It's hard to believe our children & grandchildren will be facing a greater risk of dying with cancer because of Barack Obama's socialist national healthcare agenda. The travesty of Obamacare... here it is in a nutshell, folks. Might wanna save this video for future reference... as proof there was at least one sane person in DC before our healthcare system was flushed down the drain by Democrats.
When something is hard to believe, that's an excellent red flag indicating you should stop and think whether it's actually true.
It is really amazing to pretty much any European that the United States of America are the last industrialized country in the world to fully cover all their citizens with health care. The USA should be a front runner, not the last to adapt. It's even more astonishing that this health care system which after such a long time catches up to the rest of the world actually gets this much opposition. I'd understand the opposition if the American health care system was the best in the world. I'd even understand if it was in the top-10, but they rank 37th beween Costa Rica and Slovenia according to the WHO. The average American spends over 15% of their annual income on health care, yet not all citizens were covered prior to this bill. They spend more per capita and rank worse than us. If every country ranked higher has full government run health care, you'd expect the new law to find great support. If you are worried about the government health care maybe I can make it more appealing. I live in Austria. Ranked 9th according to the WHO. The government run health care covers all citizens. As a working class citizen I pay 1 Euro per day for full dental and medical coverage. I can choose my own doctor, and I wait for an appointment a week at the very most. I can go to the doctor if I feel it's an emergency and I probably won't wait for more than 2h. Hospitals are faster obviously. The dentist is still quite pricy because the medical system does not include cosmetics and white fillings. Last year our government run health care system made a solid 30 million Euro profit - not bad if you keep in mind that there are only 8 million inhabitants in Austria. I have the freedom to choose a doctor and I could use private doctors yet I don't. I don't trust them. They make money if I'm sick, so I keep visiting them. The government doctors are payed more if I'm healthy. My family doctor actually gets a bigger pay check because I don't smoke.
I don't think this guy understands how Obamacare works. Maybe this will help; http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlike...xactly_is_obamacare _and_what_did_it/c530lfx
Has it ever occurred to you that there is a significant chunk of the population that simply does not want it, or even need it? Why should we have to pay for it if we refuse to use it? It makes no sense whatsoever. If it was an optional program which I could choose to be a part of I wouldn't care at all. But since the choice is taken from me, I have a serious beef with it.
1st: Most people cannot cover themselves in case of an emergency. Only the people with top 5% income could possibly afford a half a million dollar operation with a hospital stay there after. Hence most people need to have insurance, due to the fact that they cannot afford to be without it. Private companies have an interest to make money not to provide the best health care. So they want healthy people. Preexisting conditions are not welcome and therefore were excluded prior to Obamacare. 2nd: If the government should cover all people because it's bad policy not covering people. Keep in mind you cost your government a lot of money before you start paying taxes. The first 20 years you are a burdin to the country. Education, protection (police or otherwise) and other social programs you take advantage of as a child. When you're finally done being a burdin and start paying taxes, the worst thing which could happen is you getting sick not being covered, hence the society picks up the invoice. And even worse: You stop paying taxes while your sick. 3rd: A government health-care makes people less depended on location. You can change jobs and locations without sacrificing your heath care coverage. 4th: A government health care coverage is cheaper because it's run as a non-profit organization. You can tell if you compare health care costs in America with any other industrialized country.
Let's take that a step further. Private companies have absolutely no interest in health care. Only that it is what they provide, so as to make a profit. Beyond making a profit, they could care less. It is what it is. Just making money.
This health care problem is a problem, but it is not one with only a simple root cause, it is the symptom of a disorder of national fiscal irresponsibility of both the citizenry and the body politic. But I still don't see why my neighbors emergency has to take cash from me. Your first statement is well, an opinion. As is the rest of what you said. Facts are most people don't have emergencies like clockwork. Health insurance works for some, doesn't for others. And I hate to break it to you but it is in their best interest to provide the best health care possible - to have a repeat visit in the future. I think your train of thought is troubled with a basic lack of understanding of capitalism. Governments are non-profit based medicine, and therefore not interested because there is no profit or incentive to work hard. 2nd, If this government should do health care, they need to put it in the national constitution. This is an obvious abuse of federal power. 3rd, wrong, makes for long lines and people dying in those lines who need urgent treatment to make room for those with a hangnail. Also, changing jobs is not utterly dependent on healthcare. That is an illusion at best. 4th, you get what you pay for. If there is competition the consumer wins. With no competition the consumer loses. Tell you what, you make it optional, if it is so great, it will be swelling in no time with people willing to pay the tax to make it work. If it flounders and collapses you'll have your answer. But don't force everybody to do it, why are you against it being optional? Those willing would pay the appropriate taxes. Sounds like a good plan to me.
