Talk to a disabled vet and the loops and hoops they have to endure just to get basic care from the VA, if you still support Obamacare after that, you are dilusional!

i'll be paying the tax penalty or serving time before i'll let the government force me to purchase health insurance.

ahhh excuse me, but being a vet and using the va for medical has NOTHING to do with obama care. VA treatment is good, but the fricken billing departments suck big time. vets have to put up with a lot of BS when using the va. I can see a vast majority of vets switching to obama care and fricken leaving the VA.
my wife has ms, and the part c and d companys screw ppl with disabilities big time. The part c and d was supposed to be free UNTILL the repudlicans made it a pay for system which really sucks.
with obama care my wife will get fair and equal treatment not like it is right now. so I am all for obama care.

I'm for the Health Care Law inasmuch as I think it's a step forward.

However, your entire premise here is even more flawed than the law is: This isn't government run health care. It's a new set of regulations and an individual mandate to get health insurance or pay a penalty on your taxes for not doing so.

The government run public option was stripped out. You seem to be implying that everyone is going to be going to the government to get permission to get surgery or to update a prescription, and if that's your understanding of the law, then you need to educate yourself on what's actually in it.

Fareed Zakaria has a great article in a recent TIME magazine about it:
http://www.fareedzakaria.com/...ance_Is_for_Everyone.html

Some excerpts to give you the general idea:
"Put simply, we have the most expensive, least efficient system of any rich country on the planet."
"The Swiss and Taiwanese found that if you're going to have an insurance model, you need a general one in which everyone is covered. Otherwise, healthy people don't buy insurance and sick ones get gamed out of it."
"The Obama health care plan is not perfect by any measure. It maintains the connection between employment and health care, which is massively inefficient and a huge burden on American business."
"The Obama bill expands access to 30 million Americans. That's good economics and also the right thing to do. But it does little in the way of controlling costs."

I think these quotes overall kind of give Zakaria's attitude about the law, and I fully agree with him. It's flawed and could be better, but it's an improvement over what we had, and quite honestly, until/unless the Republicans begin with a "REFORM OBAMACARE" instead of "REPEAL OBAMACARE" they'll never have any support from me on the issue.

How can you say "it doesn't have anything to do with it" that has EVERYTHING to do with it, its called GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED healthcare!!!, WAKE UP!!!!!

And Twain, if its so "great" then why so many states are against it????? You guys are blind to believe the Government can effectively run anything, THEY CAN'T!!!!! Hence, NACIONAL DEBT!!!!

Your arguments are ridiculous. The first one is a misnomer, and the second is the classic "common sense" argument that is about the dumbest thing ever.

1) It's called Government controlled healthcare by opposition. As far as I know, no one except those that oppose it have called it that. The only thing is controls is that it REQUIRES people to get health insurance. You're not giving more money to the government (unless you refuse to get insurance and pay the penalty). You're not relying on the government to decide coverage. You're not going to a government-run clinic to see your doctor. All of this is being left to private insurance companies.

2) "if it's so "great" then why do many states are against it?????"

Just because something is popular doesn't make it good and just because something is good doesn't make it popular. You surely don't need me to give you example after example of this. The health care law is a highly political issue and even if it were a far better law, conservatives would still try to find reasons to attack it because it's the legislative centerpiece of a president they're trying to defeat.

Lastly, concerning the government's ability to run things effectively: Our nation features a military that is technologically and tactically superior to any other fighting force this planet has ever seen. Our nation has a post office that will deliver mail to even the most obscure location for approximately 45 cents. We have hundreds of other services, from a giant transportation grid to a medical system for the elderly and disabled that generally scores higher in satisfaction polls than most employer-based insurance.

There are certainly failings in many of these systems, but you tend to focus entirely on the negatives. I'm amazed by the fact that many on the conservative side of American politics claim that they believe in the greatness of the American spirit except when it comes to our ability to solve large scale problems, then suddenly, they become very pessimistic about how our government operates (while ignoring the fact that they drive on government-built roads, attended government run schools and universities, and enjoy all sorts of other systems that have worked pretty well).

Name 1 thing the Gov runs effectively.....

I named several in my post. Read it.

And I said "effectively" read!

and yes, health care is already very much in government control.

through entities like the FDA, NHI, CDC, medicare, medicaid.

Gov't advisory panels, (puppeted by congressman and bureaucrats with their pockets lined by the insurance industry) deciding what procedures are covered and when.

Which drugs are covered, extra documemntation needed etc. all running up the costs.

The whole idea of the compromise and getting through anything, is just the start.

KoH: So you deny that the U.S. Military is effectively run? You deny that the Post Office is effectively run?

They are both in worst shape they have been in decades!, too much money is lost in bullfluff :(

Oceana: Fair enough, but if we're strictly talking about "Obamacare," then those points are moot. Those programs and regulatory bodies have existed for a long time before Obamacare. And for that matter, while there are again problems with almost any system, 1) I'd hate to live in a U.S.A. without regulation on our drugs and food; and 2) (moreso for KoH) most private companies also have a lot of inefficiencies in them as well. Look at how poorly the auto industry was being run prior to government intervention (oh, look there, another example where government saved the day).

I'm far from claiming that government is perfect. I'm far from claiming that government is better at everything than the private sector. Both ideas are foolish. However, it's equally foolish to put on your blinders about where and when government has been effective simply because it doesn't fit with the "big government sucks" narrative that you prefer.

The reason the auto industry failed is due to outrageous overhead, mainly the union's money grab on those companies!

Sooooo... Obama 2012?

With choices like Romney and Santorum, no doubt about it. Huntsman was the only republican candidate who ever would have stood a chance at winning my vote.

LMFAO!!!! OMG!!!!! I'm done here...... hahahahahhahaha

Other than randomly throwing internet acronyms around and acting smug, were you ever actually involved?

I'm what you guy like to call "minority" you see, I wasn't suckered into the "Government will take care of you" garbage, I didn't buy into the whole "pop some kids and live off of wellfare" and vote Democrat, I like what the other side said, "work hard enough and someday you will have the american dream too" so I did, and now I own my own buisness, and couple houses, see, I worked for what I have, I don't nor ever did agree with "handouts" I'm a proud "minority" that sees things for what they are, Democrats wanted me to become dependent on them, Republicans wanted me to become another successful person.

the solution is to reward the healthcare unions by making more people pay because they go on strike? what are the regulations governing how much money the health insurance companies can yank out of the system to buy their pretty little expensive toys?

I would say with out healthcare/ Insurance involvement of any kind, That out of pocket Health cost would not cost a dime more.
We Pay for health coverage, the Insurance Industry adds mass over head, Doctors have added overhead of additional people to submit claims, we and up have excess test to follow some statisticians formula for the cheapest way to find our problem instead of going with what THE PROFFESIONAL in the field ie. The Doctor thinks.
That in the end my $25 co-pay for going to the doctor, is about what I would be paying the doctor without all this over head applied.

ObamaCare is just an extension of a bad idea. we can't afford medicare and medicaid as it is, so the solution is expand it?? for real. The insurance industry stacks mass additional cost to every aspect of medicine so the solution... expand what is wrong.


Gov't didn't fix the auto industry and while yes, Associated Union Costs make them harder to compete with some of the large non-unioned. The simple fact the the Finance industry crumpled is what just killed them Don't give government credit when it was a large part if not the largest part of the problem ...Please

Good for you. I don't believe in taking away exorbitant amounts of money away from you. In fact, I applaud you for your success. My wife and I also make more than enough money to live a comfortable life, and we both work hard for that living. I don't get a dime out of any program that would be considered an entitlement program, yet I'm perfectly okay with some of my paycheck being taken to allow for such programs. Despite stories of abuse (which certainly exist), I don't believe anyone lives as good a life as you or I probably live because they "popped some kids and lived off welfare."

Furthermore, while I'm perfectly okay with punishing adults for their fluffty mistakes and limiting welfare benefits, I don't think it's right to punish their children, and I'm not sure what you do to close that loophole. I'd rather just pay a little extra because of a loophole than act in a way that goes against my sense of morality by depriving innocent children of basic care.

And Oceana: So because the finance industry crumbled, everything positive that happens after it is simply discounted? Was it not government programs and military production that pulled America out of the Depression when WW2 began? Or do you completely discount all of that because it was after something bad happened? Is any good that has happened around where the former WTC stood erased by the bad that happened there?

The government bailout did save the auto industry. There were other conditions that were there that led to the necessity and the ability of that bailout to work--to deny that would be foolish. However, it would be just as foolish to act like the auto industry wasn't saved by the auto bailout just because it was enacted by a president you don't care for.

Furthermore, I'm not 100% behind the Health Care Law. I simply feel that any law that attempts to make progress in the area of the Health Care problems we have (17% of GDP according to Zakaria--no other wealthy nation is over 12%) is a start. I'd welcome debate on how to improve the Law. I just don't welcome the attitude that it needs to be repealed.

I'm going to try to back off this thread for a couple days. I'm finding my attitude towards others of you to be getting close to the point where I want to cross the line into rudeness (perhaps I'm there already), and that's just an area I prefer not to go.

I debate this stuff because it makes me look up information and educate myself, not because I want to be a jerk. :P

So sorry if any of my last posts come off that way.

*happily stays in Canada*

I still <3 Twain!!!!

I'm glad that I live in Canada but we pay a ton of taxes in order to make the health care system work... and by work, I mean that we have a very slow system that is always overworked.

Nothing is perfect, but it sounds like you guys are having a tough time down there in the "good ol' U S of A"

Tough is a HUGE under statement, Ominix :(

gotta back obamacare, while it has some flaws it is at least a step in the right direction. For all those bashing the government and everything it does... keep in mind it is of the people by the people and for the people. If you are a people you are responsible for its successes and failures.

Government bashing is what makes this country GREAT, we don't have to worry about waking up in a prison ;)

tell that to the two thirds of the nation who aren't paying any income tax.

Not commentary, but noticed this on MSNBC.com:

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/...ty-of-health-care-mandate

Kennedy appears to be on the fence. This is looking very likely to be 4-4 with Kennedy being the tie-breaker. The early part of the article shows a lot of quotes from Kennedy that seem to indicate he's leaning towards the conservative bloc on the high court; later quotes seem to indicate maybe he's more undecided than it otherwise seemed.

Very likely going to be a 5-4 vote though if the article has any truth to it.

Speaking of prisons, that's a whole different thing that's royally fluffed up with America.

^ Huh? 0.o

The fact that 50% of the inmates in the US are in for drug related crimes..
There's way more people in prisons in the US than China who has 4x the population..
The ENTIRE concept of 'privatized' prisons, making money off arresting people which keeps dumb laws like marijuana possession illegal. I can go on..

Ohh, ok.... ya! That's fked up! I agree 100% with you!

If they want to keep marijuana possession illegal (at least in small doses where it's obviously for personal recreational use), it should simply be a fine, like traffic violations.

Putting someone in jail because they want to get high doesn't really benefit anyone. Then we're all paying for health care, food and shelter for someone who's not a danger to society.

Either legalize it or at least decriminalize it and just fine the stoners. Then we'll have more room in the prisons for people who have actually done something to hurt other people, whether it's a violent criminal or someone involved in white-collar crime.

LOL, how are you going to fine a stoner? they can't keep a job because the employer makes them pee into a bottle. so they end up in jail for contempt of court instead of possession, or they go out and steal money to pay the fine, and end up in jail for theft. tell them to quit smoking the shiznit until such time as it's actually legal, and they won't have to go to jail or pay a fine.

Legalizing drugs will actually end the "war on drugs" but its not going to happen, the Gov., makes billion$ from the so called drug war, its a sick twisted reality!

KoH: I wonder how much they'd make if they regulated and taxed it, instead....

Same as booze :)

more than booze and tobacco combined. they think it's a miracle drug and will cure everything.

it will

really? you haven't been reading anything written by Frank Herbert recently, have you?