Obamacare

Status
Not open for further replies.

DeletedUser8396

Guest
So if you're American you know that the Supreme court recently ended oral debates over the issue of Obamacare (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act). So what do you all think?
Should universal healthcare be implemented?
Does it have any positive effects?
Does it have any negative effects?
etc.

Ready, Set, Debate!

Well, if what I have heard/read is correct, then I believe it is un-constitutional. The constitution forbids a 'head tax'. Car insurance is mandatory, because if you don't want to have car insurance, don't get a car...thus making it not a thing you MUST have in order to be a citizen/not be imprisoned. The health care bill, if mandatory (which I believe it is), will be something that causes you to be fined, imprisoned, etc...if you don't have it. Well, whats the alternative? No car = No car insurance...So no health = No health insurance? Obviously it is un-constitutional.

I like it on paper. I think it is a really great thing to give those that are less fortunate health care...but not this way.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I can only say that I was shocked when I heard the USA does not have universal health care. I cannot believe that is even is an issue.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
What I believe is unconstitutional for the USA, is the fact that the Rich currently have a far higher life expectancy than the Poor.

Part of the US constitution is the fact that every citizen is equal and should be treated as equal, every citizen should have the right at a long and prosperous life.

However currently, the US health service is unjust and unfair, those born in poorer families are destined to on average, die before those born into a rich family. That is unconstitutional.

Obama is attempting to rectify this difference, and restore equality to the full.

I believe the perfect system is the British system, the NHS, which provides equal and free, quality service to all, with no difference between the treatment of the rich and poor. This is the system that should be implemented into the USA.


I can only say that I was shocked when I heard the USA does not have universal health care. I cannot believe that is even is an issue.

Agreed, a country as advanced as the USA not treating all citizens equal with free health care, is shocking.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
What I believe is unconstitutional for the USA, is the fact that the Rich currently have a far higher life expectancy than the Poor.

Part of the US constitution is the fact that every citizen is equal and should be treated as equal, every citizen should have the right at a long and prosperous life.

Where in the Constitution does it say that? Or are you mixing it up with the Declaration of Independence?

However currently, the US health service is unjust and unfair, those born in poorer families are destined to on average, die before those born into a rich family. That is unconstitutional.

Obama is attempting to rectify this difference, and restore equality to the full.

While I agree in equality, I disagree in taking away from the rich to give to the poor without the poor doing something in return. Personally, I would prefer Obama create jobs for the poor where they can then afford their health insurance rather than force them to or give them health insurance.

I believe the perfect system is the British system, the NHS, which provides equal and free, quality service to all, with no difference between the treatment of the rich and poor. This is the system that should be implemented into the USA.

Agreed, a country as advanced as the USA not treating all citizens equal with free health care, is shocking.

I would like to note, Americans hate, and I mean hate taxes, with a passion not seen in other countries. How much does this NHS cost in taxes? Once, there was only going to be a 9¢ property tax increase if a new school was built. The county went crazy over it each time, and until recently that school has not been built, and now that it has been built, a lot of great new things were cut off because people didn't want to spend more money than they should. Now, if I were to guess, this NHS costs a couple dollars in taxes. Or at the very least, it would if implemented in the US.

Only the best things in life are free, nothing else. Equal you say? Tell me this then, how much are the rich spending in taxes to give the poor free health care, and how much do the poor spend in taxes? If in America, the rich would be spending far more in taxes than the poor for this "free" health care.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser8396

Guest
What I believe is unconstitutional for the USA, is the fact that the Rich currently have a far higher life expectancy than the Poor.

Part of the US constitution is the fact that every citizen is equal and should be treated as equal, every citizen should have the right at a long and prosperous life.

However currently, the US health service is unjust and unfair, those born in poorer families are destined to on average, die before those born into a rich family. That is unconstitutional.

Obama is attempting to rectify this difference, and restore equality to the full.

I believe the perfect system is the British system, the NHS, which provides equal and free, quality service to all, with no difference between the treatment of the rich and poor. This is the system that should be implemented into the USA.




