increase the consumption tax.

Next comes the U.S. With Obamacare, look for its health care system to run into the red, too.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The Obama administration argued that the mandate falls under Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce. Roberts rejected that argument but said the requirement could be considered a tax.

I have to admit, Obama and gang are prettty smart. They tried to get it under the commerce clause since they campaigned on no new taxes for those making less than $250K. But I guess they knew that if it was challenged, that the SCOTUS would see it for what it really was, a tax increase and give them the go ahead. Now Obama will say that the Justice appointed by a Republican was the reason why your taxes will increase (still blaming Bush).

Here's how the taxes will go if you do not have Health Insurance:

2014: $95 2015: $325 2016: $695 or more.

If you are working and chose not to buy insurnace, you will get taxed up to 2.5% of your gross income in penalties to pay.

So much for Obama saying that he wouldn't be raising taxes on middle class families to pay for health care, to quote him from a campaign speech in 2008.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

" progressives " think human beings are automobiles.

priceless.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

So much for Obama saying that he wouldn't be raising taxes on middle class families to pay for health care, to quote him from a campaign speech in 2008.

true dat. Say hello to Obama's "Read My Lips" moment with the American middle class voters.

RR

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

smith, in japan, feels the horrible repubs "oppress" him from thousands of miles away:

An extremely poor analogy. Newsflash: while not everyone has a car, we all have our health -- until we're dead, which many more would be and a lot faster if Republicans had their way.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

@smith

Well there you go. You don't care about the issues now at this critical moment, only the politics. Exactly what I said. And no, I never said 'we'll all die' without health care, I said a lot of people will because they are not insured and cannot afford any health care under the current system. The usual Republican twist... not surprising.

On the contrary, I do care very much about the issue, but as usual, most liberals don't or at least, selfishly do. By any means necessary, even if it means to drive the country off the cliff. A lot more people will die from this bill, there is no way it will work, absolutely no way. Like everything else the Dems touch, it'll get bogged down.

Clearly not for the benefit of the people on this issue at least.

That is YOUR opinion.

It's an interesting retort you make about 'there's a reason why we left that country', but like most Republicans you can't say why. Thunderbird points out the benefits of a national health care system and you can do is say you're different -- clearly different for the worse.

Right back at you, skipbeat and Alphaape explained why it's a ruse and pointing out the disadvantages of the bill. This is nothing more than a lemon.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

So, what's more important?

Looking after the health of your people, or beating the bejeesus out of an imagined enemy?

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Republicans would rather buy bullets than band-aids.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

it's a land occupied by a socialistic

Who Obama? The president born in Kenya with a fake Harvard degree since he won't make his transcripts available?

Think about what you are saying...

Historically (when the US had slavery) people who accused other people of being socialist (like you are now) were PRO slavery. So I would say if you lived back in that time you would be against the end of slavery.

And please don't forget about medicare and social security. They should be ended, right? I mean how can you be against ObamaCare but not say anything about ending those entitlement systems?

This is far from a new phenomenon — the use of "socialist" as a political epithet in the U.S. dates back to pre-Civil War days when abolitionist newspaper editor Horace Greeley was branded a socialist by some pro-slavery adversaries. In the 20th century, many elements of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal — including Social Security — were denounced as socialist. So was Medicare when it was created in the 1960s

ObamaCare (or RomneyCare) - by the way, Newt Gingrich supports a mandate as he said this publicly- is about making sure people all pay into healthcare. It's not about getting free healthcare. And it will not bankrupt the country. It will bring costs down because it will reduce the number of unpaid hospital bills so you won't end up getting billed $100 for a band aid.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

And progressive liberals would rather bleed the country and anyone with any money to fund anything that is wasteful, then go back when the well is all dried up and have the audacity to ask, "can I have some more?" but hey, the economy is NOT important, as long as we have Obama care, we don't know how we're going to fund it, people and the country are already broke, ahhhh, what's the difference, the most important thing before feeding your family, taking care of bills, mortgages, etc, let's add more, more to the deficit! But making sense of out of control liberalism is like making sense of Lady Ga Ga's fashion tastes!

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

A lot more people will die from this bill

Please explain why...you need to back up this statement

progressive liberals would rather bleed the country and anyone with any money to fund anything that is wasteful

This is for a mandate, not free healthcare. And why are you pointing to the "liberals" about this? Nixon wanted a mandate. Romney implemented RomneyCare. And in the past republicans were strongly pro-mandate.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Bass, a lot of "liberals" were asking who was going to pay for Bush's wars, only they were shrieked down as helping the terrorists (a mostly imagined enemy too).... Today the charges of socialism are pretty similar, only this time common sense is prevailing.

" the most important thing before feeding your family, taking care of bills, mortgages, etc, "

Your families' health should surely figure in that list?

The thing with bad health is you never know when, where or who it is going to strike....

Obamneycare possibly isn't the best solution, but it is better than before.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I have read where the U.K.'s health care system is in financial trouble. Also, I have read and seen on TV where it is full of problems, such as long waits for treatment, long lines, overworked doctors, etc. If this is true, something isn't working right there.

The NHS is facing a funding problem due to the recession, something outwith its control. Had this been a pay-per-visit system then, due to the recession, people would not go to see their doctors or would avoid hospital appointments. Health Insurance premiums would skyrocket as, in hard times, people become ill through stress, not eating properly, not heating their homes in winter, etc...

As for the specifics you mentioned: waiting times are coming down (there are targets in place to ensure this happens), there are no long lines of people waiting for treatment... and as for overworked doctors, well junior doctors have always worked long hours in the past, but an EU directive means that they have had those hours shortened somewhat.

There are always two sides to every story - I work for the NHS in Scotland. The above is what I see.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

US needs to cut it's military spending 25%-30% to have more for other priorities (infrastructure, basic healthcare net for all). Military alliances with the U.K., France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, India and the Philippines should be secured/ maintained to balance China in the future. (This may seem of topic, but some critics are asking where the money should come from).

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@edojin

People I know that have had to see a doctor in both the US and the UK say there is a wait in both countries.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I honestly dont see the issue with this, you pay for hospital cover (the government gives you subsidies) or you get fined. What is the problem with that? We have that in my country and it works fine. You get your insurance and you get 30% rebate from the government depending on when you joined (your age) and now its also means tested. It works good enough.

Correct me if lm wrong but thats what the US is looking at implementing isnt it?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

It's really strange. Anytime anyone who is obsessed with "ObamaCare" and claims it will make everyone die tomorrow automatically starts talking about the British system. There are soooo many other countries that have mandated/universal care. Why not talk about those countries as well? China wants to start a universal system so people spend their "sickness" savings which will be good for the economy (in China the usual practice is to save money when/if you get sick). Switzerland has an interesting mandate system and they have lower taxes and very good medical innovation. and so on and so on...

Someone who thinks Obamacare will make people die early please explain why!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FYI: the human death rate is 100%.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Bruinfan... in the UK you phone to make an appointment with your GP. Depending on their patients it could be anywhere from an hour to a few days. If it's an emergency you call NHS 24 (NHS Direct in England), or go to the nearest A&E. If your GP recommends a specialist then yes that can take a while... or just a day. It all depends on area and workload. It isn't the same everywhere.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

a lot of "liberals" were asking who was going to pay for Bush's wars, only they were shrieked down as helping the terrorists (a mostly imagined enemy too).... Today the charges of socialism are pretty similar, only this time common sense is prevailing.

I always thought Bush was a huge out of control spender, never liked it, he spent like a liberal on steroids.

" the most important thing before feeding your family, taking care of bills, mortgages, etc, "

Your families' health should surely figure in that list?

I need a job first, which sadly are none.

The thing with bad health is you never know when, where or who it is going to strike....

Obamneycare possibly isn't the best solution, but it is better than before.

Not when you can't pay for it which a lot of people won't be able to.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

"If your GP recommends a specialist then yes that can take a while... or just a day. It all depends on area and workload. It isn't the same everywhere."

The NHS is hardly a reference, neither is it on topic - the only way to get rapid specialist treatment in the UK is by going private and shelling out a load of dosh. That's why so many Brits live in France ;) It's hard to find a happy healthcare medium I guess, my impression is that too good a national healthcare system can make a nation of hypochondriacs and in turn be a drain on the system, à la française....

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Bass,

"Not when you can't pay for it which a lot of people won't be able to."

Is this any different to before the passing of the Obaneycare bill?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Not when you can't pay for it which a lot of people won't be able to.

Let's say there is medicare for everyone (which the US is headed for since the number of medicaid recipients keeps going up and up- something like 60M now). If that happens you get it whether you want it or not. Over your lifetime you pay a certain percentage of your salary into medicare so when you are a poor college students you are paying less. But when you are a middle aged person with a higher salary you pay into it more. If you get sick anytime it is there to cover you. Not a perfect system, but at least it keeps costs in check compared to the system now.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

How about addressing quality services instead of blaming Republicans for people not having health insurance. Prior to the Obamacare, people could buy health insurance there was nothing stopping the 20000 Americans from not getting health insurance. Just because you believe people have health insurance doesn't mean the health insurance is going to allow coverages for everything. The problem was the health insurance was too expensive and if the health insurance wanted to provide coverage for people then they just had to lower the price but you get what you paid for. Again, hospitals can not turn away people who don't have insurance. [blah blah blah]

Where do I begin? First let me start with the most glaring display of absolutely no grasp of the facts or how to present them. 20 thousand Americans; really? Hilarious! Assuming you mean million and just can't find worth in the effort to add the additional zeros, the reality is that about 44 million people in this country have no health insurance, and another 38 million have inadequate health insurance. This means that nearly one-third of Americans face each day without the security of knowing that, if and when they need it, medical care is available to them and their families.

"there was nothing stopping the ... Americans from not getting health insurance." Facts are facts. If people were willing to pay more for goods and services and demand a "living wage" they would have done so by now. Without elaborating further this means that the sheer cost of health insurance would have always stopped "the ... Americans from not getting health insurance." That is the truth of the matter and the facts remain those incomes will not be rising anytime in the future to meet the previous burden of health care costs. Obama's plan will reduce those costs using the business model for insurance of the larger pool reducing each participants costs. And for the less informed folks out there, that is business not socialism.

Concerning the quality of health care, health care advances will continue as they always have. Not only will we continue to see more and more advances but we will see them grow at an exponential rate and not linear, meaning the rate of growth itself will continue to rise. Such ill conceived notions that health care advances will somehow slow down is just about as ignorant as claiming that legal costs are so high that they would have the impact of the magic bullet should they be removed. Conservatives want to take away our right to be compensated when some negligent doctor makes such a gross error that he reduces my ability to continue to make the large bank.

Lastly, stating that hospitals can't refuse patients is advocating emergency room care for 44,000,000 Americans; sorry we tried that; IT DOES NOT WORK!

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Such ill conceived notions that health care advances will somehow slow down is just about as ignorant as...

Exactly. I brought up Switzerland. They have an interesting treatment program for drug addicts. Also, recently in the headlines they developed some new great cancer meds that will be used in Europe and the USA first. The problem in the USA is they sell all this crap on TV (ask you dr.....) which you really don't need as long as you are not as big as a whale. Of course America innovates but so do so many other countries. In the UK I heard of a couple of stories about innovative hearth surgeries...and so on and so on...

3 ( +3 / -0 )

If we can just get Obama re-elected and put the Democrats back in full control of the U.S.Congress, we'll still have a screwed-up healthcare system, only it'll cost taxpayers way more than it does now.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

If we can just get Obama re-elected and put the Democrats back in full control of the U.S.Congress, we'll still have a screwed-up healthcare system, only it'll cost taxpayers way more than it does now.

But if Romney is elected he will put in his RomneyCare which will pretty much be the same as ObamaCare. It will work as it works in the rest of the industrial world.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@Thunderbird2

Thanks for the info. Americans wait quite often too. Some make it seem like they get right in every time.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Maintaining health is an option, some people just don't do it. They smoke, drink over eat and get lung cancer, cirrossis of the liver and diabetes. Liberals have no problem using other peoples money to pay for their unhealthy lifestyle choices if they don't have insurance out of "compassion." Might as well use other peoples money also to pay for their cigarettes, booze, and twinkies while were at it, oh and lets throw in "free birthcontrol" from the Government as a woman's health issue so we help spread sexually transmitted diseases into the mix and come full circle on this.

Wow, again the garbled illogical stunted responses from the angry obama obsessed is just remarkable. They agree auto insurance should be mandatory but not health insurance because human health is not as important as a sedan. They accept 26,000 a year dying in the USA due to lack of insurance and 50 million having no insurance at all. They want insurance companies to cancel their insurance when they get sick. They want cheats who make others pay for when they get sick, basically free ride and collect welfare at the expense of others, to continue to avoid being responsible for themselves.

Sailwind, people who currently pay for insurance now pay for the poor health habits of others. Fact. And they pay for the emergency care of the free loaders who get sick without insurance. We are all in this together, like it or not. That is how insurance works. This is so basic I feel embarrassed to have to explain it. Your reasoning skills seem to have gone way down in the last few years, too much watching fox news which is proven to make its viewers clueless and fact free.

Last, it is republican states that use misuse healthcare services by the way since they are the fat states. That again is fact. Number one is Mississippi. The states with the highest rates of death due to lack of healthcare are ALL Republican states. This is another example of republicans voting against their own interests, like voting for tax cuts for the rich and higher taxes on the middle class under Reagan. They want to repeal healthcare rules so they can die without healthcare. Again, simple amazing how people can vote against themselves because they are totally deluded.

http://247wallst.com/2012/06/26/ten-states-dying-for-health-coverage/2/

1 ( +3 / -2 )

You can sum this up in just a few words. Great day for Obama... Terrible day for America. Only about 25% of America is happy about this. 70% including a hell of a lot of Democrats are pissed off.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

According to an AP poll, only a third of Americans approve of ObamaCare. What's up with that?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

The insurance companies will make even more of a killing. Everyone needs healthcare but not by the government. Its another way to gain control over you. When all hell breaks loose everyone will turn to the government for help. Because of this dependance they will run your life. Canada has a socialised system but its slow and and presently countless individuals are being turned away from GP because they are packed with patients. See how it goes.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Heh, I see the person who gave me a thumbs-down doesn't bother to explain why only a third of Americans support Obamacare.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Ah, the sweet ironiy!

After 4 years of Obama running insisting that Obamacar is NOT a tax, now the Sotus decides that it is legal because.... drum roll.... it is a tax.

Will the Obama-sycophantic media have the guts to ask him to state clearly what it is now?

Because if it is not a tax, it is NOT legal...

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

You can sum this up in just a few words. Great day for Obama... Terrible day for America. Only about 25% of America is happy about this. 70% including a hell of a lot of Democrats are pissed off.

Oh, no doubt, but at the same time, it's good for Romny a decent win, because the 70% of Americans that hate this thing are all red hot and fired up! This will energize, revitalize his base, which he so desperately needs and as you said, even Some Democrats don't want anything to do with this bill. But now there is no more mandate, Obama says its not a tax when any person with a shred of basic analytical thinking knows that it is.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Heh, I see the person who gave me a thumbs-down doesn't bother to explain why only a third of Americans support Obamacare

Give up, I've been trying all day myself. Because they never do.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Sailwind, people who currently pay for insurance now pay for the poor health habits of others. Fact. And they pay for the emergency care of the free loaders who get sick without insurance.

No Kidding,how much cash do want from my wallet now?

We are all in this together, like it or not. That is how insurance works. This is so basic I feel embarrassed to have to explain it. Your reasoning skills seem to have gone way down in the last few years, too much watching fox news which is proven to make its viewers clueless and fact free.

Embarrassed? We are all in this together , like or not, ...how about the difficult concept of actually cutting costs first and focusing on that.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Obama's plan will reduce those costs using the business model for insurance of the larger pool reducing each participants costs. And for the less informed folks out there, that is business not socialism.

Please kindly provide the business model link for insurance please.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Please kindly provide the business model link for insurance please.

Because more hospital bills will be paid so collection agencies will not be chasing down these people to pay these bills they can never pay. they then go bankrupt. This is the current model. One of the biggest reasons for personal bankruptcies in the USA is the inability to pay hospital bills. Also the reason why people get outrageous bills in the USA (the hospitals have no idea who will pay what). Because of these middle class people get ripped off with insurance premiums.

Insurance executives have said publicly they can offer better rates (comparable to those in other developed countries) that cover pre-ex conditions. But there has to be a mandate. They can't have people not have insurance while they are healthy then get insurance AFTER they get sick. This is what the private healthcare industry says so if you disagree with what I'm typing you need to argue with them. Does this NOT make sense?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Your reasoning skills seem to have gone way down in the last few years, too much watching fox news which is proven to make its viewers clueless and fact free.

Are these The Nation facts or Move on.org or the Daily Kos?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

SushiSake -

You clearly haven't even read the law.

I'll bet you haven't either - at least not all of the text of it. Neither have most of the lawmakers who voted for it. And many of them admitted to that. Is it not somewhat irresponsible to pass and support something that very few have really read and mostly do not understand all pieces and implications? Well, apparently not according to Liberals and the SC.

America's about the only developed country on the planet that hasn't got universal healthcare.

True - but the interesting thing is that countries that have national health care do pay for it through taxes - which is how The President will pay for it - correct? So it is a tax thing. The pretense is just to tax those making over $200,000 (per couple) a year. That sounds like you're only taxing 'the wealthy', but in today's economy $200,000 per year - while yes a lot of money - is not the 'wealth' it once was by any means. And I don't think that anyone is really convinced that this, and your subsidies, will in reality pay for it.

Also to note is that friends I have in other countries that do have a national health plan constantly and consistently bitch about how horrible their healthcare systems are. The US as been the leader in many areas, and comparatively we have a very high standard of care - which will not be true once Obama-care kicks into full gear. I have friends in Britain who bring their son with autism to San Fran for treatment as it's touted as the best in the world. How long will this be true under the new system? Because there are going to be repercussions on providing healthcare for all that will mean longer wait times to see a physician, physicians earning less which will take a toll on numbers and quality, and ever-increasing limits on the types of preventative care one can receive through your health plan. Instead of that breast exam and 35, they'll tell you to wait until 50. I know the idea touted is that it will provide more preventative care, and thus cut back on a sudden, catastrophic hospital stay that cost the taxpayers more. But it doesn't take Sherlock Homes to see that with an increased number of people funneled into a limited number of doctors offices, and with the idea of a more 'practical, managed care' that it will be mandated that certain procedures and exams that are not labeled as immediately necessary may not be covered under the new insurance plans.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES are evil and corrupt.

They rejected people with cancer and even with children with medical problems.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Correct me if lm wrong but thats what the US is looking at implementing isnt it?

@ Cletus: Not really. The main thing that has people concerned is that now everyone will be taxed to pay for it.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

They accept 26,000 a year dying in the USA due to lack of insurance and 50 million having no insurance at all.

@ zucronium: You didn't hear Obama's speech yesterday. The number is now down to 25 million not 50 million or the 40 million whenthey were trying to push Obamacare.

We are all in this together, like it or not. That is how insurance works.

That's interesting. It seems like people like you want us to give to everyone and make those who have a little extra pay a tax to support it. So they currently don't have an extra tax now to provide the EBT (Food Stamps) for poor people now. So do you say we now need to tax that? Do they need to also tax themselves for that support too.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

I've been watching Fox News. Can anyone tell me if Jesus would approve of Obamacare?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Republicans and conservatives, it seems, would much rather just leave the uninsured unhealthy and those in need of medical care to die/suffer.

That, to me, is the ultimate disgrace of the conservative position on this issue.

It's not even human.

That's an unfair, and unnecessarily dramatic conclusion. There are no guarantees in life, and it was long ago decided upon in our constitutional democracy that the purpose of government was to provide order and a standardization of how things are done, not to dictate to the people it serves what they MUST do. And I mean that in a common sense way. Of course the government can dictate that you not kill someone, or that if you do you will be punished. But they should not be able to tell you you can't have green hair, that you have to buy a house, that you can't drink soda (welcome to NY) and that you must purchase healthcare - and conversely as a taxpayer you must pay for the healthcare of others.

Human beings should feel compassion and a natural sense to want to help their own, and in that instance we do fall short too often. But it should not be a government enforced mandate that we do. And that's where Conservatives differ from Liberals. The problem is that Liberals deal in the fantasy world where pipe-chewing 'intelligentsia' that all the beings of human-kind must be nurtured and provided for. Conservatives live in the real world of the working class stiffs who don't agree with someone else opening their wallets to help those less fortunate. It is also quite wrongly assumed by the common Liberal that most all of these less fortunate folks are not so because of their own doings, but rather because the machinations of life - coupled with the 'rich, greedy, uncaring' Conservative conspiracy - put them in such a dire situation. It's never of course because they are too lazy to work, or choose a lifestyle that precludes getting anywhere in life and making something (no matter how humble) of one's self. As a for-instance, the common Liberal sees the unwed mother who doesn't have a job yet proceeds to have four children as somehow a victim of a society that did not provide her with the proper education and upbringing to succeed, and thus someone to be cared for. The average Conservative sees that same young woman as stupid and getting just deserts for being so stupid.

