It's really not very complicated. Insurance companies have to issue
policies to everyone regardless of pre-existing conditions. In return, everyone
is required to purchase a policy. States are setting up health insurance
exchanges so everyone has access to the same policies and comparative price and
coverage information. If you don't make enough money to pay the premium,
you will be eligible for a subsidy.It is a Republican designed plan
that was endorsed by virtually all prominent national Republicans including Bob
Dole, Newt Gingritch and Orrin Hatch. It is the model for Romneycare in Mass.
Had Mitt Romney won the Republican nomination in 08, he would have campaigned on
a promise to extend the plan to all Americans. It wasn't until President
Obama proposed it that Republicans noticed that it was socialism, communism, and
fascism all rolled into one.
There are 30 million Americans who would not be covered who are willing to
defend Obamacare. You should have written "I don't want
it" since you don't speak for those who do!
"Repeal and Replace" has been the battle cry of the GOP.I
urge you to "speak up and let us be heard loud and clear". Tell the GOP
leadership to put forth their comprehensive "replacement" plan. It is much easier to shoot down someone elses actual plan than to put
forth one of your own.
Even many Democrats tell us Obamacare is a train wreck! That's most likely
because many will face re-election in 2014 and now have to go face and be
accountable to their constituents. Democratic strategy for that? Delay the law
until after the election! Says all we need to know about Obamacare doesn't
Obamacare does nothing to control costs - does NOT improve access to health care
(as we learned from the failure of the MA experiment), and costs multiples of
the estimates used to sell it. It is a complete and total failure.Obamacare improperly addresses issues with the health care delievery system;
it's like going to the dentist and having a healthy tooth pulled when you
have a broken arm. Yeah, you got health care, but it did not address the
problem and caused more damage.
Darlene,I like Obamacare. I like it better than what we have had for
the past 50 years. I like it better than the Republican alternative (nothing).
It is not perfect, but it is a vast improvement over what we've had. It
would be better if it were a single-payer system. But what chance do have of
that with today's GOP?
This feigned outrage is disiingenuous, coming as it does from a person who
enjoys the benefits of Medicare. Darlene, why not advocate for expansion of
Medicare to all Americans? That would be more honest and worthwhile.
It's only complicated to radio junkies, who have been confused by dropout
entertainers, who's audience confuses their partisan rhetoric with actual
news or facts.
Is ObamaCare a Republican plan? How many Republicans in Congress voted for it?
Can Democrats really claim that Romney was the architech? Was his
bill over 2,000 pages of gibberish? Did someone in Massachusetts tell him that
he had to pass the bill before knowing what was in the bill?If
ObamaCare is such a good idea, why are Democrats demanding that it not be
implemented? Why is Obama refusing to enforce it?If ObamaCare is as
good as Obama claimed, why are businesses cutting workers to thirty hours or
less per week so that those businesses won't have to pay the ObamaCare
tax?If ObamaCare is as good as Obama claimed, why are doctors
closing their practices?If ObamaCare will cover pre-existing
conditions, why was a 10-year-old denied a transplant until political pressure
forced the "secretary" to allow that operation?Democrats are
trying to blame Republicans for a bill that no Republican supported. ALL of the
faults found in ObamaCare were accepted by those Democrats who voted for the
bill. All of the job losses attributed to ObamaCare were directly caused by
Democrats.Republicans were not foolish enough to vote for ObamaCare.
Actually, the people did speak loud and clear. Remember last November, when
Obama was reelected by nearly five million votes?Meanwhile, the
whining goes on...
Darlene, you're making some pretty wild generalizations about the
Affordable Care Act.Every time you hear your talk radio rants about
"Obamacare" I hope you'll consider the following:The
U.S. spends wildly more per person on health care than any other industrialized
nation, yet receives significantly _less_ healthcare, both in terms of quantity
and quality of care.The drag on our economy from the existing
healthcare finance system is immense. Employers are faced with
skyrocketing insurance premiums for their workers, forcing them to make
businesses decisions that have little to do with their mission and business
model and everything to do with managing employee healthcare costs. It's
crazy.Employees who are unhappy/unproductive and who'd like to
leave and try something else are forced to stay with their jobs because they
can't get healthcare insurance on their own, while bright, motivated people
are forced to apply for jobs not on the basis of what job best suits their
talents, but on the basis of which employer will provide health insurance for
their families. That's crazy, too.Don't like the ACA?
