To "Kent C. DeForrest" you got it slightly wrong. You won't be
free from paying higher premiums to cover the uninsured and uninsurable. You
will be paying more to cover everybody.Have you also noticed that
most communist nations claim to be democratic. I don't want to be a
democratic nation, I want to remain a Republic, like the Constitution set up.What you, and most liberals (and many conservatives) don't realize
that this bill is just a move towards fascism. The ACA gives the government
more power and control over insurance companies. It will turn the health
insurance industry into a socialistic conglomerate that appears to be separate
companies, but, are in fact under government control and share costs between
them.To "atl134" the right to life only means that you
can't be killed without cause. It does not mean that you can set up laws
to make your neighbors pay for your healthcare, food, housing, or anything else
needed for life.To "Truthseeker" you need to look at more
recent information. See "Obamacare to raise claims cost 32 percent, study
shows" at CBS News.
@DavidI am from a UHC country and I give thanks in my prayers
everyday that I am. Having spent a few years living in the States I would not
want to experience your health care system ever again. Your actual health care
is fine (certainly not double the price you pay though) but the insurance system
is horrific. I explain to some of my friends here about
deductibles/co-pays/in-network and they look at me with a blank expression. The
US system is incredibly over bloated and inefficient. My doctors office in the
States employed at least one person to sort out the insurance bills. You have
25% more admin staff compared to my own country.
Obamacare could lead to lower premiums in the state of New York, according to a
new study by Deloitte prepared for the New York Health Benefit Exchange. (May
2013)Re:David"I am told".......What
sources do you rely on? Do your rely on a political variety of sources?I would recommend the Frontline series, accessible via the internet,
"Sick Around the World."
David,A single-payer system is not communism. Every democratic
society on earth except the U.S. has a single-payer system. It is socialism, but
that's a far cry from communism. But we already have a socialistic
health-care system. It's called insurance. It's a system in which
participants pool the risk and pay a proportional amount called a premium.
It's really the same principle as socialized medicine, except that
socialized medicine covers everyone, not just those who work for a particular
employer or belong to a particular group, and the premium is called a tax. Both
systems work because few individuals can afford to pay for a catastrophic
illness or accident, so they spread both the risk and the payments, and it works
fairly well. We just need to extend this mechanism to all members of society,
like most other countries. Until we do, we'll continue to be looked upon by
other countries as stupid and barbaric.
I am told that single payer systems have created backlogs, long waiting periods
for treatment, denials for treatment. Some of these comments cause
me to reflect upon the voter celebrating Obama's 1st presidential victory,
stating that now she wouldn't have to pay a mortgage.Who
establishes compensation to hospitals, nurses, doctors, & other health care
workers? Who sets the fees for procedures? How does government determine fees
& reimbursements? What incentive exists for hard work? Must approval from
government be obtained for pioneering procedures? How is research approved
& funded?The single payer system seems very close to communism.
Is that where we are headed? Is that where democrats would take us? If so, be
honest about it.
We could have the freedom you seek if we'd just enact a single payer health
care system for all. Everyone could have health care, be free from worry and
free from insurance companies and the medical establishment designed to rip
them, and you, off.
Could've sworn we as a nation sought out the inalienable right to life...
I think every one can agree there are flaws with the affordable health care act.
Some people think it goes too far and others think it doesn't go far
enough.I assume the writer does not think healthcare is a right.
What does that exactly mean? Does that mean someone who gets into a car accident
and is unconscious should not get treatment because they do not have insurance?
I'm confused where we draw the line when it comes to healthcare
because most people I talk to who think healthcare is not a right are in favor
of saving lives. They wouldn't let somebody bleed to death or not perform
cpr on a drowning victim but somehow their attitude changes when someone needs a
transplant or has cancer or some other life threatening illness. Death is death in my opinion.
" Individuals and families will now be required to have adequate health care
coverage (meaning most will have to acquire coverage they don't need)
"This is absolutely untrue. I am young and relatively healthy,
so I have a high deductible plan that protects me from going bankrupt in case of
some catastrophic event. And this plan is STILL rated 75% actuarial value when
the "adequate" standard under the Affordable Care Act is 65%.Everyone should have at least catastrophic coverage as THAT is truly where the
problem is. People aren't going bankrupt and adding stress on the system
because of check ups when they get the flu, but because of serious and more
This letter shows a very one-sided view of freedom. I have lived in Germany, and
my German friends (as do people in almost every other civilized country) feel
free to go get health care anywhere they can without worrying about whether they
can afford it. As an American, I thought Germans were hypochondriacs. They went
to the doctor over every little sniffle. They spent weeks at spas to
"recover" from their hard work lives (even though they get much more
paid vacation time and more holidays than we Americans). Their system provides
quality health care and caters to the whims of the culture, and yet they pay
about half of what we pay for health care. So, who is more free?Also, if Obamacare has the desired effect, I will be free from paying higher
premiums to cover all the people who can't afford insurance but who still
receive health care, many of them in the most expensive form available
(emergency care).I submit that we would be far more free if we would
join the rest of the world and creating a single-payer system that covers all
Question Jesse..should freedom be for sale? Freedom from curable disease, and
dibilitating injury is absolutley for sale today with millions of Americans
unable to afford that freedom. Should those who provide those services be
allowed to make a living providing those services absolutely..but should the
system be structured so that millions can't afford the freedom those
I am looking forward to the freedom to pay for my OWN medical bills and not
those of other people who either refuse to carry insurance, can't afford
it, or have been denied coverage by insurance providers.I am looking
forward to being relieved, at least in part, by the current socialistic system
of health care in America that forces all of us to pay higher prices for
virtually everything associated with medical care. The socialistic system that
currently socializes the expenses of medical care upon the shoulders of most of
us while privatizing the profits and pouring them into the pockets of big
companies and their executives.Let's be very careful not to
fall for the lies propagated by those who stand to profit even more if ACA is
allowed to be overturned by legislators who have been paid to oppose it.