Universal Health Care

[Pendragonia]

I have a better question does he/she live in a first world country?

He's an upper middle-class Finnish teenager.

Which should give you an idea as to whether he knows what life is like in a country that does not have universal health care.

The short answer is none whatsoever. His opinion is therefore irrelevant.

[Socialdemokraterne]

I can understand your argument. It is my opinion, however, that these are the precise reasons healthcare should be exposed to competition- it drives incentive to cover people, get people on insurance plans to pay for them (thus driving down costs), and drives innovation (one readon I applaud the Nordic system with its much more competitive system)

It seems to me that without a base paying into the public system, it looses a good advantage of the system (lots paying in for the few that use it, at a scale that could not be accomplished in the private market).

I can understand the population's incentive to seek insurance in a free market, but I can't see why things such as policy cancellation on the grounds of violations of vaguely-written pre-existing conditions clauses would cease to exist therein. I further don't see how similar practices, such as limiting the company's liability by using vague policy contracts, would cease to be. One would think that insurers would have an incentive to collect as many payments as they could while minimizing the amount of money they devote to actually paying medical costs, a pressure which would make such behavior favorable for them.

There's also concern over just what it is that the insurance companies do with the money they have accumulated. For instance, if an insurance company decides to invest its funds elsewhere to try to keep up with any sort of inflationary pressures it might face two very serious concerns: (a) they don't have enough liquid assets to pay out the amount they owe when they owe it (b) they might lose on their investments and thus not even have the hard assets to fall back on. We deal with these concerns by requiring insurance companies to keep statutory reserves on hand.

Now, it's hardly impossible to imagine that there would be insurance companies in a free market system which would keep reserves of adequate size on hand. And as time went on, hypothetically these firms would defeat their competition. If that happened then that which is present de jure would be present de facto because all the big insurers would have these reserves, so who cares if we get rid of the statute? Well, the trouble is that this outcome runs on two major assumptions: (a) that an insurer with a reserve is always available, (b) that consumers strongly prefer an insurer with larger reserves on hand. Neither is necessarily true, so we can just as readily assume that at least a reasonably large portion of the market (perhaps not a dominating portion, but large enough to notice) will be occupied by companies which do not keep large enough reserves on hand to withstand an emergency. And it is for the protection of the customers of just such firms that the statutes demanding that those reserves exist are put into place.

Long story short, I'm not completely convinced that market pressures always sway markets in favor of the consumer or that the consumer always has an equal or greater amount of control over market pressures. That's one of the main reasons I want to limit or remove the influence of these pressures from some elements of human life.

One thing I think we can all agree on is that a system where there is an inefficient regulated market that is employer-centered and leaves many out and drives costs through the roof. I would readily accept universal healthcare above this system, because it disconnects insurance from employment while maintaining a large pool; it is simply I would prefer more than that a free market (mind you, true free market) systems.

In other words, the current system in the USA is insufficient. Yes, I think I can agree to that.

[Manhatteniscool]

Only the ignorant who fear the government are against univirsal healthcare.

What Vanhania said is True. But also is something that we are in need of. Our Health Care System is in need of an overhaul of how it gets funded and Universal Health Care is a good Alternative to the old system. The old system was bad and had many flaws.

[Nazi Flower Power]

Universal healthcare is a good idea.

Blue-collar workers are the people whose physical health is most essential to their productivity, but they're also the ones who are most likely to have difficulty getting the healthcare they need under the current system. That's no way to run a country.

[Divair]

He's an upper middle-class Finnish teenager.

Which should give you an idea as to whether he knows what life is like in a country that does not have universal health care.

The short answer is none whatsoever. His opinion is therefore irrelevant.

Precisely.

[Chinese Regions]

Unless you're seriously suggesting that hospitals should turn poor people away to die on the streets, you're paying for them already.

If you can't pay for ice cream, ice cream parlors will turn you away. If you can't pay for a manicure, beauty salons will turn you away. Why should hospitals be an exception? They're a form of business, just like ice cream parlors and beauty salons.

