Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 128
  1. #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by innocentbystander View Post
    is this truly good for american business?
    The argument isn't that the PPACA wasn't a good idea, or that it won't be effective. The argument is that somehow the combination of phrasing a virtual tax credit meant to be paid to everyone who buys health insurance as a "penalty", and calculating it based on a complex formula based on income, somehow turns it into a compulsion to buy insurance.

    I can actually see the sliding scale as a fair basis... but if SCOTUS comes down on this over the choice of calling the extra money paid by someone without private insurance a "penalty" instead of calling everyone else's not-paid money a "tax credit", then we'll soon enter an orwellian horror-world where calling torture "re-education" is enough to make it legal, and the Congress can just call guns "murder accessories" and ban them outright. (Or call DOD war-fighters "marines" and force us to hold them in our home...)

    Not that it matters, since every US Distinct Judge in the country knows that SCOTUS would enjoin any judgement that actually vacates the law until they have a chance to hear it. PPACA will be law of the land either forever, until an act of Congress replaces or repeals it, or until SCOTUS strikes it down. (A district court's ruling didn't end DADT, and it won't end PPACA.)
    Doug Meerschaert
    NoInsultSoftware.com

    Apps: Scratch, GasMath, CheckMath
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by slyvester View Post
    car and home insurance is mandator only because it's there to protect the bankers and people from losing every thing they own. if your house burns down and you didn't have insurance and your neighbors house went up to, it protects your niegbor and the bank. Same with car insurance it protects the bank and the person you hit.
    they mandate insurance, but they don't mandate that you buy a car or a house.