Is that inhuman, or is it just common sense. In the animal world, only those that do what they must survive, and we are fundamentally the same. It's not inhuman to not want to support those that refuse to do what they must. I would counter that it's foolish to accept, promote and placate those that will not play the life game. Hey, I don't like to go to work, work my arse off for little pay and suffer the drudgery it creates, my family and I have to eat, so I do. So can they. Those that cannot for genuine and practical reasons are a different matter and should be helped. But god knows we have enough social programs, churches, etc to provide for these if the system wasn't rife with so much abuse that it does effectively deprive help from those who genuinely need it.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Also to note is that friends I have in other countries that do have a national health plan constantly and consistently bitch about how horrible their healthcare systems are.

They all bitch about it? I also have friends from other countries and I don't hear any of them bitch about their healthcare the way you are describing. I think you are making this up. I might understand if you say a friend who is not from the USA. But if you are implying the majority your non-American friends complain constantly about their countries' healthcare I can't believe it.

Because there are going to be repercussions on providing healthcare for all that will mean longer wait times to see a physician, physicians earning less which will take a toll on numbers and quality,

In the USA medicare recipients can see many doctors and they have no such problem. Look at Japan, there is a universal system and you can go anywhere you want. And currently in Japan you can see a doctor sooner than in the USA. In Japan there is a lobby group that represents drs' interests so if they have a lot of patients they can make a lot of money.

Britain who bring their son with autism to San Fran for treatment

Let me guess, he's 100% cured, right? Fact is if you are rich in Britain there are also private hospitals (which some Americans who can afford it go to for medicine not yet available in the USA).

that have national health care do pay for it through taxes -

Currently there are 60M people on medicaid and that number will keep growing unless something radical happens. The end result? It will get so big I think it will help create a momentum for a single payer system in the USA(personally I'm not worried about it). We are already paying lots of taxes in medial care. Are you saying we should spend zero taxes on medical care? Please name one country that does it like that. Switzerland might come close as they use a lot of private insurers but they are heavily regulated so they emulate a government plan (and in Switzerland they pay less taxes and have a AAA debt rating). So pushing a mandate makes financial sense.

and ever-increasing limits on the types of preventative care one can receive through your health plan.

In the USA there is a very poor record of this already for people who don't have good insurance. How can it get any worse?

Instead of that breast exam and 35, they'll tell you to wait until 50

This is not about money. The problem is mamograms have been considered more damaging than helpful for various reasons. Just like the PSA test. But you can still get one if the doc really thinks you need one. There is an issue of too much care in the USA. I mean there needs to be something done about all the fat people in the USA like better school lunches. The pentagon has stated they are worried about all the current fat American kids who will become our future soldiers. So the point is BETTER medicine instead of MORE medicine.

the US as been the leader in many areas, and comparatively we have a very high standard of care

So do other developed countries. They live slightly longer and pay less for it. It's no accident.

Americans live no longer (actually it seems slightly less) then people in other countries and for the amount we spend on healthcare that is an indication of poor performance.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@ TigermothII: Wery well said!

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES are evil and corrupt. They rejected people with cancer and even with children with medical problems.

They can be more reliable but there has to be a mandate. Currently if I were visiting the US I would not get insurance and take my chances and just go bankrupt if I have a sudden major emergency. That's how stupid I think the system is because so many (too many) other people in the USA don't pay their bills either.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the common Liberal sees the unwed mother who doesn't have a job yet proceeds to have four children as somehow a victim of a society that did not provide her with the proper education and upbringing to succeed, and thus someone to be cared for. The average Conservative sees that same young woman as stupid and getting just deserts for being so stupid.

Granted, the inopportunely fecund unemployed are a burden on the state coffers. And how does the common conservative (how come liberals are 'common' and conservatives are 'average'?) see the four kids of that stupid young woman? Are they getting their just desserts, too? Are they refusing to do what they must to avoid being born to that stupid, unwed, unemployed young woman?

god knows we have enough social programs, churches, etc to provide for these

In effect you're saying that those kids who had the sheer gall to be born to a feckless mother and absent father (and anyone born with a congenital condition that prevents their getting an education and earning enough to pay their medical bills) should be grateful for charity, for any crumbs their betters deign to throw at them. Shameful, mediaeval thinking.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

The NHS is hardly a reference, neither is it on topic - the only way to get rapid specialist treatment in the UK is by going private and shelling out a load of dosh. That's why so many Brits live in France ;)

I brought up the NHS because the UK was mentioned at the start of this as having a falling-apart health care system... which it isn't. I work for the NHS in Scotland and I see things differently than non-NHS employees I suppose. My father had a stroke last year... and was in a recovery ward for 2 months... if that was America I would have either had to mortgage the house to pay for his care, or he would have to used some kind of insurance policy. (Oh, and he was seen and put into a ward in under an hour.)

2 ( +2 / -0 )

More proof that Republicans don't give one iota about the people at issue here -- simply the politics and how they can benefit from it.

Oh BS. There's a marked difference between being against helping people and being against policies that are stupid, reckless and go against what many perceive as our constitutional democracy.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

But it should not be a government enforced mandate that we do.

So we should get rid of medicare, right?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

These uneducated folks who say the quality level of medical care will be reduced are just squawking because they LOST AGAIN!

Tough words from someone calling themselves a 'navy homo'. Nice. Perhaps you think it's 'uneducated' belief to think the quality of medical care will lessen with the implementation of O-care, but the proof is in the pudding, and apparently you are too uneducated to take a look at the ingredients. Oh, I forgot - none of you liberals have read the bloody thing, nor considered all of the facets and implication. For you it's simply 'healthcare for all' and vote for anything the Conservatives (and most of the voting American public) are against so we can 'get 'em'. Great - yay, you won. If the current President gets 4 more years and his health plan stays in place, lets talk in 4 years. Or maybe even ten years from now. I would lay money that your tune will differ.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Might as well use other peoples money also to pay for their cigarettes, booze, and twinkies while were at it, oh and lets throw in "free birthcontrol" from the Government as a woman's health issue so we help spread sexually transmitted diseases into the mix and come full circle on this.

We already do - have you seen what a person can buy with the card (that replaced the older food stamps) these days? There seem to be no limits, and least that are enforced.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

If Nixon's policy had gone through this conversation would not be happening now. Remember republicans have a history of wanting a mandate very much too. Romney, Gingrich, Nixon. And Romney actually implemented one.

It can't get any worse in the USA. How much are Americans paying for healthcare? And how long do they live? Numbers don't add up. Free choice will not save you (as it didn't save Steve Jobs with all his billions). If you think so then you have been watching too much Dr. House. Get with reality. If you are living in any developed country (USA, Germany, Japan, Australia....etc) you will get about the same level of care in all those countries because they are developed countries. Nothing more. If (as in the case of Steve Jobs) your body was programmed to live to a certain age then no doctor in any country will be able to save you. I have lived in Japan for a while and yes, I have known people who have died. And in all those cases, no other country's medical system could have saved them either. Once all these necessary changes go through people will get on with their lives.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Concerning the quality of health care, health care advances will continue as they always have. Not only will we continue to see more and more advances but we will see them grow at an exponential rate and not linear, meaning the rate of growth itself will continue to rise. Such ill conceived notions that health care advances will somehow slow down is just about as ignorant as claiming that legal costs are so high that they would have the impact of the magic bullet should they be removed.

It's funny that the liberals have thumbs down my comment when it comes to the lack of quality services from my own experiences. What does that say about the liberals on JT. You guys say that you fight for the unjust but you guys have thumbs down my comments which says you either don't believe me, don't want to hear the truth, or are clueless when it comes to healthcare services in the US. I already know how lousy the healthcare system is yet the liberals on here keeps saying otherwise.

If I can't even see my doctor when I am sick on the same day, so the liberals on JT is telling me that the healthcare system is working and it will only get better. How advance is that if people can't even see their doctor when they need to and not 3 months away?

The liberals on JT talks like the healthcare is going to be great and advance when you guys don't even know what the current situation is except that people should have access to healthcare which Obamcare will provide. If you are getting grade A healthcare services then you have no idea of how someone can get a lesser quality or relate to him/her so go ahead and thumbs down this posts. Liberals don't like to hear the truth and will drown it out with Republican rhetoric lines.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The liberals on JT talks like the healthcare is going to be great

You say this as if you say "liberals" are wrong on their idea of health care reform. But you have no comment on the history of how republicans have a history of being for the same policies as well? Nixon? Romney? Gingrich? Dole? Nothing to say about that? Or is a republican mandate good and a liberal mandate bad?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Or is a republican mandate good and a liberal mandate bad?"

That's about the size of many of the people you're dealing with.

Watch them squirm as Obamneycare crops up in the presidential debates - hardcore partisans are now so adjusted to Mr Romney's tradition of flip-flops they will hardly blink an eye....

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

They all bitch about it? I also have friends from other countries and I don't hear any of them bitch about their healthcare the way you are describing. I think you are making this up.

I take exception with you calling me a liar, and my posts have been pulled for a lesser offense, but no matter. I have in fact heard this complain from friends in Great Britain (more than one) and from chums in Canada who had to wait quite a long time for a specific procedure. Note, that I did not say all. I'm implication is simply that national health care is not the golden egg that so many claim and hope it will be. And you cannot deny that the level of care and innovation in medical procedure is currently pretty high in this country - without a national health care system. I don't think I'm lying there either.

In the USA medicare recipients can see many doctors and they have no such problem.

Yes, but Obama-care hasn't really kicked in yet, has it?

Let me guess, he's 100% cured, right? Fact is if you are rich in Britain there are also private hospitals (which some Americans who can afford it go to for medicine not yet available in the USA).

I can't refute your argument here, because it makes no sense to me. There is no cure for autism, just different therapies that help in development. My point was that the leading center for this was in the US, not Europe where national health care is the norm. Keep up.

Americans live no longer (actually it seems slightly less) then people in other countries and for the amount we spend on healthcare that is an indication of poor performance.

Americans do not live longer because as a nation we are fat pigs who drink and smoke too much. And we get high blood pressure from stress due to things like Obama-care and our government taking more out of our pockets so we have to work harder to make ends meet. Remember, to those of us that work and already have health care, this does little to help, but the drain on the economy, the employers, increased taxes, etc will certainly hurt us.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

nishikat: You say this as if you say "liberals" are wrong on their idea of health care reform.

My argument isn't about the Republicans leaders vs Obama on Obamacare. I didn't say the liberals are wrong on Obamacare. I say that the liberals on JT have no idea about the lack of healthcare services being provided because of all the thumbs down on my comments when I am saying it from experiences. I am all for Obamacare, but I am not going to live in a pretend world and say that healthcare quality is going to be so great and wonderful when I know it isn't so right now. Obamacare addressed the issue of having everyone buy healthcare insurance and covering the pre-existing condition.

For the majority of people, in the US, the healthcare insurance policy is base on the insurance company and the employer"s company in how much they are willing to pay for coverage, and how much the employee is going to pay. Not all health insurance is the same. Some healthcare insurance will cover sex change, some won't cover sex change. Again, it depends where one works and live.

Some healthcare insurance will cover for viagra and others won't. Again it all depends on the employer and the insurance.

Healthcare insurance is different for Medicaid, Medicare, and emplyee healthcare insurance, and the new afforable healthcare insurance that will be available for everyone (depends on who is the insurance company).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I take exception with you calling me a liar, and my posts have been pulled for a lesser offense, but no matter. I have in fact heard this complain from friends in Great Britain (more than one) and from chums in Canada who had to wait quite a long time for a specific procedure.

Are you like 70 years old with a bunch of 70 year-old friends? If 'yes' then I might believe you. Or if you are younger then I have never come across a person like you who have so many sick friends to complain so much about their country's healthcare. Your friends must have a lot of bad luck compared to my friends. Really, I just talked to a Canadian person I know and he said he'd be glad to go back to Canada if he get sick (in Japan). I know a Brit who went back for surgery and he was OK about it. But in any country it sucks getting sick...even if you are Steve Jobs. I don't want to get sick even in the country with no. 1 healthcare. In any developed country if it's life/death you will get treatment fast. If it isn't you might have to wait a bit.

You know a Brit who takes his autistic kid all the way to SF? OK, must be rich but it's probably not helping much more than what could be done in UK. UK does have private institutions that operate outside their national system.

Obama-care and our government taking more out of our pockets so we have to work harder to make ends meet. Remember, to those of us that work and already have health care, this does little to help, but the drain on the economy, the employers, increased taxes, etc will certainly hurt us.

No it won't. Some countries that have centralized healthcare still have AAA debt rating like Canada, England, and Switzerland. Switzerland has lower taxes too. Also, Singapore.

skipbeat

I am all for Obamacare

Oh, OK, sorry

0 ( +0 / -0 )

nishikat: In the USA medicare recipients can see many doctors and they have no such problem.

That's great for the medicare recipients, but my employer insurance doesn't offer that luxury where I can see many doctors with no problem. I have an in the network plan which says I can see my doctor or any doctor in my network and be covered. I will have to meet my deductible, my co-pay, the insurance will pick up the rest. If I choose to go to a doctor outside the network or if my docotor recommend a specialist that is outside my network then I paid the 100% cost because it is outside the network in town.

Healthcare provider and insurance is not all straight forward. For example, the hospital can staff nurses and doctors that are not in my network who came and saw me while I am in the hospital, and I will be billed out of the network for the nurses and the doctor that saw me even if the hospital is in my network.

nishikat, you don't have to believe me either even though I know what I am talking about since it is my healthcare plan.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

you don't have to believe me either even though I know what I am talking about since it is my healthcare plan.

No, I believe you, it sounds reasonable. I'm from America myself. The other person I question, sorry. It just sounds like someone you talk to who claims to have an "uncle' in England or Canada who died and it was the medical system's fault. Basically you get about the same healthcare in any developed country. I mean you can make a claim in a country like Russia which last time I checked the average lifespan is less than 70....but other countries that have lifespans slightly over America's? It's just as good as America's but they don't have a stupid disorganized financial system.

If you are rich in England and you think a private hospital has better care you can go there with cash but if you are dying of a terrible cancer there is very little chance it will save if one of their public hospitals can't.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And how does the common conservative (how come liberals are 'common' and conservatives are 'average'?) see the four kids of that stupid young woman? Are they getting their just desserts, too? Are they refusing to do what they must to avoid being born to that stupid, unwed, unemployed young woman?

Common and average were mere terms used in the course of my discourse, nothing more. But to answer your question, they are indeed the victims in all of this, and part of an unfortunate chain of ignorance, poverty and despair that desperately needs to be broken. How? I have no idea and if I did perhaps I'd be running for office. But part of the chain, and part of the solution is human responsibility. If the 'free ride' was not in place - would some of these situations still happen? Yes, but not likely as many. If Jane Doe knew that she would have to work for a living to feed herself and her kids rather than simply collect a government check - it would be nice to think that she would give pause before procreating. We both know that wouldn't happen. Enforced sterilization after the first one? Seems rather draconian I suppose. But the conclusion of it is that human responsibility has to play a part at some point. Why should those of us who have chosen to be responsible be accountable through our wallets for those who have not? And why should it be mandated by the government that we do?

In effect you're saying that those kids who had the sheer gall to be born to a feckless mother and absent father (and anyone born with a congenital condition that prevents their getting an education and earning enough to pay their medical bills) should be grateful for charity, for any crumbs their betters deign to throw at them. Shameful, mediaeval thinking.

No, I'm saying the cycle of this which is a social affliction upon our society needs to be addressed. Simply providing hand-outs has not proven to in any way end this cycle. My wife is a social worker, I can attest to this. The clients they help in the main do not really appreciate what they are give (often demand more) and certainly very rarely seem to curb the behavior that got them there to begin with.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@nishikat,

Mum died of blood clot after hospital refused to scan her because life-saving service was not available at weekends By Liz Hull @ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2075102/Mother-dies-huge-blood-clot-doctors-refused-scan-weekend.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Mum died of blood clot after hospital refused to scan her

OK, fine but things happen like this in the USA too...or in any country. You are cherry picking if you think this is he general case. You know the member of the Monkeys who died of heart problems. He was in Miami and went to the hospital with heart complaints. They did nothing and sent him home. Died the next day. In Japan if you are in a very bad accident you could die because they don't have world class trauma centers like they have in big American cities. But at the same time there are fewer trauma cases in Japan. Again, look at the average lifespan. Also, you can find lots of articles where the American or any other counry's system screwed up as well.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Are you like 70 years old with a bunch of 70 year-old friends? If 'yes' then I might believe you. Or if you are younger then I have never come across a person like you who have so many sick friends to complain so much about their country's healthcare. Your friends must have a lot of bad luck compared to my friends.

What - are you age-prejudiced or something? No, I'm not quite 70, but in my latter 40's. I could make an equally insulting remark that you are probably a twenty-something young puke who has barely had time to pay any taxes (if you have yet at all) and has little to no experience about anything of which to speak - but that would be rather presumptuous.

I don't think knowing a few friends that have been ill or had some medical issue is that unusual. I applaud you and your overtly healthy friends for staying so. That said, I'm still not making it up.

Really, I just talked to a Canadian person I know and he said he'd be glad to go back to Canada if he get sick (in Japan). I know a Brit who went back for surgery and he was OK about it.

Okay, so you know two people - and you rag on me for making generalizations?

No it won't. Some countries that have centralized healthcare still have AAA debt rating like Canada, England, and Switzerland. Switzerland has lower taxes too. Also, Singapore.

There are other demographics that come into play, such as size of a nation (the US tends to be a bit larger in mass and population than Switzerland, which has a huge impact). Never heard much in the way of praise about medical care in Singapore, but okay.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

you are probably a twenty-something young puke who has barely had time to pay any taxes

OK, maybe I am or not. But the point is this idea is nothing new. Why are you upset now over ObamaCare? Because famous republicans have a history of being for policies similar to ObamaCare and you have nothing to say about that? If Romney gets the WH he'll try to put in a mandate but that will be OK since it is coming from a republican?

I get the feeling you probably pay more attention to people who say something negative about their government than positive. But it's inherent. Besides, healthcare is not there to make you comfortable. It's there to save your life and if I were stuck in any hospital room I'd be complaining too.

Don't forget that socialized care has been creeping up on the US anyway...with or without Obama/Romney Care...I'm talking about Medicare and Medicaid. In fact the number of medicaid recipients is going up so much the US government has long term plans of opening up more support institutions to support all these welfare recipients (this was in the news). And I'd gladly take the quality care they will take. So universal healthcare is evolving and no matter how much you hate it it will keep evolving.

size of a nation All of Europe is about the same size as America but it works for them.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Actually I have a special connection to Jesus, and he told me straight up, I SUPPORT OBAMA CARE. By the way, one of my uncle's names is JESUS, and so is my cousin, who is the SON of Jesus, my uncle out in California, I do hope we are talking about the same Jesus?? But yes, they all do support Obama Care both Jesus that I know.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

You are cherry picking if you think this is he general case.

It was not cherry picking. An article to say how the woman die due to the hospital being negligence. Back to my point of quality services, the woman shouldn't have die if the hospital have taken the correct step or doing the right thing. Doing the right thing would have been told her to go the hospital’s accident and emergency department.

Also, you can find lots of articles where the American or any other counry's system screwed up as well.

People are not replaceable. There should be zero tolerance for screw up in the healthcare industry.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

$$$$$ funny how Republicans bitch and cry that the USA has not $$$$ to help it's own people who are sick, who may need medical help, but GEORGE BUSH Sr and Jr went to WAR against IRAQ wasting $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and now Mr.Obama is trying to get us out of these stupid wars, and trying to fix the US economy etc..but Republicans seem to have magic tricks and make $$$$$$$ come out of thin air if it is for WARS, but if it is to help the poor?? Oh no, no we have no $$$$ just let them poor folk in the inner cities of the USA and corn fed out in West Virgina, Montana, Idaho and all those underdeveloped states die of starvation or make them them so desperate that they HAVE TO JOIN the US military, $$$$$$, where they do give you health care 24/7 and 365 days a year, as long as your head dont get blown off, right?? So, I ask my fellow HONEST Americans vote for Obama and support Obama Care and get that bastard Mitt Romney far far away from the US White house, maybe off to some island, kind of where he hides his $$$$??

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

People are not replaceable. There should be zero tolerance for screw up in the healthcare industry.

So which part of the world does this happen? Oh, just remembered a famous screw up story in the USA. The doc. of Michael Douglas missed his throat cancer so even celebrity docs can screw up. MD didn't die, thank god. The point is we want less screw ups but can they be eliminated?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wonders how this will affect me and my family? My guy has insurance from his job.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Why are you upset now over ObamaCare?

Can you honestly read my posts above and not understand why it upsets me? Really??

I get the feeling you probably pay more attention to people who say something negative about their government than positive.

