Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

US health care vote

ObamaCare 2010

  • Please log in to reply
147 replies to this topic

#21 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 12:31 PM

I haven't commented on it because I've been trying to pretend this didn't happen...And so far, it's not helping really.

I don't agree with taxing one group of people more, to pay for those who don't have health care. It smacks of punishing those who succeeded, just because they succeeded. Which then takes away any and all incentive to try and succeed. If those making above, say 250K, are going to be bearing the burden...I know if I were in that bracket, I would be cutting back til I fell out of that bracket. Why should those who have busted their backs to make it now be punished to pay for those who haven't made it. Also, it definately doesn't give incentive for those who haven't made it a reason to try and make it. Why bust your butt to do better when you can just sit back and let those who have succeeded give you free hand outs?

And, IMO, I seriously, seriously, hope this comes back to bite every democrat who voted for it in the rear. If the American people vote out every single one of the members who voted for it, that would send a very strong message to Congress.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#22 Dev F

Dev F

    Straighten your pope hat!

  • Islander
  • 3,757 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 01:03 PM

View PostLord of the Sword, on Mar 22 2010, 12:31 PM, said:

If those making above, say 250K, are going to be bearing the burden...I know if I were in that bracket, I would be cutting back til I fell out of that bracket.
So in order to avoid paying maybe a few thousand dollars more in taxes, you'd give up probably tens of thousands of dollars in income?

Unless the government starts collecting all the money one makes above a certain threshold, there will always be an incentive to make more.

Quote

Also, it definately doesn't give incentive for those who haven't made it a reason to try and make it. Why bust your butt to do better when you can just sit back and let those who have succeeded give you free hand outs?
I would think that was obvious: because making poverty wages and getting subsidized health care is still a much less comfortable way of life than making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year and getting health care through your employer. The idea that government "handouts" allow one to live a life of ease and luxury is a conservative fiction, and a pretty transparent one.

(Which is not to say there aren't people who game the system, because of course there are people who will game any system. But "welfare queens" and the like represent a tiny fraction of those who receive government assistance -- and they're generally people who've actively defrauded the government, which speaks more to their moral turpitude than any inherent problem with the system.)

#23 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 01:09 PM

View PostLord of the Sword, on Mar 22 2010, 01:31 PM, said:

I haven't commented on it because I've been trying to pretend this didn't happen...And so far, it's not helping really.

I don't agree with taxing one group of people more, to pay for those who don't have health care. It smacks of punishing those who succeeded, just because they succeeded. Which then takes away any and all incentive to try and succeed. If those making above, say 250K, are going to be bearing the burden...I know if I were in that bracket, I would be cutting back til I fell out of that bracket. Why should those who have busted their backs to make it now be punished to pay for those who haven't made it. Also, it definately doesn't give incentive for those who haven't made it a reason to try and make it. Why bust your butt to do better when you can just sit back and let those who have succeeded give you free hand outs?

And, IMO, I seriously, seriously, hope this comes back to bite every democrat who voted for it in the rear. If the American people vote out every single one of the members who voted for it, that would send a very strong message to Congress.

What free handouts? Who's getting them? What am I missing?
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#24 cade

cade
  • Islander
  • 413 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 01:44 PM

Better than the abysmal status quo. Lives will be saved, bankruptcies will be forestalled, and while it's still a bad bill, I became convinced it was the best we were going to get out of Obama's neoliberal presidency. He made his choice early on to accommodate rather than fight corporate interests. Make no mistake, this is not a liberal bill. It's essentially Nixon's plan, RomneyCare and what the Republicans proposed under Clinton--a strengthening of the for-greed health care system. This is a right-wing bill, and the corporate mandate is a Republican idea:

http://www.wbur.org/npr/123670612

Quote

Republicans Spurn Once-Favored Health Mandate
By Julie Rovner
Published February 15, 2010 12:00 AM

For Republicans, the idea of requiring every American to have health insurance is one of the most abhorrent provisions of the Democrats' health overhaul bills.