Fine. Offer a workable, superior alternative. Otherwise, you're not
Seriously... how do you expect thousands of pages of detailed regulations,
rules, exceptions to the rules, and exceptions to the exceptions to the rules,
all in legalese that no real person completely understands... to be implemented
without it eventually becoming re-interpreted and twisted and bent to serve some
politician's will?Even IF the initial implementation went well
(which it hasn't)... I would expect this bureaucratic abuse to weasel
it's way in eventually (but I expected it to be years down the road).Any complex legislation is going to run into problems like this
eventually. And ObamaCare is the most complex of all complex legislation
I've ever seen passed by the US Congress. Even the Tax regulations (which
EVOLVED over many years to the current sad state of complexity) look simple
compared to the volumes and volumes of rules and regulations and legal jargon
associated with what ObamaCare means and how it must be implemented (and the
many loopholes that can be used to circumvent the parts you don't like).This is destined to become UN-manageable.
"We don't want it!"Who's "we"?
KJB1,You make it sound like America voted for ObamaCare by a huge margin
(by voting for Obama). You pretend it was a landslide or some huge margin of
victory. In reality... it was very close (and far from a clear mandate for
ObamaCare).The official election results were actually 50.6% Obama
(barely a majority).That means 49.4% of America voted AGAINST Obama and
ObamaCare.That's pretty close in my book. It's a
majority, but less than 1% of the population is not a landslide. It hardly
means what you twisted the election into meaning when you said... "the
people did speak loud and clear". 50.6% to 49.4% is far from loud and
clear.But Obama did get the majority of the votes. So I have no
problem with that, or Obama being President, he won. But don't pretend it
was a landslide victory it wasn't.
“This loud and financially powerful segment of America even refuses to
abide by a law passed by Congress, signed by the President and accepted by the
Supreme Court”.People who can’t see and hear the efforts
of the Cable news, GOP, Tea Party, Republicans, especially those in Congress,
and the hundreds of tax exempt anti-American groups, must be wearing a sound
proof bucket over their head. If Obamacare is an abomination, make
the charge, bring it to court. That’s the proper way to do it. Or
sponsor a national election of people not businesses.
One of the best things to happen to America is out of control healthcare costs
and millions of uninsured families. It's been great to have so many
Americans file bankruptcy due to healthcare they can't afford.Getting
sick without insurance is a great thing. I highly encourage the letter writer to
try it sometime.
The problem is, few people have any foresight. They won't complain about
Obamacare until their out-of-pocket expenses hurt.
The ACA permits states to devise their own universal coverage plans. What is UT doing toward that effort?
Thanks, Darlene, for inviting us to speak out loud and clear on Obamacare. Well,
here goes: I think Obamacare is a good first step in the right direction and
that it will prove very beneficial overall for Americans. I hope it has laid the
groundwork for single-payer. Nice going, President Obama.@ 2 bits:
You posted that Obama won by only 50.6 percent to 49.4 percent. Your numbers are
clearly wrong. The final tally was 51.1 Obama, 47.2 Romney.
Here's the funny thing, people are going to like Obamacare and not even
realize it. Kentucky for instance is getting strong support for Kynect, their
system they're implementing. (It's their exchange as mandated by
Obamacare, but people are too ignorant to actually piece together what Obamacare
is. A rose by any other name still gets more people covered.)
How about dropping the Rhetoric and lets deal with the facts.According to the Milliman Medical index (typically yearly healthcare costs for
family of 4)Year Cost of Healthcare2002 $92352005 $122142008 $156092011 $19393If you look at the increase, it is a fairly strait line of increase.
And that line it going UP UP UP. And it is unsustainable for our country.And it was going up prior to the introduction of Obamacare. So, yes, employees are making changes. Are some in response to Obamacare?
I'm sure they are.But, certainly, some are just in response to
the unreasonable rise in cost, regardless of Obamacare.Lets take
Obamacare out of the picture for the sake of discussion.Was the rate
of rise acceptable? Is there any reason to think it would change?Look folks. Something has to be done. Obamacare or Not.So,
knock Obamacare all you want but it did not cause the past problems. And I
would agree is not the best solution.But, doing nothing is not an
option. The GOP should assign a task force to study it and put
forth their version of healthcare reform.Why not?