You quite obviously know nothing about me, and I find it rather insulting - if not somewhat amusing - that you seem to have incessant need to insult. I could comment on your obvious failure to fully grasp the English language, but that seems petty. Why don't we just refrain from insults and stick to fact and opinion? I never have understood why so many liberals seem to angrily resort to insult when discussing politics. Totally unnecessary.

In truth I love my country, and my government. Not the current administration, which I strongly disagree. I have issue with policy, and voice said issue - it's called democracy.

healthcare is not there to make you comfortable

That's pretty funny...

The rest of your argument makes little sense and does not address the issue at hand per say.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Elbuda Mexicano - to quote Wall of Voodoo:

I understand just a little No comprende, it's a riddle

No offense but that is one of the most nonsensical posting I've ever had the pleasure to read on JT..

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Pelosi: "We Have to Pass the Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In It"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Ah, headline in typically liberal leading CNN article today 6/29 (here):

Doctor and nursing shortages across the U.S. have left the medical profession wondering who's going to treat the extra 32 million Americans who will be covered under the new health care law.

But don't worry, quality of care won't change at all. Right.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Oh, and one more on CNNMoney about the financial woes of the US Postal Service:

The health care mandate is a major liability for the Postal Service. Officials have said they won't have the cash to make a $5.5 billion payment that's due Aug. 1, or the $5.6 billion payment due Sept. 30.

Nah, this won't have any adverse effects, will it? Now when you send in your mandated healthcare payments they will be late because the post office will be shut down or too short staffed to get it there on time, partly courtesy of the costs of Obama-care.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Supreme Court re-wrote the Obama law as if it was a ‘tax’ in a way that Congress never intended to write or approve because “Congress has the right to levy taxes as it wishes without limit”. The Supreme Court caved to the pressure from Obama who was furious if his law would be stricken down unconstitutional as the four judges claimed. Why should these Judges be allowed to subject the American people with unlimited taxes to comply with Obama regime rule. Romney will benefit from decision to approve taxing of the middle with more than trillion dollars by Obama health scam for the sake of our ‘health’. Majority of the American people reject the flawed Obama care law that was based on lies and deceit by Obama. In addition, the Obama care that Obama promised more than 30 million people that are poor and some are illegals that don't buy insurance is a new tax that prevents the hiring of new employees by corporations and small businesses because of the taxes and fines to the IRS that the Obama healthcare deceitful law imposes on them. This is another tax on the middle class, small businesses and corporations that only will drive the American economy to bankruptcy and will prove lowest quality of medical treatment and death panels to our parents and grandparents ‘Obama style’. This will become the steepest tax increase in the history of the U.S. on the middle class.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

So, Obama signed into law, the biggest tax increase, ever, and did so in the middle of a recession.

Obama says, the law will bring down costs. That was a lie, they're going up. Obama says, you can keep your doctor. Another lie, you can't. Obama says, you can keep your insurance. Another lie, you won't be able to. I could continue ad nauseum.

Lie, Lie, Lie. At least we know that Obama isn't just the President anymore. He's the liar in chief.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

I feel many people are missing the essence of this law. The idea behind requiring everyone to carry health insurance is to greatly broaden the pool of people paying in. Most people in their lifetime will claim only a small amount of what they've paid in. So, you get everyone to pay in more often and there's more money in the system, and so insurance providers can lower their costs.

However, without forcing providers to lower their costs, they won't. They see way too much wealth to lower rates. Also, the law doesn't require any of the individual States to actually implement another key provision of the law, which is to set up insurance exchanges, also which should in theory lower rates by increasing competition. I believe this happened with automobile liability insurance in California about ten or so years ago.

However, to me the main question is: is it ethical to profit from someone's sickness? Is there a limit to what should be allowed to carry a price tag? Should a person be allowed to buy anything?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Axelrod was dancing around the issue, but mildly admitted to Matt Lauer that Obama care IS indeed a "tax" either way, liberals got their tax hike, which now equates to the biggest increase in US history. But Obama promised never to raise taxes on the middle class, but people fail to realize, there is no other way they to avoid it. This a nightmare. Doctors will get paid less, they will be overwhelmed and you can rest assured, the overall quality of healthcare will go down.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You quite obviously know nothing about me, and I find it rather insulting - if not somewhat amusing - that you seem to have incessant need to insult. I could comment on your obvious failure to fully grasp the English language, but that seems petty. Why don't we just refrain from insults and stick to fact and opinion? I never have understood why so many liberals seem to angrily resort to insult when discussing politics. Totally unnecessary.

Again, why are you upset over ObamaCare when there is/would be also Romney/Dole/Nixon/Gingrich care? No I don't know you but I know your thinking pattern. What you do is cherry pick or exaggerate. You only wait for something negative to hear like "my friend's dad died in Canada" then you respond in your thoughts "Hey....Canadian healthcare really sucks" But that's inherent. It's part of who you are - you were born that way - and can't do anything about it...like someone being bald. Republicans have/will try to implement a mandate (Nixon and Romney). It's a fact. Why don't you respond to that instead of saying "liberal".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So thanks to Obama and Roberts the Federal government can make the American people buy or not buy any product for any reason. The citizen is not free to decide what to buy on their own or else they will be punished via a tax. Health care will not be the last thing that the government will want to control. Cities such as New York are already dictating what people can drink and eat. Are there really people that think this moral? Free choice is limited to what the government allows. Access to health care is an important issue but freedom and choice is central to what made American as successful as it was during the last century. For more than two hundred years American's have voluntarily risked their lives and limbs in the name of freedom. Obama has taken it away with via a party line vote rammed through Congress.

To paraphrase Justice Kennedy, the relationship between the government and the people it governs has now been fundamentally changed. By the way, the debt isn't getting any smaller.. ObamaCare, according to a new Congressional Budget Office report a few months ago, will add $1.7 trillion to it over the next 10 years.

Obama lied when he said he wouldn't raise taxes on anyone making under $250,000. He lied when he said he would cut the deficit in half during his first term. He lied when he said that the unemployment rate would not go over 8% if we spend a trillion dollars on stimulus.

Obama lied but he got his huge new entitlement program. His real legacy will be the financial ruination of America and the evisceration of our cherished freedoms.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Spoken like a true Republican with no thought for his fellow man.

Only you could walk through a crowded ER lobby with people in severe pain without insurance. Republicans, HA, gave your blessing to companies to outsource jobs. At the same time you blame the working man....a fellow American.

It's people like Mitt Romney who don't pay their fair share of taxes. Yes, Obama is going to raise taxes......ON THE RIGHT people. Anyone making over 200,000 USD a year needs to be taxed at a much higher rate. Sorry for party rocking but that's just how it goes.

Wolfpack, you are so off base. We finally have a true patriot for a President. Under Bush's term he literally sat back and allowed the real estate industry to sell America to the Chinese. His private war costs us trillions.

9/11, Lehman Shock, and an unjustified war put America in debt. George Bush emptied our coffers. Faith in the American government is at an all time high under Obama. Our industries have rebounded and another 4 years under Obama will put us right where we need to be again.

We must continue to rebuild America. Obama will get us there. If we go back to Republican rule they'll continue to sell America to the highest bidder.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Great post NetNinja. Always good to hear an American (I'm not one) tell it like it is to the selfish libertarian-right. Hang in there, Comrade! :)

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Cities such as New York are already dictating what people can drink and eat.

How?

His real legacy will be the financial ruination of America and the evisceration of our cherished freedoms.

You better stay in Japan then.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care @ http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12875&page=R2

Regional and Racial Variation in Primary Care and the Quality of Care among Medicare Beneficiaries @ http://www.dartmouthatlas.org/downloads/reports/Primary_care_report_090910.pdf

Disparities In Health: Perspectives Of A Multi-Ethnic, Multi-Racial America @ http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/26/5/1437.full

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Simply by drastically cutting its armed forces, the U.S.A. could provide a health insurance system for its citizens. I find it hard to believe that a country that considers itself to be an advanced nation does not have a national health system in place.

Depends on how your defining national health system if your talking about a single payer only system like the UK's NHS then a lot of advanced nations don't have one such as Germany or Japan.

The US spends more on its medicare and medicaid system than the US military budget each year. Combined those two programs cover about 90-100 million people in the US. So lets say you cut the military budget in half you could add about 20-45 million more people to the program. So lets say the top end where you eliminate the entire US military budget, well then your looking at around a combined,Medicare and Medicaid coverage plus no military, 180-200 million people covered then.

The idea that simply cutting the US military budget and you could have a National health care program in which everyone is covered is quite laughable. For example the Medicare system pays out over $500 billion dollars each year and its only able to cover 49 million people.

The real issue isn't money, the real issue is that the US health care system is horribly inefficient when it comes to money and healthcare. The US spends more money on healthcare as a percentage of GDP than any other nation on the planet yet is not able to cover every single citizen, that right there should tell you that the issue isn't that it lacks money its that it doesn't know what to do with the money it has for healthcare.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Yes, Obama is going to raise taxes......ON THE RIGHT people.

Like Tanning Salon owners.

The Internal Revenue Service says it will need an battalion of 1,054 new auditors and staffers and new facilities at a cost to taxpayers of more than $359 million in fiscal 2012 just to watch over the initial implementation of President Obama's healthcare reforms. Among the new corps will be 81 workers assigned to make sure tanning salons pay a new 10 percent excise tax. Their cost: $11.5 million.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/02/15/healthcare-reform-law-requires-new-irs-army-of-1054

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's people like Mitt Romney who don't pay their fair share of taxes. Yes, Obama is going to raise taxes......ON THE RIGHT people. Anyone making over 200,000 USD a year needs to be taxed at a much higher rate. Sorry for party rocking but that's just how it goes.

@Netninja

I'm also a fellow American and I'll say you couldn't be further from the truth. Compared to what you and I pay, Romney pays more than his fair share as do most of the affluent people because they earn and have more. Calf of the country don't pay ANY taxes thanks to Obama, the lower and middle class were exempt, now how is that fair??? Anyone making under 100.000 USD don't get taxed, but now they will. Besides, who are you to say how much tax a person should pay? It's people like you with that kind of thinking that drive people like my father who's in the 3% bracket to set up shop overseas, why? Because you guys would tax him and people like him into oblivion! He has 45 workers and they get paid very well, have a great health plan, but under this president, now that goes out the window, he can't pay high wages and this crazy health care all of it, so someone has to lose in order for him and the company to NOT sink. You guys never can understand this, it's not your money, so therefore it's ok, right? .

We must continue to rebuild America. Obama will get us there. If we go back to Republican rule they'll continue to sell America to the highest bidder.

Sorry, Obama will never get us there. He had it all first 2 years, controlled all 3 branches of government and what did he do? What does he have to show for it? A failed stimulus, a deeper debt to China, spent over a trillion dollars, and now this crazy new Obama care that the majority of Americans DON' T WANT! He had his chance and he blew it, totally! The man could've stood for something good and positive in America, he had it all and then what? Threw it all away! I'm from California, of anyone wants to see what liberalism does to a state, please, take a tour, see L.A. And and San Francisco, it's a darn shame of what they did to the state!

Yeah, from his history, he'll get us there, to the point of NO RETURN!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Calf (Half) of the country don't pay ANY taxes thanks to Obama

Wow! What the hell am I doing in Japan? On my cheap teacher's salary I should go back to the States and live with NO taxes so I can live an easy life on the rich peoples' dime. Thanks for telling me this. I can go from paying something like 15-20 taxes in Japan to ZERO taxes in the USA. USA I'm coming back home to you!!!!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@nishikat,

You may want to reconsider California.

Don't Bail Out California by Chriss W. Street @ http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/04/debt-government-bailout-tax-opinions-contributors-california.html

...California has approximately $60 billion of outstanding debt,...

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

But Obama promised never to raise taxes on the middle class, but people fail to realize, there is no other way they to avoid it. This a nightmare. Doctors will get paid less, they will be overwhelmed and you can rest assured, the overall quality of healthcare will go down.

Wait a minute, before you said middle class people pay NO taxes now you are saying the above too? Which is it? You need to get your information straight. Docs will get paid fine and the quality of healthcare will NOT go down. Look at other industrialized countries. People live longer there and pay less for healthcare because it is better organized. And you think we should also dissolve medicare and medicare, right?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@nishikat,

The previous article was reference back to 2009. California have reduce their debt since then.

Worst California Debt Slump Sends Buy Signal By Michael B. Marois and Michelle Kaske @ http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-06-13/brown-s-wrong-revenue-forecast-widens-state-bond-spreads

Even as California faces a $15.7 billion deficit that has grown almost 70 percent since January, the state spells opportunity for municipal-bond investors.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

What???? What does that have to do with what I'm saying? California's debt situation?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@nishikat,

California is a great place to visit, but Cali needs profitable companies to pay taxes and employed people to pay taxes.

Small businesses will let employees go if they have more than 50 people on payroll. The businesses will do what is best for them if they have 50 people or less they don't have to offer health insurance.

Employers who have a lot of employee will have to offer health insurance if they don't want to be penalized. This is to ensure that the big companies will offer health insurance. But the big companies may prefer to be penalized rather offer health insurance that will cost them $9000 per employee depending on the company and insurance. If a company is going to get penalized like $500 per person they may see that as a benefit than a cost and not offer health insurance.

This will push more people on buying afforable health care. If they can't afford it they may qualifiy for Medicaid. The States do not have an excess of money for healthcare. Therefore, the states would have to relied on the Federal government for funds...taxes.

Everyone would have to report it on their income tax whether they have health insurance in order for the IRS for the taxation, or Obama called it a penality.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

No one really knows what's going to happen. Just relax and let it play out. If adjustments need to be made, then we can make them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@SuperLib,

Checkout wikipedia. Obamacare is on it and goes into details when everything should be implemented. Everything everyone wanted to know about Obamacare. I was $1500 short on my guess on how much big businesses would pay for penalty if they don't offer health insurance.

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

Firms employing 50 or more people but not offering health insurance will also pay a shared responsibility requirement if the government has had to subsidize an employee's health care.[32]

Impose a $2,000 per employee tax penalty on employers with more than 50 employees who do not offer health insurance to their full-time workers (as amended by the reconciliation bill).[85]

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I have a special connection to Jesus, and he told me straight up, I SUPPORT OBAMA CARE

Hilarious Elbuda Mexicano.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

3 questions that not a single obama fanboi here has a reply for -

if obamacare is so good for us why have those who crafted it exempted themselves and their families from having to enroll in it ?

if obamacare is obviously such a good idea why the need to lie about it's design and essentials at every single point in the legislative process ?

if it is all about helping ordinary folks help themselves - - "even those shtoopid repugs in places like mississippi!" - - why are high ranking dems like patrick gaspard, the executive director of the democratic national committee gloating, and going public with twitter messages like

"it's constitutional. Bitches." ?

why do nrcc staffers tweet garbage like this ?

*America: this DNC Senior Staffer celebrates while you get taxed: Overheard in the office: "TAKE THAT MOTHER**S!!"*

http://thehill.com/blogs/twitter-room/other-news/235397-dnc-staffers-go-off-script-celebrating-healthcare-ruling

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

netninja strikes me as a perfect example of the many young uninformed single issue voters (we need a president who is cool, man) the obama cult of personality has sucked in

Faith in the American government is at an all time high under Obama. Our industries have rebounded and another 4 years under Obama will put us right where we need to be again.

the current and previous congress have had the lowest approval ratings ever recorded. in oct 2011 a mere 9 percent of the American electorate gave them positive ratings.

i laugh.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

why is America the only industrialised country in the world without universal health care?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

why is America the only industrialised country in the world without universal health care?

i never read or hear that one without thinking misery loves company. brits and canucks and euros want us to get the same crap health care they suffer.

hey - how come America is the only industrialized country in the world with 400 000 visitors each year coming to our hospitals even tho they have "free" medical care back in canada or wherever.

here's a better question - - why can't the rest of the industrialized world combined match America's record on innovation in medical technology, advances in diagnosis and cures ?

there is a link between the innovation our system has to now encouraged and its relative freedom from the deleterious effects central planning always has, but of course collectivists and statists are too blinded by ideology to see, if they even ask such questions in the first place....

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Most wouldn't even see this penalty/tax anyways! Most already have their own healthcare, so this won't apply to them.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

why is America the only industrialised country in the world without universal health care?

This may sounds too bold and too simple, but it is "Selfishness" among us and we are not willing to share the burden. And too many are afraid some will take an advantage of the system.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

i never read or hear that one without thinking misery loves company. brits and canucks and euros want us to get the same crap health care they suffer.

But they live longer.

hey - how come America is the only industrialized country in the world with 400 000 visitors each year coming to our hospitals even tho they have "free" medical care back in canada or wherever.

This is a two way street. Lots of Americans leave America for healthcare. Rich Asians come to Japan for healthcare. An American woman came to Japan for stomach cancer treatment (paid cash). A professional NFLer went to Isreal for special orthopedic treatment. Americans go to British private hospitals. They also go to Mexico, India...and so on and so on.

here's a better question - - why can't the rest of the industrialized world combined match America's record on innovation in medical technology, advances in diagnosis and cures ?

No, the most recent news is a Swiss pharma company just put a new effective cancer treatment on the market. An Australian doc made a great breakthrough with ulcers. I can go on but it's too much to type. Any developed country can make breakthroughs.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If they can't afford it they may qualifiy for Medicaid.

I wouldn't mind medicaid if I qualified. And I think there is a chance it will get so big it could become America's single payer system someday.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

A big win for Democrats. And a big win for Obama. A big win for America. A big win for Americans.

And a big win for the rest of the world.

A healthier, more humane, less Republican America means a safer planet.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

An American woman came to Japan for stomach cancer treatment (paid cash). A professional NFLer went to Isreal for special orthopedic treatment. Americans go to British private hospitals. They also go to Mexico, India...and so on and so on.

The bottom line is cost. It is cheaper oversea than in the US.

When laser eye surgery first made available it was cheaper to go to Canada to have it done than in the US. Even now laser eye surgery can cost between $2000-2500 for one eye depending on the surgeon in the US.

The healthcare industry have outsource jobs overseas when it comes to medical records outsourcing services.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Seldom does health insurance cover laser eye surgery because they consider that cosemetic. Health insurance don't even cover glasses and contact lenses exam except for the eye exam. Seldom do dental insurance cover for braces.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Lasic and braces are not of primary concern of those most in need of health care.

The ACA is a good first step.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I wouldn't mind medicaid if I qualified. And I think there is a chance it will get so big it could become America's single payer system someday.

That's great that you wouldn't mind being on medicaid to help expand Obamacare into a single payer system.

That would only happened if a majority of the people become unemployed. If that should happened where would the funding comes from if there is no taxes being collected to fund it since people don't have jobs. That is back to my previous point of the two different kind of hospitals for the people on medicaid and the people who have their own health insurance that currently have 14 thumbs down. People don't even like homeless people much less associated with them. , and the same can be said of people on medicaid because they are consider to be poor by their counterpart. The disparities of healthcare will be prevalant between the haves and the haves not.

If you don't like that then go to any inner cities in the country or poor neighborhoods and see how roads have potholes and are unpaved because those neighborhoods do not have the influences on their representives fix the roads becuase it is about money and the lack of social status. If you go to an affluent neighborhood you will not see those things.

The single payer system will only work if everyone is on the same page and do not mind being treated like everyone else. It may work for the EU, Canada, and Japan, but people who are affluent will not give that up and they shouldn't be. Congress, the President, the Supreme Court Jutices are not gioing to give up their luxury healthcare to be on medicaid.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The single payer system will only work if everyone is on the same page and do not mind being treated like everyone else.

This is a falacy.

"Single-payer" only describes the funding mechanism. "Single-payer systems may contract for healthcare services from private organizations (as is the case in Canada) or may own and employ healthcare resources and personnel (as is the case in the UK). " source: wikipedia

Thus,, a single payer system would NEITHER preclude supplemental private insurance NOR prevent people to pay for better service.

Meaning, if someone with the means wished to be treated better, they could be by the simple purchase of such a supplemental health insurance. Eg: a private insurance covering braces or lasix, or hormone therapy.

Meaning: if someone with the means wished to be treated better, they could, in the instant, pay more and get more, eg: paying for a private room after giving birth.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@ JTDanMan

A big win for Democrats. And a big win for Obama. A big win for America. A big win for Americans.

And a big win for the rest of the world.

A healthier, more humane, less Republican America means a safer planet.

For the moment it appears to be like that, but now the sainted Obama will have to deal with the growing fallout of this and rest assured, there will be. With one of the highest unemployment of over 8%, highest debt in US history, economy in ruins, fought two wars, people can barely feed themselves, barely can pay their mortgage and now added to that Obamacare which will cost billions and you say "A big win for America and for Americans??" This could not come at a worst time and who cares what the world thinks, this law doesn't affect anyone in Europe, much less benefit them. Healthier, humane, if the Dems and liberals really thought about that, they would know that you never raise taxes during a recession, so much for the safer planet theory. And if Dems have all the answers, then why are so many Americans 75% of them are so opposed to this health plan? Yes, the Dems are the real saviors in all of this. Oh, what would we do without them?