    note to liberals, that's the key to ending homelessness. mandate that everyone buy a house...
  3. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by Planesdragon View Post
    I can actually see the sliding scale as a fair basis... but if SCOTUS comes down on this over the choice of calling the extra money paid by someone without private insurance a "penalty" instead of calling everyone else's not-paid money a "tax credit", then we'll soon enter an orwellian horror-world where calling torture "re-education" is enough to make it legal, and the Congress can just call guns "murder accessories" and ban them outright. (Or call DOD war-fighters "marines" and force us to hold them in our home...
    Whether you call it a penalty for some or a tax credit for others simply betrays your position. Both terms are technically correct. Bottom line, some people will pay more out of their pocket than others for one reason only: they don't have health insurance. Some people prefer a fair tax, others a flat tax, and still others prefer to have the government take their money and then dole it back out to them based on "preferred behaviors".
  4.    #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by innocentbystander View Post
    so what's wrong with forcing coverage of preexisting conditions and allowing children to stay on the family plan for longer? and if you decide to exercise your constitutional right and not have health care, and following this you decide to save money by not going to checkups, and you either get sick without realizing it or your health slowly deteriorates over time... who wins then? if this happens to lots of people, and they can't go to work... is this truly good for american business?
    What? The problem with health care in America is the cost of health care in America. The current bill does nothing to address costs. The goal of obama was to attack insurance companies....make it so difficult for them to survive in the health care business that they have to drop out (Principal Financial already has dropped out)....thus opening the door for the government to come to the rescue. This had to be the plan because surely obama and the liberals can't be so dumb as to think what was passed would lower costs. I believe they did what they felt was necessary to get to their ultimate goal, the government providing coverage for all. Of course, this will increase taxes on everyone and put our country further in debt....but....well....just a minor problem, right?
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  5. #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    it's not a legitimate political thread until davidra gets here...
    lol
  6. #26  
    I only have two comments:
    1. It's amazing how conveniently everyone forgets about the fact that this bill was determined to save a considerable amount of money by a non-partisan group...that republicans believe when it suits them. Just not in this case
    2. I'll listen to anyone without health insurance complain about it...especially after they've been injured in an auto accident and refuse care. Our hospital provided $49 million in uncompensated care last year that everyone of our paying patients are covering. It led to the closing of one hospital in our system already. If that's the way you want things, fine. You're just delaying the inevitable, however. The only way to control costs is to control payment. When I see any republican proposal that will maintain coverage to 50 million uninsured that will also control costs (as this bill does), then I will change my mind. I'm not really concerned about that happening.
  7. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I only have two comments:
    1. It's amazing how conveniently everyone forgets about the fact that this bill was determined to save a considerable amount of money by a non-partisan group...that republicans believe when it suits them. Just not in this case
    2. I'll listen to anyone without health insurance complain about it...especially after they've been injured in an auto accident and refuse care. Our hospital provided $49 million in uncompensated care last year that everyone of our paying patients are covering. It led to the closing of one hospital in our system already. If that's the way you want things, fine. You're just delaying the inevitable, however. The only way to control costs is to control payment. When I see any republican proposal that will maintain coverage to 50 million uninsured that will also control costs (as this bill does), then I will change my mind. I'm not really concerned about that happening.
    Does Constitutionality concern you?
  8. #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I only have two comments:
    1. It's amazing how conveniently everyone forgets about the fact that this bill was determined to save a considerable amount of money by a non-partisan group...that republicans believe when it suits them. Just not in this case
    2. I'll listen to anyone without health insurance complain about it...especially after they've been injured in an auto accident and refuse care. Our hospital provided $49 million in uncompensated care last year that everyone of our paying patients are covering. It led to the closing of one hospital in our system already. If that's the way you want things, fine. You're just delaying the inevitable, however. The only way to control costs is to control payment. When I see any republican proposal that will maintain coverage to 50 million uninsured that will also control costs (as this bill does), then I will change my mind. I'm not really concerned about that happening.
    Roger that. Next bill coming from Obama will use the same logic to solve homelessness. All Americans will be required to buy a home or pay a significant fine. And gasoline is really getting expensive, so all Americans will be required to buy a car and and at least one tank of gas per month. That way we can spread the cost of new refineries around and get the cost per gallon down.
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    He must be a tourist.
    Just realised what your avatar was from. I knew it was Jeff Bridges but I just realised that it was the dude.
  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Does Constitutionality concern you?
    Not really, but there would have been no issue about constitutionality if there had been a public option or Medicare for all (with additional options for those like everyone on this board who has insurance). But of course that would mean that the private insurers would have actually had to compete, and we wouldn't want that. I don't care if health care is administered by states, given they meet certain federal minimums of care...and that puts it exactly in the same category as public schools....and there's no discussion about constitutionality of that. And I happen to believe that dying from lack of health care is different than not having a house or gasoline. If you don't, fine.
  11. #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I only have two comments:
    1. It's amazing how conveniently everyone forgets about the fact that this bill was determined to save a considerable amount of money by a non-partisan group...that republicans believe when it suits them. Just not in this case
    I thought follow up studies (also non-partisan) had determined that after the bill was modified and morphed (not just by Democrats mind you) that it was no longer considered to be a net save. Also those savings are based on assumptions that do not take overconsumption seriously.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra
    2. I'll listen to anyone without health insurance complain about it...especially after they've been injured in an auto accident and refuse care. Our hospital provided $49 million in uncompensated care last year that everyone of our paying patients are covering. It led to the closing of one hospital in our system already. If that's the way you want things, fine. You're just delaying the inevitable, however. The only way to control costs is to control payment. When I see any republican proposal that will maintain coverage to 50 million uninsured that will also control costs (as this bill does), then I will change my mind. I'm not really concerned about that happening.

    Cost savings are not going to come from mandated price controls. Look at any market to see what happens when price controls are put in place - supply shrinks. One model for cost savings is to couple the use of the service to expending a resource (time, money, etc.) Healthcare in England certainly follows the model that if you make it slow you can reduce consumption - I've seen this up close but not personal - I have friends who live in the UK (a brit and a Yank) and they have shared the warts and compared both systems from different points of view.

    I think that the worst things to happen in healthcare are:

    1) HMOs - Complete abstraction of cost, everything is the same cost.
    2) Direct Advertising to Patients for Drugs.
    3) AMA

    Why those?

    HMOs setup people to overconsume. The HMOs that tried to hold down cost with reduced roles of doctors (and high wait times) were killed in the marketplace.

    Direct Advertising setup people to assume that the most recent med in a particular area was always better - and coupled with abstracted costs (brand name = $, generic = not much less) this pushed people into very expensive drugs when very good generics were available.