Those who blindly accept ObamaCare without seeing the costs that will be
incurred by the poorest American when that TAX is fully implemented just
haven't done their homework. The poor in America cannot affort
that TAX. There is a reason that they don't have health insurance. They
can't affort it. But, Obama has decided that he will force them to pay
health insurance.Obama told us that ObamaCare would save each family
$2,500 per year. That was a lie. Costs went up, not down.Obama
told us that all Americans would be covered. That was a lie. The Washington
Post told us that 30,000,000 Americans will not be covered.Obama
told us that there would be no "death panel" that had the power to
decline services to Americans. That was a lie. The little 10-year-old who
needed a transplant was denied services until political pressure made the
Administration back down.Obama refuses to enforce ObamaCare. He
knows that he will lose the Senate and the House if ObamaCare is enforced on
time, which is all that we need to know about ObamaCare.
KJB1,Actually the answer from the people came in 2010 when the dems lost
more house seats than any party had in 60-70 years. The people overwhelmingly
rejected it! Please keep your elections straight.Blue, ErnestYou talk about quantity, quality, and price of healthcare. Obamacare
addresses NONE of those problems. NONE. Mike in sandyWho’s we? The voters who threw the dems out of the house in 2010.Truthseeker,Utah HAD a plan before this monstrosity was foisted
upon us – Obamacare did not accept it. Sorry you did not know that. But
then, you have evidenced a lot of ignorance of Utah and its history in prior
If you cannot get insurance because of a pre-existing condition, you will love
Obamacare.If you have kids who can't get insurance, and would like
them to continue to be covered on your plan, you'll love it.If you
can't afford insurance, and face the dilemma, every time your kids are
sick, of wondering if its time to go to Emergency and rack up a bill you
can't pay, or allow a potentially life-threatening condition to go
untreated, you'll love Obamacare. If look at the plan sensibly, and
ignore conservative smoke-screens about how the bill's page length or some
such irrelevancy, you'll find much to admire.
re:MikeRichards"Obama told us that there would be no "death
panel" that had the power to decline services to Americans. That was a lie.
The little 10-year-old who needed a transplant was denied services"That had NOTHING to do with Obamacare.Transplant rules were
established and administered by OPTN, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation
Network, created by Congress in 1984 which operates as an independent nonprofit
group under federal contract to manage transplant needs. Rules prohibited adult
organs to be used for children, at least in part because it was not known the
suitability of adult organs for children. The costs of coverage
will vary from state-to-state. In some states, such as New York, costs will be
lower. re:LostinDCUT has favored a bare-bones approach: It
only sells to small businesses and covers 7,646 residents. The Utah exchange,
known as Avenue H, usually has only two or three employees. It does not
interface with the state’s Medicaid program like the federal law
envisions, nor does it provide expansive consumer assistance services. Gov. Herbert is working with HHS to bring UT's system in-line with
Steve C. Warren,I don't know what your source was. Maybe
you'll give it to us so we can check it.I goggled "2012
election margin" and clicked the "2012 Presidential Election Results -
The Washington Post" link. Seemed like a good source to me.But
I don't care which number is correct. Neither show "the people did
speak loud and clear".50.6% is a majority, but not a landslide.
51.1% is also not a landslide. Whichever number is correct... it doesn't
indicate everybody in America wants ObamaCare.I don't like
polls because you can make a poll that will say whatever you want it to say, but
there are polls that indicate the majority of Americans don't like
ObamaCare. I'm just saying... you can't derive from a
close presidential election (~1% margin whichever number you use) that everybody
I can sure tell who in this forum has never been sick, denied coverage, or has
had to deal with a medical emergency. Obamacare, if you think you can go back
your ignorant or a liar. We clearly need to go forward and adopt HR676.
Healthcare is not, I repeat, not a commodity to be bought and traded on Wall
Street, despite what the corporatists would have you believe.
@J Thompson"costs went up"Obamacare has mostly not
gone into effect yet. The largest parts of it (exchanges, subsidies, etc) go
into effect in 2014. The effects of Obamacare on cost the past three
years have been minimal as expected (overall costs have increased at a very slow
rate, slowest in half a century, but that's mostly recession effects rather
than Obamacare which has had little effect so far).@2bit"I
don't like polls because you can make a poll that will say whatever you
want it to say, but there are polls that indicate the majority of Americans
don't like ObamaCare. "The current Real Clear Politics
polling average has support at 39.0 and opposition at 51.0. But here's the
catch... around 10-15% of people oppose Obamacare but oppose it because they
think it's not liberal enough (this was an extra question CNN asks, whether
they oppose it from the right or left). So a plurality if not an outright
majority oppose it... but a plurality if not an outright majority support it or
think it needs to be more liberal so neither side has an obvious edge in
Most people actually do want change in the health care system. It came in the
form of Obama Care. That fact that no one agrees about it means there will be
amendments and compromise at it fleshes out. I WANT a national health
care system. For those I love, and for those I dont' know. I want people
to be healthy and happy. It can be done. Obama care won't be the same in
10 years, mark my words, it will be molded. NOT repealed.
"10-15% of people oppose Obamacare but oppose it because they think
it's not liberal enough" AMEN. It's understandable how some folks
like the writer believe Americans agree with her. The most disengenuous and
oft-repeated line on yell radio day after day after day is that the American
people don't want Obamacare - even though all the commentators understand
they are leaving a false impression.Millions (like me) think the
eventual solution has to be Romney/Obamacare on steroids -- a single-payer,
Medicare-for-all solution. Until then, I'll take Obamacare, which is
providing life-saving options for my son who otherwise would have no option --
except to show up at an emergency room when it's probably too late, and
leave everyone else with the bill anyway.
Where's the outcry against the implementation of Obamacare? [Only of
AM talk radio]Do the doctors like it? [Yes]Do the
hospitals?[Yes] Do the insurance companies? [Yes.
absolutely Yes!]Do the states? [Most of them - Yes. All of
them, No. Guess which ones do and don't?]Does the majority of
U.S. citizens like it? [Yes]Where's the fight for common
sense? [The fight is over, Common Sense won. Get over yourself.]
To "Kent C. DeForrest" how is Obamacare better than what we had for the
past 50 years?It is more expensive, and doesn't cover everybody
who isn't currently insured.The ACA has caused many people to
lose coverage.The ACA has also caused many people to have work hours
cut back.If a universal healthcare system is what you want, look at
the disaster in England or France or Germany (Yes, German healthcare is a
disaster).What good do you see in it because everything that has
resulted from it has been quite bad so far.To "JoeBlow" the
problem isn't that costs keep rising, the problem is that the ACA was sold
as a cost cutting measure. So, even if costs increased by 1%, that only proves
the ACA was a failure because it did not cut costs.We don't
need to replace Obamacare, we need to deregulate health insurance.To
"LDS Liberal" you are wrong on all accounts.There never has
been a majority supporting Obamacare, so complaints have come from
everywhere.Doctors don't like it because it cuts medicare
reimbursements.Insurance companies hate it (I have relatives in the
insurance business)Nobody likes it.
2 bit,Your source for the presidential election results contained
this note: "Last updated on Nov. 19. Full certified results not available
until January." That's why your numbers are wrong. Besides, your 50.6
percent for Obama and 49.4 for Romney total up to 100 percent, which didn't
take into consideration those who voted for candidates of minor parties.Click on: official 2012 presidential election results The pdf file
that comes up has a lot of detail. Yes, President Obama's
margin of victory by nearly 5 million and 3.9 percentage points wasn't
huge, but it was greater than that of any Republican presidential victor since
1988. And the electoral count was Obama 332 and Romney 206. Not close.
Funny -- 48% do not favor the ACA.while 42% do favor the
ACA.Which the skewed and disingenuous conclusion draw by the
ultra-con shills.The devil is in the details:50% of the
same Democrats who go alone with Republicans in not liking the law, don't
like AS-IS and want it expanded!So - rephrase the question...Do we as Americans want the Democrats plan of doing something,
anything?!orThe Republicans plan of do nothing, repeal and replace
"with nothing", go back to the same old same old?Propose
something, and let's hear it...But the whining and complaining
without an alternative is just 2 year olds throwing temper tantrums.
marathonman,If Medicare for all is so great... why aren't Congress
and the President on Medicare right now? Because what they have today is WAY
better than Medicare, that's why. Do you think they are going to give it
up? I don't. So it may be "Medicare for MOST" at best. But it
will never by "Medicare for all".I don't care if people
oppose the bill because it's not liberal enough or because they see it as
too much government in their lives. They see it as bad legislation. And bad
legislation is bad legislation. People who know what's in the bill, know
it has so many rules, and regulations, and exceptions to the rules, and
loopholes for special circumstances and special groups... that it's
impossible to manage. THAT... is the definition of "Bad Legislation"
IMO.I think we should either go to like you said, "Medicare for
all" plain and simple, or not. This half-way kinda-partly nationalized
system of laws, but you can get out of SOME of them IF you meet a long list of
rules and loopholes... is bad and unmanageable government.
Re: Support for ObamacareNot only does the re-election of President
Obama suggest support for Obamacare, we also should consider the results of the
2012 races in the House and Senate, because virtually all Democrats in both
bodies supported Obamacare. In the House, Democratic representatives
won 60.3 million votes nationally, compared with 58.5 million for Republicans.