It's beyond pathetic!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

If you don’t want to buy insurance, then I see no problem with electing the tax – however, don’t get sick, get in an accident or have some other catastrophe hit you and then expect my taxes/insurance to pick up your tab. I am tired of paying for everyone else. Maybe the hospitals and doctors should start turning away people without insurance after this. Your actions deserve the appropriate reaction. Pay up or don’t ask for services. You are mandated to pay into some sort of social security & medicare system – be it federal or state – what is the difference here?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I don't have a problem with mandating the citizens to obtain insurance, regardless of Medicare or private, since the system is already broken and national economic recession has kept more people out of insurance. However, I do have a problem in regards to the accessibility, cost, and quality of care to those who are uninsured. There's still no guarantee that these people will get public option--due to eligibility issues. And it goes easy on many private health care industries regarding the ethics of business practice—i.e., denying or terminating service in the middle of contract due to pre-existing condition. The worst nightmare--for them is that Obamacare would eventually lead to the privatization of public health and medicine-- corporations and money over people's common sense, which is exactly the problem with Washington and Wall Street.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@statebrokenpeople Yes, the US is a world leader in medical technology and many people go to the States for treatment. Incidentally, many also go to Germany, the UK and Australia ( a world leader in heart surgery ) IF THEY HAVE THE MONEY. Here's a few other statistics for you - US life expectancy is lower than in any other industrialised country with socialised health care. America's infant mortality rate is hardly befitting a great country - again it lags behind other countries. All American people deserve better.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

i predict that months from now, exhausted and demoralized by failed efforts to battle the electoral consequences and the public and private impact of the the supreme court's ruling - the clarification that obamacare is the most massive and unwarranted tax increase on the American people in the history of the republic - democrats and obama pod people will be on here whining that they were victims of an evil rethug plot ( "racist", or "neo-con", or some such nonsense ). i wouldn't be surprised to see obama and his corrupt chicago cronies orchestrating with the liberal media complex a faux intellectual movement of some kind to try and remake fdr's shameless threats to pack the court as something noble. the astroturfed occupy dorkfests will come back.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

@Jimizo

Where did you get those stats from?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, the US is a world leader in medical technology and many people go to the States for treatment. Incidentally, many also go to Germany, the UK and Australia ( a world leader in heart surgery ) IF THEY HAVE THE MONEY

cell phones were once only for the wealthy. now everybody has one...

free markets are like that. the benefits redound to all eventually. worldwide the median lifespan at the end of ww2 was 47 years. today it approaches 70. the lion's share of the advances that have lengthened all our lives were made by American researchers and institutions. obama's nationalizing the medical and biotech sector of our economy (cartelizing the economy, as fascists always want to do) is the fastest way to kill innovation. but that's how "progressives" roll. they aren't for "equality." for all the preaching about diversity and respecting differences the fact is they cannot tolerate inequality. they are as moralizing and faith-based as the religious fundamentalists they imagine they are so much better than.

. Here's a few other statistics for you - US life expectancy is lower than in any other industrialised country with socialised health care.

you have not cited anything.certainly not statistics. and if you did the fact that America supports an illegal immigrant population of between 15 and 30 million, whose higher murder rates and shorter lifespans negate any comparison with places like switzerland or singapore.

America's infant mortality rate is hardly befitting a great country - again it lags behind other countries. All American people deserve better.

again. Americans just laugh to read that we supposedly lose more infants than do third world nations. i am from a thoroughly working class background and like most of my kind i do not have a single relative friend or neighbor who lost a child because of supposedly inadequate access to quality natal care - - though i do know many who have children that survived dangerously premature births. funny how ppl like you never cite stats for which country has the best care in that area.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Funny that 2 hundred years ago Americans were debating slavery, if Blacks were Human?? Why the white man had the right to do so because their convinient translation of the holy bible said so, then debating if white women should have the right to vote then if non whites (blacks like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr) should be allowed to vote, now the same pig headed crap for racist brain Republican 1% of the filthy rich, who have been screwing poorer whites, women, minorities,Native American Indians etc... want us to feel guilty for having the AUDCITY to ask for Universal Health Insurance, but this does not surprise me one bit!! Just listen to them fine Lyrics of CCR!! I ain't no senator's son!! When they call you to war they all wave the red, white and blue but then the cannon is pointing at you!!!!!!!!!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I do hope I'm not showing too much of my age to them youngins here tryin to tell their daddy what is up with American politics, classism, racism Etc...time for these young whipper snappers to go bark up another tree?? Time to understand JT will not welcome Rush Limbaugh ditto heads? Boy! I can't wait to see that FAKE, prepared smile come off old Mitt Romney's face!!!!!

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

the more informed people are about obamacare the more they oppose it . that is one of the problems that the democrat party now faces.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

This is a falacy.

The single-payer system can be tweak. It doesn't necessary means it is like Canada or England. I said "if everyone" which means not everyone agrees on the single-payer system.

The sinlge-payer system doesn't work in the US when the health insurance companies and the health care prioviders dictates the terms of the cost.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Audacity of Hope, Thoughts on reclaiming the American dream, is not just the title of a book written by our first African American US president, Mr,Barak Hussein Obama, but funny ideas for the filthy rich 1% to send chills up and down their stingy spines and hopefully to keep them awake at night for the rest of their miserable lives!! I think Mr.Burns will never look at Homer the same way, ever again!!!! IMHO

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

The Audacity of Hope, Thoughts on reclaiming the American dream, is not just the title of a book written by our first African American US president, Mr,Barak Hussein Obama, but funny ideas for the filthy rich 1% to send chills up and down their stingy spines and hopefully to keep them awake at night for the rest of their miserable lives!! I think Mr.Burns will never look at Homer the same way, ever again!!!! IMHO

some book. it's basically a collection of the mawkish drivel obama reads from his trusty telepromppter, and most of it is the work of a young white speechwriter who likes to do his writing at the local starbucks. he finds the place inspiring. typical swpl.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

I am tired of paying for everyone else.

Yeah, well, I am tired of paying for a bloated defense budget, farm subsidies, and only getting 79% of my federal tax dollars back while Missippi gets over 110%.

Get used to it. Its called "a federal republic."

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

The sinlge-payer system doesn't work in the US when the health insurance companies and the health care prioviders dictates the terms of the cost.

True. The whole idea of single payer is, through the power of collective bargaining, the insurance companies cannot dictate their terms. The whole idea is the true cost of health care reflects the true cost.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Awww shoot. The last post is in response to skipbeat. My apologies.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A big win for Democrats.

A big win for Republicans too since Nixon, Romney, Gingrich, and Dole had the same ideas and someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Wasn't the mandate originally a Republican idea. It's going to go through. We just have to put up with temporary stupid political games. That's all.

Welcome to Obama/Romney Care!!!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The bottom line is cost. It is cheaper oversea than in the US.

It's not always the case:

Wealthy Americans to go private British hospitals for treatment not yet available in the US A professional NFL player went to Israel for special orthopedic treatment (I think it was specifically for the cartilage) **A Russian girl who had bone cancer went to the UK for a new type of bone cancer treatment so her leg didn't have to be amputated. I remember what they did was remove the cancerous bone and zap it to kill all the living matter in that piece of bone then put it back in her leg. Then the old dead bone acted as a temporary shell until new healthy bone could grow around it. I think this was more to do with charity than profit.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That's great that you wouldn't mind being on medicaid to help expand Obamacare into a single payer system. That would only happened if a majority of the people become unemployed.

It doesn't matter what my preferences are. The number of people on medicare is 60M and growing steadily...over the decades and not only under Obama's watch

0 ( +0 / -0 )

advances that have lengthened all our lives were made by American researchers and institutions.

No, medical advances are done in any developed region of the world (read earlier posts). Or they can be done in a number of countries in collaboration. As more economies emerge (such as BRIC) and as China adopts more critical thinking and they clean up their act academically we are going to see a lot of wonderful advances from many economies as well as many countries in collaboration.

you have not cited anything.certainly not statistics. and if you did the fact that America supports an illegal immigrant population of between 15 and 30 million, whose higher murder rates and shorter lifespans negate any comparison with places like switzerland or singapore.

You are ignoring two things. First more people are leaving America these days. The net immigration of Mexicans is zero and it looks like it could be reversing. As more economies emerge people feel comfortable living there. Also, murder???? What is this? Dying from violence or accident is rare and the chances of dying of sickness is much much higher. And can you explain the "shorter lifespans"? Those numbers are real. The amount spent on US healthcare produce poor results compared to the rest of the world.

But going back to China. I read recently that Chinese people living in developed parts of China like Shanghai are now starting to live slightly longer than Americans.

And don't forget, just because you are rich, money won't save your life. Steve jobs died and his money could not save him even though he tried his damnedest by taking his private jet to various hospitals to see what they could do. Also, the type of cancer he had. Other people who get his type of pancreatic cancer have survived longer than Jobs did and they also had a lot less money too. Steve Job's body was programmed to live to a certain age and no doctor could do anything about it.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Romney's own words then it is:

"President Obama's plan, in my view, doesn't work properly, and it should be repealed," Romney today said his plan worked because it was tailored for one particular state instead of imposing a top-down approach for the entire country.

"People could tailor their programs and needs based upon the needs of the people and the system," Romney said at a speech at the University of Michigan Cardiovascular Center today. "Our plan was a state solution to a state problem. His is a power grab by the federal government to put in a place a one-size-fits-all plan."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mitt-romney-defends-massachusetts-health-care-criticizes-obamacare/story?id=13590602#.T-9DhfXcC3c

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The Audacity of Hope, Thoughts on reclaiming the American dream, is not just the title of a book written by our first African American US president, Mr,Barak Hussein Obama, but funny ideas for the filthy rich 1% to send chills up and down their stingy spines and hopefully to keep them awake at night for the rest of their miserable lives!! I think Mr.Burns will never look at Homer the same way, ever again!!!! IMHO

So much for the American Dream, that totally went down the toilet. You think Obama wrote that whole book? I highly doubt it. But I ElBud, what do you mean "stingy?" What does that mean? That gives you the right to MY MONEY that I earned. That's the problem with Dems and liberals, always short quick fixes, gimme, gimme, gimme, it's always easiest to take from someone, spend someone else's money. Most Rich people are rich because of they either earned it or it was passed on to them, so because you are poor, it's all of a sudden their fault. I am just totally astonished! That is the crux of the problem, liberals think everyone owes them and when you make money, you have the sacred duty to share with your neighbors NO MATTER WHAT! Just depend on others, the same typical mantra! Yeah, when you have Mr. Burns the so called greedy rich man that supplies Springfield 1000 of jobs decides to pack up and leave, Homer and everyone else in that town will be SOL! Why? Because no that rich man is being taxed to the hilt, so he and his company are all going to China were he knows the long arm of Obama can't reach him. And who loses out? Springfield and Homer. None of you guys ever got a job from a poor person, NONE OF YOU! So who is the winner in all of this? Mr. Burns.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Obamacare is the precursor to CastroCare. Good luck with that.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@Comrade NetNinja:

Wolfpack, you are so off base. We finally have a true patriot for a President. Under Bush's term he literally sat back and allowed the real estate industry to sell America to the Chinese. His private war costs us trillions.

A patriot doesn't seek to interfere in the every day lives of an American. A patriot allows people their freedom to choose their own course in life. Now the government has the power to compel Americans to do whatever it wishes - as long as it is called a tax. Obama is the worst president in American history. He is a bold faced Socialist - which is anathema to America's tradition of individualism and self- responsibility. Let's not forget his own words, it is unpatriotic to run up a huge national debt - and no one has run up more debt that Obama has.

As for the real estate industry, please let's not even try to rewrite history. The facts are that the Democrats (including Obama) did everything they could to force banks to deregulate banking lending standards thereby creating the massive default rates that brought down the housing industry in America and nearly collapsed the financial system. Remember Barney Frank? I guess you don't....

President Obama is an enemy to liberty and the rights of each individual to pursue their own life as they see fit. Liberals always think they know whats best for everyone else and seek to bend human nature to their will. Only fools think they can control everyone and everything. Only an idiot tries to resurrect a failed ideology like Socialism saying that this time it will work - when it is always unsustainable.

Stop trying to micromanage my life and the lives of everyone else! You cannot achieve any policy goal by force - which is what ObamaCare is - brute force with the threat of the IRS using it's power to ruin peoples lives.

At least half of American's hate ObamaCare. They hate having bureaucrats control them from cradle to grave like it's East Germany or something. Are Liberals so bereft of ideas and common sense that they cannot conceive of any public policy that doesn't involve government force, high taxation, and crushing trillion dollar debts? Apparently not.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@nishicat

Cities such as New York are already dictating what people can drink and eat.*

How?

Apparently you do not read the news. The mayor of New York is implementing rules that regulate everything from whether or not someone can smoke to what they can eat and drink. Once people get used to the first few rules, more will follow because Liberals always believe they know best and that they can make people be perfect (in their way of thinking) by forcing them to do what they want them to.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

zichi:

why is America the only industrialised country in the world without universal health care?

Because it is dangerous to give the government control over the very lives of it's citizens. Let people decide for themselves what they want - don't tell them what they need and have the IRS go after them if they disagree with your opinion. Why not let people have a choice? Why must you "tell" people they must by a particular government approved health policy?

I would feel better about ObamaCare if it was presented as a choice. You can either have ObamaCare in which the government lords over your health and choices. Liberals can take all of the uninsured people they want. Or you can have a free market system that isn't micro-managed by Big Brotha'. Let the people decide which one they want for themselves. Then all of the Liberals can have their taxes raised and they will be covered. Likewise, the free market people who want to make their own choices in life can have a free market system that they can enroll in. The free market system will take in all of the uninsured people that prefer a more efficient and cost effective health plan.

Forcing me to do what you want only makes me angry at you. You don't want that do you? Come on, let's try to be nice to each other. Allow people that disagree with the partisan health care bill passed in Congress their own free choice. No one likes a dictator.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

wolfpack,

I guess that's why 50 million Americans can no longer afford even basic health care. My aging parents in Florida have to pay ever increasing health costs every months plus the increasing costs of meds. Why can't you accept that basically got it wrong over the health care programs. Why not have universal health care and if you want more you pay extra for it. I my country Britain, you can have national health or private medicine. Here in Japan you can good health care for low costs.

If people should have a choice about health care then why not schools too. Do parents get to choose if they send their kids to school or not.

The only reason for not previously having health care was the power of the health companies.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

@nishikat:

They can be more reliable but there has to be a mandate. Currently if I were visiting the US I would not get insurance and take my chances and just go bankrupt if I have a sudden major emergency. That's how stupid I think the system is because so many (too many) other people in the USA don't pay their bills either.

So instead of just one person going bankrupt, the whole country goes bankrupt! Oh, now I get where you are coming from. There is a other worldly debt of more than $15,000,000,000,000. In another four years it will be around $20,000,000,000,000. The US runs a annual budget deficit of more that $1 trillion per year. As the Congressional Budget Office admitted three months ago, ObamaCare will add close to $2 trillion more to this already massive debt over the next 10 years.

So when everyone is bankrupt, I suppose Liberals will be really, really happy with their egalitarian, social just nation!

Oh, I know what you are thinking, this couldn't possibly happen here! That of course, makes it necessary to totally ignore what is happening in those other happy countries in Europe that have universal health care and are going bankrupt right now.

It is certainly bad for anyone not to have health care and who go bankrupt. But it would be immensely worse if the entire country goes bankrupt in another vain attempt to prove that Socialism will work - this time. Get a clue, it never does over the long haul.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

All I know is I pay alot more for my insurance now. I have to have the doctor prescribe anything normally bought over the counter. Once more the IRS cut $5000 dollars down to $2500 for non-taxable income used for medical purpose's only. Not good for me... When Obama promised "Change" and "Yes we Can" I did not realize he was going for my wallet...I did not vote for him, and I will not vote for him again...

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Wolfpack, don't don't just look at me. This is the main reason for personal bankruptcies in the USA now.

Also, look at yourself and think about your use of the word "socialism". Referring to a previous post people who used that word and accused other people of being "socialist" were actually against the end of slavery.

other happy countries in Europe that have universal health care and are going bankrupt right now. Not all countries and their problems are not connected to healthcare. Some European countries still have a AAA debt rating.

Also, what is your comment about Medicare? Also, medicaid keeps growing with or without Obama/RomneyCare.

And finally, how about the point that mandates were a republican idea and a lot of prominent republicans had the same ideas as ObamaCare.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

And finally, how about the point that mandates were a republican idea and a lot of prominent republicans had the same ideas as ObamaCare.

Maybe the Republicans in Congress came back to reality in that their constituents were not going to buy that idea. We all know that Congress and the President are lobbied by big corporations/insurance companies. Congress and the President changes their mind when the people do not agree with them.

Also, medicaid keeps growing with or without Obama/RomneyCare.

Only full-time jobs get offered health insurance. Seldom do companies offer part-time jobs health insurance. If people are working multiple part-time jobs they can either buy health insurance or go without it. Also, millions of people are out of a job.

Here is an interesting article.

>Hazards of the Individual Health Care Mandate By Glen Whitman @ http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v29n5/cpr29n5-1.html

Mandated benefits drive up insurance premiums; after all, insurance companies can't make more payouts without higher revenues. Existing mandates have increased premiums by an estimated 20 to 50 percent, depending on the state. There is every reason to believe the same process will affect the minimum benefits package under an individual mandate. As a result, even more people will find themselves unable to buy insurance and decide not to comply. Others will buy the insurance, but only by relying on public subsidies. A health policy intended to rein in free riding and cost shifting will tend to encourage more of the same.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@nishikat:

Wolfpack, don't don't just look at me. This is the main reason for personal bankruptcies in the USA now.

So once health care is no longer the number one reason for personal bankruptcies, well we then outlaw the new leading cause of personal bankruptcy, job loss? Yes, it is a personal tragedy for those individuals who failed to get health coverage or who were cut off by their insurance provider (which Congress could address separately). The poor have Medicaid so they are not affected (unless they decided not to get it). Whatever the reason for bankruptcy that is no reason for the Federal government to force me to buy a product from a private company? It is a gross intrusion upon an individual's freedom to choose for themselves.

Also, look at yourself and think about your use of the word "socialism". Referring to a previous post people who used that word and accused other people of being "socialist" were actually against the end of slavery.

???? So are you trying to say I support slavery? So I can say Progressives supported the Holocaust because they believed in eugenics too? You should probably stick to the topic.

And finally, how about the point that mandates were a republican idea and a lot of prominent republicans had the same ideas as ObamaCare.

I am NOT a Republican and don't give a damn whose idea it was originally. I would prefer that both Democrats and Republicans learn from the Founders who generally believed in the separation of powers and that issues likes this are the responsibility of the States and local governments. The Federal government has enumerated powers - health care is not one of them. If you want it to be, amend the Constitution. Otherwise, this is simply another Federal overreach and stain on the Constitution.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

USA: Welcome to the developed countries. CONGRATULATIONS!

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

zichi:

My aging parents in Florida have to pay ever increasing health costs every months plus the increasing costs of meds. Why can't you accept that basically got it wrong over the health care programs.

Are your aging parents on Medicare? If so, then they already have government run health care - and it sounds like it isn't working out too well for them.

Why can't you accept that basically got it wrong over the health care programs. Why not have universal health care and if you want more you pay extra for it. I my country Britain, you can have national health or private medicine.

How am I wrong on health care? I am not trying to say that access to health care is not a very significant issue. What I am saying is that it isn't right in America to use an expansion of government authority to take away peoples freedom to choose as they wish. There is already a Medicaid program for the poor (which is going bankrupt by the way). Why add more burden to a government that is already $15 trillion in debt. America has not figured out how to pay for the entitlement programs that they already have. It makes no sense to add another that depends upon using 10 years of revenues for every 7 years of expenses. It's just insane at a time like this when other developed countries in Europe and Japan are dealing with huge debt problems.

Here in Japan you can good health care for low costs.

And Japan's national debt is twice as high as America's (measured by GDP) and doubling the consumption tax will not solve the problem. Nor will tripling or quadrupling it. Japan is mortgaging it's future for today's low health care costs and other entitlements. Can you not admit that America, Japan, and much of Europe is terribly short-sighted in the huge debt that they have accumulated. The suffering will be much worse when the bill comes due (see the turmoil in Greece for an inkling of what we all have in our futures).

0 ( +1 / -1 )

WOLF: solidarity seems to be be something totally out of you mindset. Your fever for power move you to the charity concept. That's the US problem!

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Lasic and braces are not of primary concern of those most in need of health care.

As I have stated, the insurance don't cover them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Open Minded:

WOLF: solidarity seems to be be something totally out of you mindset. Your fever for power move you to the charity concept. That's the US problem!

I don't entirely disagree with your statement about solidarity but you are completely wrong regarding your claim that I have a "fever for power" - that couldn't be any further from the truth.