    AMA - The American Medical Association is an organization - like all professional orgs - that exists to promote benefits for those who belong. The AMA sharply curtails the number of docs that can come in from outside the US by lobbying and other means which limits the supply of doctors. I know a perfectly good doc who happens to also be a dentist from South America. Here she is not allowed to practice EITHER one - and yet she is a noted lecturer and makes a modest living by teaching proceedures to practicing docs and dentists here! In order to be certified to practice here she would have to pay for expensive training that she essentially already has.

    Personally I think a very limited safety net that weighs costs against service needs would be acceptable. I also think that it should be a painful safety net to use - our ER system is an example of the kind of pain I mean. When it takes 6 hours to be seen when you are complaining of abdominal pain and high fever, or when a van runs over you, or when your child fell and had a severe abdominal impact and has signs of disorientation... (all of these happened in my family in the last few years) you make darn sure you think the situation needs immediate medical attention.

    I can personally attest to the fact that since I switched to a consumer directed healthcare plan with has a more 80/20 feel to it. I have reduced my consumption and my health hasn't suffered. I would love to see a model that gave incentives to those with means who elected for a cost sharing type plan like mine. I would also like to see any safety net have a model that is similar so that the consumers of the services have a vested stake in optimizing their use.
    Last edited by Unclevanya; 02/07/2011 at 10:30 AM. Reason: typo
  12.    #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I only have two comments:
    1. It's amazing how conveniently everyone forgets about the fact that this bill was determined to save a considerable amount of money by a non-partisan group...that republicans believe when it suits them. Just not in this case.
    Yup, we've kicked this horse way too many times, but, what the heck. It's garbage in garbage out davidra and you know it. Geez. The "non-partisan group" doesn't question what they are given, they just take numbers and judge the numbers. You know as well as I that what obama and his merry men said will occur (like cuts to Medicare reimbursements) are just not going to happen. There were so many "what if's" thrown in there that simply won't happen. How you can sit there and not acknowledge that is quite unbelieveable. No telling what will occur with all these waivers granted to companies and unions that now don't have to play the game. What is it saying about a bill that, at last count, 700+ entities will be given an "out"? Could it be that it is such a ridiculous bill that even obama now realizes if followed it will sink many good plans already going?

