A safety belt allows you to drive faster than is wise (Though you are safe those in your path are not protected by it).

Better to drive in a safe manner.

\
Seriously?? If a person diagnosed with cancer doesn't want treatments given by medical doctors they get taken to court and forced to have treatments.

If a person has a stroke in a public place they get taken to the doctor and forced to be treated.....doesn't necessarily mean they wanted it.......

just a couple of examples......but people get forced into treatment all the time.......

if a person tries to commit suicide (not that I agree with it) and are found by police still alive they are taken where?

But if you son doesn't want it he doesn't have to drive or own a car. He isn't forced to have auto insurance.

but because he does have a car and drive it, there is always the possibility he will have or cause an ACCIDENT and incur financial expenses or cause someone else to

the same is true of his body and his health, unfortunately, there is always the possibility he will become ill, have an accident or injury, etc,,, and incur financial expense and/or cause additional expenses for a doctor or establishment who are responsible to care after him

The so called Affordable Health Care act is the single worse piece of legislation that has ever come out of Congress.

It violates state rights.

It violates the individual rights both in their person and by their Faith.

It can be used to violate even the 2nd Ammendment (health risk to the public) and even to the quartering of soldiers in time of peace without due process(for medical reasons of course).

Either someone was brilliant(and wants us to have no protections) or a whole lot of politicians were plain stupid in its passage.

All the parts of it that have been discussed here are but chocolate and nuts coated upon the turnip.

so we might think it candy and so fight for the nuts and sparkles.

I still haven't seen enough brain in the man to understand how he makes any money.

Trump is a dipshyte and a racist one to boot but not to hear him tell it....lol

If it wouldn't have been for the dipshyte Republicans dissecting the Healthcare or Congresscare as it should be called, it would have been a hell of a lot better if not the universal healthcare America deserves to have.

Excuse me and am not trying to be rude...

this is plain balderdash.

They got nothing dissected.

It was ramed down their throats by simple majority (no such far reaching law should ever require less than a full majority).

It would never have passed at the full majority that should have been held to.

If I rember my short range history right.

Every attempted Republican ammendment to the bill was set aside.

and we had to 'pass' it to read what was in it.

Did we not?

You obviously believe the rhetoric you heard about it. I read it before it was passed and so did others on this site.

Also the Repubs had their baby fits and got to remove and change all kinds of stuff from the original bill.

So yea, I am not offended, I am never offended by misinformation.

I read it.

I warned about its consequences before it was voted on.

So far 2 of the things I warned about have come to pass.

First that it appeared to violate state right.

and that it violated the individual rights under the first ammendment...

Both of which we are seing play out now.

I warned about a few other things also...

but I guess you will just have to wait till they ramp it up to full before you will see the truth.

by the time this bill runs its course there will be no bill of rights.

Which may have been the intention in the first place.

We arnt borrowing money from China.

We are borrowing it from unborn generations of Americans.

and they will suffer the most for our stupidity.

why is it that so many other countries are able to have a healthcare system which is 'universal' but the supposed 'greatest' nation on earth wouldnt be able to handle it....?


Im curious what people feel the difference will be, besides the size of our country which loses its emphasis in my opinion when you consider that what comes out (the population) is what goes in and therefore size would not be much of a consideration,,,


I am sure some have spoken to 'foreigners' who feel they have a poor health system for some reason or another, but no health system will be able to please ALL its citizens

I generally hear the flip side from foreigners who feel our system of healthcare which bankrupts people and causes them to sell their homes,,,etc,,, is quite shameful for such a supposedly 'great' nation,,,,

Other countries that have such systems built them when prosperity was present.

We are tryin to build ours by shoveling our debt from one room to the next.

But the debt is greater than the number of rooms.

Before we can put such a system in place we must get rid of the debt.

so you think the opposition is to the timing and not the actual proposal itself?

are you suggesting those other countries had no debts when they switched?

Apart from the fact, that the German system of social security, of which our healthcare system is part, was built in the mid 1880s, which was a time very well comparable to the situation of the United States today, if not more extreme than what you folks face today (very well running industry and trade, small incomes/poverty on the side of the "ordinary man" on the street), I found the following quote:

"Over the last two years the profits of the 500 biggest american enterprises grew constantly in the two digit area, and analysts always had to correct their prognosises upward. In the last three months of fiscal year 2011 the dynamic of growth has slackened some: the annual accounts of the 500 companies listetd in the S&P-500-index show a growth for these three months of ONLY 7.6 per cent" (Source: Handelsblatt, German economic newspaper, conservative, http://www.handelsblatt-hochschulinitiative.de/index.php/arbeitsmaterial/handelsblatt-inhalte/konjunktur/1522-die-gewinne-steigen-nur-langsamer.html , translation by me (sorry for any found translation mistake - Finders, Keepers!)

To speak of a situation of "Shoveling of debt" is... well, it shows some deficiencies in the question of who pays for the upkeep of the State, doesn't it? Obviously, the wealth you ask for is THERE...

As Families USA Executive Director Ron Pollack — whose group published the comparison — told Pulse, the Romney and Obama plans “are fraternal, and almost appear like identical, twins,’ Pollack said. ‘It is therefore quite strange for Gov. Romney to criticize, and to claim he will repeal, legislation that mirrors his own creation.”

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/01/26/412508/romneycare-and-obamacare-fraternal-twins-separated-at-birth/?mobile=nc/

Insured, but Bankrupted Anyway
By ANNE UNDERWOOD

Dr. David Himmelstein is an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and a primary care doctor at the Cambridge Hospital in Massachusetts.

Q.

How do people go bankrupt in spite of having insurance?
A.

We found two categories of problems. Some people were too sick to work and lost their jobs. Along with their jobs, they lost their insurance. The second group had continuous coverage, but their policies had so many co-pays, deductibles and loopholes that they were bankrupted in spite of having coverage. Most of those who declared bankruptcy were in the latter group.

Q.

Is there anything in the other plans under discussion on Capitol Hill that you like?
A.

What’s being discussed is pretty much a clone of what we’ve done in Massachusetts [since the state instituted an individual mandate in 2007]. From our study and from my own observations as a doctor in Massachusetts, more people are now covered, but access to care hasn’t improved substantially. For many people, it’s worse. Saying that everyone now has coverage is like saying you’re dressed when you have a hospital gown on. If you look at the back, not much is covered.

Q.

Have medical bankruptcies declined in Massachusetts?
A.

We don’t know. We know that as of 2007, when we collected our data, Massachusetts was in line with the rest of the nation in the proportion of bankruptcies that were caused by medical problems. We’re planning to update that to look at what’s happened in the last two to three years. We know that with mandated coverage for someone my age — I’m in my 50s — the cheapest policy costs $4,800 annually and comes with a $2,000 deductible. That means you’ve laid out $6,800 dollars in premiums and medical bills before you have any coverage at all.

For many of our patients, that’s worse off than they were before. We had a free-care policy in our state that was quite liberal. At the hospital where I work, anyone making less than 400 percent of the poverty level could get free or reduced-priced health care. Two surveys have shown that about one in six insured people in Massachusetts are still unable to afford medical care.

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/07/insured-but-bankrupted-anyway/