I have a great deal of solidarity with America's founding principles. The problem in America now is that the nation has been moving away from these principles. Under Obama, there has been a drastic change in the relationship between the government and the people that is causing a national identity crisis. I don't want the government to hold too much powerful over me - that was one of America's most fundamental founding principles. That cannot be construed to mean that I desire to have control over others. I want only the power to make decisions for myself. I am in support of being generous and charitable. But do not confuse charity with granting government the power to compel me to be charitable. These are two completely different concepts. One is given willingly, the other is forced.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Open Minded: WOLF: solidarity seems to be be something totally out of you mindset. That's the US problem!

Without freedom, liberty, and life it is hard to have solidarity. The U. S. Constitution gives people the freedom, liberty, and life to engage in solidarity. There are some people who see the U. S. Constitution as an archaic piece of paper that should be done away with. The U. S. Constitution is the only thing that gives people recourse against injustice and holding the country together.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Our country the USA must do the right thing for its people. Ask yourself and be honest, what is the right thing to do? Help the poor sick people or even just middle class people who often can't even afford the pharmaceutical drugs for cancer for example. The country can not survive if it's ethics are destroyed. That is what happened to Rome. People should not be so worried about financial problems and thing in greedy ways of how to keep their own pockets stuffed with money.

The USA is filled with money and one does not have to look far to see the difference between the USA and India.

The healthcare system in the USA is flawed and over priced so this healthcare law will help to make the changes that will force the system to improve itself.

A country will not go down if it's citizens are helped. This is the thinking for a person without fear. If our country goes down because of this then we do not deserve this country in the first place and would need a revolution to start a new country.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Well, gentlemen, you've had your say. Thank you all for the colorful comments.

As for Mr. Barrack Obama being the "cult of personality" well I'm glad he has it. I'll take that over a REPUBLICAN President who couldn't speak a lick of English. "Fool me once.....DOH!!!...Can't fool me....*Dammit I forgot. Cocaine snorting alcoholic ego maniac who tried to top his daddy by invading an unarmed country. Woohoo!!

Republicans.......We say "NO" to change. Barrack Obama's only mistake in his first 2 years of office was extending an olive branch to the other half of the house. Nah, Republicans didn't want that. Too busy with their firesale as the housing market went up in smoke.

What was "No child left behind"? They left them behind at the emergency room though.

Republican Scrooge: Little Timmy has a pre-existing condition. Stem cell research? Again Republican said "NO". Let the Japanese develop it.. Japan does have a decent health care system don't they? It's not the best but at least you won't die in the lobby.

NetNinja must be like this, NetNinja must be like that. I'm not the topic here Republicans. Now you can cry me a river! Read it and weep. The Supreme Court of the most democratic nation on this Earth has spoken. You have to watch as the Emergency rooms accepts people based on the nature of the emergency rather than your insurance company.

Very cold blooded of you to try to block legislation and bills that help the average American in order to achieve Republican agenda. Deep down in your hearts you know it's the RIGHT thing to do but when it comes to Republicans, their moral compass is broken.

If we let Republicans in America's government will be just like Japan. Politicians bought and paid for by lobbyists. Those same politicians go on to consulting jobs with the companies that bought them.

The people are the government. The people are dissatisfied with the private sector OWNING our government. America will NEVER be government controlled. The private sector has got it grubby little hands all over our Declaration of Independence. It's not longer The Law, it's Corporate Law. For you to even imply socialism when Corporations have lobbyists hard at work is ridiculous. 2012 people. Go watch RoboCop again and you'll see where we are headed in America.

A government that does not monitor and safeguard the financial markets and industries is destined to repeat the mistakes of the past. Lehman Shock, Housing Market collapse.

JT recently asked in a poll "If the American Dream is still possible" or will the people just continue to suffer from Horatio Alger's syndrome? Republicans took away almost any chance to have the American Dream while they allowed the private sector to outsource jobs to FOXCONN while leaving my fellow American high and dry.

Now you've accused me of this and you've accused me of that. You yourself might be heartless Republican. You are no comrade if you against a bill that seeks to help the less fortunate. As we all know, America was built off the backs of the less fortunate. If slavery were still legal in the U.S. Chinese people would be out of a job.

You have these illegal immigrants work in your fields but not the decency to see that they get medical attention when they become ill. I'm sorry but you are not decent people.

Don't touch my Stars and Stripes till you come to your senses and remember the people who made your birth right so special.

I'm proud to be an American and Barrack Obama is a fine Commander and Chief. I am an American Veteran. You need to think more about your fellow man than your pocket book. You don't get rich on your own, no matter how big your head gets. It's a journey that we take together. When your fellow man goes down, you do everything you can to help him get back up. You've lost your humanity so you call it Socialism. Pfft.

To the private sector I say: Get your effing hands off America's Constitution.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Get your effing hands off America's Constitution.

Now there's a quotation that should be inscribed in stone and places outside the headquarters of every major business in the US.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

"Roberts has at long last legalized open economic fascism to America."

The ruling established economic fascism.

http://lewrockwell.com/north/north1162.html

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Very cold blooded of you to try to block legislation and bills that help the average American in order to achieve Republican agenda. Deep down in your hearts you know it's the RIGHT thing to do but when it comes to Republicans, their moral compass is broken.

The right thing to do is lower costs for everybody including prescription drugs and not to sell your soul to corporate interests.

For good or bad, a recently published email exchange between the White House and Big Pharma during the height of the 2009 health care reform debate, is one of the most important documents from that epic legislative struggle. Today, The New York Times' Peter Baker sifts through a batch of emails unearthed by House Republicans and spotlights a revealing conversation between a pharmaceutical industry lobbyist and Nancy-Ann DeParle, the president's top health care adviser and, by chance, the wife of Times reporter Jason DeParle. In the 2009 message, DeParle agrees to prevent cheap imported drugs from entering the U.S. market, a guarantee that would save the industry billions and ultimately lock in its support for ObamaCare. "Any progress on the importation front?" writes the lobbyist. "I made the decision, based on on how constructive you guys have been, to oppose importation on the bill."

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/06/heres-email-saved-ruined-health-care-reform/53348/

1 ( +1 / -0 )

no bounce in the polls for obama. too bad. guess obama's handlers will have to reframe the scotus decision, leave themselves an out on this one.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

A problem is that Chief Justice Roberts was not explicit in his statement:

"The Affordable Care Act's requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax,"' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court's majority in the opinion.

The key word is "may." He wasn't clear.

But in the end, it really doesn't matter. It's just semantics. Whatever it is, it's constitutional, and the end result is the same either way. It won't affect most people who already have healthcare. The issue is whether it's good or bad, not what it is or isn't.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hazards of the Individual Health Care Mandate By Glen Whitman @ http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v29n5/cpr29n5-1.html Mandated benefits drive up insurance premiums...

The Cato Institute is an American libertarian think tank

Is this really true? Because when I check around for other countries that have mandates it seems for some reason they are paying less for the same healthcare

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Apparently you do not read the news. The mayor of New York is implementing rules that regulate everything from whether or not someone can smoke to what they can eat and drink. Once people get used to the first few rules, more will follow because Liberals always believe they know best and that they can make people be perfect (in their way of thinking) by forcing them to do what they want them to.

I do and I know in NYC they are thinking of making apartment buildings smoke free. I don't care because I don't smoke and I'm not fat. Are you fat? Do you smoke? About eating- there are too many fat kids and it would seem the junk food is the new tobacco and they will require kids to eat a healthy lunch (school is NOT about free choice). The Pentagon is worried about all these fat kids when they become soldiers. Yes, they publicly acknowledged it. Americans (not me, I mean the ones in America) are the fattest people in the world. But don't worry, even if there is a fat tax you can still eat all the food and become as fat as you want. I'm OK because I don't eat that much junk food.

If you don't like it you are free to vote for a NYC mayor who has different idea. Or maybe you fear America is becoming communist and we can no longer vote. Or why don't you make a political blog about the right to be fat.

Why are you telling me all these politics in NYC? I don't live there and even if I did I would not care about those political issues. If it's important to you YOU should get busy and become a political activist to address the voters in NYC.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

And Japan's national debt is twice as high as America's (measured by GDP) and doubling the consumption tax will not solve the problem.

But there are still quite a few countries with mandates/universal care that have AAA rating. In fact Switzerland has both a mandate and lower taxes. On top of that they have high per cap GDP. And...they have good medical innovation. Countries just need to get their acts together. Don't just cherry pick. Japan's problems are not from their healthcare system alone.

Are your aging parents on Medicare? If so, then they already have government run health care - and it sounds like it isn't working out too well for them.

I get the impression medicare is more reliable than private insurance (of course if you are rich paying cash is the way to go). One problem in the USA is TOO MUCH medicine. For example I recently read there are too many unnecessary heart surgeries because in many cases it does not improve long term survival. In any country - unless you are rich or if there are no co-pays like Canada - if you have many health problems you will also have many extras to pay for and this includes Japan. And if you are chronically sick get a second opinion to see if you really need some expensive treatment or not. As for me, I will be OK with medicare...but at the same time I will try to stay healthy naturally.

There is already a Medicaid program for the poor (which is going bankrupt by the way).

Yes, I brought this up. 60M and counting up up up for decades. What do you mean "going bankrupt"? It will go out of business like ENRON and 60 million people will die on the street? But what I think is it will get so big it will just become part of a universal system. In fact the US govt. is planning special medicaid facilities to for medicaid recipients (count me in on my cheap teacher's salary) This is what I think will happen. What is your version of what will happen in the end with medicaid's "bankruptcy"?

What I am saying is that it isn't right in America to use an expansion of government authority to take away peoples freedom to choose as they wish.

If you have private insurance currently you hardly have freedom of choice. Only the rich who pay cash have medical care any way they choose...like Micheal Jackson did. He actually had a private 24/7 doc to help with is sleeping problems. Now that's free choice!!!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

So once health care is no longer the number one reason for personal bankruptcies...

For this information why don't you check other countries that have mandated care to see what their number one reasons are for personal bankruptcies and get back to me.

???? So are you trying to say I support slavery?

In the past when slavery was legal...people who cried out "SOCIALISM" were against freeing them. You are afraid America's becoming socialist, right?

I am NOT a Republican and don't give a damn whose idea it was originally. I would prefer that both Democrats and Republicans learn from the Founders who generally believed in the separation of powers and that issues likes this are the responsibility of the States and local governments.

Wow, you sound like a nervous wreck. Sorry to hear that. But I can't do anything for you because neither party can now. I'm just trying to convey the message that everything will be OK and don't worry too much. FYI the founders are dead. Besides, one of the founders promoted a health insurance mandate. So, yes, the founders would approve of ObamaCare. Are you in the USA now?

turmoil in Greece

Europe is not one country and in those group of countries some are doing quite well. For me, I don't plan to retire and have accepted it. That's my solution for myself.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Socialism will work - this time. Get a clue, it never does over the long haul.

Again in the past people in the USA defined "socialism" as the abolition of slavery.

Define "socialism". And where does it exist officially in the world?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Define "socialism".

A progressive political system that takes the power away from wealth creators and gives it to wealth distributors. Wealth distributors are typically a class of highly trained government bureaucrats who are banded together by shared progressive morals. This creates a vibrant state-subsidized culture, leading to great economic successes and technological breakthroughs, e.g., in North Korea.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

In the past when slavery was legal...people who cried out "SOCIALISM" were against freeing them.

you keep posting this nonsense. i would think it is pretty obvious to most Americans that the most heated debates on abolition and emancipation took place before the civil war; you know, in that period between the louisiana purchase and the 1860 election won by the republican ,lincoln. the threat of 'socialism' was not really part of that debate.in fact, the first socialist party in America didn't form until sometime in the 1870s if i am not mistaken. how typical of a young obama supporter tho that you can't resist taking the lowest road and accusing opponents of nationalized health care of racism. were republicans in the 1930s who opposed fdr's schemes for the nationalized health care 'racists' ? you like to talk about other countries that have "free" medical care yet you avoid pointing out - or more likely are clueless - - that it was first a project of germany's kaiser wilhelm II and the administration of chancellor otto von bismarck, in clear ploy to implement state socialism and steal the thunder of the more international marxists then gaining in popularity in germany.and the nazis of course later made compulsory membership in a national health care program central to their platform. it would be all too easy to play your game and accuse you therfore of being a nazi but i'm not going to do that. i will just keep asking -- - if obamacare is soo grand why is it that those who crafted it have exempted themselves and their families from having to enroll in it?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

You know the conservative nut Rush Limbaugh? He's full of simple messages such as 'the fear of socialism' and he makes a lot of money doing it. He is the guy who was making claims about "death panels". If he had been alive during this time before the end of slavery he would be saying this. Outspoken people in the press against the elimination of slavery declared this like I posted above. I'm not posting nonsense. I'm saying people who declare "socialism" during times like this DO post nonsense.

I read people who are afraid of "socialism"- this is inherent so I can't help you or can anyone else. You are born to accuse other people of being "socialist" so I can't really debate with you. But it doesn't matter. This is being hammered through and it doesn't matter what you or I think.

But why do you keep saying ObamaCare? It's also RomneyCare. He's the one who was promoting personal responsibility - this is a republican thing. If a republican wins the WH the same policy will be hammered through. John Roberts was put in by a republican. And Obama was against this when JR was chosen. If it was a republican doing this would it be OK?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

But why do you keep saying ObamaCare? It's also RomneyCare. He's the one who was promoting personal responsibility - this is a republican thing. If a republican wins the WH the same policy will be hammered through. John Roberts was put in by a republican. And Obama was against this when JR was chosen. If it was a republican doing this would it be OK?

Nice try, really? But that won't work. Yes, Romney made Romeny care for the people of Mass., but NOT designed for the entire nation, but a small state. Are you also going to keep using the same old argument that the reason why Obama can't get the economy back on track is because it's Bush's fault? You really want to go there. This has Obama written all over it he pushed for it, did whatever he could to get this through, even if the economy is destroyed. It' was all done, legislated by our president. So, it's all his and his alone! Republicans want reform as well, but not when it will financially bankrupt the nation. Obama doesn't even have the slightest idea of what being fiscal means. For once it would be really refreshing to hear liberals take personal responsibility for their actions and stop using Conservatives or Bush or Romney for all your screw-ups!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

"Are you also going to keep using the same old argument that the reason why Obama can't get the economy back on track is because it's Bush's fault? "

Anyone denying the mess Obama inherited is in cloud cuckoo land. And the mess started back when W was doing the playboy thing, tooting coke, avoiding 'Nam and writing off sports-cars as all good rich boy's did in the seventies.

" Romney made Romeny care for the people of Mass., but NOT designed for the entire nation"

Heh, I've seen a few people including the author Romney try this one - so why won't RomneyCare work on a national level?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

When did I mention Bush/Obama/economy? Please show me where I posted that. I don't believe that the president has any effect on the economy since it's a global situation.

Is there a connection to mandate and economy? To repeat what I said before "China wants to start a universal system so people spend their "sickness" savings which will be good for the economy (in China the usual practice is to save money when/if you get sick). " ...so let's see what happens with the mandate in the USA.

No, Romney is on record clearly implying he would want something very similar to ObamaCare. He talked about penalties and taxes and fines just like Obama is. Remember mandate is a republican idea. Also, a health mandate was implemented by one of the founding fathers.

Romney: "It's critical to insure more people in this country. It doesn't make sense to have 45 million people without insurance. It's not good for them because they don't get good preventative care ... but it's not good for the rest of the citizens either, because if people aren't insured, they go to the emergency room for their care when they get very sick. That's expensive. They don't have any insurance to cover it. So guess who pays? Everybody else."

45 million? in the state of Massachusetts? No, he is talking about all of America. But what you say is OK too. If all the states have a mandate that would be OK. Either way is OK with me. So you would be for mandate that is state by state because states are starting this by themselves. I said on record the biggest problem is too many hospital bills are not being paid.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

"No, Romney is on record clearly implying he would want something very similar to ObamaCare."

In all fairness, that was on Thursday.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

OK, it's that time again. New polls!

.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/americans-split-on-affordable-care-act-ruling-gallup-poll-finds/

According to a Gallup poll released on Friday, 46 percent of adults agree with the court's decision, while another 46 percent disagree. Unsurprisingly, the breakdown follows party lines, with 79 percent of Democrats agreeing and only 13 percent of Republicans disagreeing.

Despite the partisan divide, however, a majority of adults, 59 percent, said that they would consider the issue as "one of many important factors while voting" -- suggesting that while the issue is indeed important, it won't be make-or-break for either candidate with the bulk of voters.

Roughly the same number of Democrats, Republicans and Independents felt this way; 60 percent of Democrats said a candidate's position on healthcare was one of many important factors, 60 percent of Independents responded this way and 59 percent of Republicans agreed.

Gallup also polled people on what ought to happen next -- now that the court has found it constitutional, where should the law go from here? The responses were somewhat polarized, with the majority of respondents split between upholding the law, expanding it, and getting rid of it all together. Twenty-five percent of adults said that they would like Congress to "keep the law in place and pass further legislation to expand the government's role in healthcare beyond what the law currently does," while 31 percent responded that they would like Congress to "repeal the law entirely."

Twenty-one percent said that they would like to repeal some parts of the law, though the poll did not specify which parts.

.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/02/cnn-poll-health-care-ruling-changes-views-of-supreme-court/

According to a CNN/ORC International survey released Monday, the public is divided on last week's ruling, with 50% saying they agree with the Supreme Court's decision and 49% saying they disagree. And there is the expected partisan divide, with more than eight in ten Democrats agreeing with the decision, more than eight in ten Republicans disagreeing, and independent voters divided, with 52% disagreeing and 47% agreeing.

"Despite howls of protest from many Republican leaders, only about one in five Americans - and only 35% of the Republican rank and file - say they are angry about the decision," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "And despite victory laps by many Democratic leaders, only one in six Americans - and only one in three Democrats nationwide - say they feel enthusiastic about the court's ruling."

But what have changed are perceptions of the high court. "As recently as April, Republicans and Democrats had virtually identical positive opinions on the Supreme Court. But not any more," adds Holland. "That's the biggest change that the court decision has created."

The court's approval rating among Democrats jumped by 23 points; to 73%. Among Republicans, it fell by 21 points, to 31%. Approval of the Supreme Court among independents edged up five points, to 53%.

Overall, three in ten say the high court is too liberal, with 22% saying it's too conservative and 46% saying it's about right.

The Republican led House of Representatives has scheduled a July 11th vote to attempt to repeal the health care law. The survey indicates that 51% say Congress should repeal all provisions of the measure, with 47% saying no.

What about the individual mandate itself? Forty-eight percent favor it and 51% oppose the mandate. One thing that Americans do agree on is that the health insurance mandate is a tax, as ruled by the Supreme Court. Six in ten feel that way.

"But it is also worth noting that the number of Americans who favor all or most of the provisions in the bill has gone up a bit since last year, and despite roughly half looking to repeal all the provisions in the law, only one in eight say they oppose everything in the bill," says Holland.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Again, why are you upset over ObamaCare when there is/would be also Romney/Dole/Nixon/Gingrich care?

Nixon?? Jesus, at least pick someone who's been alive in this century. I know your type as well; you aren't really intelligent enough to argue a point so you just pick on something idiotic to try and argue. I think I'll pass. Please stay in Japan - we don't need any more liberal teachers, thanks.

state broken people - beautiful post. Good show.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

nishikat:

I do and I know in NYC they are thinking of making apartment buildings smoke free. I don't care because I don't smoke and I'm not fat. Are you fat? Do you smoke?

So as long as the freedoms that are taken away don't affect you then you are okay with it. Right? You don't smoke so no one should smoke. You do not eat or drink fattening foods, so no one else should either. That's exactly what I hate about Liberals and Socialists, they always want to control other people and tell them how to live their lives. No, I do not smoke. I don't drink very much, and though I am be no means fat, I do admit that I as a bit soft around the middle. All that is irrelevant as far as I am concerned. Sure, it is better if everyone eats right, exercises regularly, and refrains from bad habits. I agree. I just don't believe the government should be my mommy and daddy and treat me like a child. Mind your own business! As long as I am not doing anything that threatens the rights and freedoms of others, don't impose your values on me. You cannot force people to be perfect little citizens.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The new Chief supreme was appointed by Bush. For some reason he voted to keep this law.

One theory was it is his wise non-patisan judgement. But that does not compute.

He is letting the issue stay alive for the conservatives in the next election. He kept it alive like abortion is kept alive. To be a hot-emotional issue for conservatives and relgious people alike.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Countries just need to get their acts together. Don't just cherry pick. Japan's problems are not from their healthcare system alone. No large multi-culural society has ever succeeded in making Socialism work. Even Switzerland has had to swing back towards financial sanity: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303459004577361622927199902.html

I do not cherry pick, the majority of countries with national health care (and of course other generous entitlements) are saddled with large amounts of debt.