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    2. I'll listen to anyone without health insurance complain about it...especially after they've been injured in an auto accident and refuse care. Our hospital provided $49 million in uncompensated care last year that everyone of our paying patients are covering. It led to the closing of one hospital in our system already. If that's the way you want things, fine. You're just delaying the inevitable, however. The only way to control costs is to control payment. When I see any republican proposal that will maintain coverage to 50 million uninsured that will also control costs (as this bill does), then I will change my mind. I'm not really concerned about that happening.
    As I've said many times, yes, some good things in the bill that have helped some people and that made sense. But again, IT DOESN'T ADDRESS THE MAIN PROBLEM IN HEALTH CARE.....MEDICAL COSTS!!!!! Not one thing in the bill addressed the $1500 ($804 after the network discount) back brace. I could have bought it for $250 at a local rehab place (didn't have time to shop before surgery). If you have something that takes 10 steps to fix, and you only implement 3 or 4 steps, that are nice, but don't fix the problem, why do it? The sad part is that some of this could have been done in ways that wouldn't have been unconstitutional. But no, obama had to put something out there that would fail and that would attack insurance companies. I still can't write a stand alone policy on a child here in SC. Oh sure, I can now write a policy on a child WITH a parent on it, but forget writing a policy on a child only. I also can't refer some people to the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan because you have to go 6 MONTHS with no coverage before you can apply. What? Seriously? This is supposed to help someone on COBRA who can't get an invididual plan because of a Pre-Ex condition? Geez. It was as if they had people writing a bill that had no knowledge of the real world. And no, I am NOT advocating universal health care.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  13. #33  
    well, it comes down to this, kill the bill, repeal it, do what ever you like, and when your system collapses, implodes, whatever, you have no one to blame but yourselves. A lot of people here have pointed at how bad the Canadian system is. OK, its not perfect. what system is. I will bet you this, our system will be going long after the US system implodes. All your going to need is a massive flu, that kills, and your system will fail and fail badly. I will even bet, that those same people who stood up for the Tea Party, and waved the banners screaming no to Obamacare, will be screaming very quickly, Why didn't you protect us. you all have fun with this, as far as I can tell, there has been NO honest attempt by the "right" to put something out there. Just lots of empty Politician promises.
    Life is short, Play hard, and enjoy every moment as if it was your last.
  14. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    well, it comes down to this, kill the bill, repeal it, do what ever you like, and when your system collapses, implodes, whatever, you have no one to blame but yourselves.
    Ok
    A lot of people here have pointed at how bad the Canadian system is. OK, its not perfect. what system is. I will bet you this, our system will be going long after the US system implodes. All your going to need is a massive flu, that kills, and your system will fail and fail badly. I will even bet, that those same people who stood up for the Tea Party, and waved the banners screaming no to Obamacare, will be screaming very quickly, Why didn't you protect us.
    No, that would be the entitlements crowd screaming that. The conservatives are the "lift yourself up by your own bootstraps and make your own way" crowd, remember?
    you all have fun with this, as far as I can tell, there has been NO honest attempt by the "right" to put something out there. Just lots of empty Politician promises.
    You're correct. The "right" hasn't put something out there, because the "right" are not trying to take over health insurance companies.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    well, it comes down to this, kill the bill, repeal it, do what ever you like, and when your system collapses, implodes, whatever, you have no one to blame but yourselves. A lot of people here have pointed at how bad the Canadian system is. OK, its not perfect. what system is. I will bet you this, our system will be going long after the US system implodes. All your going to need is a massive flu, that kills, and your system will fail and fail badly. I will even bet, that those same people who stood up for the Tea Party, and waved the banners screaming no to Obamacare, will be screaming very quickly, Why didn't you protect us. you all have fun with this, as far as I can tell, there has been NO honest attempt by the "right" to put something out there. Just lots of empty Politician promises.
    I'm not sure how the system in Canada differs from that in England - but I can tell you that I have read a good deal of info hinting at problems in all countries -because of aging populations and declining workforces. The cost of caring for an aging population is like the straw breaking the camels back and it's pushing all systems to the breaking point because none of them provide enough of an incentive for not overconsuming.

    The reality is that a well design system would control costs up front long before the demographics shift causes the problems in the system to break the whole thing.
  16. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Not really, but there would have been no issue about constitutionality if there had been a public option or Medicare for all (with additional options for those like everyone on this board who has insurance). But of course that would mean that the private insurers would have actually had to compete, and we wouldn't want that. I don't care if health care is administered by states, given they meet certain federal minimums of care...and that puts it exactly in the same category as public schools....and there's no discussion about constitutionality of that. And I happen to believe that dying from lack of health care is different than not having a house or gasoline. If you don't, fine.
    Although (mostly) correct, you are proving the point that Obamacare was never about healthcare, but about power/control.

    1. By leaving out the customary "sever-ability" clauses they showed their willingness to "play chicken" with the opposition. They believed that no court would be willing to throw out the entire bill, so they made it a big game of "all or nothing"... if this was really about health care, they would never have passed a bill without a sever-ability clause so that implementation could survive a successful challenge. I don't know for sure, but my understanding is that legislation "always' has such a clause... hubris and ulterior motives backfired.

    2. If they went with a public-pay / single-pay option, it would have been challenged on different constitutional issues. I think even I could win a constitutional challenge to socializing medicine based on what I learned in 8th grade civics class. The only argument that would be relevant would be the constitution and any court precedent. The argument about what it "right" or "fair" or "humane" or "less expensive" wouldn't be relevant.

    BTW, the Obamacrats knew this. There have been news reports and info that they specifically considered their strategy based on paths with no precedent and ambiguity that would help to discourage the courts from overturning the bill. They knew to stay away from obvious constitutional issues and bet on breaking new ground to protect the bill. That backfired.

    If this was about providing healthcare and not about politics, they wouldn't have taken such a risk.