Agreed, a country as advanced as the USA not treating all citizens equal with free health care, is shocking.

huh...i thought you were USA WB...learn something everyday i guess.

On to your points.

1. We actually do give the poor chances to live prosperous lives. They either dont take them or are content where they are. I personally believe every person has a few chances in a lifetime to, excuse the term, 'make it or brake it'. If they are too hesitant to take the chances...then its their own fault.

2. The constituion never says equal rights to all. It does however say that there are basic rights guaranteed to all, such as: Speech, Press, Vote, etc... What should be do? become completely socialist and give "the rich's" money to the poor? No, the rich, well, most of them, have worked for their money. I can understand giving aid to the less fortunate, but not making everyone equal when equal contribution isnt given.

3. Not exactly. The poor, as I said above, most often have times they can make a change and become prosperous. I do agree though, those that legitimately are trying, but life just beats them down everytime...they should recieve aid. Again, the rich have worked their butts off making their fortune, so deserve a better lifestyle than those that sit around waiting for a handout.

4. I strongly agree. But he does it in a HORRIBLE way. He is making us turn socialist, when we are not meant to be that way. Our government cant function that way.

5. I would like something like this: The ENTIRE population pays a tax to the governmental health care system. It is optional...never mandatory. If you need it, you have quality healthcare, if you dont and you want better coverage, you buy your own. There should be a baseline no matter what so we dont have people that the system 'escapes' because they were bad on luck.

6. Well, we are a fairly young country...give us time :p

********************

Completely agree with Z Grade
 

DeletedUser

Guest
meh I've kind of studied Basic Human Rights Briefly, but mainly British and European, US Rights are not really my strong point.

After some research into the constitution, I can easily extrapolate that treating Citizens in order of wealth adheres to the constitution, and that refusing to treat a poor patient is legit for a private practice.

I have also uncovered various cases where private practices refused to administrate life saving treatments to Citizens of the United States, who died as a result.

The current system is riddled with abuses, and although it is constitutional, it is not morally right to treat one human being different from another human being as a result of material wealth.

A pebble's argument where one has chances at attaining wealth throughout ones life, and working your way up the social ladder has various flaws. The cycle of poverty maintains it's grasp, and due to the recession it is common place for the cycle to continue unbroken.

Those born to an extremely poor family, have little/no chance to escape from poverty, as University costs are extremely high in the United States. Also it is likely that the person was brought up in a poverty stricken neighborhood, with high rates of crime and low rates of learning at school. The cycle of poverty results in those born to poorer parents to have a greater chance of remaining poor, while those born to richer parents having the greatest opportunity to 'make it'.

The United States life expectancy of 78.2 years at birth ranks it 38th among 221 nations

The current system needs replacing. How many Senators/Presidents have preached how the USA is the 'greatest country in the World'.

I for one would dispute this claim, and place the USA as the 50th Greatest Nation in the World. In my humble opinion, greatness in a nation comes from the amenities provided to it's citizens and the range of services provided to it's citizens.

As this statistic shows the US health care is pathetic, and those who would argue against reform are depriving the United States' Citizens of their lives.

My theoretical calculations compare Japans (#1 with 82.6 Years Average) to the USA (#38 with 78.2 Years)

I've calculated that 135,320,972 years have been lost/will be lost over this Generation of Americans in comparison to the quality of the Japanese.
 

DeletedUser8396

Guest
meh I've kind of studied Basic Human Rights Briefly, but mainly British and European, US Rights are not really my strong point.
1. Very Well

After some research into the constitution, I can easily extrapolate that treating Citizens in order of wealth adheres to the constitution, and that refusing to treat a poor patient is legit for a private practice.
2. The constituion has nothing to do with private practices. Again, we arent perfect...but we are trying to get a system that works. Obamacare isnt it.

I have also uncovered various cases where private practices refused to administrate life saving treatments to Citizens of the United States, who died as a result.
3. Thats because it's their right to. Again, the government doesnt nit pick on private practices.