Here are some debt figures for you (debt to GDP): UK: 81% Germany: 82% France: 85% US: 85% (before ObamaCare) Belgium: 97% Portugal: 101% Ireland: 108% Italy: 121% Greece: 168% Japan: 233%

All of these countries have deficits in the $trillions (US dollars). What do they all have in common? Well, all now have national health care - which is hugely inefficient, and very generous entitlement policies. Despite the shocking amount of debt held by these countries, the burden of entitlements are growing - not shrinking. Most have aging societies and most have economies that are hobbled by high taxes and regulation. In fact, Japan has just raised the consumption tax - the dumbest thing they could possibly do during a global recession.

I understand that people want to be compassionate to others and charitable to those less fortunate than themselves. However, it's insane to destroy yourself trying to do good for everyone. It's poor economics and the best way to destroy the very thing that has provided the ability to be so generous to begin with.

Pay attention to history. Pay attention to the financial crisis going on in Europe, Japan and in the US. You can't keep racking up ever more debt and expect future generations will be able to pay it off for you. It's just wrong. ObamaCare is going to finish off America which is already contending with an unsupportable retirement and welfare system. Wishing away the hard truth that there is no free lunch by pleas for compassion will not prevent a tragedy even greater still in the future. Karl Marx was wrong because he failed to understand human nature. How many times does socialism have to fail for people to understand that it is a economic dead end?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Anyone denying the mess Obama inherited is in cloud cuckoo land. And the mess started back when W was doing the playboy thing, tooting coke, avoiding 'Nam and writing off sports-cars as all good rich boy's did in the seventies.

Yes, he did inherit a big mess from Bush and Bush did spend like an out of control liberal and Obama campaigned on ending the war in Iraq and to concentrate on the real enemy which is Afghanistan, close Guantanamo to strengthen the ECONOMY, so let's give him Iraq (even though Bush was in the process of winding down the troops already) what about the rest? How's Guantanamo? (still open and operational) How's Afghanistan (stepped up those drone attacks) How's the economy? (No jobs, over 8% unemployment, but hey, we got Obamacare) Spent over a trillion dollars (and NO sight in end, not to mention out spent Bush 3X) our debt to China is beyond out of controlTHIS, from a man who also did drugs in his past, doesn't want to release his "college records", never served a day in his life in the military, doesn't have ANY clue about the economy, loves to smuse with the Hollywood elite, loves lavish, extravagant parties, loves attention and to be the center of attention of everything...

...and you still want to beat the it's Bush's fault drum???? 2 years Obama had it all! Controlled all 3 branches for 2 years, but it's Bush's fault that they lost in 2010. So that means NO matter what happens, it'll always be Bush's fault and Obama will and should be absolved of ANY wrongdoing, because he needs more time to screw up...I mean, fix everything that he inherited from Bush. Obamcare is the start and it's on the right track. Now I understand everything, my bad and that clarifies everything.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If America reduced it spending on its war machine by at least 50% it could reduce the level of debt and provide universal health care.

2012;Inflation Adjusted Military Spending: $653,424,000,000

If anyone wants to add up the total since 1962, here's the link.

http://www.davemanuel.com/2010/06/14/us-military-spending-over-the-years/

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Ahhh Wolfpack. Money money money. That's all you got on the brain. I don't care if the country is a Gaziilion dollars in debt. You are thinking about an economic dead end. I'm thinking about PEOPLE dead end cause they can't go in the hospital.

You seem like the type to define what a life is worth without knowing it's full measure. When a mother comes in with her child who is sick, who desperately needs medical attention she doesn't want to hear about what's happening on Wall Street. Wall Street has no place in the ER. When you walk into the ER you don't see newspaper clippings of America's debt and woes.

Where is your humanity? Stop your wars and all the millions of dollars in military ops and you'll have your healthcare covered.

Since you want to calculate things....go figure this. Population is growth. You must care for this population because they are assets to the country. You are Republican so you are good at using people. You know what I'm talking about. Healthcare for America means a healthier America. Going to the doctor is always an educational experience. The doctor informs you on how you can improve your health and your life.

I applaud the Mayor of New York for banning substances that companies know will do you more harm than good. They need to remove that Heart Attack Grill in Las Vegas as well. That's an eyesore. The Mayor of New York has no intention of telling you how to live your life. If you really want that Coke you'll get it. Tough love is needed. There's too little of it nowadays.

Too many mothers and fathers who cave in. Lil Timmy doesn't want to eat his vegetables. Don't force him dear. What if you do give him tough love? Timmy you aren't getting up from that table till you eat your got dayum vegetables!!! Child abuse? Pouring the Coke down the drain makes you a bad man? Daddy is cruel cause he won't let you eat McDonalds french fries? Tough love!!!

You're a Republican though. You support the corporations. They contribute to your campaign. You have to defeat such legislation. It's bad for business.

The people need health care. Deep Pockets: No they don't. Let them drink Coke!

Wolfpack, you need to practice Zen bro. You need to get out of the city and feel alive. You need to connect to people more. Shut down all that financial talk. You need to believe that anybody you help is an act of helping yourself. I want the man seating next to me and his family to be able to see a doctor any time, any place, any day. I wish him no ill even though we don't know each other. Are you listening bro? Chances are....if he doesn't get sick, I might not get sick. I'll pay a little more for that.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Ahhh Wolfpack. Money money money. That's all you got on the brain. I don't care if the country is a Gaziilion dollars in debt. You are thinking about an economic dead end. I'm thinking about PEOPLE dead end cause they can't go in the hospital.

@Net

That's the problem. If there is NO money in the economy, even a hospital can't run, they have to pay bills too and salaries, cost of equipment, new, old, repairs, you can't get around it! Better, efficient economy, better health treatments, care for pharmaceuticals etc. I am thinking about the people too, but that's the main difference between conservatives and liberals. Liberals don't care where the money comes from, just as long as it's done! Conservatives tend to find a more viable solution that won't bankrupt the system, Fiscally responsibility is the key to make and produce affordable healthcare.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@bass4funk

We understand that. Tax the rich. Tax these multi-million dollar corporations. They are sitting on the money because they want to rule the nation by suffocating it.

The people come first. Capitalism is up there, free markets, business. You tax the rich. You know where they are. Upstate New York, Malibu, California. Tax them!!! Stop wasting money. F35 = FAIL. Millions of dollars wasted by Republicans.

The money is there.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

paulinusa: By requiring healthy people who forego insurance to sign up. A larger pool will create either subsidies for the working poor or Medicaid for those with no income or savings. This will encourage more preventative healthcare instead of the uninsured showing up too late at the emergency room and running up huge bills that everyone pays for.

Under Obamacare, the young and healthy are required to buy health insurance to pay for the other folks who go to the doctor to keep the cost down. Also, the insurance companies wanted everyone buy health insurance for the pre-existing condition to keep cost down.

Medicaid is funded by taxes for those who are on public assistance. People who don't qualify for medicaid will pay partial for their health insurance with the rest being subsized by the government through taxes and not due to requiring everyone pay for health insurance. Medicaid and subsidy are funded through taxes. The insurance company is not going to subsized people health insurance.

People can get preventive services but that doesn't prevent them from going to the ER. A few examples, appendicitis, heart attack, stroke, or asthma attack etc. may happen suddenly and the person needs to go to the ER.

The problem with the ER was that people who had the cold, the flu, minor sprains etc were clogging up the ER. Therefore, urgent care facilities were established to take care of people with those needs. The cost factor between the ER and the urgent care for those needs is sigificantly different where the ER is pricey vs the urgent care facility fee.

The unisured were people are probably the healthy who didn't feel the need to buy health insurance or those who couldn't afford health insurance and find themselves using the ER due to an accident or getting sick suddenly.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Anyone denying the mess Obama inherited is in cloud cuckoo land.

Well let's compare Obama to Reagan. Both inherited a "mess" of quite similar proportions. The reasons were different but the effects were similar. Very high unemployment (higher for Reagan), energy cost and supply issues, etc. Reagan also had to contend with Stagflation - a vexing problem to say the least. And the difference after 3.5 years? Reagan beat Stagflation, unemployment was down, and the economy booming. Under Obama, unemployment remains high, economy is barely growing at all, and the debt has reached unsustainable levels.

So in the end, Reagan made few excuses and led the country out of recession. Obama complained and blamed everyone and everything for the pitiful state of the country and the economy. Even Obama himself said that if he didn't have this thing turned around it would be a one term proposition. Well, he hasn't turned it around so he should leave. ObamaCare is just the final insult.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@skipbeat

Excuses are often self-serving. Here's what you said.

The unisured were people are probably the healthy who didn't feel the need to buy health insurance or those who couldn't afford health insurance and find themselves using the ER due to an accident or getting sick suddenly.

Regular insurance by a private company has SKY High premiums. The insurance industry even made the noose tighter when Obama's Health Insurance bill was introduced. The above excuse / speculation is what you want to believe. Helps you sleep at night. Easier for you to believe that they are all lesser idiotic life forms than for you to accept that the Insurance companies have lost their minds with greed.

Yes, there are healthy people out there who do not buy health insurance. I know what I call them. I call them people who are trying to get ahead, trying to save a little money. People who want to save for their child's education. The lot of you refuse to calculate it all. The tax, the consumption tax, the insurance this, insurance that, fee for this, fee for that. You calculate all and you realize that you are just living for the city. Nothing is for you.

You spend any money at all and you're screwed somewhere down the line. Then the insurance companies stack on interest on top of interest, while under the Bush administration they turned a blind eye to it. Under Republican rule we'll have more Katrina's and 9/11s.

In the words of GlennGary GlennRoss: "You are here to help us, NOT to (expletive) us up" - Al Pacino

Thank you Obama for helping the people of the United States of America. You, Sir, are a fine President worthy of the Office of Commander and Chief. The People's President!!

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

NetNinja:

First off, I am not a Republican.

Ahhh Wolfpack. Money money money. That's all you got on the brain. I don't care if the country is a Gaziilion dollars in debt.

I think it's pretty obvious that you have little concern for financial matters and that is why the Left always ends up impoverishing themselves - and everyone else. Wealth is not my only concern in my life (that is a simplistic implication on your part) but a nation's financial health is important for the present and future prospects of it's citizens. A spendthrift government leaves it's people impoverished in the future. That's just common sense. You assume that government run health care is the only humane method of providing health care. In reality, it sacrifices the future for the here and now. Future generations will be negatively impacted by the poor financial management of today's leaders.

I applaud the Mayor of New York for banning substances that companies know will do you more harm than good.

You and the mayor need to get your nose out of other peoples business. How about I not tell you how to live your life and you stay out of mine? Sounds like a fair deal.

Too many mothers and fathers who cave in. Lil Timmy doesn't want to eat his vegetables. Don't force him dear. What if you do give him tough love?

I agree totally with you that parents do need to give their children tough love sometimes. However, the government are not my parents. I do accept a government that treats it's citizens like children.

You're a Republican though. You support the corporations. They contribute to your campaign. You have to defeat such legislation. It's bad for business.

I'm not a Republican.

I wish him no ill even though we don't know each other. Are you listening bro?

Great, I don't wish ill on others either. Are you listening Bro? Come on Bro, I just want you and I to get along and be friends. How about it Bro? How about I not tell you what you can and can't do and you return the favor?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@bass4funk:

Liberals don't care where the money comes from, just as long as it's done! Conservatives tend to find a more viable solution that won't bankrupt the system, Fiscally responsibility is the key to make and produce affordable healthcare.

It's hard to have common sense while trying to figure out how to make other people live the way you want them to. We understand that the most compassionate thing is to maintain a viable economy so that the maximum number of people have the opportunity to succeed and prosper. You likely would agree that any country should help their poor and disadvantaged as much as possible without being fiscally reckless or otherwise irresponsible. The current American retirement system and the existing Medicare and Medicaid systems are already in financial trouble. ObamaCare only compounds the problem while solving nothing. There will still be millions with no health care or very poor health care. The problem will only worsen over time as the fiscal reckoning approaches.

But hey, you can't tell a Liberal there is no such thing as a free lunch!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I am thinking about the people too, but that's the main difference between conservatives and liberals. Liberals don't care where the money comes from, just as long as it's done! Conservatives tend to find a more viable solution that won't bankrupt the system, Fiscally responsibility is the key to make and produce affordable healthcare.

Err, George Bush? Conservatives also don't care about where the money comes from, as long as it's about war.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@Wolfpack

No arguments here, spot on.

@Thomas

I never said, Bush was a fiscally responsible Conservative and to be a partisan thinking the old, Conservatives just live and feed to go war is also growing old and boring. Having and needing a strong defense for the country and living to go to war are two entirely different entities. Don't confuse the two.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm still trying to understand how Bush is even somehow relevant to this Supreme Court declaring Obama's signature legislation is Constitutional.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

NetNinja said, "The above excuse / speculation is what you want to believe. Helps you sleep at night. Easier for you to believe that they are all lesser idiotic life forms than for you to accept that the Insurance companies have lost their minds with greed."

I never said that or implied that. Don't take your anger out at me. If you disagreed or need clarification then ask instead of assuming. I know first hand when it comes to the greed of health insurance companies. I know first hand of paying for health insurance to help lower the cost so that those who need to use the health insurance do so. I know first hand of getting crappy medical services. I got thumbs down for all those things on here.

Yes, there are healthy people out there who do not buy health insurance. I know what I call them. I call them people who are trying to get ahead, trying to save a little money. People who want to save for their child's education. The lot of you refuse to calculate it all. The tax, the consumption tax, the insurance this, insurance that, fee for this, fee for that. You calculate all and you realize that you are just living for the city. Nothing is for you.

What about the people who are making lots of money and forego health insurance because they are healthy too? Because there are some of those people out there too. I don't believe they are "lesser idiotic life forms" nor the people who are healthy and want to save money for their kids education or for emergency when money is tight.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@NetNinja.

When I said, "The unisured were people are probably the healthy who didn't feel the need to buy health insurance..." means they have other priorities other than buying health insurance. It does not translate to what you said about me, "Excuses are often self-serving...The above excuse / speculation is what you want to believe. Helps you sleep at night. Easier for you to believe that they are all lesser idiotic life forms than for you to accept that the Insurance companies have lost their minds with greed."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The people come first. Capitalism is up there, free markets, business. You tax the rich. You know where they are. Upstate New York, Malibu, California. Tax them!!! Stop wasting money. F35 = FAIL. Millions of dollars wasted by Republicans.

The money is there.

Human life comes first, but in order maintain a healthy life, you need a job and a flourishing economy which we do not have. If you think the rich waste money, then you should have a deep rooted hatred for Obamacare, since it will drain our last resources. The rich are already paying the majority of taxes in the in the country by default. Why is it that liberals think that the so called rich don't pay anything or want to tax them into nothingness. Like I always say, without rich people, you wouldn't have a viable economy. Have you ever known a poor person to employ someone, give them pay raises, expand a company? How much do you want to tax (take) from them? What business is it of yours to say that the rich have to pay this much. But like you said, the money is there (it's not your money, but who cares, it's someone else's money) and we should take it and why not?Let me ask you, (a)what do you think would happen if ever rich person paid 100% in taxes and (b) they the top 3% decided to pack up and all leave the country. What do you think the outcome would be?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Skipbeat

Sometimes you have good posts, but this statement is pure ignorance:

"The modern world is a liberal world so you can keep that part..."

The terms "liberal" and "conservative" have become so redefined in the US with many, that Eisenhower would be considered a "liberal" because of his high tax rates and anti-MIC (Military Industrial Complex) view.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I want the man seating next to me and his family to be able to see a doctor any time, any place, any day. I wish him no ill even though we don't know each other.

Then you don't Obamacare, as it was based on Romneycare model in Massachussetts and based on its performance he and his family is going to wait 7 weeks before even seeing a Doctor. Back to the old crowded emergency room model again to be seen right away just like it always has been even after "reform" and so called improving and reforming the health care system under this flawed horrible top down Government approach.

Long wait times are common -- almost seven weeks, on average, for a non-emergency appointment for internal medicine. The average wait time for pediatricians. primary care for children, was 24 days, the MMS study showed.

New patient wait times in Massachusetts jumped from 2006 to 2007 after the initial implementation of the state health care reform law, and have remained high. As a result, the rate of emergency room visits to receive care has also stayed high.

More lucrative specialist practices -- gastroenterology,

cardiology, obstetrics/gynecology and orthopedics -- were in most instances taking new patients, although long wait times were still seen, MMS said.

"There really is a maldistribution of medical workforce resources," said Coombs.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/09/us-usa-massachusetts-healthcare-idUSTRE74808920110509

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@bruinfan: Sometimes you have good posts, but this statement is pure ignorance:

I was not referring to taxation in regards to that comment.

The terms "liberal" and "conservative" have become so redefined in the US with many,

Agreed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

On Yahoo! News there is a poll that suggests Obama/RomneyCare opponents should "stop their efforts to block the law and move on to other national problems,". Basically, just move on. It's here and it's going to stay. In case anyone is afraid of this "socialism"...sorry, there is no where for you to go since no legitimate political party is going to stop this, especially since Roberts who was appointed by Bush Jr. was against striking down Obama/RomneyCare. As Bush Sr. stated that no government can be all things to all people. Just give it some years and everyone will get used to this policy...like they did with social security, medicare, or the end of slavery. It will work.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Bass4funk

"...and you still want to beat the it's Bush's fault drum???? "

No I was replying to your comments on Bush. I agree he has nothing to do with the subject. My question was, since most of us are being honest and accepting that Obamacare is more or less Romneycare, what are the objections of taking it to the national level?

I've seen not one argument that holds the road, even Romney has failed to provide enlightenment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Just give it some years and everyone wil get used to this policy...like they did with social security, medicare,...."

That's known as the "boiling frogs". Hope you enjoy the hot water as the temp gets turned up a little more each time.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The great thing about being an American is that we get to be arm chair quarterbacks in political decisions, too. We can blast and bash on everyone who dares to make a decision. The fact is the law is too lengthy (over 2000 pages) hopefully the SC justices read it., but the SC (the law of the land) unbalanced as it is, upheld the new healthcare program. As we are here in never-never land, there are people making $30-40 grands a year who are already benefiting from this law. Those are the folks that I think about. I am really sick and tired of the RIGHT and the LEFT! The INDEPENDENTS are no better. I really don't care how they do it, but those exorbitant hospital bills or specialized care bills is what hits hard in the pockets. People should not have to sell their homes to afford healthcare. How about those up to 26 y/o that can continue to ride their parents' policy? Call it "giveaways" but, I think America is going through a well deserve overhaul. Everyone can't win. Finally, politicians for the most are partisan on all sides, no matter what "we the people" think. Most politicians are like dirty bills/coins...the RICH has got a few in their pockets. VOTE!!! for what you believe, not what you hear on talk radio.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

My question was, since most of us are being honest and accepting that Obamacare is more or less Romneycare, what are the objections of taking it to the national level?

It doesn't really work and it sure doesn't lower costs, which is what your average citizen across the country really wants in reforming the U.S system.

Mitt Romney’s health care albatross isn’t just the similarity between his Massachusetts health care overhaul and President Barack Obama’s health reform law.

It’s also the fact that Massachusetts still has the highest health costs in the country — even after the reforms Romney signed into law as governor.

The state still has the record the highest individual premiums in the country. The average Massachusetts resident trying to find insurance in the individual market faced monthly premiums of $437 per person last year, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Those with employer coverage didn’t fare much better. The average family premium was $14,606 — $700 more than the national average — and the 10th-highest premium in the country, according to Kaiser.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66957_Page2.html#ixzz1zUOV3Z5r

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66957.html#ixzz1zUNfIZLs

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It’s also the fact that Massachusetts still has the highest health costs in the country — even after the reforms Romney signed into law as governor.

Good point and if it continues I look forward to medicaid expanding and expanding (in this case it doesn't matter if ObamaCare went through or not). Because the US government wants to set up facilities specifically for medicaid recipients. And since they will work well on a global standard it will just end up being medicare for all.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Ahhh Wolfpack. Money money money. That's all you got on the brain. I don't care if the country is a Gaziilion dollars in debt. You are thinking about an economic dead end. I'm thinking about PEOPLE dead end cause they can't go in the hospital.

Typical, that's like cannibalizing one engine to keep the other running, then expecting somehow that they will both work to get you where you need to go. To hell with the consequences - just make sure everyone receives care. That's great in the dream world utopia that all liberals seem to live in, or at least think is achievable, but not so great in reality. Reality is a cold, hard beeyatch. Is it fair or decent or good? No of course not. Three-year-old children die of cancer while human predators go free to live long and 'healthy' lives. Life is not fair, those are the rules.

The people come first. Capitalism is up there, free markets, business. You tax the rich. You know where they are. Upstate New York, Malibu, California. Tax them!!! Stop wasting money. F35 = FAIL. Millions of dollars wasted by Republicans.