In the Senate, Democratic senators won 50 million votes nationally,
compared with 39.1 million for Republicans--a landslide.
It's funny watching people here trying to rewrite history. Obama received
more votes in his elections than Bush did in his and he's the first
president since Eisenhower to receive at least 51% of the vote twice. The vast
majority of election winners only get a few points over the 50% mark. Even when
Reagan was reeelcted by a landslide in 1984, he only got 58%.If
pretending that the 2010 election is the one that "really matters" makes
you feel better, that's your right, but it doesn't change the facts:
if the American people were so outraged over Obama, they could have thrown him
out of office last year. Not only did they keep him for a second term, but they
increased the Democratic majority in the Senate.The ACA is here to
stay, guys. Time to deal with it.
Truthseeker 10:59 a.m.:I already told Mike that that story about the
girl and the lung transplant had nothing to do with Obamacare, but he still
likes to peddle that line. Guess he thinks that repeating a lie often enough
will make it true.
Darlene;Please speak for yourself. You don't want it. I, and
many others do.
"Speak up and let us be heard loud and clear. Obamacare is an abomination,
and we don't want it."Don't speak for me, please. I
can do my own talking.
Many of the posts above tell us that no one knows what is in the "2000 pages
of gibberish" (Richards) and then the rest of the posts from their side of
the aisle go into great detail explaining exactly what is in it and how bad it
is. Why not save the rest of us time and explain it to one another so you at
least think you know what you are talking about. Several posts
delineate how the law is making price go up when they have been doing that for
the past 20 years and are the very reason an alternative is needed. They also
ignore that it does not take effect until next year.PS. All of the
right wingers who agree with the letter writer: Why are you so afraid to let the
law take effect and go on ad nauseam about the world ending if it does? If it
is a train wreck, you most likely can walk your candidate into the White House
and your will have an eternal "I told you so"! If you are wrong, so
long Marco, Bobby, Rand, Ted, Jeb & Rick and Hello Hillary...even better
hello liberal Supreme Court!
To "Grover" the reason why conservatives don't want it to go into
effect isn't because of the "I told you so" moment. The problem is
that the liberal politicians and media will spin any disaster to be the fault of
the Republicans (eventhough Republicans voted against it). Then, the sheeple
will blindly follow the media and their favored liberal leaders and tell the
people that they need even more power and to make things even bigger. They will
promise to get it right the next time. That cycle is repeated over and over
again until the system collapses.
@RedShirtMIT"...The problem is that the liberal politicians and
media will spin any disaster to be the fault of the Republicans...".So...it's no problem for republican politicians and republican
media (foxnews) to spin any disaster to be the fault of the Democrats?
ABC News reported about the little girl: "We didn't know if she would
live, and the system was up against us," Janet Murnaghan said outside her
home Tuesday, where she and her husband Fran spoke to reporters.""They went to federal court to challenge national transplant rules that
put children like Sarah at the end of the waiting list for adult lungs. Yet
Sarah did not qualify for the adolescent list, which is for children 12 and
up.""A federal judge intervened, forcing the Organ
Procurement and Transplantation Network — the private nonprofit group that
manages U.S. organ allocation — to add Sarah to the adult list."---Why didn't Obama use that case to show that
ObamaCare cared about little girls who were dying because they couldn't get
the help they needed? Why did a federal court have to become involved? If
Obama believed in ObamaCare, he would certainly have made a few phone calls to
straighten things out, but he did nothing. He stood back - and you applaud
him.That's pathetic. Any other President would have moved
heaven and earth to help that little girl.
@J ThompsonSPRINGVILLE, UTWhy didn't Obama use that case
to show that ObamaCare cared about little girls who were dying because they
couldn't get the help they needed? [Because that would be
"grandstanding", and it is truly unethical.]Why did a
federal court have to become involved? [Because that is how our Government
process works]If Obama believed in ObamaCare, he would certainly
have made a few phone calls to straighten things out, but he did nothing. He
stood back - and you applaud him.[How do you know he didn't?]That's pathetic.
Obamacare had NOTHING to do with the 12 yo's lung transplant. Was the girl
denied because of cost or because she didn't have insurance? NOIt had to do with regulations involving transplantation. Lung transplants are
among the most riskiest and difficult transplant operations with a 5 yr survival
of 50-50. Only about 1 in 5 lungs from deceased donors is viable for
transplantation. Adult lungs don't fit well in children's bodies and
that makes it hard to transplant them. You are looking at using a piece of lung
instead of a whole lung, and that makes it makes it a more difficult procedure
and less likely to work. Lungs are very fragile and don't travel very well
so the transplant teams look to see who is closest to where the donor is.