    So let's just remember that none of us want people to die or not have healthcare. I've wasted hours previously providing uneducated calculations on how insurance could be available and costs reduced by specifically getting the govt OUT of the healthcare industry. So we can leave that for another thread.

    The point of the OP is that someone in Florida has shown the sense to stand up to Obamacrats and Obamacare. My first response was "well, that judge must not be originally from Florida"... But either way, he has shown brains, education, and the stones to do what courts are supposed to do - which is to interpret laws in the context of the constitution...

    And if the next round of appeals don't agree, the congress is well on their way to making sure the bill never gets funding. Anyone that tries to stop them is unlikely to be re-elected in 2012, and that includes Obama. That is unless the recently elected conservatives don't do what they were elected to do - which is to cut spending. IMHO
    Last edited by Cantaffordit; 02/07/2011 at 01:40 PM. Reason: fixed typo
  17. #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post

    2. If they went with a public-pay / single-pay option, it would have been challenged on different constitutional issues. I think even I could win a constitutional challenge to socializing medicine based on what I learned in 8th grade civics class. The only argument that would be relevant would be the constitution and any court precedent. The argument about what it "right" or "fair" or "humane" or "less expensive" wouldn't be relevant.

    BTW, the Obamacrats knew this. There have been news reports and info that they specifically considered their strategy based on paths with no precedent and ambiguity that would help to discourage the courts from overturning the bill. They knew to stay away from obvious constitutional issues and bet on breaking new ground to protect the bill. That backfired.

    If this was about providing healthcare and not about politics, they wouldn't have taken such a risk.

    So let's just remember that none of us want people to die or not have healthcare. I've wasted hours previously providing uneducated calculations on how insurance could be available and costs reduced by specifically getting the govt OUT of the healthcare industry. So we can leave that for another thread.

    .........

    And if the next round of appeals don't agree, the congress is well on their way to making sure the bill never gets funding. Anyone that tries to stop them is unlikely to be re-elected in 2012, and that includes Obama. That is unless the recently elected conservatives don't do what they were elected to do - which is to cut spending. IMHO
    You are certainly welcome to your opinion....so when is Medicare going to be deemed unconstitutional? If Medicare is constitutional, then expanding Medicare to a larger audience is....constitutional as well, wouldn't you say?

    And given the fact that the country is almost exactly divided about the health care law, all this bunk about "the country wants to repeal it" and "it goes against the will of the country" is nothing more than spin. You might be right in your political prediction if: 1. the republicans had any possibility of coming with an alternative so people don't lose what they just have gained and 2. if the economy gets worse, which doesn't look likely.

    And finally, since you say you don't want to see people go without health care, then let's hear your plan for how to cover 50 million people. Should be easy, right?
  18. #38  
    This might have helped pay for something.

    http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-cont...ndollarwar.jpg

    We're ranked 37th in the world for health-care.

    Our life expectancy is about the same as Cuba. They pay $20 a year,we pay $14,000 per year.

    Germany pays 9% of GDP for health-care and the USA pays about 16% of GDP.

    We pay the most for the least, thanks to the Corporations, At least we have the best politicians(R&D's) money can buy.
  19. #39  
    @davidra

    Thank you for allowing me to have my own opinion. It's the only thing I know much about, so that's a relief that I can keep it. I've always said that the only thing I know for sure is what my opinion is.

    In terms of medicare, I'd I think that Medicare is unconstitutional, but I doubt it could be challenged after all those years. As my recently departed mother used to say, "two wrongs don't make a right", so basing the obamacare disaster on the idea that they are already doing something wrong is like Obama invading Iran because we are already conducting an immoral war in the neighborhood. Or keeping that evil GITMO prison camp open, and since it's already operating we might as well expand it and send more prisoners there...

    In terms of what voters intended when voting out so many obamacrats... let's pretend that you are right that voters showed up as "almost evenly divided" (even though it wasn't even close). Let's pretend that many of the voters that fired the democratic house majority really like obamacare... (even though they voted overwhelmingly for candidates that opposed it).

    After all that pretending, you can't deny that the voters clearly wanted the government to stop spending your great-grandchildren's money and destroying the economy. So if that overwhelming election result didn't really mean that obamacare was something they didn't want to repeal (even though the winners mostly included that in their platform), the voters absolutely sent the message to stop spending like drunken sailors and fund government operations without borrowing $billions.