The current system is riddled with abuses, and although it is constitutional, it is not morally right to treat one human being different from another human being as a result of material wealth.
4. I sort of agree. I believe there should be a baseline that will be given to all, and if you have money, and you earned your keep...then by all means, take more according to what you've given. If you've sat on you butt and done absolutely nothing to help...it is your own fault.

A pebble's argument where one has chances at attaining wealth throughout ones life, and working your way up the social ladder has various flaws. The cycle of poverty maintains it's grasp, and due to the recession it is common place for the cycle to continue unbroken.
5. I realize it has many flaws, but that doesnt negate the base truth that we all have some chance at life. Some just like to sit in their laziness.

Those born to an extremely poor family, have little/no chance to escape from poverty, as University costs are extremely high in the United States. Also it is likely that the person was brought up in a poverty stricken neighborhood, with high rates of crime and low rates of learning at school. The cycle of poverty results in those born to poorer parents to have a greater chance of remaining poor, while those born to richer parents having the greatest opportunity to 'make it'.
6. I couldnt disagree more. Even though you may be born in to a extremely poor family, you can still make it. Universities have aid, use it. You can find a minimum wage job, work at it and eventually rise to the top. You are only limited by you own mind. Also, anyone can do well in school with the right motivation and will power (except if you have disabilities, in which case, I agree...you should recieve aid).

The current system needs replacing. How many Senators/Presidents have preached how the USA is the 'greatest country in the World'.
7. The current system is ok. Not good, not bad. Again, give us time to perfect it.

I for one would dispute this claim, and place the USA as the 50th Greatest Nation in the World. In my humble opinion, greatness in a nation comes from the amenities provided to it's citizens and the range of services provided to it's citizens.
8. The US technically is the 'greatest nation'. Not to bring military into this, but it does have a factor as we are #1 in everything. The health care isn't the best, but freedoms are. If you want to debate that topic further, please PM me as I want to stay remotely on topic.

As this statistic shows the US health care is pathetic, and those who would argue against reform are depriving the United States' Citizens of their lives.
9. That statistic shows next to nothing as far as Health Care goes. Death is a natural part of life, it will happen no matter what.

My theoretical calculations compare Japans (#1 with 82.6 Years Average) to the USA (#38 with 78.2 Years)

I've calculated that 135,320,972 years have been lost/will be lost over this Generation of Americans in comparison to the quality of the Japanese.
10. To finalize everything. Obamacare is more of a stepping stone to a more refined system that will work. We need to take it back, and actually try to perfect it.

*****************
So, Obamacare = NO

Refined obamacare= Possibly
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
I concede that ObamaCare as proposed is not the ideal system that should be implemented, and I agree with you completely that ObamaCare is a step in the right direction.

However I feel that ObamaCare is not drastic enough, and the US health system should be reviewed and reformed more thoroughly than before.
 

DeletedUser13405

Guest
Friggin stunned....I know the US Constitution has been dead for a long time, but this just qualifies as necrophilia.

Anyone want to split a small island off the coast of Belize with me?
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Dude ObamaCare HELPS people, the Republicans just made up these stories about Death Councils etc.

ObamaCare will SAVE people's lives, if implemented, and it is a right step in the right direction.

Your naivety in believing these lies is concerning, as someone of your intelligence that can spell the word necrophilia, should not be as easily manipulated as you have just been.
 

DeletedUser13405

Guest
Whether ObamaCare will "save" lives or not is irrelevant for purposes of my point.

Chief Justice Roberts found that ObamaCare was unconstitutional under both the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Here are the key excerpts from the majority opinion:

Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open anew and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do.Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce,not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited andenumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce."

...Nor can the individual mandate be sustained under the Necessary and Proper Clause as an integral part of the Affordable Care Act’s other reforms. Each of this Court’s prior cases upholding lawsunder that Clause involved exercises of authority derivative of, and in service to, a granted power. The individual mandate, by contrast, vests Congress withthe extraordinary ability to create the necessary predicate to the exercise of an enumerated power and draw within its regulatory scopethose who would otherwise be outside of it. Even if the individualmandate is “necessary” to the Affordable Care Act’s other reforms,such an expansion of federal power is not a “proper” means for making those reforms effective.