It's the odds of success that they're looking at.(USA Today)
@Roland Kayser:"In return, everyone is required to purchase a
policy."Not so. But those who choose to not purchase a policy
will be assessed a tax (penalty).If few buy insurance and elect to
pay the penalty, the entire program will go broke. And who won't be buying
insurance? Young people who generally don't need it. And who will be
buying insurance? The aged and those with expensive preexisting conditions.
Hence, insurance companies' revenue will dry up and the outgo will
skyrocket. "States are setting up health insurance
exchanges..."Nor so. Many states are opting out."It is the model for Romneycare in Mass."Only one
problem... Romneycare is a state (Massachusetts) program. There is nothing in
the US Constitution that allows the federal government to get involved in
@JoeBlow:"And it was going up prior to the introduction of
Obamacare."Not to worry... Obamacare will curb the increases.
He has already told us how he would accomplish this...For the aged,
if they need serious medical help they should just go home and take a pain
killer. Pain killers are relatively cheep.Secondly, he will dictate
what doctors, hospitals, and other medical professions will be paid. Something
like Medicare does today.@J Thompson:"The poor in America
cannot affort that TAX. There is a reason that they don't have health
insurance. They can't affort it."The poor will not have to,
or will not elect to, pay the tax. In fact, they will get federal subsidies to
help them buy insurance."Obama told us that ObamaCare would save
each family $2,500 per year."Obama has told us alot of lies.@Eric Samuelsen:"If look at the plan sensibly, and ignore
conservative smoke-screens about how the bill's page length or some such
irrelevancy, you'll find much to admire."If you're an
older person and are denied healthcare because your useful years have long since
passed, you're gonna hate Obamacare.
"Do the doctors like it?""Do the hospitals like it?""Do the pharmaceutical companies and their lobbyists and salesmen like
it?""Do the foxes like the lock on the hen house?" would
be a better question.
To "J Thompson" the reason why Obama couldn't use the case of the
girl that needed the transplant was because the Organ Procurement and
Transplantation Network is a GOVERNMENT program. Obama couldn't use a
failed or poorly operating government program as an example of bad things going
on in private industry.If anything this case is a sneak peek of what
thing wil be like under a Universal Care system. People will have to fight the
government system just to get common sense enacted.
RMitt: "People will have to fight the government system to get common sense
enacted". Does that statement presume that the right to vote will be
repealed? I know the projections about what the President will do to us next are
hair raising, but I haven't heard that making the country a dictatorship is
one of them. If the system doesn't work, we change it. If it still
doesn't work we vote out the people who made it possible...it's called
democracy. If your predictions are true, your side will have a chance to make
the rules and make the system work well at a cost that average people can
afford. It is so simple even an MITTer should be able to follow the logic.
To "Grover" and that is where the problem lies. You think that if the
right people are elected that the problems will be solved. That is exactly what
has caused this mess in the first place.First FDR capped wages, so
companies started to offer insurance as an incentive to work for them.Next the government decided that it should be a business deduction so that
more businesses would offer insurnce.Then, the government over the
course of 40 years added mandate after mandate to insurance companies. All with
the intention of "helping".You see, the more the government
has been involved, the worse things have become, so why not get the government
out of the system. Obamacare virtually eliminates any remaining capitalist
ideas from insurance and turns it into a Fascist industry.
"Fascist Industry"? Have you looked at Health Insurance company profits
lately? Poor pity them. Of the G20, we are right up there with Russia and China
as the only world economic powers that deny their citizens a plan that provides
healthcare at an affordable rate and guarantees that no one goes bankrupt due to
medical bills. When I travel to countries with national health insurance, I ask
any natives I encounter what they think of their health plan. I 20 years I
haven't found a single one who thinks their health plan is lacking...van
drivers, waiters, shop owners, fellow tour participants, anyone and everyone in
Europe, Canada, Australia, and South America. I guess it must be the leftist
media that has spread the opposite news. Fascist? Get a life.
If you don't have a plan of your own, maybe you should keep your mouth
closed! Where is the outcry? Where is your solution? Do republicans know how to
do anything besides complain? Get off your High Horses and show how it is done!
I didn't think so! You people are just full of hot air. And it stinks