"Congress has never crossed the line between regulating what people choose to do and ordering them to do it," said Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT). "The difference between regulating and requiring is liberty."

But Hatch's opposition is ironic, or some would say, politically motivated. The last time Congress debated a health overhaul, when Bill Clinton was president, Hatch and several other senators who now oppose the so-called individual mandate actually supported a bill that would have required it.

In fact, says Len Nichols of the New America Foundation, the individual mandate was originally a Republican idea. "It was invented by Mark Pauly to give to George Bush Sr. back in the day, as a competition to the employer mandate focus of the Democrats at the time."

The 'Free-Rider Effect'

Pauly, a conservative health economist at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, says it wasn't just his idea. Back in the late 1980s — when Democrats were pushing not just a requirement for employers to provide insurance, but also the possibility of a government-sponsored single-payer system — "a group of economists and health policy people, market-oriented, sat down and said, 'Let's see if we can come up with a health reform proposal that would preserve a role for markets but would also achieve universal coverage.' "

The idea of the individual mandate was about the only logical way to get there, Pauly says. That's because even with the most generous subsidies or enticements, "there would always be some Evel Knievels of health insurance, who would decline coverage even if the subsidies were very generous, and even if they could afford it, quote unquote, so if you really wanted to close the gap, that's the step you'd have to take."

http://voices.washin...ghting_for.html

Quote

Why Democrats are fighting for a Republican health plan

Here is the ultimate paradox of the Great Health Care Showdown: Congress will divide along partisan lines to pass a Republican version of health care reform, and Republicans will vote against it.

Yes, Democrats have rallied behind a bill that Republicans -- or at least large numbers of them -- should love. It is built on a series of principles that Republicans espoused for years.

Republicans have said that they do not want to destroy the private insurance market. This bill not only preserves that market but strengthens it by bringing in millions of new customers. The plan before Congress does not call for a government “takeover” of health care. It provides subsidies so more people can buy private insurance.
<>
Democrats, including President Obama, are so anxious to get everyone health insurance that they are more than willing to try a market-based system and hope it works. It’s a shame the Republicans can no longer take “yes” for an answer.


#25 Julianus

Julianus
  • Islander
  • 1,660 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 01:45 PM

I think it needs to be made clear that we are not moving to a "free" healthcare situation. Anyone who relies totally on federal government checks, payroll, welfare, SS, SSI, pension or combination of the above should see at least some decrease, I don't care if it's only 5 dollars, but something to let them know that they have "skin in the game." Imho that will help provide incentive for people to follow more healthy lifestyles.
Congress is going to have to get honest about the cost of national healthcare and tax appropriately. If it causes a further slow down in the economy they are going to have to be tough about it until businesses and people can adjust to the new economic situation. Paul Volcker was not a very popular guy when he kept interest rates high to beat inflation, and probably would not have won any election.
In my own mind (strange place that it is) I think of the Obama administration and this Congress as GW3, that is GW cubed, as far as economic policies go. I am very skeptical about our government's (Republican or Democrat) ability to manage or regulate anything given the government's involvement in the recent financial collapse, their inability to enforce immigration laws already on the books, and the accounting shenanigans involving the money spent in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It seems that which ever party is out of power that is the one that wants to "fix" the budget deficit, but when they get into power with the check book they lose the ability to make tough choices, especially with organizations that fund campaigns.

Pax,
Julianus ( who doesn't make over a $100,000) :)

#26 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 02:36 PM

If successfully challenged, I wonder what it will do to other mandatory Insurances?

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#27 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 02:45 PM

View Postcade, on Mar 22 2010, 11:44 AM, said:

Make no mistake, this is not a liberal bill. It's essentially Nixon's plan, RomneyCare and what the Republicans proposed under Clinton--a strengthening of the for-greed health care system. This is a right-wing bill, and the corporate mandate is a Republican idea:

Agreed!  Which is exactly why I don't understand where the real rage against this bill comes from.  Everything I've reads has commented on this being the Nixon version, and the Romney version in Mass.  If Republicans at one time or another backed this kind of Reform what's so objectionable now?  

I also don't see why Democrats are so proud of themselves, but hey, this might kick the can down the road to more improvements at a later date.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#28 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,130 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 02:54 PM

View PostCertifiably Cait, on Mar 22 2010, 03:36 PM, said:

If successfully challenged, I wonder what it will do to other mandatory Insurances?

Such as?  The only other government-mandated insurances I'm aware of are tied to something optional.  i.e. you only have to get auto insurance if you choose own or operate a vehicle--neither of which you have a RIGHT to do.

#29 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 02:55 PM

View PostDev F, on Mar 22 2010, 02:03 PM, said:

So in order to avoid paying maybe a few thousand dollars more in taxes, you'd give up probably tens of thousands of dollars in income?

If I could live a comfortable lifestyle below that threshold...then YES I WOULD. Why should those who have made it be taxed more, punished essentially for being successful? So that those who haven't made it are givien something for nothing? How is that right at all? And where is the incentive for those who didn't make to even try...when all they have to do is sit back and let the government tax others to pay for their needs?

Quote

Unless the government starts collecting all the money one makes above a certain threshold, there will always be an incentive to make more.

Sadly you're probably right here. One of the qualities of those making that kind of money is greed...and that quality will serve the government here, and the freeloaders also...Since more then likely they won't let themselves fall down out of that tax bracket.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#30 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 02:59 PM

View PostNick, on Mar 22 2010, 09:36 AM, said:

View PostQueenTiye, on Mar 22 2010, 11:49 AM, said:

Well, if they decide that the mandate is unconstitutional, I won't complain.  President Obama didn't run on mandates, and I'd like to see them go.  I'd feel way better if some of the other cost measures that got watered down get beefed up again to compensate.  It would be even more awesome if the Supreme Court tuled that if the government makes a mandate, the government has to provide an option.  But I guess that's asking a lot of this Supreme Court. ;)

QT

Strictly speaking, it isn't actually a "mandate" per se.  You don't go to jail by not getting health insurance, it's just a tax penalty.  So I don't think the Supes can really strike it down.

What?  So, only if it's a criminal penalty can it be challenged?

I think not.
Posted Image

#31 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 03:07 PM

Well since Congress has now established the precedent of being able to Order the American People to do something:

Namely Get Health care or else pay a fine.

I'm wondering what is the next thing they ORDER Americans to do? maybe vote a certain way? Or maybe ORDER certain Americans to work at certain jobs, and ORDER other Americans to work at other jobs? Maybe ORDER the number of children a couple can have?

(Which in the case of the Octomom wouldn't have been such a bad thing, but that's besides the point)


Come next election I seriously hope that all those who voted Yes are voted out and replaced by the opposite party. Granted that would make the House an almost completely republican one...but the message will be loud and clear. Plus the look on Obama's face as all of his supporters, not to mention the look on those who voted yes faces, will be priceless.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#32 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 03:10 PM

Personally, I think the fines from the mandate are too small to coerce enough healthy people into buying health insurance, especially if the bill really does require insurance companies to take all comers without charging higher rates for pre-existing conditions. I think a lot of healthy individuals will instead choose to drop their insurance, pocket the savings, and buy insurance if they develop a condition for which they want expensive medical care. Individual insurance premiums will skyrocket; a death spiral will ensue.

Additionally, small businesses may dump their health plans and tell their employees to buy a subsidized plan through the health exchange if they become sick.
"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#33 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,130 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 03:18 PM

^I've been having trouble finding exactly what the tax penalties for not having insurance will be, do you have the actual breakdown of what it's going to be?

#34 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 03:20 PM

^ http://www.cnn.com/2...main/index.html

Quote

Under the plan now headed to Obama, individuals are required to purchase health insurance coverage or face a fine of up to $750 or 2 percent of their income -- whichever is greater. It includes a hardship exemption for poorer Americans.

Companies with more than 50 employees that don't provide coverage are required to pay a fee of $750 per worker if any of its employees rely on government subsidies to purchase coverage.

The compromise package would drop the individual fine to $695 or 2.5 percent of income, whichever is greater. The fine on companies failing to provide coverage would jump to $2,000 per employee.

Edited by Palisade, 22 March 2010 - 03:25 PM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#35 JadziaDax

JadziaDax

    E.I.'s resident insomniac

  • Islander
  • 2,612 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 03:27 PM

View PostLord of the Sword, on Mar 22 2010, 01:55 PM, said:

View PostDev F, on Mar 22 2010, 02:03 PM, said:

So in order to avoid paying maybe a few thousand dollars more in taxes, you'd give up probably tens of thousands of dollars in income?

If I could live a comfortable lifestyle below that threshold...then YES I WOULD. Why should those who have made it be taxed more, punished essentially for being successful? So that those who haven't made it are givien something for nothing? How is that right at all? And where is the incentive for those who didn't make to even try...when all they have to do is sit back and let the government tax others to pay for their needs?

IMO, everyone should be taxed at the same percentage, regardless of income....that aside, many of these people who can't work aren't doing it because their lazy and don't want to work, but maybe because they physically or mentally cannot. There are many people out there who can't work because of various "pre-existing" conditions...maybe it's severe autism, or they were born without limbs, or have lost their limbs, or have something that causes them to be so "hideous" to "normal" people that no one dare gives them a job (if it weren't for medical intervention when I was younger I'd probably fall into this category).

Isn't it the responsible thing to do to help people who can't help themselves?

Why is it right to blame people who did nothing wrong in their life except 1) be born with a handicap or 2) not be born into a family of privilege. The only way to be sucessful, is to have someone take a chance on you (or be born into a family of privilege who can throw money at you), and if someone isn't willing to give you that chance in the first place, it's quite a mean thing to say they never even tried.

Despite what the wackos at Fox and CNN want people to think, the number of people who just want to sit back and let the government pay for all their needs is quite small.

Edited by JadziaDax, 22 March 2010 - 03:28 PM.

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup

#36 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 03:41 PM

View PostCertifiably Cait, on Mar 22 2010, 03:45 PM, said:

View Postcade, on Mar 22 2010, 11:44 AM, said:

Make no mistake, this is not a liberal bill. It's essentially Nixon's plan, RomneyCare and what the Republicans proposed under Clinton--a strengthening of the for-greed health care system. This is a right-wing bill, and the corporate mandate is a Republican idea:

Agreed!  Which is exactly why I don't understand where the real rage against this bill comes from.  Everything I've reads has commented on this being the Nixon version, and the Romney version in Mass.  If Republicans at one time or another backed this kind of Reform what's so objectionable now?  

I also don't see why Democrats are so proud of themselves, but hey, this might kick the can down the road to more improvements at a later date.

Yep yep yep.

Talk radio was interesting today. I listened to a tiny bit of a local conservative and flipped over to Limbaugh for two seconds, which was all I could bear.

The local guy was ranting about people being "added to the rolls." I thought, "huh? What rolls." I swear, he was OUTRAGED about all the people who were going to get free health care at everyone else's expense--including those 26 year-olds who could now be covered on their parents' policies. Everyone is a lazy bum under Obamacare! Blah blah blah.

He seemed oblivious to the reality that, with the exception of a modest expansion of Medicaid, in large part to offset the burdens imposed by mandating that citizens BUY insurance from PRIVATE insurance companies, nobody is "getting" anything. Those 26 year old's parents get to BUY insurance that will cover their kids up until that age.

It's like the rightwing was so set to rail against single-payer, government-provided insurance that this is all they can do now--even though what has happened bears no resemblance to what they're outraged about. It would be funny if so many people weren't regularly misinformed by talk radio.

Oh, and Limbaugh was talking about how next the Democrats will give amnesty to all illegal aliens because they will need the Mexican vote now--"IF we still have elections in this country. And no I'm not kidding, folks." It was pitiful. Rush has nowhere to go except down a slippery slope. Again, the trouble is that I'm sure he's taking a lot of people along with him.
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#37 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 03:47 PM

View PostSpectacles, on Mar 22 2010, 02:41 PM, said:

nobody is "getting" anything.

Actually, low- and middle-income people get subsidies to buy insurance with.


Quote

Oh, and Limbaugh was talking about how next the Democrats will give amnesty to all illegal aliens because they will need the Mexican vote now--"IF we still have elections in this country. And no I'm not kidding, folks." It was pitiful. Rush has nowhere to go except down a slippery slope. Again, the trouble is that I'm sure he's taking a lot of people along with him.

Obama has already said he wants to revive the immigration 'reform' bill. That bill was basically amnesty.

You might want to get your facts in order before casting aspersions.

Edited by Palisade, 22 March 2010 - 03:49 PM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#38 Dev F

Dev F

    Straighten your pope hat!

  • Islander
  • 3,757 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 03:50 PM

View PostPalisade, on Mar 22 2010, 03:47 PM, said:

Quote

Oh, and Limbaugh was talking about how next the Democrats will give amnesty to all illegal aliens because they will need the Mexican vote now--"IF we still have elections in this country. And no I'm not kidding, folks." It was pitiful. Rush has nowhere to go except down a slippery slope. Again, the trouble is that I'm sure he's taking a lot of people along with him.

Obama has already said he wants to revive the immigration 'reform' bill. That bill was basically amnesty.

You might want to get your facts in order before casting aspersions.
What facts could possibly justify a comment as thoroughly asinine and irresponsible as "If we still have elections in this country"?

#39 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 03:53 PM

View PostJadziaDax, on Mar 22 2010, 04:27 PM, said:

IMO, everyone should be taxed at the same percentage, regardless of income....

Now that would be fair, but I can already hear some people saying something to the effect of "But it isn't fair. Those making less money will have a harder time paying the tax, so we should just tax the wealthy."

And just taxing one group to pay for another isn't fair...not by any stretch of the imagination.


Quote

Isn't it the responsible thing to do to help people who can't help themselves?

Why is it right to blame people who did nothing wrong in their life except 1) be born with a handicap or 2) not be born into a family of privilege. The only way to be sucessful, is to have someone take a chance on you (or be born into a family of privilege who can throw money at you), and if someone isn't willing to give you that chance in the first place, it's quite a mean thing to say they never even tried.


This may sound harsh, and if so I apologize in advance. But nobody promised anyone a rose garden. Nobody promised that life is fair. Nobody promised these things.

Yes it is a shame that some are born handicapped and can't take care of themselves. In that situation it falls to that person's family to take care of them...And if something happens to that person's family...Again, it is going to sound harsh...but it just isn't my problem. And, IMO, it really isn't society's problem.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#40 obsidianstorm13

obsidianstorm13
  • Islander
  • 1,118 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 03:54 PM

Hear Hear JadziaDax!  It is true that there are people who need the government programs; my uncle cannot work at all; the schizophrenia makes it too stressful and he bugs out.  Besides I don't imagine people being too kind to a man who holds conversations with himself.  It's always a few that ruin it for everyone though; those who do abuse the system.  

I don't like mandating people to get insurance... I don't think that's correct mainly because I know how tough it is to try and afford it when you only work part-time.  I'll wait and see what happens-maybe the public exchanges will be very affordable and deliver excellent care.  I do think that the healthcare reform hasn't finished.  Not by a long shot.  I think and hope that eventually it will result in a universal health system like the UK's or Canada's.  (Yeah I really like the UK's health system)  Also I'm not really sure about the federal funding for abortion thingy... I didn't even know it was restricted by this Hyde amendment.  I wonder if this will be challenged as well.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: ObamaCare, 2010

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users