because then it should have been single payer. It would have made our companies far more profitable and the economy could have grown unless the tax was overwhelming. And the dems could have done that down party lines and some republicans would have been forced to go along by big business. The dems were too corrupt to stand up to insurance companies and they sold out their values and americans at the same time.
The good news though is that if you're wealthy none of this matters. You can jump queue, hire private, or travel to countries with more doctors.
To think that we're insuring millions of poor people and insurance companies will not find ways to pass the charge to those who can pay is irrational. This is a ginormous new tax Obama put on our shoulders, and it's killing the economy, that's all.
Agree. But this is better than nothing. And, to get single payer, we will have to wait until after Obama is re-elected., if at all.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/3AWHq0Cy5TU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
there were just a few months in the history of this nation when the dems had all the votes and the people were just docile enough to allow single payer. The dems chose campaign money from insurance companies and sold the people an insurance care bill under the guise of reform. Pelosi, Reid and the whole crew (even kusinich) were completely corrupted by money. It won't happen until lobbying with money is eliminated.
Which is exactly why Romneycare had such a requirement. You have to deal with the uninsured in some manner, because health care is too expensive for them to pay for it out of pocket in most cases. So you face three choices: 1)treat anyone who shows up at the ER and recoup the costs from others, 2) require everyone to have insurance, or 3) turn them away if they can't pay. The problems with Obamacare however start with the fact that it isn't a state by state program, which after all, is how medical insurance is regulated. It is a national mandate, which begged the question of how the federal government has that authority. Turns out they didn't but somehow at the same time they did, because the Chief Justice is an intellectual coward. Then the issue becomes how to pay for this vast expansion in insurance coverage. This is where your comment is in error. The uninsured aren't going to be "paying their fair share." Far from it. Taxpayers will be paying for it. The money has to come form somewhere, and obviously it will come from Obama's political opponents, chiefly better off elderly people. who will see the effects of rationing of Medicare services. The beneficiaries? Obama's core constituencies of the urban underclass and illegal immigrants. Obamacare also is problematic in that it gave the government power to mandate the type and scope of coverage. Hence we get the administration running roughshod over religious freedom. Instead of choice, we will get a one size fits all type of policy, mandated by liberal know-it-alls like HHS Sec. Sebelius.
OK, but the uninsured are going to be forced to pay something, maybe not enough, but something. And this ACA motivates them to buy insurance. Sure, single payer, Medicare for everyone is the obvious best choice. Just remove the over 65 portion of what works well. Done. But, until then, this is as good as we're going to get. I would love to see the House get over it, and get on with something else. Fight Obama with Romney's ideas, it can't just be anyone but Obama. I wish Obama had pushed more on single payer, but this is what we have.