Instead, Roberts argued that the individual mandate is constitutional because it enacts a tax. Obama's Solicitor General Donald Verrilli made the exact opposite claim in his oral arguments to the Supreme Court last March.

As did Obama himself on live television...

Obama claims mandate not a tax

STEPHANOPOULOS: You were against the individual mandate…

OBAMA: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: …during the campaign. Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?

OBAMA: Well, hold on a second, George. Here — here’s what’s happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average — our families — in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I’ve said is that if you can’t afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn’t be punished for that. That’s just piling on. If, on the other hand, we’re giving tax credits, we’ve set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we’ve driven down the costs, we’ve done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you’ve just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that’s…

STEPHANOPOULOS: That may be, but it’s still a tax increase.

OBAMA: No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But it may be fair, it may be good public policy…

OBAMA: No, but — but, George, you — you can’t just make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase. Any…

STEPHANOPOULOS: Here’s the…

OBAMA: What — what — if I — if I say that right now your premiums are going to be going up by 5 or 8 or 10 percent next year and you say well, that’s not a tax increase; but, on the other hand, if I say that I don’t want to have to pay for you not carrying coverage even after I give you tax credits that make it affordable, then…

STEPHANOPOULOS: I — I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: Tax — “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”

OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition. I mean what…

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, no, but…

OBAMA: …what you’re saying is…

STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.

OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?

OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.

Instead the USSC (specifically Roberts) needed to twist itself into a pretzel to consider the mandate a tax and thus deem it constitutional. Seems pretty banana republic to me.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Whether ObamaCare will "save" lives or not is irrelevant for purposes of my point

That is the problem with the American society and it's current health care system.

You just don't care about your neighbors, your community or the other Americans living in your country, whether they live or die, it isn't your problem.

Your little world rotates around yourself, and if it doesn't save your life, but places a bit more strain on you it is unconstitutional. ObamaCare will SAVE LIVES. That in my opinion is far more important than any more money you need to pay from your pocket.

However Americans differ on my opinion, and apparently only care that it may increase taxes... slightly.

That statement is a microcosm of the problem occurring in America. Selfish, corporate individuals who only care about the lining on their pocket's not the lives of their neighbors.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to WAVEBREAKER again.

Also, would someone be kind enough to give me a concise explanation why a raise in tax is unconstitutional in America? I don't feel like reading the whole constitution atm.
 

DeletedUser13405

Guest
That is the problem with the American society and it's current health care system.

You just don't care about your neighbors, your community or the other Americans living in your country, whether they live or die, it isn't your problem.

Your little world rotates around yourself, and if it doesn't save your life, but places a bit more strain on you it is unconstitutional. ObamaCare will SAVE LIVES. That in my opinion is far more important than any more money you need to pay from your pocket.

However Americans differ on my opinion, and apparently only care that it may increase taxes... slightly.

That statement is a microcosm of the problem occurring in America. Selfish, corporate individuals who only care about the lining on their pocket's not the lives of their neighbors.

Whether your statements are true or not, it does not matter with respect to the point of whether a reasoned individual can argue a point in direct contravention to statements made by the administration that passed the legislation. Its illogical and I expected better of Roberts.

As to your point, whether requiring an individual to purchase private insurance will save lives...no, I don't think it will. The US healthcare system needs a significant overhaul (see previous points I have made in this thread), but this law is not the overhaul it needs. Its not even a good first step. The overhaul will come in the next 10 years when the costs of healthcare in US rise so significantly that it is impossible for even a nation with reserve currency status to fund them. That will be a forced overhaul. It would have been much easier to take the necessary steps to overhaul the system now.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
READ THOROUGHLY. EXTREMELY FUNNY.

I particularly enjoyed the part where ObamaCare was compared to Communism and Socialism, and also where it says that the government should not have the sort of power to saves hundreds of thousands of lives of people who are needlessly dying in one of the Richest nations.