Which completely ignores the fact that universal healthcare costs a hell of a lot less than private healthcare. And the US's healthcare system was ranked 37th for quality of care by the WHO, behind countries that have universal healthcare. So the idea that it is somehow an inefficient mess is not in anyway grounded in reality.

Doesn't really matter, as no one has a right to steal one's money and pay for someone's treatment with it. Might as well start stealing money from passerbys and use the money to buy ice cream for everyone.

Are you seriously comparing ice cream to treating injuries and ilnesses?

[Sociobiology]

He's an upper middle-class Finnish teenager.

Which should give you an idea as to whether he knows what life is like in a country that does not have universal health care.

The short answer is none whatsoever. His opinion is therefore irrelevant.

I was just going to say that means he has already taken a great deal from the system so it is only fair that he has to pay back into it.

[Soleichunn]

When compared to what system?

A government-run system cannot match the same competitive market forces.

I don't deny such systems do advance, and can impliment them at low costs. That is not the issue. In any instance, they do not advance as freely and as well.

I see. But while Australia's healthcare system has more or less total coverage at less than half the cost the US government pays, and continues to make massive scientific advances such as the cervical cancer vaccine, spray on skin and the bionic ear, I'll consider our system more practical.

Australia has been pushing ahead (over the past 15 years or so) with more comprehensive biotech (start to finish) research (though not enough, and it seems a shortage of funding to make existing practical techs/substances cheaper - the introduction of a government operated generic drug producer, and trying to start a series of equal quality, lesser cost mechanical/electronic medical items would benefit the system imo).

[Pendragonia]

Which should give you an idea as to whether he knows what life is like in a country that does not have universal health care.

The short answer is none whatsoever. His opinion is therefore irrelevant.

Precisely.

snip.

I was just going to say that means he has already taken a great deal from the system so it is only fair that he has to pay back into it.

[New Rogernomics]

Universal healthcare is a good idea.

Blue-collar workers are the people whose physical health is most essential to their productivity, but they're also the ones who are most likely to have difficulty getting the healthcare they need under the current system. That's no way to run a country.

There is no doubt that the US health-care system is backward (and economically unsustainable) in comparison to the other OECD nations, but so long as people put a 'socialism' label to Universal Health-care the US will retain the perverse notion of social Darwinism i.e. the strong live, the poor, middle class and elderly die. I don't even bother to argue, most Americans want to live in the dark ages where only the top of the pyramid get decent health-care.

[Lunchia Breakfastia and Dinnerista]

The creation of a universal healthcare system would be pernicious in many ways to an entire industry in America. Efficiency and innovation calls for a competitive free market healthcare system. Not to mention the current fiscal situation simply does not condone the deficit spending, and in fact ensures that even if total costs are reduced by subsidies and distribution amongst the masses, net costs for the individual will only rise, and coverage has no competitive basis to increase in scope with the age, but is dependent upon the political debate of the day.

Ancap theory aside, that's sort of empirically wrong. Nations with public healthcare have produced and continue to produce large strides in health science, and at a cheaper cost.

competition cannot beat cooperation...

[The Reasonable]

Universal healthcare is a horrible idea, because healthcare is not a right. Just like the government doesn't operate supermarkets, ice cream parlors or beauty salons, the government shouldn't operate hospitals. Healthcare is a privilege, not a right and no matter how much you want healthcare, you should have to pay for it yourself and not steal money from other hard-working people to pay for your treatment.

I have never used public healthcare in my life and I never will. Private health clinics and hospitals are more efficient, affordable in the long run and just much, much better. Hopefully the concept of government-mandated healthcare will die out soon, it's just a big useless black hole on everyone's budget.

Disease can happen to anyone. I repeat, ANYONE. I used to think the same way when I was a few years younger, until I got several abscesses that would have been life-threatening if untreated. Guess who helped? Medicaid. That's right, that same government program that your ilk likes raging about all the time. And even at that, Medicaid got stingy and wanted to not cover the procedures it took to drain the abscesses and the medicine required to kill the remaining bacteria- they did only after some major complaining on my and my family's part. That was Medicaid. Imagine what a private insurance company would have been like. A useless black hole on everyone's budget? Until you get sick and can't pay for it without bankrupting yourself, that is.