Therein lies the real problem; no competition. The doctors, hospitals, pharmacies, and insurance companies were all in bed with each other, until Obamacare came onto the scene. "If there is competition the consumer wins". Yes, as long as you can play the game as a consumer. Unfortunately there were some 40 to 50 million who couldn't afford to play in the game, because the game was rigged to keep them from playing.
That's just a common myth American progressives keep perpetuating. Which exactly are these "industrialized" countries to which you refer ? The western european region certainly has socialised health care, although it is by no means fully comprehensive in all these countries. The British commonwealth countries of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have socialised healthcare. But unless I am missing something, that is about it. Are China and Russia not industrialized countries? They do not have socialized healthcare. Even in communist China, just try getting free medical treatment. Cuba has communist healthcare. It's not absolutely wonderful, but it is better than its island neighbors. Finland and Estonia have socialised healthcare, which actually works okay, but this is probably because their healthcare systems are not burdened with impoverished immigrant populations like the National Health Service is in the UK. Of course, the same thing could be said of their education systems; little immigration means the schools are not burdened with impoverished student populations. The private healthcare system in the USA was just working just fine, but then it was overburdened with all the poverty of immigration, along with the rest of the economy. Obamacare is not about a broken systen. It is about providing for all the immigrants and their impoverished children, along with all the Americans who became pushed out of their jobs by the growing numbers of workers.
Okay why are we debating this Obamacare is the law of the land for the most part, only the Medicaid expansion is elective out of the mandated parts in the original law and Arizona is going to do this and most if not all other states WILL follow suit. The only major issue really is will states do what they can do to make the law better on their end or not. The Supreme Court made its decision on the law and the recent election assured there will be no repeal at least until after 2016 and the law and measures will largely be in place taking them back if popular once people get into it could be political suicide. May I ask how do you see it being repealed in any way as the current Supreme Court makeup and makeup of the Congress and Presidency is and likely to trend for the next decade?
Perhaps not when people see how expensive their medical insurance is. The problem is people cannot afford health insurance. That's why they don't have it. Forcing a family to buy something they can barely afford, and then making it even more expensive, may not bode well for many voters. For the vast majority of Americans, Obamacare will not give them health insurance, it will just force them to buy it.
You have no clue about the health insurance industry and how PPA is going to cost all of us more not less and require we pay for insurance that we don't need. I can't get pregnant as I am menopausal so why should I have to pay for maternity and newborn coverage that is costly and will increase my premium by nearly $1000.00/yr? For that matter why should my single 27 y.0 son have to do the same. HHS should not be allowed to mandate the "coverage" we carry even if they can legally mandate we have a health insurance policy. And you think that those that currently don't have health insurance because they can't afford it and are at the poverty level are actually going to get insurance? Think again, because they aren't required under the law to have it.
Some conservatives only proposed it because they did not want employers to be forced to provide the insurance for their employees. Apparently they preferred employees to have to buy it themselves. (although there is no The insurance companies just love this new plan. Not only will everyone be forced to spend more of their limited money on healthcare, but those who just bought high deductable emergency insurance and paid the rest out of pocket will now be forced to buy full comprehensive insurance. Not only is this more expensive to these consumers, but it means more profits. Just as with the light bulb "phaseout" the government is creating a captive consumer base for certain industries, forcing them to buy more expensive products. True, the insurance companies will be FORCED follow government price quotas and a plethora of mandates, but ultimately the people will be forced to buy their full services. Perhaps something needed to be done to improve access to healthcare, but this plan is disgusting.
Industrialized countries are to me are more or less the top 25 - 35% of the world in terms of GPD per capita. I don't think you could find among the top 50 that many countries who don't cover all their citizens with a national health care program. It's obvious to me that it is a money question, and if the country is wealthy enough, it provides more services than security. But I don't take that as a standard to tell you the truth. I look at the WHO ranking, who provides the best health care and I see only government run health care services ranked at the top. If the private sector would provide better health care for the citizens surely the USA would rank higher than 37th. Or another country might be at least in the top 10. Since France has the best health care system in the world at the moment, countries which can afford to, should copy it as much as they can. I understand that a top-10 country tries to develop something better on their own, but I don't understand this type of a concept for the USA. It's not a secret that the health care system isn't working like it should. People do complain and it on the news. You'd think they look at who's best, and implement it. If another country builds a better car than we do we buy it. I never understood why this concept shouldn't apply to government programs. I don't understand the "option"-argument though. It's against the concept of insurance I feel. Nobody would have insurance if we knew for sure that nothing bad would happen to us. And if you give people an option, you can be sure that some won't pay for their treatment. Or should we let people die, whom we could safe? You never know when you're gonna need to visit a hospital. If you're really lucky never. But I cannot think of anybody who's never visited a doctor or the hospital in 20 years. I prefer paying and knowing that I'll get any treatment I need.
Sort of right, there isn't enough competition. Let them compete across state lines and you'll see a change in things. But also as mentinoned elsewhere, don't require hospitals to treat illegal immigrants bogging down the system.
So which immigrants are you referring to? The early settler immigrants who ran the already settled Indians out of their territories, the immigrants who are trying to come back to parts of this country their forefathers settled years ago, or the immigrants from Europe who came to settle here in the early 1900's after all these other immigrants got pushed out?
Lame, why the obfuscation? Why not address healthcare? Use the laws at hand and the definitions contained within it. Or is it that you possess nothing of substance to bring?
Quit making them illegal and put them on the payroll. Most of them are working. They need to pay their fair share based on income. But you skipped around the other issue. The competition scenario is fine. But you never addressed the 40 to 50 million uninsured U.S. citizens who can't afford it anyway where the competition has no meaning. The doctors, hospitals, pharmacies, and insurance up until Obamacare, took the ones who couldn't afford or had minimal health care coverage out of the game entirely. Those four partners catered only to the upscale citizens who had the money for decent care. So the competition was a factor for some, and had no meaning for others. That's why we have Obamacare.
Looking at the numbers around 70% of Americans qualify for some sort of subsidy, most of that group in the poor to working classes and lower middle classes getting the most help. That is in the law. That leaves the well-off to either opt out and pay the tax penalty or who can afford their own insurance. All this applies to those not covered by an employer unlikely if your earning over $44,000 more or less as a single person that is clearly a more skilled or educated worker who is worth more to an employer. And for the very poor and low income Medicaid is more likely going to be expanded in most states its simple math the taxes will be collected just go out of these states, and they will still have to absorb the uninsured and have hospitals losing electively the Medicare fee increases being lower than before and 75% of Medicaid funding for the indigent. In some states the latter is a big chunk of change in New York the hospitals are going to lose $750 million + and that will have to be made up somewhere. Either states and counties will need to raise the funds, or they will stick it to those that can pay or both OR the states can expand Medicaid. The choice is pretty clear with the Federal Government funding this expansion far over the current rates. Who do you think the poor, working classes and much of the Middle Class that will benefit will vote for? And the mandate was a REPUBLICAN idea brought up during Hillarycare, and its a good idea so they added it to the law so why the hate from the GOP now on this same good idea just because its in a largely Democratic law?
Why on earth should we reward them voting rights for breaking the law? This fuzzy logic bewilders me. And also using valuable government resources they do not qualify for. No, they just need to leave and make their own country a better place, not leech off of mine like a sort of parasite. Ruining my house is not improving their home country - where they should be directing their efforts in. Again, there is not enough competition, due to government interference and regulation. If the government gets out of the way I assure you that there will be people leaping at the opportunity to cover these people. There is a 40 to 50 million untapped market share, somebody will fill that void. Also, you under estimate the charity of others when they have the means to provide it. Religious institutions help out a great deal. In addition to this, one should rely on family members to help in time of need. Government should be your last stop for help. If you are getting government assistance you should be doing community service to at least make good on the investment. Medicaid. Abused by many for sure, and that hole needs to be filled. And something you need to understand is that not every body needs health insurance. It is something that should be optional, not forced upon an unwilling public. America is in for a radical paradigm shift of what is really needed, and what is icing on the cake. Essentially, Obamacare is stealing from wealthier people, to give to poor people. They just do it legally because more voters exist on the less affluent side off the fence. There ought to be limits to who can vote.
I didn't realize they were all breaking the law. If their legal and paying taxes, they have as much right to use government resources as anyone. " Leave and make their own country". Part of this country was their country until our ancestors came along made war and run them out. So leeching off "your" country is certainly up for debate. We'll, in the past they've proved they only leap but so high. As long as they can afford it. As long as there's no catastrophic illness. If you get that, you can forget it. And you, live in a dream world. Catastrophic illness and charity don't pay the bills. It's not realistic in a society with such a large population, coupled with a high cost for services. There's just no realistic way to keep pace. You're basically taking us back to stone age health care if that's all we did. I've been down that road with other people myself and have seen on many occasions how that breaks down real quick. It doesn't work. And don't kid yourself that it does. "Not every body needs health insurance". Not everybody needs health to live either. The problem is, without good health, most people generally don't live long. "It should be optional, not forced upon an unwilling public". Boy would I like to meet that crowd that wants to be without health insurance. I'll bet you won't see them around on every street corner. What's bad about that though,is when they finally do get sick and show up to the hospital with no insurance and a low-income,then find out they can't pay. I wonder who pays for the uninsured who was unwilling to have insurance? Since I have insurance and I'm at the hospital the same time the uninsured is, guess who will HAVE to pay for the uninsured who didn't want health insurance? I wonder, you were referring to purchasing health insurance as being optional. Is it also optional if I decide not to pay for the dead beat who wouldn't pay for his or her insurance, where someone else sooner or later will be asked to pay for? You can actually have an optional mandate for those who don't want insurance and a mandated mandate for others when the optional guy doesn't pay. The rich can vote and the poor can't. What a lame analogy.
Than you should probably look up what the words "illegal", "lawful", "unlawful", and "illegal" mean. That ought to clear things up for you. Because as it stands it appears that your perception of the law is distorted at best. Were they citizens, I couldn't agree more. But they are not, they are illegal immigrants bent on breaking the bank. They got to go. At gun point if necessary. Facts are they are not abiding by our laws, regardless of what else they do. If we do not enforce laws than we approach a massive (*)(*)(*)(*) sandwich. No, not really, the Rio Grande is a pretty good land mark. Everything that was once Mexico's was either sold or conquered, either way the tranferrance of ownership was without mistake - they signed a treaty bub. Or is it that you just hate America? Could it be that you simply reek of treason? You should really start to appreciate all the blood, sweat, and hard work that your ancestors invested into this nation. You have it good because your progenitors and their forbears worked hard for you. Have you no appreciation for your own culture? There exists no safety net that works for all, but trying to make one will undo everything. Sometimes, in life you draw a crappy hand. Soldier on in life and make the best of it. The world does not owe you any special favors just because your life is hard. The sooner people learn to look out for themselve the better off everyone will be. Google Shriners, get back to me. Even expensive surgeries are done free of charge. You say they don't exist, but clearly they do. I will agree that it cannot work the way things are now, once the climate changes you'd be amazed at what people can do. But I guess that is the major difference between us. You view people as spiritless husks with zero humanity towards their fellow men. History has proved you wrong many times. Acts of selflessness occur more often when people have the means to do so without harming themselves. Been without insurance for nearly a decade, been just fine. Sure, my situation is not for everyone, but it works for me. And if somebody does have a serious problem (i.e. broken femur), treat them, and send them a bill. Yes, it will cost a pretty penny, but they will also be able to walk. They don't want to pay? Garnish their wages, we have a civil set of laws for just that thing, liens as well. No sense in jacking up others premiums - that is fairly gay to those who pay the price. I'd also have it so you couldn't just discharge it with bankruptcy court either. Gotta pay the piper some day. Wrong, I would just make it so those dependent on government services couldn't vote barring certain exceptions like disability from military service. So the producers have more say in what their cash is spent on. OR If you are on the dole, you better be doing atleast 15+ hours a week of community service to cover the cost of your premiums that another is paying for. Earn your keep.
The real truth about Obamacare. Its here, its the law of the land, the odds of a repeal are so remote as to be non-existent and your going to have to accept the reality that you have Obamacare in place. And about the poor I'm poor, I vote and in fact my vote is as powerful as a rich persons vote its the one thing the poor can do in a democracy vote to get things we want the states and others did that by making it simply age based if your eighteen and a citizen you can vote assuming your not a felon in my state. We don't need a gun to destroy a government or get things when we can vote and put people in that owe us and want to keep their butts in office and its all legal and non-violent. You love our government part of that is the right of one person with one vote able to use it if you don't like that then leave for some other nation.