QUOTE FROM A PRO REPUBLICAN WEBSITE

The founders believed that a monarch (or dictator or any sort of legislative body) should not have the power to force anyone to do anything. Of course this doesn’t apply to rules governing civil society such as criminal laws against things like rape or thievery, but we aren’t discussing that here. We are discussing being forced to buy something, possibly against your will. In otherwords, inactivity.

The federal government, with Obamacare, is forcing Americans to buy health insurance. It is not free. It must be bought and paid for.

Poor people will get reimbursed when they file their taxes, but they will still have to fork out the monthly premium. They might get the money back at the end of the year, but they will still be forced to buy it, even if they can’t afford the monthly premium. This seems to be a detail that most liberals gloss over in their rush to declare a human rights victory of some sort.

Just where is a 19 year old going to get the 600$ a month to pay for their own health insurance on minimum wage (round that off to 9.25$ an hour for 40 hours a week and that’s 1480$ a month) for a single person? This is 40% that hypothetical persons income. Employers aren’t going to offer it as a benefit of employment if all Americans are forced to buy it themselves. Where is a family of 5 living on an income of 1450$ a month going to get 1200$ a month for Health insurance? Or does the insurance company bill the Fed? But wait, isn't the IRS is going to have the power to garnish tax returns and or force filers to pay an additional fee (which is what exactly?) at tax time if they don't prove they bought health insurance? No one seems to know how this is going to be done unto us.

Hold on a minute here, you mean legislators didn’t think of these things? Didn’t they read the thousands of pages in the bill? Oh right, the House of Representatives and Senate didn’t read it before voting on it, it was just too complicated... sorry about that America. We just have to wait until it's implemented to find out.... If that doesn't make you uncomfortable, then nothing will.

Let's illustrate just what this means in real life, because Liberals try to liken health insurance to flood insurance or car insurance in the vain attempt to justify it. The absence of logic in these arguments/comparisons is astounding to say the least.

A given person chooses to live in a flood plain, perhaps to own and drive a car. A person chooses to do these things, which then creates certain obligations which are known beforehand. So in choosing to enter into these specific actions, it puts a further known burden on that person, by that persons deliberate choice.

Did you choose to be born and take your first breath? No, you didn’t, of course not. But because you were born and lived, you must buy health insurance? According to Obamacare you do.

The difference is glaringly simple; you can opt out of those other burdens (car insurance or flood insurance) by choosing not to engage in those activities, actions or purchases. But because you breathe and were born in and live in America you must now buy health insurance.

Lets stick to the hypothetical car comparison so popular with liberals. If the government can force you to enter a given market... what is to stop the federal government from forcing one to.... buy a GM car? Yea, you have a car already, but because you are an adult with a drivers license and already own a car, what is to stop the federal government from dictating that you must now buy a GM car or you are not a legal American - subject to all of the tactics used by the IRS in collecting monies “owed” as a remuneration for NOT owning a GM? Does that not mean you must now buy a GM/Chrysler car if you intend to ever cross a state boundary? Wait, wouldn’t that mandate that the government can force you to carry papers stating that you also own a GM car if you happen to be driving your second car, a Ford…? And force state border crossings to make sure everyone is in compliance? Yep, you betcha it would.

What is the difference between buying health insurance and buying a car?

If Obamacare is upheld as a legal and constitutional bill, absolutely nothing.

Nothing.

You weren’t in the market for a GM (in other words you were inactive in the auto market), but you will be forced into buying one in order to drive from Portland Oregon across the 3500 foot long interstate bridge to Vancouver Washington with out paying a mandated government fine enforced by the IRS which also has the power to take out leins on your home and seize your checking account.

If the federal government can regulate inactivity, which is what they are doing with health insurance, then they can dictate that you must do anything they tell you to do - with no limits.