First of all, I live in upstate NY - I think people misconstrue what constitutes 'upstate' NY because in reality it is the Adirondack region and from Albany up. There aren't a whole crap-load of rich people here anymore. A few Hollywood liberals have million dollar homes on some of the lakes in the region, but other than that the 'old money' in upstate NY is long gone and the rich don't make it up here anymore. Most of us are struggling folks eaking out a living.

But then you have/give the same old lame argument: 'let's tax the evil rich'. Okay, never mind that these 'evil rich' are the ones that invest back into the communities in which they live, create jobs in the businesses they own and otherwise contribute greatly - despite what you think - to our capitalist, constitutional democracy. I'm really unclear on this whole distaste, bordering on hatred, of the 'rich' by the left. We are a capitalist society - correct? Hasn't the idea always been that in this country you can make something of yourself and become financially successful? Why is that a crime, or why does that constitute 'evil' in your minds? You think they don't pay taxes?? Yes, indeed they do. For business reasons I saw the financial papers of a local man who runs a business. He's rich - yes; he owns a boat, an small plane and a nice house. He pays about 20 times more in taxes per year just on the boat than I do on my entire income (and I'm a common shmo who has no tax accountant and pays the full of what I'm supposed to).

The point is, the rich already pay what is legally their share. And on top of that, whether they do it just for PR and show or not, most corporations do give substantial amounts to charities or sponsor various events and things that help those less fortunate. More than your liberal Hollywood elite do - oh yes, they might protest loudly, but how much of their purse do they put up for grabs? And do they not have tax accountants to keep them from paying the max? Why I'll bet all rich liberals do.

And then even outside the conservative vs. liberal arguments there is the matter of simple human responsibility. Yes, I'll give you that there are a substantial amount of people who don't have insurance because they can't afford it. But there is a huge number of the uninsured that are so because of their own inaction and/or inabilities. The unwed mothers with five kids, or the couples with five kids and no means to support them; the people who suffer from addictions that keep them from working; those that simply don't want to work; the likely hundreds of thousands who are on social security benefits for no real reason; people like my liberal brother who choose a job that he 'enjoys more' but doesn't pay enough to pay for regular premiums for health care coverage. My point is that there is a degree of human responsibility here. You paint and unfair and untrue picture of hard-hearted, uncaring conservatives who don't mind seeing a child suffer because they cannot get medical treatment. But you don't like to dissect the root problem of why that parent doesn't have normal job that might give the child health coverage. And it comes down to why should those that can provide for themselves pay for those who cannot or will not? In some cases we most definitely should. But there are too many cases where we should not, and there seems to be no dichotomy for this in the liberal world.

It's a difficult problem, and goes back to my original statement that life is tough. It's not a question of not feeling for the victims (children and those with real problems) but a disgust for the abusers that cause the situation. Where does it stop? What motivates people for life if those that have are forced to provide for them, no matter their life choices?

Just as you don't get this mindset, I don't get your idea that just because I earn a living (and I might hate every minute of my job, but I get up and do it every day anyway, and make tough choices about the number of children I have, what we can afford, what we cannot do, etc) I should be ready, willing and able to give my money away to everyone else who refuses to tackle the same responsibilities and challenges that I do. What PT Barnum said about a fool and his money should not be forced through taxes.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

nishikat: Good point and if it continues I look forward to medicaid expanding and expanding (in this case it doesn't matter if ObamaCare went through or not).

Why would you look forward to medicaid expanding and expanding?

Because the US government wants to set up facilities specifically for medicaid recipients.

Why have separate facilities for medicaid recipients if everyone is to be treated equally when it comes to healthcare?

And since they will work well on a global standard it will just end up being medicare for all.

You do know the difference between medicaid and medicare.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You do know the difference between medicaid and medicare.

yes

Why would you look forward to medicaid expanding and expanding?

Doesn't matter what I look forward to or not. Medicaid is expanding whether we like it or not.

Why have separate facilities for medicaid recipients if everyone is to be treated equally when it comes to healthcare?

This is not my idea and it looks like it's actually going to happen in a slow transition. I was listening to an interview of a US Govt official and they said for the long term the US govt. will implement special facilities for medicaid recipients because there is no way the number of 60M will go down. In fact it seems it will go up even with ObamaCare. What is the number 60M going to be 10...20 years from now? 70...80....100 million? The only way to deal with those high numbers is to create a public medical delivery system and hire doctors to work there because many doctors in private practice don't like the medicaid payment system. That is what I understood from this interview. How else can they do it? If you don't think this is a good solution then what solution would you propose with 60M and counting?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sailwind,

It will take time to implement before the cost goes down from what I can gather. There is a hell of a lot of information out there on the subject. Romney's position is as ubiquitous as one would expect from the man.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And Madverts,

Define...Success.

It’s also the fact that Massachusetts still has the highest health costs in the country — even after the reforms Romney signed into law as governor.

The state still has the record the highest individual premiums in the country. The average Massachusetts resident trying to find insurance in the individual market faced monthly premiums of $437 per person last year, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Those with employer coverage didn’t fare much better. The average family premium was $14,606 — $700 more than the national average — and the 10th-highest premium in the country, according to Kaiser.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"the 10th-highest premium in the country"

Is that out of 50 states?

" The average Massachusetts resident trying to find insurance in the individual market faced monthly premiums of $437 per person last year"

If you say so. I doubt your figure for one person, but if that's the case, it would be cheaper insuring a new Ferrari each month, or even the equivalent monthly instalments on an old one. The regulation and consumer protection you demand in that case should be on pulling the insurance companies over the coals for excessive premiums, not denying Americans life-saving healthcare that even us woeful Europeans provide.

It is a question of money with you, stand by that conviction. If the topic was a European retirement fund (official and legal Ponzi Scheme's), I'd be right beside ya.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts: If you say so. I doubt your figure for one person, but if that's the case, it would be cheaper insuring a new Ferrari each month, or even the equivalent monthly instalments on an old one.

Sailwind is correct in that depending on the person choice of health insurance plan starting from $306.29 to $424.33. This was an estimate so it is a little bit off from sailwind. It depends where one live, gender, and age.

If you don't believe it, here is the website https://bluecrossma.inshealth.com/ehi/Census.fs?mcei.html.screen=SelectTopMenu&mcei.html.nextscreen=NA&type=IFP&mcei.app.terminalID=__tid__7_

The health insurance companies are not running a charity.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Probably the biggest step for the humanity after the Armstrong's one. Congratulations USA!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Sailwind

I'm still trying to understand how Bush is even somehow relevant to this Supreme Court declaring Obama's signature legislation is Constitutional.

Well, because he appointed another Liberal who was supposed to be a Conservative to the Supreme Court. Roberts is an activist judge. He did not call balls and strikes on ObamaCare. He re-wrote the language of the law to state that the mandate to coerce compliance with the law is a tax when the law and Obama specifically and repeatedly stated otherwise. Even it was defined as a tax in the law and Obama stated it was a tax, it is a rude awakening for me to know that now the government can tax you for not buying a private product that it wants you to buy. In the end, what Roberts did is even worse then just allowing a doom to fail government takeover of nearly 20% of the American economy. Now the government can make people do anything; and if they don't they will be punished through taxation until they relent and comply. Worse still, the law doesn't even have to say it's a tax and courts will be able to interpret it as such because of the precedent Roberts has set.

What Roberts did has implications far beyond health care. It has essentially given government the mechanism to confiscate the wealth of individuals for any reason without recourse. What made America unique in the world is no longer true. America is no longer a truly free country. All it takes now is a tyranny of the majority. The US Constitution is now essentially dead.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

It will take time to implement before the cost goes down from what I can gather.

Costs will never go down. Government cannot run anything efficiently. That goes for the hings that government is supposed to be in charge of (see postal system and military). The costs will never go down. But that really wasn't the point of ObamaCare. The point was to get government control of health care no matter what the cost.

Just take a look at the major entitlements in the US (and likely most other industrialized countries). Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security in the US are all on a path to insolvency. Adding another entitlement will make paying for these hugely inefficient social programs much more difficult as there will be more government agencies going after the same pot of money. Just raising taxes will not do the trick because without a healthy and growing private sector entitlements cannot be paid for. Government doesn't make a profit that can be taxed. It is a consumer of taxes. The jobs that government makes are paid for by money from profit making businesses. It relies on capitalism in order to exist. Without capitalism, you have Cuba, North Korea, and the China of 20~30 years ago. If there are no profitable businesses, there is no tax money. If there is no tax money, government runs on debt. When that goes on long enough, government breaks down and ceases to function. That is apparently the goal of the Liberals in the US Congress.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Wolfpack: you should open a little bit your horizon. There are many countries with good medicare and healthy economies: Denmark, Germany, Switzerland, ... The rationale behind it - like another poster said - is a healthy population is an asset for a healthy economy. In other words: an investment with above x% ROI (your main focus being money, money and money, you should understand this one).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The conservatives should just announce that while they appreciate the ruling Roberts spoke of, it has no bearing on the actual law sent to him, and therefore will be ignored. No one has to obey a law that originates in the Supreme Court. No healthcare tax emanated from the house, to the contrary, there are specific denials from the sponsors of the bill that it definitely was not a tax. The Supreme Court does not write legislation. John Roberts disgraced himself by trying to act as an elected official, writing laws. He ruled on a bill that does not exist, and it should be ignored in its entirety. This is why it's so great to be a Supreme Court justice.Lifetime employment and your decisions are your own.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Happy Independence Day, Americans!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Open Minded:

Wolfpack: you should open a little bit your horizon. There are many countries with good medicare and healthy economies: Denmark, Germany, Switzerland, ... The rationale behind it - like another poster said - is a healthy population is an asset for a healthy economy.

I never said that I don't want people to be healthy. I just don't agree that the government is the best way to achieve a sustainable health care system that will not fall apart within 50 years. You should think more long term to the fate that awaits future generations before espousing huge entitlement programs that are passed on for future generations to pay for. You want to live great now and let someone else worry about it later on. That's irresponsible.

I do have a concern about money - but I am apparently one of very few people that actually believe that people and countries should live within their means. Doesn't anyone worry about when the bill comes due? I do. What has been going on in Europe right now is really scary. I can see America heading down the same path. Instead of looking at the terrible debt, credit, unemployment, and economic problems in Europe and proceeding with caution, the US is ignoring the mistakes of Europe and plowing ahead as if the chaos and turmoil there is but a fairy tale. It's real. Real people are suffering because of their dependency on public entitlements and the governments inability to sustain them.

I've been trying to get a good read on the particular economic situation in various countries in Europe as compared to the US, and I've found it difficult to pin down the numbers very well. However, according to the left of center Washington Post this year, of the top ten countries in the worst debt shape, 8 are European (the other two being Japan and the US).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/10-countries-with-the-most-massive-debt/2012/02/24/gIQAnPwOgR_gallery.html#photo=10

You list Germany as being good with it's entitlements but I think you must not know that Germany has the 9th worst debt to GDP ration in the world at around 80%. That's not good for a healthy and thriving economy. I don't know much about Denmark and Switzerland but they make for a poor comparison as they are much less culturally and ethnically diverse than the US and because there are bigger populations in many American states then in both of these countries combined.

The rationale behind it - like another poster said - is a healthy population is an asset for a healthy economy. In other words: an investment with above x% ROI (your main focus being money, money and money, you should understand this one).

I would agree that a healthy population is an asset to an economy. But must I state the obvious that a crippling national debt and the attendant social and political dislocation in exchange for a healthy population is not a good ROI at all. It would be great to be healthy and ready to work, but in Spain the unemployment rate for young people is over 50%. By all means, have a heart and be generous to your fellow citizens; but financial stability is an absolute necessity that once lost means pain and a declining standard of living for everyone.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Happy Independence Day, Americans!

President Obama and Chief Justice Roberts have just proclaimed the 4th of July to now be called 'Dependence Day' in celebration of their recent legislative achievement in the Supreme Court last week.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Worth remembering the UK spends a smaller % of its GDP on healthcare and still manages to cover everyone free at point of entry. I dont believe in a great many socialist ideas, but Universal Healthcare provided by the state is one of the ones I do.

I can chose any Dr, any city, any country of the UK and not only will they serve me free they will have my entire medical history on the NHS system.

In Japan I sign up to a new Dr every few months -cuz I need a Dr in the area for something or another- and they know nothing of my medical history, and I have to do my best to remember. Well its not hard to be honest, they ask hardly anything about it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Also worth pointing out, Governments run things far more efiiciently than any Private corporation does. Look at Thatchers privitisations, the cost has increased and the quality has fallen, relative to cost.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Also worth pointing out, Governments run things far more efiiciently than any Private corporation does. Look at Thatchers privitisations, the cost has increased and the quality has fallen, relative to cost.

Wow, you must be a full fledged member of the Karl Marx BS Club. If you really believe that government is capable of running anything more efficiently than virtually any other type of entity when all of the incentives work to thwart the attainment of efficiencies, I bet I can get you to believe that Europe doesn't really have a sovereign debt crisis caused by the excesses of government spending.

Excessive Socialism is a time limited proposition. It is built for the here and now and not for the long run. Greece's time has ran out. Next up... Spain? Italy? America?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@ tigermothII:

Great post.

First of all, I live in upstate NY - I think people misconstrue what constitutes 'upstate' NY because in reality it is the Adirondack region and from Albany up.

I always thought "upstate" was north of The Bronx... ;^)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ed rendell , governor til last year of the vital swing state of pennsylvania, is a traditional dem, and more of the clinton wing. he is calling obamacare the albatross around the party's neck.

he is not being called 'racist' - - for now.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

thomas michael lewis:

Also worth pointing out, Governments run things far more efiiciently than any Private corporation does.

yeah. going to the hospital under obamacare will mean the best of a visit to the dmv and the post office.

that hat suits you.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Denmark and Switzerland but they make for a poor comparison as they are much less culturally and ethnically diverse than the US and because there are bigger populations in many American states then in both of these countries combined.

How many languages do they speak in Switzerland?

China is a very big country and they plan to implement universal healthcare.

Sorry, I understand you believe everyone will end up living in tents and die form the next case of the common cold. OK, fine. I'm just wondering how you plan on getting on with your life until the inevitable happens.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

China is a very big country and they plan to implement universal healthcare.

mao tse tung made it part of his rule. just search "barefoot doctors."

0 ( +1 / -1 )

So how do you plan on getting on with your life since the entire political system has turned its back on you? There is no way you can win and both parties want to take this to the point of no return. I'd say deal with it like an amputated limb...once it's gone....

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

So how do you plan on getting on with your life since the entire political system has turned its back on you?

there are states that are planning on resisting the obama regime in washington. maybe you should broaden your horizons a bit...

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Even if they beat ObamaCare will they be able to decrease the number of medicaid recipients?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@nishikat:

How many languages do they speak in Switzerland?

How many languages are spoken in America?

Answer: All of them.

Switzerland is a backwater when it comes to the number of different cultures and languages you can find spoken in various places around America. You can find a community in America for nearly every cultural, ethnic or language group in the world. The only other country that comes close is England.

I'm not saying Switzerland isn't diverse. But it's population is only 8 million. My home state alone has a higher population than that. In fact, New York City has a higher population than the entire nation of Switzerland.

It's much easier for a government to garner cooperation among the people of a relatively small country with only a few major cultural groups who have all been assimilated under a centrally directed education system. The smaller the country and the more ethnically and culturally homogenous the people the easier it is to implement and maintain socialist systems such as ObamaCare. However, even in such cases more often not, socialism will eventually fail anyway. For good examples of that, see Cuba and North Korea.

Countries that move away from socialism have a better chance to be more prosperous relative to when they were more socialist or otherwise ruled by an authoritarian type of government, see South Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan, China. That isn't to say that all of these countries had become completely non-socialist. But as a general rule, the more Socialist a nation becomes, the less prosperous it will be over time. Inversely, the more free and capitalist a nations is, the more likely they will become prosperous and the more likely they will be able tor recover quickly from a economic shock. When countries focus their entitlements on the truly needy such as the poor, disabled, and the old for example, a country will be more likely to create a sustainable governmental structure.

ObamaCare is probably the last straw for America. On top of the already failing and unsustainable Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid entitlement programs, this health care program will suck the life out of America's economy and doom the nation to the zombie state status that Japan currently faces.

Yeah, Happy Fourth of July - you are now the governments slave.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Worth remembering the UK spends a smaller % of its GDP on healthcare and still manages to cover everyone free at point of entry. I dont believe in a great many socialist ideas, but Universal Healthcare provided by the state is one of the ones I do.

But this is one of the problems why Europe is going broke. It is a huge entitlement culture, not to mention long vacations, long, long lunches, Europe is hemorrhaging at the seams and people seem to forget that the US has over 300+ million people. Look at Greece, that should wake you up seeing that mess the people are going through and I am sure the same will happen in the US if people can't work. But Obama wants to follow the European model which will never work in the US and is already crumbling in Europe. There is no way on God's green earth that we can afford it, think about it, over 8% unemployment, recession and then we have to pay for this? We don't even know what's in it, the manuel is thicker than the bible. There are people that can't put there food on the table and the main thing that Obama and the liberals want to focus on a put a top priority on is Immigration and Healthcare.....jobs, that can wait. If I get evicted, I won't have the money to pay for Obamacare, which then I will have to pay the penalty, but I can't, there aren't any jobs. This is so over the top crazy, the only thing that liberals care about is that the thing is passed, how it'll get funded, worry about that later.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

So how do you plan on getting on with your life since the entire political system has turned its back on you? There is no way you can win and both parties want to take this to the point of no return. I'd say deal with it like an amputated limb...once it's gone....

No. This war is a long way from over. Not all American's are willing to give up their freedoms that easily. Even if Obama can win reelection in the Fall or Democrats can retain the Senate, I can guarantee you that those that believe in America will continue to oppose abomination that is ObamaCare and will continue to fight against it. They will also continue to fight to reform Social Security and the other huge and unsustainable social welfare policies that saddling America's future with debt.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

"Yeah, Happy Fourth of July - you are now the governments slave."

You were, and always have been.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

"But this is one of the problems why Europe is going broke. It is a huge entitlement culture,"

It is the abuse of the system that is choking us Euro's off. And political correctness.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

ObamaCare is probably the last straw for America.

Again, genetically you and State Broken People have a predisposition where you fear "socialism" and no one can do anything about it, including yourselves. It's like being gay, bald, schizophrenic where no one can change it. But I can tell you that you need to face that fact that things are not going your way and you have no control over it. The last bit of home are the states that are resisting (but most are not, it seems).

Countries that move away from socialism have a better chance to be more prosperous relative to when they were more socialist or otherwise ruled by an authoritarian type of government, see South Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan, China.

You are contradicting yourself. China wants to start universal healthcare. Taiwan has it. S. Korea has a mandate. I don't know about Vietnam but can you guess what they will do when they get richer? But these countries are getting richer and they have universal care or they want to do it. If these countries are moving way from "socialism" then why do they want universal healthcare? I don't get what you are saying.

More about Taiwan: As you know Taiwan has a famous company that builds the world's iPhones. When they got rich the leaders decided to implement a universal health system. They looked at how other countries did it and decided NOT to do it like in the US. But they assemble some damn good electronics, don't they? I also like their cheap Acer and Asus laptops.

zombie state status that Japan currently faces.

What do you mean by this?

Is the USA going to be like North Korea?

How exactly does having different cultures affect the cost of healthcare?

You think anything outside the USA is "socialism"?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

You were, and always have been.

That is a good point. But at least before I was a house slave. I had the 'opportunity' to get some freedoms that were available in the Masters big house. Now I am a field slave - a cog in big governments plantation - just waiting around for my next butt whipping.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

nishikat:

Again, genetically you and State Broken People have a predisposition where you fear "socialism" and no one can do anything about it,

It's not genetics, it's a understanding of history that makes me the way I am. You wish for the opposite of your fear of a free society in which you would be personally responsible for yourself and the consequences of your actions. You have no confidence that you can succeed in life so you turn to the government to ensure you get your "fair share" of what others have earned. You willingly give up your own choices to the government because you are unmotivated to look out for your own interests and be personally responsible for yourself, your family, and those in your community less fortunate than yourself.

But I can tell you that you need to face that fact that things are not going your way and you have no control over it. The last bit of home are the states that are resisting (but most are not, it seems).

It is very true that things are not going the way it should - right now. But I do have some control over the situation and my own future. First, I will not acquiesce to President Obama's claim on my personal freedoms. I will resist him and others that think the way you do - that politicians and bureaucrats in a far off capital know what is better for me and my family than I do. I will not give up on my countries founding principles which are now being undermined and destroyed by power hungry control freaks. I will not be a docile citizen that willingly gives up the legacy of the nations Founders to Obama's collectivist ideology that has been proven time and again a fraud, corrupt, and unsustainable.

If these countries are moving way from "socialism" then why do they want universal healthcare? I don't get what you are saying.

