There exist people who can afford insurance but feel they don't need it.

I don't really give a shit either way. A democracy IMO can have many different influences. Socialism can be good and it can be bad. This isn't so bad but I heard it will cost a shit load of money we don't have. I'm voting for Ron Paul anyway.

Right, and I would argue that it is their right to choose if they want health insurance or not. Anytime the government mandates people to purchase a good or service a certain level of freedom is lost. Its up to people to decide what they on their own, and I think that's what's being lost in these arguments.

Also, the whole notion of it being incrementally towards socialism is not accurate, its incrementally moving towards fascism. This is a big plus for insurance companies that already over charge.

There already exists healthcare programs run by the government - medicare. It may not be the best, but is it much better to penalize those who cannot afford it to begin with? It is just another power grab towards a corporatism in America. Much of the people who supported Obamacare oppose big corporations, it drives me up the wall because that's what Obamacare empowers. America is about freedom and liberty for individuals, not government controls over you.

The Supreme Court upheld Obamacare using the logic that its a tax. Which makes no sense. Its a tax if you don't purchase it. That's like going to the gym saying you don't want a membership and the gym charging you a couple of dollars for not wanting a membership.

As far as what this does for the upcoming presidential campaign - it's going to be a big mess. Obama used the blueprint that Romney made in MA for the entire country. There's all these people that are upset about Obamacare and now they're rallying behind Romney. What a disaster this is going to be, I can imagine the debate rhetoric. Now, we the people, are supposed to believe there's an actual difference between these two candidates? They have the same ends in mind for America, with slightly different means. They have the same rich donors backing each campaign, they will answer to those who paid for their power, not to the American people and its a damn shame we're still naive enough to fall for these left/right rhetoric in politics.

You pretty much nailed it. Couldn't have said it any better myself.

With the SCOTUS ruling, I'm reminded of this quote, *supposedly* made by Donald Trump. Whether he did or not is of no consequence; what matters is that it's a simple yet well-reasoned argument.

"Let me get this straight ... We’re going to be “gifted” with a health care plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don’t. Which purportedly covers at least ten million more people, without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn’t understand it, passed by a Congress that didn’t read it, but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a President who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes, for which we’ll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's broke!

Pssh. Let Atlas shrug.

I'm happy about the changes. It makes great sense, it covers alot more people, and it pays for itself over time. That's exactly what he said he wanted to do about our healthcare system when he was coming into office so, to me it just looks like he followed through on yet another issue.

*shrugz*

Politics. Bah.

And it's always going to be like this until we wake up and realize that the two-party system is a joke. No matter how much effort and money are put into an individual's campaign, it won't mean shit unless you're either a Republican or a Democrat. That is unacceptable considering their deplorable track record over the years (Clinton could be an exception economically speaking, but his foreign policy agenda was fairly haphazard). South Park put it best: it all comes down to whether you prefer a douche or a turd.

It doesn't do anything to cover people it just forces people to buy insurance, which is something he campaign against. He said he wouldn't penalize people who don't have health insurance and that's exactly what his plan does.

Followed through on yet another issue?

Of course. I don't know where I was when he brought home all the troops from Iraq, oh wait there's still thousands of private contractors and a couple of thousand troops left in Iraq.

"If they're not out of there by the time I'm president, the first day I'm in office I will bring them home you can take that to the bank." -Obama during 2007 campaign.

He said he would defend civil liberties - what did we get?

We got the Patriot Act re-enforced and NDAA put on us. NDAA is a bill that allows the white house to target U.S. citizens, without a trial or due process of the law, who have been suspected of affiliating or involved with terrorists. Do we understand what this means? Americans are no longer protected by the constitution if the white house says so. This is a huge, mammoth, disgraceful bill that grossly distorts civil liberties in America.

And of course once again, GOP candidate Mitt Romney also said he would support NDAA.

It's a shame what is occurring in this country that so many people don't know about.

Ron Paul is the answer. If he was president it might actually force Republicans and Democrats to work on the issues at hand. Paul is a radical conservative if that's even possible. Too radical to be a republican and too conservative to be a democrat. I dunno. I just like the guy. He seems honest, doesn't look like he is in it for personal gain, and doesn't hide from anyone. Plus hes all for the legalization, taxation, and regulation of marijuana. Which puts a halt on a lot of crime and bring much needed revenue to our country. Plus the death rate on the border might decrease some. Idk which drug is the biggest illegal import from Mexico but Weed is a big part of it. He doesn't oppose gay marriage(I'm not gay but if they want to marry let them marry). And he isn't trying to take my guns away. Also he is a doctor so he might know a thing or two about how healthcare should be handled.

Fuck the Democrats and Fuck the Republicans. Let's stray off the beaten tired path and elect something other than those two parties.

I'm with you, Ron Paul all the way.

Yes sir, I worked on Ron Paul's campaign for 4 months, traveled to Iowa, NH, SC, NV, CA, WA, LA and NY. He might not be perfect, but you know he wouldn't have been controlled and could trust that he'd be honest.

When people buy insurance...the general understanding is that; Hey, I bought coverage....so now I'm....covered!


This plan does not "penalize" people who don't have insurance. A penalty is a requirement the law puts in place for an offense someone has committed against the law. This is a tax so that people can step away from a primitive judgement called "pre-existing conditions". It's also a tax to help people cover their own ass in the doctors office, clinic, or hospital rooms.

Covering people's healthcare bills with their own money is what I see a legit tax is supposed to be about. Especially because this is a tax for the U.S., kept inside the U.S., to benefit U.S. citizens.

Furthermore, if I'm going to be "forced to pay" for anything (as you say), I think I'm okay with them "making me" have my own health insurance.
If right now, I'm one of those people who doesn't go to the hospital until I need it, at least when more of this bill goes into affect, folks like you would stop being "forced to pay" for my doctor visits through the legal grapevine like it is right now, my credit stops taking hits from un-paid doctor bills, and this country gets another one of their priorities straight, concerning what really makes good sense for us to be taxed for.



Yea, he said what he wanted to get done....he worked at it....he got it done. The end.

The other rhetoric you typed out there is not the healthcare issue. I see everywhere I could engage you on it though.

The answer that nobody chooses. He's been trying to get elected since '08, and everyone says this guy's the man, but nobody gives him significant support. What's the deal?

you can only win with the support of K street. its been that way in one form or another for 30 years.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

We're one of the few westernized countries that don't have universal healthcare and the costs of healthcare in this country are through the roof, yet no one wants to do anything to bring those costs down because "oh God, socialism socialism!"

Sure, let's just keep paying 500% mark ups on everything and then complain when a routine visit to the doctor costs the average American a week's salary. Yep, let's keep those insurance companies rich because unfettered capitalism works so well for the people that aren't multi-millionaires.

As for Ron Paul, I like some of his views, but on healthcare, he's out of touch by about 50 years. He wants to phase the country off of medicare and medicaid, with his solution for the 40% of kids in this country that are either on medicaid or uninsured entirely being "charity hospitals."

Yeah, that's a great suggestion. No word of how these hospitals, the doctors, the staff, the equipment, the proceedures and suplies will actually be funded to the level needed to service those kids as well as the rest of the population of current medicaid recipients, but well, when he worked at one of these hospitals in 1960, no one got turned away.

Awesome. Glad to hear it.

It's a penalty, its not a tax, that's what it was called so it could be passed. But I want to thank you in advance for proving my point about Obama's promises. Clearly you don't have an understanding of his campaign points because he was adamant about saying "THIS IS NOT A TAX", yet that's how the Supreme Court passed it. Penalty, tax, if you don't have something you have to pay- your using semantics.

"If right now, I'm one of those people who doesn't go to the hospital until I need it, at least when more of this bill goes into affect, folks like you would stop being "forced to pay" for my doctor visits through the legal grapevine like it is right now, my credit stops taking hits from un-paid doctor bills, and this country gets another one of their priorities straight, concerning what really makes good sense for us to be taxed for."

If you believe that it will be cheaper to manage Obamacare constantly than the circumstances you talk about you no doubt are wrong. Obama is mammoth, bringing in 16,000 IRS agents, full time. The healthcare system needed to be reformed, but it just got so much worse. Plus it is going to hurt the jobs in the healthcare industry, I have a friend who is a nurse and all the talk in the field is all the BS regulations that are going to be put in place so hiring has been "slow". Actually numerous people in the field have told me that.

"Yea, he said what he wanted to get done....he worked at it....he got it done. The end. "

Please engage me because you obviously did not care to really read what I said.

He said he was against the mandate during his campaign against Hilary, Hilary was the one for the mandate this was actually a talking point during the debates and his healthcare plan..... is a mandate. He lied. He didn't follow through on what he said. He gave us something else.

What rhetoric am I using? This president is nothing but rhetoric, he said day 1 the troops will come home, it took him till the end of last year just to end the Iraq war and there are still thousands of troops there and private contractors that are still there, which is against what he said and is costing taxpayers.









This is the most kool aid president we've had. How people can blindly support the man when clearly he is controlled by Wall Street and Big Banking, is beyond man.

Can anyone expleain why Mitt Romney basically had the same idea in his home state, and it worked, yet he's now against it at the federal level? Did he find some way around the individual mandate that the Dems didn't elect to use?

Because that's the only thing that I can think of aside from the fact that he's against it because his party hates it for being a democratic initiative.

Mittens flip flops a lot. A true politician.

@subscorp

Yeah, he's a politician that's brought to us by corporations. Are you surprised by this? So is Mitt Romney, so is anyone else that actually has a chance of winning the presidency in this country.

But yeah, capitalism is great, and there are absolutely zero unintended consequences of it.

Well he says its because he did it at the state level so that makes it different from the federal level. Logic tells me his principle is the same, it also tells me he's a politician and it when this election gets going strong America will see her folly for nominating a guy like Romney to run against Obama when Healthcare is such a big issue. smh.
Well I guess you can say it'll be just like any other election year.

America is not capitalism, this has to stop. America is crony capitalism and corporatism, the reason why insurance is so expensive is because of special interest groups and lobbyists that control our politicians. This healthcare bill only makes those powers stronger, that's what's so mind-boggling to me - if your a socialist or a capitalist you have to hate it because it empowers corporations and raises taxes through the roof.
And you're wrong about Ron Paul's plan, his plan is to just get the Federal government out of the way, he'd rather these programs be run at state or local levels.
Do people forget we are 16 trillion dollars in debt?
Ron Paul worked at a time when there was less corruption in these industries, that's why it was actually affordable. Nowadays it cannot work because of special interests- that's what we need to address and unless we do we're never going to have a true representative democracy at any level - house, senate, locally, or at the executive because they will be serving someone else's interests outside of our own.
Which is another reason why I liked Paul so much, he never took a dollar from lobbyists his entire time in Congress and he's been there for 24 years. Agree, disagree, but in one of the most corrupt environments on the planet the man proved he was not corruptable.
"@subscorp
Yeah, he's a politician that's brought to us by corporations. Are you surprised by this? So is Mitt Romney, so is anyone else that actually has a chance of winning the presidency in this country.
But yeah, capitalism is great, and there are absolutely zero unintended consequences of it."
Sorry I didn't see this, I'm editing this message:
We are not capitalist, this is corporatism and you somehow still support the healthcare bill even though it empowers this corrupt corporations that distorted our healthcare system in the first place.
Higher premiums, less service in times of economic distress and government regulations brought to you by IRS agents. A real prescription for disaster.

So you don't believe that corporatism and crony capitalism are unintended but predictable consequences of capitalism?

I know that you want to separate the two ideas in terms of their original constructs (ie what we actually have now versus what capitalism is in its intentions) but if the 1920's laissez faire capitalism taught us anything, it's that when given the opportunity, corporations will become as big as they can, purchase as many politicians as they can and make as much as they can and it will come at the expense of those that don't control the money.

The 1920s was ANYTHING BUT free market capitalism, the 1920s and great depression that followed came as a result of a Central Bank manipulating the monetary supply called the Federal Reserve. We haven't had true free market capitalism in this country in a long time. A Central Bank is one of the 10 planks of the communist manifesto, we have a distorted society built from aspects of fascism, socialism, and even some communism. And no, I'm not saying Capitalism is perfect, but corporatism and crony capitalism are not predictable consequences.


Ultimately what it all comes down to is the people of the society. While we live in our bubbles and care not about the big picture of what's going on, the people in power will naturally seek more power. The ultimately checks and balances in government should be the people through their politicians, today it's just the politicians, but the people are becoming more and more involved everyday.

As the saying goes. "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." Eventually the shit will really hit the fan and people will have to wake up.

The Federal Reserve is majority owned by big bankers and not the government. Government hasn't printed its own money since 1913. And I'm pretty sure the current banking system we have today has been around one form or another since Renaissance Mercantilism. I forget who the man who made it all up was though.

People are also forgetting that Socialism is not a type or style of government. Socialism is the concept of paying taxes so that things can be paid for that the individual cant possibly afford. This is a good thing.

another thing that people forget is that there has never been a true communist state. attempts and perversions of it have existed but there are many great ideas in there that never panned out because of the ultimate desire for power.

Ultimately, it is complacency of the populace which has led to our current sad state of affairs.