    You are probably tired of hearing me say this... but I'm all for every citizen getting good healthcare. And clean air. etc. etc.

    But obamacare won't produce that result any more than welfare has reduced the level of poverty in this country. (IMHO). If I thought it would, I'd be much less passionate about opposing it.

    And my plan? I spent many days last spring outlining plans and numbers for you. You didn't like any of what I suggested. Kinda like the republicans, you were just against anything I said because it didn't revolve around government healthcare as the starting point.

    You might recall that I came up with numbers showing the amount of money that we wasted on the "stimulus" could have funded insurance for all uninsured citizens for more than 10 years and could have been implemented before the mid-term election...

    And the cool thing is you said you would only listen to people without insurance. Well, I am without insurance and without a job. So you have to listen! . And if the economy doesn't improve, I'm gonna have to send you a PM to see if we can come over and live with you for a while... (ok, I'm kidding about living with you...)

    ... that's all I have to say about that...
    -Forrest Gump
    Last edited by Cantaffordit; 02/07/2011 at 02:49 PM.
  20. #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by lazslo11 View Post
    We're ranked 37th in the world for health-care.

    Our life expectancy is about the same as Cuba. They pay $20 a year,we pay $14,000 per year.

    Germany pays 9% of GDP for health-care and the USA pays about 16% of GDP.

    We pay the most for the least, thanks to the Corporations, At least we have the best politicians(R&D's) money can buy.
    1. That ranking is for cost, not quality. (I think).
    2. Our life expectancy may be the same as in Cuba, but our quality of life is a wee bit better. I'd take a much lower expectancy to live in freedom.
    3. I'm happy for Germany. What they don't spend directly toward healthcare they spend in other socialist programs that put them far below us in terms of economic productivity or power.
    4. We pay the most, but not for the least. @Davidra has all sorts of statistics on where the US ranks in terms of "quality" and I'm way to lazy to dig that up. But even Davidra doesn't claim that our healthcare is "the least". Probably not "the best" but definitely closer to the top that most - including Cuba.

    5) It's interesting that you summarized our "least" position as "thanks to the Corporations". I don't know who "the corporations" are, but I'm pretty sure one of them is paying your salary... And if somehow this is all "thanks to the corporations" remember that US companies pay the highest corporate taxes of any modern economy (or maybe that will be true if/when Obama's proposed new corporate tax structure is implemented - I forgot the details on that one).

    6 - 10 and beyond) None of that addresses the actual "problem" which is healthcare costs that are higher than those of other countries... So let's make sure we are all trying to solve the same issue. @Davidra wants everyone to have healthcare (hard to think anyone actually WANTS americans to be unable to get healthcare... but apparently that's what I want if I'd oppose obamacare). However, @Laslo is unhappy about the cost/quality of healthcare in the US. Once issue is reducing cost while increasing quality. The other is taking the existing quality (and cost) and making it available to everyone.

    I'n bot going to dig up the huuuuge posts from me, Davidra, ClemGrad, and may others that argued about whether obamacare would increase or decrease healthcare costs. We also argued the best way to make healthcare available to everyone (or at least US citizens).

    I agree that it's way too expensive. So are the $900 hammers that the pentagon was buying. I think this country should be able to drive costs down in the same way they have driven down the cost of other things such as car insurance and cell phone plans. (note: not suggesting that the federal govt be closed down, but that their role be limited to constitutional provisions and that this be solved by the citizens and government of the states - remembering that the state government belonging to the citizens of that state).

    So let's let this great country do for itself what is needed, and not become a nanny state that can't do anything unless we have help from washington.

    That will allow us to attack the cost issues, and that will solve the biggest part of why people don't have insurance (they can't afford it).

    Summary: I want the costs to go waaay down for everyone in the US. I want it to be affordable for more americans, and accessible for those that need a helping hand. Obamacare does neither of those, and will put this country so much deeper into debt that we may not be able to recover for generations.

    /rant
    Last edited by Cantaffordit; 02/07/2011 at 03:53 PM.
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions