ObamaCare: The worst domestic policy disaster since prohibition.

[Walter Powers]

Millions of Americans are beginning to realize what a disaster the Affordable Care, AKA ObamaCare, really is. Obama and his fellow Democrat's approval ratings are dropping to record lows, and Democrats up for reelection are running for cover to escape their vote in favor of and false promises about the law. Not only that, but the health insurance market is becoming highly unstable as many consumers realize how much their premiums and deductibles will skyrocket. Worse yet, many people still can't sign up for coverage, let alone pay for it. In Oregon (my state), for example, we've spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the website, and so far less then 50 people have signed up, and none have successfully paid a premium.

And this is just the business side of things, and the tip of the iceberg. If these people can't build a halfway functioning website with BILLIONS of dollars to spend, why should we trust them with our medical surgeries?

My question is: Would you favor a repeal of this law? Why or why not?

[Stronk Serb]

The law is bullcrap. It was passed so that the select elite could fill their pockets. I hate to say this, but the older system is better, despite it's many obvious flaws. They should implement a universal healthcare system, kinda like the one we have here or the UK, or Canada.

[britishboy]

God wouldn't it be less embarrassing to do a U turn?

[Harry Smith]

God wouldn't it be less embarrassing to do a U turn?

Yeah Obama is really going to abandon the piece of policy that got him elected twice...

I think that Obama care had noble intentions, the implementation just like any large project has had it's initial problems but I feel for Obama because he's had to accept this watered down version.

The US needs universal healthcare

[tovaris]

Didnt you poste something like this alredy?

[sqishy]

Universal healthcare should be going on over there. Should at the least reverse away from this healthcare system.

[Charlie48]

Millions of Americans also don't realise what a mess their country is in, so credit to Obama for at least trying to sort one of the many problems out but that country is irreversibly fucked and some people can't be helped.

[LouBerry]

Millions of Americans are beginning to realize what a disaster the Affordable Care, AKA ObamaCare, really is. Obama and his fellow Democrat's approval ratings are dropping to record lows, and Democrats up for reelection are running for cover to escape their vote in favor of and false promises about the law. Not only that, but the health insurance market is becoming highly unstable as many consumers realize how much their premiums and deductibles will skyrocket. Worse yet, many people still can't sign up for coverage, let alone pay for it. In Oregon (my state), for example, we've spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the website, and so far less then 50 people have signed up, and none have successfully paid a premium.

And this is just the business side of things, and the tip of the iceberg. If these people can't build a halfway functioning website with BILLIONS of dollars to spend, why should we trust them with our medical surgeries?

My question is: Would you favor a repeal of this law? Why or why not?

God, it's horrible. Some people have no idea. He had no idea. People already can't afford necessary operations and medications, this is making it all ten times worse. But, I don't really blame anyone in particular, at least he's trying to figure something out.

[Walter Powers]

The law is bullcrap. It was passed so that the select elite could fill their pockets. I hate to say this, but the older system is better, despite it's many obvious flaws. They should implement a universal healthcare system, kinda like the one we have here or the UK, or Canada.

The older system was way better.
See, here's my problem: We've tried this halfway system, it's a disaster, and so it would be nonsense to take the damage further and do full out socialized healthcare.
God wouldn't it be less embarrassing to do a U turn?
My thoughts exactly. If the Democrats want any hope of holding onto power, they need to cut their losses and join the GOP in repealing it.

Yeah Obama is really going to abandon the piece of policy that got him elected twice...
I know it won't happen, too, Obama's too big of a control freak to give up his trillion dollar power grab.

I think that Obama care had noble intentions, the implementation just like any large project has had it's initial problems but I feel for Obama because he's had to accept this watered down version.

Millions of people are losing their health insurance with no way of purchasing new policies, tens of millions more to go, millions more will lose their jobs, most of everybody will be paying higher premiums and higher deductibles, and the person you feel for is the man responsible? Are you kidding me?

The US needs universal healthcare
That's the opposite of what we need. As I said above, this law is a half-socialized system, it's working out terribly, and so it would be crazy to go all the way.

So do you think ObamaCare should be repealed, or not?

Didnt you poste something like this alredy?

Yes, a while back a predicted that this would be a disaster. And this thread is about the fact my prediction came true.

Universal healthcare should be going on over there. Should at the least reverse away from this healthcare system.
So do you think ObamaCare should be repealed?

I explained above why universal healthcare is the last thing we need.
Millions of Americans also don't realise what a mess their country is in, so credit to Obama for at least trying to sort one of the many problems out but that country is irreversibly **** and some people can't be helped.

The reason why we're in trouble is our debt. This law clearly is going to raise it a lot. Obama isn't trying to fix any of our problems. He's just doing what will give himself and his fellow politicians on the far left the most power.

God, it's horrible. Some people have no idea. He had no idea. People already can't afford necessary operations and medications, this is making it all ten times worse. But, I don't really blame anyone in particular, at least he's trying to figure something out.

I agree it's horrible.

Somebody has to be held accountable, though, and the buck stops at the president. If he isn't responsible, why has nobody been fired?

Also, he saw the legislation before he signed it, and didn't do a thing. He lied about what's in it to ram it through Congress. And he's vowed never to repeal it, regardless of how much pain it inflicts on Americans.

[skiman]

The law is bullcrap. It was passed so that the select elite could fill their pockets. I hate to say this, but the older system is better, despite it's many obvious flaws. They should implement a universal healthcare system, kinda like the one we have here or the UK, or Canada.

Says the guy with the hammer and sickle of the soviet union as his profile pic

[darthearth]

I don't think it has been given time enough to know whether it will work out or not. I see many assertions here with no proof given to back them up, but how can there be proof? The law hasn't even had a chance to work yet.

I do not favor repeal until the law obviously fails, and that hasn't happened yet despite the assertions. We needed to try something to account for the skyrocketing costs due to people getting medical care who couldn't pay for it. That was the root problem, the answer was to try universal coverage and ObamaCare was the best we could get through congress. Let's see if it works or not.

[Stronk Serb]

The older system was way better.
See, here's my problem: We've tried this halfway system, it's a disaster, and so it would be nonsense to take the damage further and do full out socialized healthcare.


Um Obamacare is is an aborted child between the previous system and a government insurance system where you have to purchase the policy, The system here has everyone pay a small percent of their gross salary, and in turn they have full access to the healthcare system. Medications are bought at a lot smaller prices, or in some cases you get them for free, you get access to all treatments, check-ups and surgeries.

[Vlerchan]

Says the guy with the hammer and sickle of the soviet union as his profile pic
Most communists and socialists and liberals (outside the US) were never for ObamaCare in the first place. I wasn't, anyway. A system similar to the European universal healthcare system would be a lot more preferable.

I haven't paid a huge amount of attention to the entire ObamaCare 'crisis' though the below - which I second - seems highly reasonable:
I don't think it has been given time enough to know whether it will work out or not. I see many assertions here with no proof given to back them up, but how can there be proof? The law hasn't even had a chance to work yet.

I do not favor repeal until the law obviously fails, and that hasn't happened yet despite the assertions. We needed to try something to account for the skyrocketing costs due to people getting medical care who couldn't pay for it. That was the root problem, the answer was to try universal coverage and ObamaCare was the best we could get through congress. Let's see if it works or not.

[sqishy]

[QUOTE=Walter Powers;2612151]
So do you think ObamaCare should be repealed?

I explained above why universal healthcare is the last thing we need.
/QUOTE]

Why not universal healthcare? The idea is that it is universal, better than having healthcare decided on how much money you have. To have to pay for staying healthy is not something I am for.
Yes, repeal ObamaCare.

[Aajj333]

Do you guys realize that you are already paying for people's health care? If someone sick goes to the hospital and they can not pay the hospital is not going to turn them away. They will treat them and give the bill to the state that you will have to pay in taxes. If everyone has health care then taxes will go down.

[Walter Powers]

[QUOTE=Walter Powers;2612151]
So do you think ObamaCare should be repealed?

I explained above why universal healthcare is the last thing we need.
/QUOTE]

Why not universal healthcare? The idea is that it is universal, better than having healthcare decided on how much money you have. To have to pay for staying healthy is not something I am for.
Yes, repeal ObamaCare.

I'm not for paying for healthcare either, but the incoveienent truth is it isn't free. Somebody has to pay for it. And I for one do not want to have to depend on the this government who has undisputably proved itself completly incompetant on this issue. Universal healthcare would be an even bigger power grab, and not what we need

Also, if you aren't aware, we have $17,000,000,000,000.00 in debt so the bottom line is that we wouldn't be able to afford this. What do you want to do, raise taxes and hurt our economy even more?

Do you guys realize that you are already paying for people's health care? If someone sick goes to the hospital and they can not pay the hospital is not going to turn them away. They will treat them and give the bill to the state that you will have to pay in taxes. If everyone has health care then taxes will go down.

We already have Medicaid for poor people; we don't need ObamaCare for that. Most of everybody who will have insurnace under ObamaCare has insurance right now, and it won't make a very sizable dent in the amount of people uninsured.
So are you in favor or against repealing ObamaCare?

[ksdnfkfr]

All I know about it is my aunt's job paid for her health insurance.
But it had a $35,000 cap. Since the new law says there can't be a
cap her company can not give her free health insurance now and
can only offer her a plan sh has to make big monthly payments for.
Her original free policy took care of two surgeries and other stuff
for 15 years and she was really happy with it.

[Walter Powers]

All I know about it is my aunt's job paid for her health insurance.
But it had a $35,000 cap. Since the new law says there can't be a
cap her company can not give her free health insurance now and
can only offer her a plan sh has to make big monthly payments for.
Her original free policy took care of two surgeries and other stuff
for 15 years and she was really happy with it.

Thanks for sharing. This is exactly what I'm talking about.

[Harry Smith]

The major problem I have with the argument is that Republicans especially those fanatic on the far right are going to oppose any health program which tries to help people out of the gutter, they opposed Clinton care in '93 so I take most of it with a grain of salt you know

I really don't know about Obama Care and the US system but it's clear that something needs to be done. One thing I do know is that Tens of millions of uninsured will get access to affordable quality health insurance through the marketplace. That's a good idea- America needs to embrace all aspects of it's society rather than continuing to remain a country for the better off.

I really don't see what's so bad with giving everyone free healthcare- doesn't the idea of free healthcare sound good to you Walter? Everyone from craddle to grave having an equal right to quality medical care?

[ksdnfkfr]

Thanks for sharing. This is exactly what I'm talking about.

Yeah not only can't she afford the monthly payment - but before she
only had to pay $300 out of pocket each year before the company insurance
kicked in - now she will have to pay $3,500 before it kicks in. And it only
covers 50% now instead of 80% like it used to before.

I keep hearing a lot of complected stuff about the Democrats this and
the Republicans that - but all I know is my aunt, who lives alone on
low income, is in deep shit financially over this.

[ksdnfkfr]

I really don't know about Obama Care and the US system but it's clear that something needs to be done. One thing I do know is that Tens of millions of uninsured will get access to affordable quality health insurance through the marketplace. That's a good idea- America needs to embrace all aspects of it's society rather than continuing to remain a country for the better off.

I hope you are right because my aunt says she is being forced
to apply for Obamacare now, but she does not know yet whether
she will be able to pay the monthly fee for it either or how much
she will have pay on her own for medical care now. And she is working
a low income job. I think all the people on the lower end of the pay
scale are getting torpedoed by this. It does not seem to be helping
them at all. It is just seems to be making things a lot worse. If she
had kids to cover she would not be able to anymore.

[Nellerin]

If only the idiots complaining about the law were correct in saying that it was socialism.

A socialist policy would actually be a better way to go with healthcare than what Obama is doing.

[Walter Powers]

The major problem I have with the argument is that Republicans especially those fanatic on the far right are going to oppose any health program which tries to help people out of the gutter, they opposed Clinton care in '93 so I take most of it with a grain of salt you know

I really don't know about Obama Care and the US system but it's clear that something needs to be done. One thing I do know is that Tens of millions of uninsured will get access to affordable quality health insurance through the marketplace. That's a good idea- America needs to embrace all aspects of it's society rather than continuing to remain a country for the better off.

I really don't see what's so bad with giving everyone free healthcare- doesn't the idea of free healthcare sound good to you Walter? Everyone from craddle to grave having an equal right to quality medical care?

No longer feeling sorry for Chairman Bao?

Of course it sounds good; you sound just like MSNBC! You don't see what's so bad with giving everybody free healthcare because you apparently don't realize that nothing material is free. In order to do this "single payer" system which seems to be the holy grail of liberalism, we'd either have to raise taxes, which is the last thing we need, or increase the deficit, which is already leading us and the world toward economic catastrophe.

Also, it makes people more dependent on politicians, lobbyists, and beurocrats for our healthcare. Why should I trust them? There's a reason why our government has the lowest approval rating in our 237 year history!

So do you think ObamaCare should be repealed, or not?

First thing, we should repeal it as the vast majority of Americans were happy with their health insurance before this passed. How about instead of giving the government all this more power, we simply expand Medicaid so more people can afford insurance? This is a fair compromise that's being offered by Republicans.

If only the idiots complaining about the law were correct in saying that it was socialism.

It is certainly a socialist policy in that it redistributes wealth from the successful to the poor. By American standards, that's socialist.

A socialist policy would actually be a better way to go with healthcare than what Obama is doing.
Read what I said to Harry above.

[Vlerchan]

It is certainly a socialist policy in that it redistributes wealth from the successful to the poor.
It's a lot closer to fascist that socialist, actually.

In ObamaCare the government doesn't actually own the means of production - it would be socialist then if it did - but rather it's exerting a great deal of control over it. (Aside: I just know I'm going to love the reaction that this garners.)

[Harry Smith]

No longer feeling sorry for Chairman Bao?

Of course it sounds good; you sound just like MSNBC! You don't see what's so bad with giving everybody free healthcare because you apparently don't realize that nothing material is free. In order to do this "single payer" system which seems to be the holy grail of liberalism, we'd either have to raise taxes, which is the last thing we need, or increase the deficit, which is already leading us and the world toward economic catastrophe.

Also, it makes people more dependent on politicians, lobbyists, and beurocrats for our healthcare. Why should I trust them? There's a reason why our government has the lowest approval rating in our 237 year history!

.

Maybe just maybe the US could stop building supper-carriers and stop spending vast amounts of money on foreign wars killing foreign killing. The US should stop spending billions subsidizing the oil industry and then they should follow the European model and actually tax the rich. Then you won't have children dying because they're parents can't afford any health insurance.

It's simple as- free healthcare. It works in Britain, it works in France and it works in Ireland. Let's actually allow children to live rather than die because of their wealth. You can dress it up by talking about insurance and the damn liberals but the bottom line is that everyone should have free healthcare no matter how much money they have. I shouldn't be checked for my credit card on the way into a hospital- I should be checked for my pulse.

I live in a system where everyone get's free healthcare and despite what the fanatics in the tea party claim Britain hasn't fallen apart.

In fact I would like to boast that the UK has a better healthcare service than the US-doesn't that show something

[Walter Powers]

Maybe just maybe the US could stop building supper-carriers and stop spending vast amounts of money on foreign wars killing foreign killing.

I've shown you before how, as impressive as our military is, we only spend about a fifth of our federal budge on defense. Entitlements are what's bankrupting us, and they make up far larger portion of our spending.


The US should stop spending billions subsidizing the oil industry

I agree, as with all other subsidies, including to wind power. Remember, though, "billions' may be a lot to Britain, but it's not significant and the savings would be nowhere in the relm of even beginning to build a universal healthcare system.

and then they should follow the European model

You think that America should follow the EU model? That is crazy. We don't need 25% unemployment, thank you. -edited. -Emerald Dream

and actually tax the rich. Then you won't have children dying because they're parents can't afford any health insurance.
"and actually tax the rich". We do tax the successful! In fact, the wealthiest ten percent of Americans pay the vast majority of all our taxes.

It's simple as- free healthcare. It works in Britain, it works in France and it works in Ireland. Let's actually allow children to live rather than die because of their wealth.

Harry, it's become obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about. No Americans have died because a hospital wouldn't serve them due to a lack of insurance. In fact, that is and has been against the law and is sometimes criminal to do.

You can dress it up by talking about insurance and the damn liberals but the bottom line is that everyone should have free healthcare no matter how much money they have. I shouldn't be checked for my credit card on the way into a hospital- I should be checked for my pulse.
[b]As I've said before, the bottom line is that both ObamaCare and a single payer system are expensive and further concentrates power in the federal government and the political elite.

I live in a system where everyone get's free healthcare and despite what the fanatics in the tea party claim Britain hasn't fallen apart.

You certainly aren't doing better then us. Your debt problem is even bigger then ours, and your GDP per capita and human development is significantly lower.

In fact I would like to boast that the UK has a better healthcare service than the US-doesn't that show something

Really? I don't see foriegn leaders flocking to Britain for surgeries!

[Harry Smith]

I've shown you before how, as impressive as our military is, we only spend about a fifth of our federal budge on defense. Entitlements are what's bankrupting us, and they make up far larger portion of our spending.




I agree, as with all other subsidies, including to wind power. Remember, though, "billions' may be a lot to Britain, but it's not significant and the savings would be nowhere in the relm of even beginning to build a universal healthcare system.



You think that America should follow the EU model? That is crazy. We don't need 25% unemployment, thank you. -edited. -Emerald Dream


"and actually tax the rich". We do tax the successful! In fact, the wealthiest ten percent of Americans pay the vast majority of all our taxes.



Harry, it's become obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about. No Americans have died because a hospital wouldn't serve them due to a lack of insurance. In fact, that is and has been against the law and is sometimes criminal to do.


[b]As I've said before, the bottom line is that both ObamaCare and a single payer system are expensive and further concentrates power in the federal government and the political elite.



You certainly aren't doing better then us. Your debt problem is even bigger then ours, and your GDP per capita and human development is significantly lower.



Really? I don't see foriegn leaders flocking to Britain for surgeries!

If you're human development index to measure the success of a country then your not going to get very far in the world, it's one of the most useless measuring devices out their because it only takes into account 4 factors.

But sure I bet your proud of the great US ranking 38th in the world for healthcare- it's clear the system needs changing if Colombia have better healthcare than the US.

Families and in turn children shouldn't have to amass mountains worth of debt just to get basic medical care- don't even get me started on people with pre-existing medical conditions.

Insurance companies are not compassionate- they only care about profit and turn over. They don't want to be forking our for medical care every day- that's dangerous for people who are insured. You've got a company that puts profit before lives- but sure tell me how great the US is again.

P.S Britain has only 7% unemployment and we actually have a system to work out our government rather than shutting it down- the only good think to come from the shutdown was the suicide of Ted Cruz

[Jean Poutine]

As I've said before, the bottom line is that both ObamaCare and a single payer system are expensive and further concentrates power in the federal government and the political elite.

I hope you realize that your private health care model is actually more expensive than the vast majority of single payer systems.

As for concentrating power in the federal government, there's actually a pretty easy workaround : delegate it to the States! In Canada, health care is a provincial competence.

No contest on the "political elite", but better that than CEOs who actually want people to die to turn up a buck.

[Vlerchan]

I've shown you before how, as impressive as our military is, we only spend about a fifth of our federal budge on defense
I'm not sure if you know - or understand, maybe - but one fifth of the American federal budget is an absolutely colossal amount and something that really does need to be reduced regardless of your personal misgivings. In terms of GDP the US is spending two and three times as much as major European economies such as Germany and France and the UK. (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS) From a totally selfish European standpoint however the US exorbitant - and quite frankly borderline-schizophrenic - defence spending is a great thing. It's part of the reason why Western Europes - i.e., Nato's - defence spending is actually so low.

You think that America should follow the EU model? That is crazy. We don't need 25% unemployment, thank you.
You'll find that there is only two countries in the EU with unemployment rates of 25% - Greece and Spain - and it has largely nothing to do with their strict-adherence - which actually didn't happen - to the 'European model'. There was a number of much bigger factors that played much larger roles in their downfalls - and I can expand on them if you want; though it's sorta irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Ireland comes in at third with and unemployment of 14.3% and I can assure that our welfare and healthcare and education programmes have little do do with this - on the contrary it was the adaptation of libertarian-styled regulation policies and an over-reliance on our housing bubble.

Harry, it's become obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about. No Americans have died because a hospital wouldn't serve them due to a lack of insurance. In fact, that is and has been against the law and is sometimes criminal to do.
Sure? (http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/)

As I've said before, the bottom line is that both ObamaCare and a single payer system are expensive[1] and further concentrates power in the federal government[2] and the political elite[3].
[1]: Jean's right. In the countries that have adopted a universal healthcare system - such as Britain and Australia and Canada and, y'know, most of the rest of the first world - the cost of medical care has actually gone down.

[2]: It's possible - and I'd say preferable - to adopt a universal healthcare system on a state-based level as opposed to a federal one. There's been a number of pushes to legislate such a s system in a number of US states in the past - though as far as I'm aware it has never passed.

[3]: You're telling me that you trust unaccountable corporations more so that your accountable representative. I know politicians aren't exactly the greatest people on Earth but at least they'll be somewhat reluctant to consciously and deliberately fuck you over unlike a majority of corporations.

You certainly aren't doing better then us. Your debt problem is even bigger then ours, and your GDP per capita and human development is significantly lower.
Yes: America adopted a Keynesian-styled stimulus package whilst Britain adopted austerity - i.e., the conservative option. What more can I say here?

Really? I don't see foriegn leaders flocking to Britain for surgeries!
This is the most up-to-date analysis I could find. (http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html) Britain seems to be ranked ahead of the US - as does, somewhat embarrassingly, Costa Rica and Dominica and Columbia. Wikipedia lists GDP expenditure. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems_in_2000)

Finally, on a side note: the elimination of oil subsidies would be pretty devastating for a lot of American businesses. Imagine how much petrol and diesel costs factor into production. I support a gradual reduction as opposed to straight-out elimination.

[Ashthefox]

we do not want universal health care. Did you know that roughly 90% of the country lives within a hundred miles of the US? That's because up until now, if you had a medical emergency in Canada, you would drive down to the US to get medical attention.

[Walter Powers]

If you're human development index to measure the success of a country then your not going to get very far in the world, it's one of the most useless measuring devices out their because it only takes into account 4 factors.

Yes:
-Education: Mean years of schooling and expected years of school
-Health: Life expectancy at birth
-Income: GNI per capita.

These factors are the most important when determining the quality of life. What are you trying to claim, Britain is more developed then the United States? The HDI index says otherwise.


But sure I bet your proud of the great US ranking 38th in the world for healthcare- it's clear the system needs changing if Colombia have better healthcare than the US.

Ranks 38th according to whom? You can't just throw in an object-able "fact" like that without a source.

Do you honestly think that if I need a brain surgery a doctor in Columbia is going to do a better job then an American doctor?

Families and in turn children shouldn't have to amass mountains worth of debt just to get basic medical care- don't even get me started on people with pre-existing medical conditions.

What kind of savages do you think we are? We don't make kids work to pay off their parents debts! Unless of course we DO go with your system, because we'd have to pay it off eventually through taxation.

Insurance companies are not compassionate- they only care about profit and turn over.

Guess what, neither are politicians, lobbyists, and beurocrats. In fact, they have less incentive to provide you with good service because they don't have to try to retain you as customers nor turn a profit.


They don't want to be forking our for medical care every day- that's dangerous for people who are insured. You've got a company that puts profit before lives- but sure tell me how great the US is again.

Nowhere in here do you explain exactly how you intend to pay for this, again. We simply can't afford it! You can complain about sky high costs all you want, but the bottom line is somebody has to pay for it, and nobody can afford it. Also you haven't addressed the concern of healthcare rationing. Many of our friends to the north in Canada are coming down here for medical care because they often have waiting lists that are multiple months long. I'm willing to pay nearly any amount of money to see a doctor when I need to.

P.S Britain has only 7% unemployment
So does America. And as I pointed out, our GDP per capita is much larger.

and we actually have a system to work out our government rather than shutting it down- the only good think to come from the shutdown was the suicide of Ted Cruz

Okay, first, I'm thinking that this might not end up so bad for Ted Cruz, as the reason the government shut down was because the Democrats were refusing to let him defund ObamaCare. Now that we are beginning ti see the consequences of this horrid law, his approval rating and other Republicans is skyrocketing, partially because people are seeing how they in fact were right about this law. I think they might also be beginning to admire instead of despise the GOP because of the government shutdown as they now see they had a more then valid reason for it.

Second, true, in the UK the government shutdown would not have happened. But that also means that there are much fewer checks an balances, which is a far worse trade off. In your country, the party in power rarely ever has to compromise, whereas in America it is commonplace.

Let me ask you this: how would you like it if one party attained a very slim majority in the Chamber of Commons, but they decided to repeal gay marriage? That could happen in Britain, but it's very very unlikely in America the way our presidential system is set up.

I hope you realize that your private health care model is actually more expensive than the vast majority of single payer systems.

We also rarely ever have to wait in line and have a much more comprehensive selection of drugs and procedures available if we need them. It's higher quality, and the best thing is that it's our individual choice what kind of coverage we want. I know people know better the the government what they need.

As for concentrating power in the federal government, there's actually a pretty easy workaround : delegate it to the States! In Canada, health care is a provincial competence.
While, I completely disagree with it, sure, let California run a single payer system if they want. People can move. They shouldn't be surprised though when their population starts dwindling until they are almost exclusively underclass welfare bums.

No contest on the "political elite", but better that than CEOs who actually want people to die to turn up a buck.

Really? You don't see any more danger in giving somebody a virtually unlimited budget, not having to try to retain customers, and letting them police themselves?

Hey, I thought you said you were done with this forum!

I'm not sure if you know - or understand, maybe - but one fifth of the American federal budget is an absolutely colossal amount and something that really does need to be reduced regardless of your personal misgivings. In terms of GDP the US is spending two and three times as much as major European economies such as Germany and France and the UK. (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS) From a totally selfish European standpoint however the US exorbitant - and quite frankly borderline-schizophrenic - defence spending is a great thing. It's part of the reason why Western Europes - i.e., Nato's - defence spending is actually so low.

Yes, you guys are freeloading off of us in terms of military spending. If we spent less, would you really pick up the slack? Or would we see dictators begin to spring up?

As world superpower, it makes sense that we spend a disproportionate amount of cash on defense.

You'll find that there is only two countries in the EU with unemployment rates of 25% - Greece and Spain - and it has largely nothing to do with their strict-adherence - which actually didn't happen - to the 'European model'. There was a number of much bigger factors that played much larger roles in their downfalls - and I can expand on them if you want; though it's sorta irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Ireland comes in at third with and unemployment of 14.3% and I can assure that our welfare and healthcare and education programmes have little do do with this - on the contrary it was the adaptation of libertarian-styled regulation policies and an over-reliance on our housing bubble.[/quote]
That doesn't change the fact the reason those countries are so starved for cash is entitlement spending.


Sure? (http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/)

They may not be getting preventative care, but they are not showing up to a hospital with a broken arm and not getting treated. That was my point.

[1]: Jean's right. In the countries that have adopted a universal healthcare system - such as Britain and Australia and Canada and, y'know, most of the rest of the first world - the cost of medical care has actually gone down.

Please, explain how adding millions of people to the regular healthcare rolls without increasing the number of doctors while providing a virtually bottomless pit of money to hospitals is going to decrease cost? It's not, my friend. Supply and demand.

Also, as I've said time and time again, nobody is proposing what to do in order to make it so we could afford a single payer system.

[2]: It's possible - and I'd say preferable - to adopt a universal healthcare system on a state-based level as opposed to a federal one. There's been a number of pushes to legislate such a s system in a number of US states in the past - though as far as I'm aware it has never passed.
That's better, however for the people who live in those states it still makes them much more dependent on their government. Also, this is even more unaffordable for states because, unlike the feds, they are required to balance their budgets.

[3]: You're telling me that you trust unaccountable corporations more so that your accountable representative. I know politicians aren't exactly the greatest people on Earth but at least they'll be somewhat reluctant to consciously and deliberately fuck you over unlike a majority of corporations.

"A majority of corporations" where the hell did you get that stat?

"Corporations" don't get to spend however much of your money they feel like. They don't get to misrepresent themselves, because if they do they'll be sued and shut down. "Corporations" have to at least make you feel like you're getting a decent deal, or you'll take your business somewhere else. If you can't, that's a monopoly and a whole different issue entirely.

Politicians by contrast, can reach however deep into your pockets they wish with or without your consent. They can represent themselves, as they run the justice system, and they can force you to buy a product, and they have no reason to make it a high quality one.

Yes: America adopted a Keynesian-styled stimulus package whilst Britain adopted austerity - i.e., the conservative option. What more can I say here?

You think the stimulus helped us! HA! It had pretty much zero noticeable effect on all our economic stats, except of course the national debt.

This is the most up-to-date analysis I could find. (http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html) Britain seems to be ranked ahead of the US - as does, somewhat embarrassingly, Costa Rica and Dominica and Columbia. Wikipedia lists GDP expenditure. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems_in_2000)

The WHO index you gave is very out of date and said they stopped doing it. I'm also curious as to what they consider in making this if they honestly think any third world country has better healthcare then America.



Finally, on a side note: the elimination of oil subsidies would be pretty devastating for a lot of American businesses. Imagine how much petrol and diesel costs factor into production. I support a gradual reduction as opposed to straight-out elimination.

Probably a better idea. Again, however, if you want this single payer system we'd need to make some deep meaningful cuts.

we do not want universal health care. Did you know that roughly 90% of the country lives within a hundred miles of the US? That's because up until now, if you had a medical emergency in Canada, you would drive down to the US to get medical attention.
Thank you for reminding me. Although I certainly don't think this is the only reason Canadians live so close to the border, a significant portion now do come here for care because of the rationing.

[Harry Smith]

Yes:
-Education: Mean years of schooling and expected years of school
-Health: Life expectancy at birth
-Income: GNI per capita.

These factors are the most important when determining the quality of life. What are you trying to claim, Britain is more developed then the United States? The HDI index says otherwise.



Ranks 38th according to whom? You can't just throw in an object-able "fact" like that without a source.

Do you honestly think that if I need a brain surgery a doctor in Columbia is going to do a better job then an American doctor?



What kind of savages do you think we are? We don't make kids work to pay off their parents debts! Unless of course we DO go with your system, because we'd have to pay it off eventually through taxation.


Guess what, neither are politicians, lobbyists, and beurocrats. In fact, they have less incentive to provide you with good service because they don't have to try to retain you as customers nor turn a profit.



Nowhere in here do you explain exactly how you intend to pay for this, again. We simply can't afford it! You can complain about sky high costs all you want, but the bottom line is somebody has to pay for it, and nobody can afford it. Also you haven't addressed the concern of healthcare rationing. Many of our friends to the north in Canada are coming down here for medical care because they often have waiting lists that are multiple months long. I'm willing to pay nearly any amount of money to see a doctor when I need to.


So does America. And as I pointed out, our GDP per capita is much larger.



Okay, first, I'm thinking that this might not end up so bad for Ted Cruz, as the reason the government shut down was because the Democrats were refusing to let him defund ObamaCare. Now that we are beginning ti see the consequences of this horrid law, his approval rating and other Republicans is skyrocketing, partially because people are seeing how they in fact were right about this law. I think they might also be beginning to admire instead of despise the GOP because of the government shutdown as they now see they had a more then valid reason for it.

Second, true, in the UK the government shutdown would not have happened. But that also means that there are much fewer checks an balances, which is a far worse trade off. In your country, the party in power rarely ever has to compromise, whereas in America it is commonplace.

Let me ask you this: how would you like it if one party attained a very slim majority in the Chamber of Commons, but they decided to repeal gay marriage? That could happen in Britain, but it's very very unlikely in America the way our presidential system is set up.



We also rarely ever have to wait in line and have a much more comprehensive selection of drugs and procedures available if we need them. It's higher quality, and the best thing is that it's our individual choice what kind of coverage we want. I know people know better the the government what they need.


While, I completely disagree with it, sure, let California run a single payer system if they want. People can move. They shouldn't be surprised though when their population starts dwindling until they are almost exclusively underclass welfare bums.



Really? You don't see any more danger in giving somebody a virtually unlimited budget, not having to try to retain customers, and letting them police themselves?

Hey, I thought you said you were done with this forum!



Yes, you guys are freeloading off of us in terms of military spending. If we spent less, would you really pick up the slack? Or would we see dictators begin to spring up?

As world superpower, it makes sense that we spend a disproportionate amount of cash on defense.

You'll find that there is only two countries in the EU with unemployment rates of 25% - Greece and Spain - and it has largely nothing to do with their strict-adherence - which actually didn't happen - to the 'European model'. There was a number of much bigger factors that played much larger roles in their downfalls - and I can expand on them if you want; though it's sorta irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Ireland comes in at third with and unemployment of 14.3% and I can assure that our welfare and healthcare and education programmes have little do do with this - on the contrary it was the adaptation of libertarian-styled regulation policies and an over-reliance on our housing bubble.That doesn't change the fact the reason those countries are so starved for cash is entitlement spending.


They may not be getting preventative care, but they are not showing up to a hospital with a broken arm and not getting treated. That was my point.


Please, explain how adding millions of people to the regular healthcare rolls without increasing the number of doctors while providing a virtually bottomless pit of money to hospitals is going to decrease cost? It's not, my friend. Supply and demand.

Also, as I've said time and time again, nobody is proposing what to do in order to make it so we could afford a single payer system.

That's better, however for the people who live in those states it still makes them much more dependent on their government. Also, this is even more unaffordable for states because, unlike the feds, they are required to balance their budgets.


"A majority of corporations" where the hell did you get that stat?

"Corporations" don't get to spend however much of your money they feel like. They don't get to misrepresent themselves, because if they do they'll be sued and shut down. "Corporations" have to at least make you feel like you're getting a decent deal, or you'll take your business somewhere else. If you can't, that's a monopoly and a whole different issue entirely.

Politicians by contrast, can reach however deep into your pockets they wish with or without your consent. They can represent themselves, as they run the justice system, and they can force you to buy a product, and they have no reason to make it a high quality one.


You think the stimulus helped us! HA! It had pretty much zero noticeable effect on all our economic stats, except of course the national debt.


The WHO index you gave is very out of date and said they stopped doing it. I'm also curious as to what they consider in making this if they honestly think any third world country has better healthcare then America.




Probably a better idea. Again, however, if you want this single payer system we'd need to make some deep meaningful cuts.


Thank you for reminding me. Although I certainly don't think this is the only reason Canadians live so close to the border, a significant portion now do come here for care because of the rationing.

The problem with HDI is that if one value is extremely high then it outweighs the others, they're many other factors to look at when seeing how well a country is doing. And yes the US is doing better than Britain- that's probably because 50% of your states are bigger than our whole country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems_in_2000

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/01/new-health-rankings-of-17-nations-us-is-dead-last/267045/

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/News/News-Releases/2010/Jun/US-Ranks-Last-Among-Seven-Countries.aspx

I'm sure you'll dismiss all these source because they disagree with you but here's the proof that the US healthcare is just not as good as you claim.

So you claim that a corporation cares more? I don't know about the US but in Britain we've had private companies overcharging the government,assaulting prisoners and not even turning up to police the Olympics.

You pay for it with your budget- the British and french both manage to pay for it. You simply divert funding away from defense and military aid to countries like Egypt. That's how you pay for it.

how would you like it if one party attained a very slim majority in the Chamber of Commons, but they decided to repeal gay marriage? That could happen in Britain, but it's very very unlikely in America the way our presidential system is set up.

They would also need to pass it through it the house of lords, so yes we have just as many checks on power as the US system. The high chances is that a majority of MP's from that party would rebel and reject the bill to ban gay marriage. One party wouldn't be able to shutdown the country just because it disagrees with the law- that's not right.

I'm also completely against your jingoistic idea that the US somehow supports the UK and the rest of Europe in defense.

Where were you in the Falklands?
Where were you in 1939?

Also please don't pretend that the US stops dictators springing up through defense spending- if anything the US supports dictators starting up as I've said before

[Vlerchan]

I'm going to need a serious break after this.
Yes:
-Education: Mean years of schooling and expected years of school
-Health: Life expectancy at birth
-Income: GNI per capita.

These factors are the most important when determining the quality of life. What are you trying to claim, Britain is more developed then the United States? The HDI index says otherwise.
Actually, he's right even when adjusted for inequality the UK is doing quite poorly. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality-adjusted_HDI) I take pride in the fact though that all fifteen countries preceding the US are running on the dreaded European model and, worse, it's pro-socialist-orientated cousin the Nordic model. The listings for Life Expectancy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy) however show a much more reflective picture of the impact a good health-care system can have - as is clearly visible it roughly correlates with the WHO health-service figures of 2000.

Do you honestly think that if I need a brain surgery a doctor in Columbia is going to do a better job then an American doctor?
I'd be inclined to say yes: just because an individual was trained in a more obviously impoverished nation that doesn't mean he'll do a lesser job than his American counter-part.

What kind of savages do you think we are? We don't make kids work to pay off their parents debts!
The children may inherit the debt on the death of the parents (though it is quite unlikely). Yes: inheritance does go both ways.

Also, as I've said time and time again, nobody is proposing what to do in order to make it so we could afford a single payer system.
Nowhere in here do you explain exactly how you intend to pay for this, again. We simply can't afford it! ... I'm willing to pay nearly any amount of money to see a doctor when I need to.Place a 0.5% - 1% healthcare levy on income earned. That should suffice, I'd say. I'll also point out now: it's not impossible to have both a private and public healthcare sector operational at the same time. It's what we have in Ireland. Individuals like yourself are totally free to scorn the free healthcare and access private medical clinics because of their perceived superiority – which is actually not the case. (Note: what you pay in tax for the year will be on average a lot less than what you are paying in insurance)

So does America. And as I pointed out, our GDP per capita is much larger.
Read. (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/24122-Why-GDP-per-capita-does-not-reflect-a-population-s-wealth) It's a link to another board but it's entirely relevant.

Second, true, in the UK the government shutdown would not have happened. But that also means that there are much fewer checks an balances, which is a far worse trade off.
I prefer when our government is able to get stuff done. It's rather pointless to elect a president who then finds that everything he attempts gets blocked by an overly-aggressive and super-confrontational congress. Sure, it's nice when they're on your side but I doubt you'd be celebrating America's perfect democratic system if it was Cruz or Paul in office and Obama and friends in congress.

While, I completely disagree with it, sure, let California run a single payer system if they want. People can move. They shouldn't be surprised though when their population starts dwindling until they are almost exclusively underclass welfare bums.
I think you'll find that it would be more than just welfare bums sticking around to avail of the free healthcare. There's one in four Californians are without healthcare insurance (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/16/business/la-fi-uninsured16-2010mar16) and given the size of the population that's a lot of people. Though I'm sure that was just an attempt to parrot old and still-baseless conservative rhetoric as opposed to making a point so I won't hold you to it.

Yes, you guys are freeloading off of us in terms of military spending. If we spent less, would you really pick up the slack? Or would we see dictators begin to spring up?
I doubt we'd pick up the slack because exerting our military dominance over the second and third world isn't so much of a pressing goal for Europe right now. We're busy trying to (legitimately) expand our economies and it becomes difficult to do just that when you're pissing money into largely pointless endeavours hundreds of miles from home. We might up our budget if we actually needed to but I can't see that happening any time soon regardless of the statues of NATO. On that: I doubt the most successful military alliance in history will be coming to an end any time soon.

I'll also ask what dictators you are referring to. I hope it is not those that rose in the 20s and 30s in Europe because then you'd be wrong: the rise of dictators in Germany and Italy and Spain and Russia – which was a dictatorship to replace a previous dictatorship – had nothing to do with a lack of military presence in Europe. Though again: I see the irony in your dictator argument here.

As world superpower, it makes sense that we spend a disproportionate amount of cash on defense.
Why? And before you answer: being a dominant economic and military power doesn't give you the right to interfere in the domestic affairs of another nation and you also don't need that big a defence force if you're about to argue that way either.

That doesn't change the fact the reason those countries are so starved for cash is entitlement spending.The reason that governments are strapped for cash – in all of the three cases - isn't entitlement spending. They're strapped for cash because people – the consumers – aren't spending, which has numerous knock-on effects that I can expand on if needed, and implementing austerity measures is a horrible way to deal with that because it only works in cutting consumption levels and contracting the economy further. Eliminating the entitlement schemes – a radical form of austerity - would actually only lead to making the situation worse because then those who are unemployed would have their spending power significantly reduced and then firms in turn would find their revenues significantly reduced and … look, I could go on but this is much simpler: research the 'Keynesian multiplier' and when you've worked out how it applies respond to this.

Please, explain how adding millions of people to the regular healthcare rolls without increasing the number of doctors while providing a virtually bottomless pit of money to hospitals is going to decrease cost? It's not, my friend. Supply and demand.
11. Because you'll a) no longer have hospitals pushing expensive treatments and drugs (source) (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/health/colonoscopies-explain-why-us-leads-the-world-in-health-expenditures.html?_r=0) which actually aren't needed and b) have such exorbitant amounts of cash going into administration fees (source) (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa022033) (source) (http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/04/03/whos-to-blame-for-our-rising-healthcare-costs/) (source) (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK53942/) and c) find that the money you gave your insurance company has gone towards campaign contributions (source) (http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/kicked-in-the-groin-health-insurance-companies-are-dramatically-increasing-premiums-due-to-the-new-health-care-law-and-there-is-not-much-we-can-do-about-it) and marketing or the money you gave your pharmaceutical company going towards marketing too (source) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_marketing) and d) the government is out to provide a service as opposed to a corporation which is trying to make a profit at the expense of the consumer (source) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/11/health-insurance-industry_n_678289.html) (source) (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/HealthCare/health-insurers-post-record-profits/story?id=9818699) (source) (http://www.businessinsider.com/depressing-facts-about-healthcare-system-2011-6#in-the-past-decade-insurance-premiums-have-increased-three-times-as-fast-as-wages-4) (source) (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2011-04-11-ceo-pay-aetna-williams.htm).

This (http://epianalysis.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/usversuseurope/) is also quite interesting. As is this (http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2013/09/us-health-care/)

"A majority of corporations" where the hell did you get that stat?
I believe it is a fair assumption to make that corporations will exploit the consumer in order to earn supernormal profits given the chance. I can start linking examples if you really want me too.

Politicians by contrast, can reach however deep into your pockets they wish with or without your consent[1]. They can represent themselves, as they run the justice system[2], and they can force you to buy a product, and they have no reason to make it a high quality one.[3]

[1]: When you make a conscious and deliberate decision to reside in a jurisdiction (i.e., America) of which democratically elects individuals (i.e., the Government) who are in favor of imposing taxation then you have given consent. It's called a social contract.

Though I can tell you right now that government departments don't have limitless amounts of cash to spend. The legislative committees who determine their budgets tend to demand evidence that their money is well spent and there's trouble if it isn't.

[2]: Maybe I'm wrong but aren't the judicial and political sphere in America (supposed to be) entirely independent?

[3]: Yes they do. Here, I'll give a quick explanation of how bureaucracy actually works: The government (state-bureaucracy) is made up of democratically elected representatives and each of these democratically elected representatives wants to be re-elected, democratically. This whole 'getting re-elected thing' starts to become exceptionally difficult when serving the electorate poorly – i.e., heading a department that provides a poor service or produces a poor product. What if it is a politically-appointed individual? Same thing. If it's a politically-appointed individual - as opposed to a democratically-elected representative - in the top-spot of a department you'll find that (s)he'll still make an effort to seem competent so (s)he can retain his/her place – because the democratically-elected representative who put him/her in place knows that (s)he is accountable for his/her political-appointments. Bottom line: politicians like to look good for electoral reasons and pushing a poor service or good on the population is bad for just that.

The criticism of government departments is not that they do a poor job in providing a good or service but rather that they don't innovate or aggressively pursue profits like a privately-owned firm – which as a non-for-profit service provider they shouldn't be expected to do, honestly.

You think the stimulus helped us! HA! It had pretty much zero noticeable effect on all our economic stats, except of course the national debt.
I posted this here a while ago. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/business/economy/28bailout.html?_r=1&) The bills achievements are in what it prevented such as increased unemployment. (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/Fund-Reports/2008/Jul/Why-Not-the-Best--Results-from-the-National-Scorecard-on-U-S--Health-System-Performance--2008.aspx) Even Faux News realise it did some good. (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/12/05/1289641/fox-admits-recovery-act/)

The WHO index you gave is very out of date and said they stopped doing it.[1] I'm also curious as to what they consider in making this if they honestly think any third world country has better healthcare then America[2].
[1]: I can't find any other statistics. Will articles covering the EUs dominance (http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1901483,00.html) suffice?

[2:] The WHO is quite unbiased. I'd take it as the truth.

[Hyper]

I'm curious why did Walter stop responding? :whisle:

Been through this all before:

Fact 1 the US Federal Government spends more money on healthcare than most (if not any am not sure from memory) universal healthcare system in the entire world.

Fact 2 the US does not rank high in ''quality'' for healthcare infact many US physicians, researchers, just annoying people to the medical industry as a whole have pointed out that the US is a country where vastly more expensive procedures are preferred by private physicians and hospitals and forced onto patients, they are also favored by the insurance companies because they also get government subsidiaries based on their spending on coverage (hey see how one hand scratches the others back and vice versa...)

And another fact as impressive as your military is and as right as you are about the GDP % the US in terms of actual money spends more than twice the amount China & Russia spend combined every year on it.

That's where you could get your money for that horribly cheaper universal healthcare.

And get over your paranoia of the government. Society forms culture and society elects government. If you can't do well enough to be able to trust your elected government how the hell can you trust a corporation more?

[Romulus]

I'll only respond to the first post because I'm WAY too lazy to respond to everyone.

I would favor a repeal of the bill. The bill has caused more harm than good. While the poor are making out because of the law, the middle and upper classes are getting cheated. Many people who have plans that they are perfectly happy with are fading extreme changes to these plans like less coverage, less doctor visits and rising prices. They are paying more for less! My dad works incredibly hard and was rewarded with a plan from his company, a so called "Cadillac Plan". We had the perfect amount of coverage for a healthy and happy family of three.

But, nope! Dear Leader has decided that our plan is "too good", and that we must have what my dad worked so hard to get taken away from us so that his system can be shoved down our throats. Our premiums skyrocketed, our deductible went up, and we get one doctor visit a year! What the Hell is that about? Why are so many people being cheated out of their plans? The liberals claim that "it's only fair". Is it fair to steal from those who earned what they own? Is it fair to steal from hardworking Americans? I'm all for giving to the poor, so don't say I'm greedy.

Liberals also tell me that this is "what Jesus would want you to do. After all, you do believe in His teachings, right?" Christ wants us to give our own wealth away, not give someone else's money away. He also told us to give freely. He wouldn't want people to be forced to give money to the poor. Just addressing an argument before it is brought up in an effort to save us all time.

Pax Christi vobiscum,
Romulus

[CosmicNoodle]

Im not American so have no place to talk here. But I shall anyway being the idiot I am.

In the UK we have the NHS, healthcare payed for by the government, it covers everything designed to help you. They wont pay for boob jobs or botox so your tax money is not wasted, they will only pay for life saving or life improving care. So dont get the wrong end of the stick.

EVERY SINGLE UK citizen has it as a right, from berth, be they gay, straight, black, so on so fourth. My family has been in hospital more times than I can count and I can swear on it that it is some of the best care I have ever seen. I get the impression the Obama Care seems to be the half assed version of it. But hell, at least they are trying....are the Republicans?

Sure universal health care is not perfect, but what is? If you want to live in a perfect world preparer for a shit storm. I just think they should scrap OC and just copy and paste the NHS or one of the other universal healthcare systems. FREE healthcare payed for by the state for everyone. Payed for by everyone in taxes, and it works. Say you break your leg in America, (I am ignorant as to the cost so feel free to insult me) you pay $1000 in hospital fees. In the Uk your care is free but your yearly tax goes up by £5, or about $6.50 dues to the cost of the NHS. If you dont use it, you still pay, but it pays off when your ill.

See the better system?
Anyway, feel free to insult me or reply with a sensible retort.

Edit: The option is also available to use private health care if you so wish. Universal health care is not shoved upon you, it is just the easier, cheaper, and sometimes actually better (Don't know how that works out) option.

[CRed]

Okay I must say that Barack is not the cause of the stuff that went wrong with the health care situation that's people at the White House not following his orders. And people need to stop calling it "Obama Care" it's health care, and Barack should've stopped that a long time ago.

[Twilly F. Sniper]

Millions of Americans also don't realise what a mess their country is in, so credit to Obama for at least trying to sort one of the many problems out but that country is irreversibly fucked and some people can't be helped.

This. The United States has been screwed since George W. Bush's first term. Simply, he was a stupid jackass that didn't deserve a first, let alone, a second term. War with Iran affected gas prices, all these dumb programs backlash and highlight the problems with America's free market. Simply that the business gets too much money. Now our middle class is becoming poorer, and the rich only richer, particularly shop owners. More particularly owners of name brand or "quality" goods. Republicans, very short-sighted.

[Kameraden]

I'm glad that a fifteen year old internet warrior and far-right fanatic thinks he knows better than the Cabinet.