Obamacare dictates to those who would not otherwise be in the market for a given item (health insurance), they must enter into it. Would you like to be forced to buy a hand gun under a conservative government? How about be forced to work cleanup duty for 40 hours a year in the local trash dump - a working week out of your life? Or how about buying 6000$ worth of Molybdenum a year? Don’t know what that is? Doesn’t matter, you have to buy it because it’s “for the good of the nation” that you buy it.

Enforced by the IRS.

You name it; it’s on the table if Obamacare stands. This is what happens in a dictatorship. The dictator tells you what to do, then you must do it or face the wrath of the government agency in charge of compliance. In this case, the IRS .

This puts the IRS buying thousands of shotguns into a whole different sort of light now doesn’t it?

These simple truths being self evident, how would you like to live in North Korea? Don’t worry about the costs of moving, it will be just the same here in the United States of America, no need to leave home.

This is what the slippery slope of Socialism/Communism leads to; the government telling you what to do, what to buy, and when.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t think government of the United States of America should have that sort of power.


Typical rubbishy Republican Propaganda.

Let me remind you that Obama is trying to establish a system which SAVES lives, a topic that this article has not even touched on. Apparently American lives are not important to other Americans? According to this article.

Sorry for the double post.

Whether your statements are true or not, it does not matter with respect to the point of whether a reasoned individual can argue a point in direct contravention to statements made by the administration that passed the legislation. Its illogical and I expected better of Roberts.

As to your point, whether requiring an individual to purchase private insurance will save lives...no, I don't think it will. The US healthcare system needs a significant overhaul (see previous points I have made in this thread), but this law is not the overhaul it needs. Its not even a good first step. The overhaul will come in the next 10 years when the costs of healthcare in US rise so significantly that it is impossible for even a nation with reserve currency status to fund them. That will be a forced overhaul. It would have been much easier to take the necessary steps to overhaul the system now.


There are 60,000,000 Americans without Health Insurance.

THIS MEANS THAT:

-They won't get seen by a doctor
-They won't get seen by a dentist
-No check-ups
-No screening
-No vaccines
-No nutrition advice
-No operations
-No medicine
-No medical help for broken bones
-No Accident and Emergency quick-time response
-No bed in hospital if they need it.

Please read this list, and tell me that people are not dying needlessly in the current system!

Basically 60Million Americans, 1/5th of the Adult population have no health insurance. They are being forced by people like you who are opposed to ObamaCare, to live without modern medicine and in conditions that were not acceptable in the UK decades ago.

You, Americans keep preaching about how you are the greatest country in the World. I personally think you are the worst country in the World, you have the money, you have the resources, you have the knowledge, yet hundreds of thousands of your citizens die due to bad management of those resources.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser13405

Guest
Your post talks about basic healthcare...not insurance.

Insurance is when a group of people band together and pay premiums into a fund to cover an unexpected, catastrophic loss. Said loss is generally not foreseeable. Like a fire. Or a car accident. Insurance should not be covering an annual health check-up. By its very definition, an annual health check up should be a service you pay for.

Imagine all folks has a catastrophic care policy...in the event you get in a severe car accident requiring multiple weeks of hospitalization, for example. Great. Thats what insurance is for.

Preventative care is something entirely different and the system should be re-worked to accommodate such services. Affordable preventative care (apart from catastrophic care) is what you want to bring to everyone. Fine. But why even use an extremely burdensome and unworkable bureaucracy such as the insurance industry to provide said preventative care? Nobody works for free, so health care dollars that could be used to make preventative care affordable to more and more people are being used to pay for this giant bureaucracy. Cutting out the middle man (insurance companies) in the Dr.-patient relationship will only allow Dr.s to significantly reduce costs at least with respect to preventative care.

When preventative care crosses the threshold to catastrophic care...then yes, you need insurance. But thats what it is there for and why you would pay into it. This law enacts none of those reforms....to name one reason I am against Obamacare.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Should universal healthcare be implemented?

IMHO, "universal" healthcare will never work properly unless it's payed for "universally". just sayin....
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I am for the idea of universal healthcare, but against "Obamacare" ,if that makes any sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top