Countries that seek to better the lives of their citizens have moved away from Socialism in order to achieve it. Collectivism did horrible damage to the Chinese economy and starved millions during the 1960's. As a result, they began to allow more private enterprise and the nation began to flourish. Although the still have no political freedoms they do have a bit more economic freedom then in the past. What more proof do you need that Socialism is a failure when the USSR collapsed, Cuba and North Korea are basket cases, and China is the fastest growing nation in the world due to their embrace of Capitalism? China does have a good bit of the collectivist mentality that will prevent them from achieving what America has prior to it's own decline into statism. Doesn't China already have national health care?

What do you mean by this?

I mean that the US will not be able to develop and grow as it has in the past. It will have very low growth rates as it labors under huge government debt of escalating taxes as are the Japanese. No, I don't think the US will end of like North Korea - at least I could never in my worst nightmares imagine it getting that bad in America.

How exactly does having different cultures affect the cost of healthcare?

I brought up the fact that America is different culturally and ethnically than the several countries that you cited as good examples of collectivist economies. It is easier for a relatively homogenous society or culture to sustain the discipline required for a government based on collectivism to succeed. America is politically polarized and ethnically and culturally more diverse than just about any other nation in the world. We have a tradition of individualism despite the recent turn towards Socialism that is deeply ingrained among many people. Health care will be very wasteful and people will take advantage and cheat the system because it will be rife with fraud and avenues for abuse just as are the two other major health care systems in America - Medicaid and Medicare. These health care systems are unsustainable. The government actuaries have already told us that Medicare will go bankrupt in 2024 (some say 2016 if you do not double count funds). Also, Social Security will be unable to fulfill it's obligations in 2034.

You may not like to focus on economics, but as the Soviet Union will attest, you ignore economics at your own peril.

You think anything outside the USA is "socialism"?

No. But nearly all of Europe's current problems can be traced back to it's unsustainable social policies and it's incentive killing political ideology.

I see this as a moral issue. President Obama (and John Roberts) are lurching America towards ever greater degree's of socialism. This has and will continue to result in ever higher levels of debt, higher unemployment, slower economic growth, and fewer opportunities for everyone. This is especially damaging to today's current young people who cannot find a job and for future generations that will have all of these problems and a massive debt that they will be unable to escape. All for the current generations desire to have everything given to them for "free". Well, nothing is free - at least our children and grandchildren will learn that lesson.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@bass4funk:

This is so over the top crazy, the only thing that liberals care about is that the thing is passed, how it'll get funded, worry about that later.

They are focused only on the utopia that they believe is possible via collectivism. They always seem to forget that nothing is for free. Every time collectivism fails they always come up with some excuse for why it failed this time and come up with some fantastic rationale for why next time it will be different. They keep beating their heads up against that same brick wall expecting a different outcome every time.

It is always a terrible thing when someone fails. It is a tragedy when governments cannot learn from the mistakes of others (ie. Greece, Spain, Italy, Ireland, and all past failed socialist governments) and charges headlong into sure disaster.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Nishikat: Some advice; These discussions are, ultimately, exercises in futility. There's no sensible, reasoned dialog to be had about health care policy with some posters. It's always pure partisanship that dominate these discussions... useless, nonsensical hyperbole about "liberals", messiahs, "lurches toward socialism", dire predictions of economic ruin, and the last gasp of democracy in America.

These are entrenched positions that admit no compromise. "You're for it so we're against". "We used to be for it. But now that you're for it too, we're agin". Time and again the same story. For these posters this is all about winning the next election and erasing the embarrassment of losing the last one... nothing at all to do with fighting for American freedoms, or discussing better health care and for all Americans.

Bottom line is that PPACA is constitutional. It's a step forward. It maybe not a perfect one but it is a first one and one that can be built upon. Republicans have nothing but a step back to offer - repeal and replace (with what? tort reform? yeah). Let 'em inveigh ... bypass and haul qss!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@Wolfpack

Still preaching dollars and nonsense I see. Every person you look at is a dollar sign or has a currency value of some sort. What's it like being so superior to every one else? How does it feel to belittle someone who has been taken advantage of by so many rich companies and denied even the right to go to the hospital?

What do you say to these people? Tell me?

Wolfie the Republican: It's your fault!!! Be more confident and stop frickin coughing while I'm talking to you? Stand up while I'm talking to you, I don't care if you have a broken leg.

Ask not what you country can do for you but what you can do for your country? You want health insurance? Go out and work for it, be a man. What's your excuse? Pre-existing condition!!!

Unbelievable your way of thinking. It's a cold-hearted approach that is far too calculative for my tastes. Your rhetoric invokes nausea. Makes people want to vomit. You care not for your fellow man.

If I thought you were a gentlemen of honor I'd challenge you to single volley at 50 yards then you could join the masses that have pre-existing conditions. The strips of color on the floor are not directional pathways but rather bureaucracy of private health insurance companies based on your plan.

Your argument does not sit well with many as you are inhumane and bereft of fundamental ethics and morals for your fellow man. May you reap what you sow, calculative Republican.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Exactly. How can I debate with someone who thinks America will become like North Korea or the Soviet Union just because of healthcare. Universal healthcare didn't do that to North Korea but look what a difference a health mandate did for the south.

Done deal that's all in both political parties. Everyone has to live with it.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Wolfpack either lives in Japan, a service man, or both.

Either way, he gets socialized medicine.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Wow! I forced myself to read everyone's post's, What an issue! I see so many point's to think about! Healthy people need health insurance, unhealthy people can't live without health insurance, and the whole thing seem's to be falling in a big sink hole with what's about to happen with "Obama Care". However, I pay alot more now, and get alot less, than I did before "Obama Care". I don't like the way this is going...

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare: What It Means, What Happens Next by Daniel Fisher @ http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2012/06/28/supreme-court-upholds-healthcare-law-what-it-means/

Government spending will increase: How much, nobody knows. But the Congressional Budget Office’s estimates of lower spending are premised upon unrealistic provisions of the law, such as the 27% cut in physician Medicare payments next year that Congress will likely override, as it has always done. The CBO estimates that one way or another healthcare spending will rise from a current 17% of GDP to 25% of GDP by 2037. That figure will probably be much higher if Obama’s health plan survives the election.

State Medicaid costs will soar: The law requires states to cover everyone to 133% of the federal poverty level, transforming a plan for the desperately poor and disabled into a health plan for tens of millions of working families. The feds will cover all costs of the expansion until 2017, but then the states must begin picking up an increasing share of the bill. Meanwhile the states complained in their lawsuit challenging the act that they must increase spending on doctors and facilities now to cope with all the new patients.

Taxes will go up: A Medicare surtax of 0.9% on wages over $200,000 ($250,000 for families) kicks in in January, plus a 3.8% tax on “unearned income” for the wealthy. (See “Will The Obamacare Tax Kill Stocks?“) Big investors will switch away from dividend-paying stocks toward growth stocks and tax-free bonds.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@NetNinja:

Your argument does not sit well with many as you are inhumane and bereft of fundamental ethics and morals for your fellow man. May you reap what you sow, calculative Republican.

First off, I am not a Republican. I have stated that several times on this thread and many times on these forums.

There never seems to be a shortage of people with the belief that they know what is best for others. You feel so confident in your self righteousness that you can so easily judge others to be immoral. The fact that many people firmly believe that the idea of government run health care is immoral and historically proven to lead to greater suffering in the long run is too difficult a concept for some to grasp. It is an arrogant mindset that is both condescending and ill informed.

It is not immoral for me to oppose government run health care. You don't believe I care about the lives of people today. I don't believe you care about the lives of people today, tomorrow, and 50 years from now. It must be wonderful to believe that life choices have no consequences. That you can use up the wealth of the present and the future and bear no responsibility for it's mismanagement. Whether you are European or American, the welfare state is crippling your nations future prospects. That means a lower standard of living for future generations and less wealth to help the truly needy. It means huge debts that will severely constrict the ability to provide for health care in the future. It also means more elderly living in poverty as the retirement system will only be able to deliver but a fraction of what was intended.

Mortgaging the future is an immoral and cruel legacy to leave our children and grandchildren. For America, ObamaCare is doomed to fail and will crowd out money that could otherwise be used for other entitlements such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid - programs that are on the path to insolvency and which Liberals refuse to reform. These programs also endanger the ability of government to govern and perform the basic tasks of government. There is a good example of this right now in Europe if you are willing to open your eyes to what our future will bring if we continue down this path.

You are like a child that wants to spend all of his allowance at the candy store only to end up broke and with a stomach ache. The economic mismanagement of today will not just disappear or fix itself. There is no free lunch. People in the heavily indebted Western nations (and Japan) need to wise up to the bleak future they are spending themselves into. It is not immoral or unethical to expect a people to live within their means. It is wise and forward thinking.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@Wolfpack

The hour is later than you think. Our coffers were depleted by Mr. George Dubya Bush and his grandstanding opportunity known as the Iraq war. That Republican bankrupted the American Government: Mission Accomplished!

Do not begin to criticize my President. It is on his watch that he has made a definitive measure of recovery.

Healthcare is there to promote longevity and sustainability. That those with experience can live long enough to bear fruit. There is no better investment in this world than life itself. You are wrong when you say I don't think about the future. In your mind, I'm a single guy. You are wrong.

As far as NOT performing the basic tasks of government, there's no better example than a Republican. You speak of basic tasks, it was such a basic task to send the nation's guard to help the people of Hurricane Katrina, but the Republicans did NOT. It was Republicans who did NOT perform the basic task of defending American soil that lead to 9/11. They had intel and did NOT act.

No sir, we will not turn back the clock and go back to Republican rule. Republican incompetence was America's downfall. No more cocaine damaged, alcoholic Republicans. Now you wish to elect a rich Mormon that doesn't pay his fair share of taxes. Have no illusion people, they will bottom feed of the nation and America will be for sale.

America has a duty and responsibility to pay off it's debt but it can only do that with sustainable human resources. These people require BASIC essentials such as health care. They cannot dedicate their free time to Insurance company bureaucracy when they need to sit and do homework with their children, families together.

@Wolfpack We agree to disagree. Yes, you have posted quite a few times on this thread and I applaud you for that. However, this is the situation, Obamacare (for lack of a better word) is here. It has passed. Every time there is a vote, I will vote against you. I cannot sit idly by while you seek to take away from your neighbor. 2 children from different families suffering from chicken pox but one child receives better treatment because of their insurance. The other due to a clause in his insurance plan the company prevents him receiving proper medical attention.

Wolfpack You are going to have to accept this. Now if you could somehow devote some of that energy you have to some ideas that make the system now in place better then you should do so. Divert funds, cancel F35 military spending. Stop defending Japan, let them suffer the burden of maintaining a military while keeping healthcare.

We have the money. There's plenty of it. It just the Republicans put the money into the private sector where it was left unchecked.

You are going to adapt to this new Economy because it's for your own good. America's government can no longer sit by and watch the private sector muck the nation up with the permission of Republicans.

I do have some good news though. Now that you can definitely get Health Insurance, you can go to a hospital right now and have your head examined. It's not about the money. It's about life and community. Go now and have that bump on your head looked at. Might be a concussion.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

You have no confidence that you can succeed in life so you turn to the government to ensure you get your "fair share" of what others have earned.

I know that you think that all countries outside America are worthless socialistic entities and anyone who accepts government anything are below the status of being a parasite. And you also think the government should be 100% OUT of healthcare and it should be up to private practice and the free market to dictate the rules of healthcare, including letting people die who cannot pay. OK, fine. I respect what you say. It makes financial sense just to let the sick people who don't have the financial means suffer their own consequences for not getting health insurance. But can a world like that even exist? It just doesn't sound that nice. Don't you think people should be treated a little better even if they have no money?

I would prefer that both Democrats and Republicans learn from the Founders

One of the founding fathers promoted health insurance mandates

0 ( +0 / -0 )

NetNinja:

The hour is later than you think. Our coffers were depleted by Mr. George Dubya Bush and his grandstanding opportunity known as the Iraq war. That Republican bankrupted the American Government: Mission Accomplished!

I'm not a huge fan of Bush's spending either but what took W eight years to accomplish, Barry did in a little over three. So the debt went from a little over $10 trillion to more than $15 trillion - a fifty percent increase in the blink of an eye. This spending has got to stop or the government will collapse. ObamaCare all but assures that the end for America is near.

Do not begin to criticize my President. It is on his watch that he has made a definitive measure of recovery.

Unfortunately, he is our president and he is taking us all down with him. Do you call 8.2% unemployment a recovery? No one else would. When the Chosen One pushed through his huge non-stiumulating stimulus package said the unemployment rate would be 5.6% by now. Guess what? He lied again.

I cannot sit idly by while you seek to take away from your neighbor. 2 children from different families suffering from chicken pox but one child receives better treatment because of their insurance.

I don't think anyone need sit idly by while their neighbor suffers. However, it should be the local community that helps their neighbor, not someone on the other side of the country that doesn't even know the kid. Liberals have one solution for everything - another huge government program. The bureaucrats don't care, but their neighbors do. It's immoral to bankrupt the country on a hug wasteful government program that will leave all of our children impoverished and with no hope for the future (ask a young person in Greece or Spain if they like their future prospects).

Wolfpack You are going to have to accept this. Now if you could somehow devote some of that energy you have to some ideas that make the system now in place better then you should do so.

I will never accept America as a retread of the same type of European socialist state. It's failing over there and it will fail here - in fact, it already is failing.

We have the money. There's plenty of it. It just the Republicans put the money into the private sector where it was left unchecked.

Plenty of money? America is more than $15 trillion in debt and has upwards of $75 trillion in future unfunded obligations due to existing unsustainable retirement and medical programs for the poor and elderly. It's funny how you see so many hugely rich Liberals who somehow seem to know how to work the capitalist system and can balance their checkbook but when it comes to the government, they think that the people are an unending source of wealth ripe for the taking.

You are going to adapt to this new Economy because it's for your own good. America's government can no longer sit by and watch the private sector muck the nation up with the permission of Republicans.

I guess you haven't noticed how cozy the Democrats are with Wall Street. One of Obama's biggest campaign bundler's is a Bain Capital executive. Obama is closely involved in his own crony capitalism. It's sad, but both parties are partisan in their feeding off the public trough and how easily they are purchased by corporations. Obama has done nothing to stop corporate welfare. In fact, ObamaCare is corporate welfare for the insurance companies that he bought off to get it passed in Congress. You know it don't you?

It's not about the money.

Really? Tell that to the Soviet Union. Oh wait, you can't - they don't exist anymore... Learn from the mistakes in history or be doomed to repeat them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@nishikat:

I know that you think that all countries outside America are worthless socialistic entities and anyone who accepts government anything are below the status of being a parasite.

No I don't... but I guess you are going to believe what you want.

And you also think the government should be 100% OUT of healthcare and it should be up to private practice and the free market to dictate the rules of healthcare, including letting people die who cannot pay. OK, fine.

Wrong again. I have no problem providing assistance to those people that are disabled, too young, or too old to care for themselves. I support helping people get back on their feet. I just don't believe in making welfare a way of life as we have done for the past half century in America. People that are at least basically healthy and physically and mentally able should not be looking to the government for help. They should be looking inside themselves, to their church or civic group, their family and friends if they can. The Federal government is the last resort. I don't care if Massachusettes has a government run health care system. Because then I could move to another state that is more to my liking. With ObamaCare, I have no place to move to - I have no choices left. That what the American Founders understood that Liberals do not. Not everything thinks the way you do and you can't make them believe what you believe. If you try, you will just get more push back. Well, to me it's time for major push back. I want my country back.

Again, if a city or town, or even a state decide that they want to become the next Cuba, that's the peoples choice. However, when 51% of the people decide to turn the entire country into a Commune, that's where I have a problem. You don't respect other peoples right to make free choices.

It makes financial sense just to let the sick people who don't have the financial means suffer their own consequences for not getting health insurance. But can a world like that even exist? It just doesn't sound that nice. Don't you think people should be treated a little better even if they have no money?

That world existed for all of human history until capitalism and the industrial revolution created the wealth that made it possible for nations to dabble in utopian socialist experiments. They all eventually fail because they stifle the human spirit and because they imprison people into working for the government and not for their own ambitions.

How about you and the other 50% of the nation start a national health care program for your members. You can call it the Democrat party national health care system. You and all of the others that want to join can join and pool your resources. You can make your own rules and I suspect you will get many people to join you. Just do not take away all choices from everyone. It' just wrong.

I just seen the world differently than you do. I will not change. I don't care if you hate for it or not. Just let me pursue my own goals and life. I do not need to be enlisted in what will surely be a massive failure in the not too distant future.

One of the founding fathers promoted health insurance mandates

Really? Which one? I would like to read more about that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You were saying Obama should be in jail? Because of fraud?

all but assures that the end for America is near.

So we are going to be like North Korea someday. OK.

leave all of our children impoverished

So they will be starving like the ones in North Korea and America's children will start eating tree bark out of desperation - like in North Korea.

I have no problem providing assistance to those people that are disabled

OK fine, then what happens if a person who has enough income to get health ins. but doesn't get it then needs half a million dollars worth of special cancer treatment. He had his chance to get what he needed for his own financial protection but he blew it so he (who was healthy and able enough to take care of his problems in the first place) should die rather than have the government support him. half a million dollars. That can buy one Tomahawk missile and if that missile hits an Al Qaeda that could save endless lives instead of that irresponsible loser who didn't have the sense to get his own health coverage while he could.

With ObamaCare, I have no place to move to - I have no choices left

What are you going to do then?

I want my country back.

How are you going to do this?

That world existed for all of human history until capitalism and the industrial revolution created the wealth that made it possible for nations to dabble in utopian socialist experiments.

It sounds like what you were saying before. Just screw the sick people. I do respect your opinion about this. It does make financial sense. Most people don't get sick anyway and if we just focus on the healthy productive ones instead of the sick ones where we can just put them out like garbage then America can kick butt like no other country.

Really? Which one? I would like to read more about that.

President Adams

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So we are going to be like North Korea someday. OK.

No. I am talking about the end of what made America unique in the world. The respect for individual liberty and freedom. That was what made America special and it is what President Obama expressly rejects. America will soon no longer be America - as it was originally conceived. We will return to the corrupt a land from which the King lays claim to all wealth and he alone decides who shall prosper. Kind of like Solyndra - see my point?

So they will be starving like the ones in North Korea and America's children will start eating tree bark out of desperation - like in North Korea.

Ahhhh no. Obama is a collectivist to be sure, but even he isn't that crazy.... is he???

...should die rather than have the government support him.

Of course not. I think you should pick up the tab. :-) What? You don't want to pay his bill for him... ???? That's pretty cold-hearted. Have you no care for the down trodden, poor and sick. Pay the mans million dollar bill already!

What are you going to do then?

Oppose socialized medicine. It will eventually fail. But in the mean time, I can help to undermine it to hasten it's demise.

How are you going to do this?

I will be there to pick up the pieces when America goes bankrupt. And in the midst of the social chaos, help to return America to it's ideals.

It does make financial sense. Most people don't get sick anyway and if we just focus on the healthy productive ones instead of the sick ones where we can just put them out like garbage then America can kick butt like no other country.

But actually you are describing ObamaCare. Those too old to deserve a knee replacement or a new heart will be told that they will be kicked to the curb to live a substandard life and to die. As much as you wish it were not so, even ObamaCare cannot escape the fact that health care costs money. So instead of having individuals make decisions for themselves about their own health care, the government will decide for them. So this old guy will not get the treatment that might improve his life so that a younger person is given care that the government decides is more cost effective. Cold, calculated, and inhumane.... but cost-effective and most efficient from the government bean counters perspective.

President Adams

OK, thanks for the info. I'll follow up on that.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

From the poster above called zurcronium

They agree auto insurance should be mandatory but not health insurance because human health is not as important as a sedan.

Do you bill your auto insurer every time you get your oil changed?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

even he isn't that crazy.... is he???

Who has been mentioning North Korea, USSR, Hitler, and child poverty?

poor and sick. Pay the mans million dollar bill already!

Actually, I'm talking about a middle income person who has average savings who at the same time missed his chance to get private health insurance while he was healthy (you are free to do this in America). Now he needs very expensive healthcare way beyond his savings. What are his options? Should he be punished? He was never poor, he just rolled the dice by hoping to save money by avoiding private healthcare while at the same time hoping not to get sick or injured (I read something like 5% of people make up most of healthcosts - also, people who live to be pretty old have less healthcare costs since when they finally die they die quickly and naturally and there is nothing for the doctor to do)

And in the midst of the social chaos

Where has this happened before?

Those too old to deserve a knee replacement or a new heart will be told that they will be kicked to the curb to live a substandard life and to die.

ObamaCare will categorically make people die? So the average lifespan of people in the USA will go down a lot? And this will be verified by the World Health Organization when compared to other countries? But I'm pretty sure ObamaCare will pay for hip replacement surgery. Doctors are also expecting many people to die from ObamaCare? Have some doctors been interviewed and answered questions on how more of their patients will die from ObamaCare? I guess the doctor will say "I want to save this person's life but President Obama said "no"....so I have to let him die". Is this correct?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites