I have to agree. The newest option seems just that , AN OPTION. Those who wish to continue paying ridiculous prices for insurance and questionable health care can continue to. My husband and his family all lived their whole lives in the UK and they have not once had to worry about being in debt because they become ill. I think there is something to be learned from the system instead of just outright ignoring the good that comes from it or how it is implemented.

My relatives on my mother's side are all from Canada, and 'they' don't come here for medical services. Yes socialized medicine has it's problem just like any other institution. That's not a good enough reason to ignore it.

Sorry I am not going over the other side on this, so you would be wasting your efforts on me. I'm so not impressed by how the free market has handled things up to now.

My relatives on my mother's side are all from Canada, and 'they' don't come here for medical services. Yes socialized medicine has it's problem just like any other institution. That's not a good enough reason to ignore it.

Sorry I am not going over the other side on this, so you would be wasting your efforts on me. I'm so not impressed by how the free market has handled things up to now.

Actually, you are mistaken. I HAVE been in a life or death situation. (I've even been very, very close to death on an operating table)

You also seem to misunderstand how Constitutional government works. The president has a very minimal and specific role, according to the constitution. If he alone could do it all, he would be a dictator. The framers of the constitution, according to the document itself and the writings of the founders, intended for things like healthcare to be handled at the local and individual level. There weren't even national regulations of "hard" drugs and alcohol. Of course there are other options, which have been laid out by free market advocates such as Ron Paul.

When you say something like "You now have the perfect oportunity to either get a bill that isn't worth the paper it's written on or a bill that still leaves out millions of people makes this administration look inept.", you are using dialectical thinking, and misleading both yourself and your audience. There still plenty of things people can do all by themselves (such as negotiate cheaper prices with their doctors, homeopathy, etc). You also have great difficulty adequately answering opponents. You should do more opposition research.

For your education, here are the Federalist Papers-http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/poldocs/fed-papers.pdf

and the Anti-Federalist papers-http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/D/1776-1800/federalist/antixx.htm

and the original debates about the Constitution in New York-http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_ny.htm

You are mistaken. I am not in denial. I simply demand proof and results-things that supporters of Obamacare cannot and will not provide, but free market supporters can. You are also wrong about your rationale for hyperinflation of insurance prices.

Dr. Ron Paul explains:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul339.html
As a medical doctor, I’ve seen first-hand how bureaucratic red tape interferes with the doctor-patient relationship and drives costs higher. The current system of third-party payers takes decision-making away from doctors, leaving patients feeling rushed and worsening the quality of care. Yet health insurance premiums and drug costs keep rising. Clearly a new approach is needed. Congress needs to craft innovative legislation that makes health care more affordable without raising taxes or increasing the deficit. It also needs to repeal bad laws that keep health care costs higher than necessary.

We should remember that HMOs did not arise because of free-market demand, but rather because of government mandates. The HMO Act of 1973 requires all but the smallest employers to offer their employees HMO coverage, and the tax code allows businesses – but not individuals – to deduct the cost of health insurance premiums. The result is the illogical coupling of employment and health insurance, which often leaves the unemployed without needed catastrophic coverage.

While many in Congress are happy to criticize HMOs today, the public never hears how the present system was imposed upon the American people by federal law. As usual, government intervention in the private market failed to deliver the promised benefits and caused unintended consequences, but Congress never blames itself for the problems created by bad laws. Instead, we are told more government – in the form of “universal coverage” – is the answer. But government already is involved in roughly two-thirds of all health care spending, through Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs.

For decades, the U.S. healthcare system was the envy of the entire world. Not coincidentally, there was far less government involvement in medicine during this time. America had the finest doctors and hospitals, patients enjoyed high-quality, affordable medical care, and thousands of private charities provided health services for the poor. Doctors focused on treating patients, without the red tape and threat of lawsuits that plague the profession today. Most Americans paid cash for basic services, and had insurance only for major illnesses and accidents. This meant both doctors and patients had an incentive to keep costs down, as the patient was directly responsible for payment, rather than an HMO or government program.

The lesson is clear: when government and other third parties get involved, health care costs spiral. The answer is not a system of outright socialized medicine, but rather a system that encourages everyone – doctors, hospitals, patients, and drug companies – to keep costs down. As long as “somebody else” is paying the bill, the bill will be too high.


P.S. even if Obamacare WAS workable, it would make more sense to try it at the State level first before forcing it on everyone. Thus far, all similar systems that have been tried at State/local levels have failed to my knowledge.