Healthcare is an extension of the right to life supported by our Founding Fathers, and the right to life- and therefore healthcare- should not be contingent on ability to pay. Of course taxes has to be paid to fund this, but since you're not an anarchist, you would agree that the government has power to collect taxes.

[The Reasonable]

Unless you're seriously suggesting that hospitals should turn poor people away to die on the streets, you're paying for them already.

If you can't pay for ice cream, ice cream parlors will turn you away. If you can't pay for a manicure, beauty salons will turn you away. Why should hospitals be an exception? They're a form of business, just like ice cream parlors and beauty salons.

Which completely ignores the fact that universal healthcare costs a hell of a lot less than private healthcare. And the US's healthcare system was ranked 37th for quality of care by the WHO, behind countries that have universal healthcare. So the idea that it is somehow an inefficient mess is not in anyway grounded in reality.

Doesn't really matter, as no one has a right to steal one's money and pay for someone's treatment with it. Might as well start stealing money from passerbys and use the money to buy ice cream for everyone.

It's really difficult not to lose my temper at not only you, but my former, 13-year-old libertarian self, who was so drunk on the idea of freedom of business that he didn't realize that it would eventually destroy people's life and health, and subsequently, universal freedom that I so espoused back then. Again, health care is an extension of the right to life enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. Ice cream and beauty salons, as opposed to health care, provides happiness, which you do NOT have a right to (just the pursuit of happiness). I really hope that you have a lot of money, because we all will get sick at some time or other and it would be downright hypocritical of you to want anything other than private ambulances, hospitals, physicians, and the accompanying, exorbitant costs to you.

[Capisaria]

If you can't pay for ice cream, ice cream parlors will turn you away. If you can't pay for a manicure, beauty salons will turn you away. Why should hospitals be an exception? They're a form of business, just like ice cream parlors and beauty salons.


Doesn't really matter, as no one has a right to steal one's money and pay for someone's treatment with it. Might as well start stealing money from passerbys and use the money to buy ice cream for everyone.

It's really difficult not to lose my temper at not only you, but my former, 13-year-old libertarian self, who was so drunk on the idea of freedom of business that he didn't realize that it would eventually destroy people's life and health, and subsequently, universal freedom that I so espoused back then. Again, health care is an extension of the right to life enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. Ice cream and beauty salons, as opposed to health care, provides happiness, which you do NOT have a right to (just the pursuit of happiness). I really hope that you have a lot of money, because we all will get sick at some time or other and it would be downright hypocritical of you to want anything other than private ambulances, hospitals, physicians, and the accompanying, exorbitant costs to you.

I am proud of you. Your nation name describes you very well. Are you 15?

[The Reasonable]

It's really difficult not to lose my temper at not only you, but my former, 13-year-old libertarian self, who was so drunk on the idea of freedom of business that he didn't realize that it would eventually destroy people's life and health, and subsequently, universal freedom that I so espoused back then. Again, health care is an extension of the right to life enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. Ice cream and beauty salons, as opposed to health care, provides happiness, which you do NOT have a right to (just the pursuit of happiness). I really hope that you have a lot of money, because we all will get sick at some time or other and it would be downright hypocritical of you to want anything other than private ambulances, hospitals, physicians, and the accompanying, exorbitant costs to you.

I am proud of you. Your nation name describes you very well. Are you 15?

I'm flattered. I'm 17, actually, and I mainly posted this out of guilt that I could have ever been the same as him- especially since I want to go into medicine.

[Capisaria]

I am proud of you. Your nation name describes you very well. Are you 15?

I'm flattered. I'm 17, actually, and I mainly posted this out of guilt that I could have ever been the same as him- especially since I want to go into medicine.

I honestly hope i have the same amount of words that you do when im 17.

[The Reasonable]

I'm flattered. I'm 17, actually, and I mainly posted this out of guilt that I could have ever been the same as him- especially since I want to go into medicine.

I honestly hope i have the same amount of words that you do when im 17.

How old are you now?

[Dracone]

So, with this whole debate going on about Obamacare and how the mandate is unconstitutional, I've gotten to wonder about health care. As someone who deeply wishes to go into Pharmacology, Biochemistry, or anything that deals with creating and studying new treatments and medicines, it troubles me to see things like what I see every day.

"Obamacare is socialism!"

As if the socialist principle of having employers have you covered is a bad thing. Or the socialist principle of not being turned away by Fortune 500 health care companies if you have a preexisting condition. But what makes things worse is the Republican party's stance on Obamacare while Governor Romney passed a mandate in 2006 in Massachusetts[1][2]. The mandate that makes everyone so mad.

However, my problem lies not with those who oppose Obamacare. My problem starts here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... h_care.svg

In green is every nation that has Universal Health Care. In red are the nations that have the mandate. Notice how nearly all of Europe and the two technological kings of Asia, Japan and South Korea, also have Universal Health Care. Also notice how Australia and even your neighbor to the North, Canada, has Universal Health Care.

The average annual American salary from 2010-2011 is $43,460[3]. Apparently, it's not enough as Medical Bills are the LEADING cause of bankruptcy in America with cancer patients having a bill of $35,878[4]. Even the average medical bill is $13,460[4]. Now, I'm not saying we should raise the minimum wage. In fact, I'm against minimum wage in many cases. However, this is absurd. Not the cost of hospitals themselves. No, I realize how expensive doctor's wages, their equipment, and the hospital itself is. But to deny the backbone of the economy an all important service is sickening.

123 people die every day without health care, on average[5]. On average, 45,000 people die each year because they don't have health care[5]. Because they don't have health care. A service, that I must repeat, that is funded and given to citizens in all of those green countries above.

So, your thoughts on Universal Healthcare? Not a mandate mind you. A government funded service that gives it to you far cheaper (I say far cheaper instead of free due to taxes).

[1] http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-c ... myths.html
[2] http://www.politifact.com/texas/stateme ... nt-barack/
[3] http://www.ehow.com/info_7746957_averag ... erica.html
[4] http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2 ... study.html
[5] http://www.examiner.com/article/123-peo ... ealth-care

Personally I am against it because I dont want any power in the goverments hands, to me a goverment should only have the power to prevent you from directly and physcally harming others. And thats it. Oh and a military to keep pther countries from harming you. but thats it. and "He who has the gold has the power" The more social welfare the goverment provides, the worse it is. I also reject it due to the fact that roughly 70% of americans are against obamacare and forcing it down our throats is down right dictatorship (ofcourse I dont like democracy much better, which is another story, but atleast its not as bad as dictatorship)
I dont have a source for my number btw, I apologize. I saw it quoted on the news, and it was actually used in support of obamacare so I know it is real. (they were explaining why they couldnt understand why so many people were against it.)
also it doesnt make sense to me either that the goverment takes my money, then uses it to pay for insurance for me. If they didnt take my money, couldnt I buy my own insurance if I wanted it? There are alternatives btw, for instance just putting it in a savings account will statistically mean you will not need to spend as much for the same return, and can use it at need.

[Transhuman Proteus]

Unless you're seriously suggesting that hospitals should turn poor people away to die on the streets, you're paying for them already.

If you can't pay for ice cream, ice cream parlors will turn you away. If you can't pay for a manicure, beauty salons will turn you away. Why should hospitals be an exception? They're a form of business, just like ice cream parlors and beauty salons.

Ice cream parlous and beauty salons don't save your life or heal you of conditions that have the potential to impact your quality of life, make it hard/impossible for you to work etc.

Doesn't really matter, as no one has a right to steal one's money and pay for someone's treatment with it. Might as well start stealing money from passerbys and use the money to buy ice cream for everyone.

Except tax isn't theft, except to the very out of touch.

Still a dark day, if one thinks healthcare isn't a right than one is essentially saying a right to life isn't a right either.

I have never used public healthcare in my life and I never will. Private health clinics and hospitals are more efficient, affordable in the long run and just much, much better. Hopefully the concept of government-mandated healthcare will die out soon, it's just a big useless black hole on everyone's budget.

Ah yes, how many people have said that I'm sure. Thankfully you can see the future and know you will never end up long term unemployed, or old, and with a condition that prevents you from working you can't afford to treat privately. Seriously - how old are you? What industry do you work in? How long have you held that job? How extensive are your savings? Etc

I imagine in defense of your principles if that ever somehow did occur (as impossible as it must seem to you ), you'd grit your teeth and expire in the gutter so you wouldn't have to bear the thought of being saved by a social safety net.

Because that's what it is - your taxes are being taken and some of it is going towards caring for millions of people, if they need care. The taxes of millions of people are being taken and some of it is going towards caring for you if you ever need it.

This is relevant how..? You can be sad from not getting ice cream or you can die from not recieving healthcare. Neither one entitles you to steal other people's money to fund your stuff.

You should be a comedian with that act. How is it relevant? Most rational, non-sociopathic people (or the ones that don't place a wad of notes above the life of another person, as you seem to) agree to the idea you have a right to life, and therefore when something is identified that could deny you of that, through no fault of your own, and is preventable something can done. Lots of people get sick, have accidents etc regardless of the life they live - you could die if you don't receive treatment. Healthcare safety nets are their to limit the chances of that happen.

If you can come up with a comparable right to icecream induced happiness you'd have a point. As you can't you look silly.

I have a better question does he/she live in a first world country?

He's an upper middle-class Finnish teenager.

It is always hilarious when that is the case.

If he feels strongly enough about it I wonder if he is intending to moving to another nation out of principle when he is old enough.

[Transhuman Proteus]

I also reject it due to the fact that roughly 70% of americans are against obamacare and forcing it down our throats is down right dictatorship (ofcourse I dont like democracy much better, which is another story, but atleast its not as bad as dictatorship)

Proof 70% of Americans are against it? And if they are so resistant why does it appear Obama is going to get a second term easily?

I dont have a source for my number btw, I apologize. I saw it quoted on the news, and it was actually used in support of obamacare so I know it is real. (they were explaining why they couldnt understand why so many people were against it.)

Yeah, that's a problem then. Was it Fox news?

also it doesnt make sense to me either that the goverment takes my money, then uses it to pay for insurance for me. If they didnt take my money, couldnt I buy my own insurance if I wanted it? There are alternatives btw, for instance just putting it in a savings account will statistically mean you will not need to spend as much for the same return, and can use it at need.

Do you believe the system was fine as was? Do you believe it would have been possible for you to find yourself unable to pay for medical treatment? Because that's the situation alot of American's found themselves in.

[Dracone]

I also reject it due to the fact that roughly 70% of americans are against obamacare and forcing it down our throats is down right dictatorship (ofcourse I dont like democracy much better, which is another story, but atleast its not as bad as dictatorship)

Proof 70% of Americans are against it? And if they are so resistant why does it appear Obama is going to get a second term easily?

I dont have a source for my number btw, I apologize. I saw it quoted on the news, and it was actually used in support of obamacare so I know it is real. (they were explaining why they couldnt understand why so many people were against it.)

Yeah, that's a problem then. Was it Fox news?

also it doesnt make sense to me either that the goverment takes my money, then uses it to pay for insurance for me. If they didnt take my money, couldnt I buy my own insurance if I wanted it? There are alternatives btw, for instance just putting it in a savings account will statistically mean you will not need to spend as much for the same return, and can use it at need.

Do you believe the system was fine as was? Do you believe it would have been possible for you to find yourself unable to pay for medical treatment? Because that's the situation alot of American's found themselves in.

because mitt romney is even worse... in the land of the blind, the man with one eye is king.

No, I dont watch fox, it was on CNN, but Ive hear it from like 5 different news shows on cnn (the tv station in the lobby where I work is stuck on CNN -_-)


Yes to all. I beleive the system was fine as it was, or atleast as fine as can be, since otherwise would require goverment intervention, and to me the goverment should have the power to prevent you from taking direct physcal harm from people, and protect your property rom being directly harmed or stolen. thats it. while the system wasnt perfect, it is better then giving yet more power to the goverment.
and not only do I beleive it is possible. It has already happened. My Mother cant see because the glasses she needs are too expensive and the insurance wont pay, I cant get medicine for my hypothyroidism or my diabetes either because I have no insurance and I cant afford it. so es, I know some people cant get healthcare, that still doesnt give the goverment the right to step in and do it.

[Sociobiology]

Proof 70% of Americans are against it? And if they are so resistant why does it appear Obama is going to get a second term easily?



Yeah, that's a problem then. Was it Fox news?



Do you believe the system was fine as was? Do you believe it would have been possible for you to find yourself unable to pay for medical treatment? Because that's the situation alot of American's found themselves in.

because mitt romney is even worse... in the land of the blind, the man with one eye is king.

No, I dont watch fox, it was on CNN, but Ive hear it from like 5 different news shows on cnn (the tv station in the lobby where I work is stuck on CNN -_-)


Yes to all. I beleive the system was fine as it was, or atleast as fine as can be, since otherwise would require goverment intervention, and to me the goverment should have the power to prevent you from taking direct physcal harm from people, and protect your property rom being directly harmed or stolen. thats it. while the system wasnt perfect, it is better then giving yet more power to the goverment.
and not only do I beleive it is possible. It has already happened. My Mother cant see because the glasses she needs are too expensive and the insurance wont pay, I cant get medicine for my hypothyroidism or my diabetes either because I have no insurance and I cant afford it. so es, I know some people cant get healthcare, that still doesnt give the goverment the right to step in and do it.

sure it does we are the government we can give or take from it any rights we want, because both those things are just ideas in our head. we should be going for whatever works best for society, period. we should be using the government for things the market cannot do well, things that have broken market built in, like military, healthcare, and education.

[Ulvena]

So, with this whole debate going on about Obamacare and how the mandate is unconstitutional, I've gotten to wonder about health care. As someone who deeply wishes to go into Pharmacology, Biochemistry, or anything that deals with creating and studying new treatments and medicines, it troubles me to see things like what I see every day.

"Obamacare is socialism!"

As if the socialist principle of having employers have you covered is a bad thing. Or the socialist principle of not being turned away by Fortune 500 health care companies if you have a preexisting condition. But what makes things worse is the Republican party's stance on Obamacare while Governor Romney passed a mandate in 2006 in Massachusetts[1][2]. The mandate that makes everyone so mad.

However, my problem lies not with those who oppose Obamacare. My problem starts here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... h_care.svg

In green is every nation that has Universal Health Care. In red are the nations that have the mandate. Notice how nearly all of Europe and the two technological kings of Asia, Japan and South Korea, also have Universal Health Care. Also notice how Australia and even your neighbor to the North, Canada, has Universal Health Care.

The average annual American salary from 2010-2011 is $43,460[3]. Apparently, it's not enough as Medical Bills are the LEADING cause of bankruptcy in America with cancer patients having a bill of $35,878[4]. Even the average medical bill is $13,460[4]. Now, I'm not saying we should raise the minimum wage. In fact, I'm against minimum wage in many cases. However, this is absurd. Not the cost of hospitals themselves. No, I realize how expensive doctor's wages, their equipment, and the hospital itself is. But to deny the backbone of the economy an all important service is sickening.

123 people die every day without health care, on average[5]. On average, 45,000 people die each year because they don't have health care[5]. Because they don't have health care. A service, that I must repeat, that is funded and given to citizens in all of those green countries above.

So, your thoughts on Universal Healthcare? Not a mandate mind you. A government funded service that gives it to you far cheaper (I say far cheaper instead of free due to taxes).

[1] http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-c ... myths.html
[2] http://www.politifact.com/texas/stateme ... nt-barack/
[3] http://www.ehow.com/info_7746957_averag ... erica.html
[4] http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2 ... study.html
[5] http://www.examiner.com/article/123-peo ... ealth-care

Personally I am against it because I dont want any power in the goverments hands, to me a goverment should only have the power to prevent you from directly and physcally harming others. And thats it. Oh and a military to keep pther countries from harming you. but thats it. and "He who has the gold has the power" The more social welfare the goverment provides, the worse it is. I also reject it due to the fact that roughly 70% of americans are against obamacare and forcing it down our throats is down right dictatorship (ofcourse I dont like democracy much better, which is another story, but atleast its not as bad as dictatorship)
I dont have a source for my number btw, I apologize. I saw it quoted on the news, and it was actually used in support of obamacare so I know it is real. (they were explaining why they couldnt understand why so many people were against it.)
also it doesnt make sense to me either that the goverment takes my money, then uses it to pay for insurance for me. If they didnt take my money, couldnt I buy my own insurance if I wanted it? There are alternatives btw, for instance just putting it in a savings account will statistically mean you will not need to spend as much for the same return, and can use it at need.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Real+facts+about+Obamacare

[Dracone]

Personally I am against it because I dont want any power in the goverments hands, to me a goverment should only have the power to prevent you from directly and physcally harming others. And thats it. Oh and a military to keep pther countries from harming you. but thats it. and "He who has the gold has the power" The more social welfare the goverment provides, the worse it is. I also reject it due to the fact that roughly 70% of americans are against obamacare and forcing it down our throats is down right dictatorship (ofcourse I dont like democracy much better, which is another story, but atleast its not as bad as dictatorship)
I dont have a source for my number btw, I apologize. I saw it quoted on the news, and it was actually used in support of obamacare so I know it is real. (they were explaining why they couldnt understand why so many people were against it.)
also it doesnt make sense to me either that the goverment takes my money, then uses it to pay for insurance for me. If they didnt take my money, couldnt I buy my own insurance if I wanted it? There are alternatives btw, for instance just putting it in a savings account will statistically mean you will not need to spend as much for the same return, and can use it at need.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Real+facts+about+Obamacare

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... uling.html

not quite as big a difference as I was led to beleive by cnn, but it is still the majority.

[Dracone]

because mitt romney is even worse... in the land of the blind, the man with one eye is king.

No, I dont watch fox, it was on CNN, but Ive hear it from like 5 different news shows on cnn (the tv station in the lobby where I work is stuck on CNN -_-)


Yes to all. I beleive the system was fine as it was, or atleast as fine as can be, since otherwise would require goverment intervention, and to me the goverment should have the power to prevent you from taking direct physcal harm from people, and protect your property rom being directly harmed or stolen. thats it. while the system wasnt perfect, it is better then giving yet more power to the goverment.
and not only do I beleive it is possible. It has already happened. My Mother cant see because the glasses she needs are too expensive and the insurance wont pay, I cant get medicine for my hypothyroidism or my diabetes either because I have no insurance and I cant afford it. so es, I know some people cant get healthcare, that still doesnt give the goverment the right to step in and do it.

sure it does we are the government we can give or take from it any rights we want, because both those things are just ideas in our head. we should be going for whatever works best for society, period. we should be using the government for things the market cannot do well, things that have broken market built in, like military, healthcare, and education.

what makes you think we are the goverment? I dont know about you, but no one asked my opinion on obamacare. I dont get any money sent to me from the taxes. When everyone running for election has similiar ideas, that goverment should step in and try and fix things, then your votes dont really matter in that regard. You simply choose the lesser of the evils. And the people who agree with me (I know my ideas arent the norm, but I also know that there not that far off from the norm either and that Im not the only one with hem) but the people who think the goverment should butt out are the least likely to run, because they dont want anyone in the goverment, so why would they join it?