Obama will get his healthcare bill but it comes at a cost

Annie

I don't see how the author thinks this will be a 'drag on the US economy'? Healthcare costs are killing the people in this country...mostly because so many don't have insurance and wait until they are catastrophically ill to get treatment. Focusing on wellness, once we get insurance to people who don't have it, should help us save money.

Fergus Pickering

Well tough titty for the rest of the world then. And good for the president, not a man I ever carried a torch for. If he doesn't get re-elected he will have died in a good cause. Or are you against a health service for fairly poor people? People like me, I mean, but having the misfortune to be living in the USA.

Chris

Ah, I see- So the uninsured can suffer so that we can get stronger economic growth!

Bill Kristol-Balls

Quite right.

How selfish of Americans to want a decent standard of health care when Coffee House bloggers can't even afford a decent bottle of Salon in these troubled times.

Some people?

Dirty Euro

How can a christian nation not cover everyone?

David Lindsay

Good to see them all admitting that it should have been the House Bill, combining the public option and the Stupak Amendment to make abortion practically impossible, after all. Or have I missed something?

The Republicans may win back Congress this year, but any repeal would be vetoed by Obama. And by 2012, no one out in the general electorate is going to vote to repeal their own existing entitlement. Instead, Middle America will want two things: an end to the practically limitless taxpayer subsidy of insurance companies, and an even firmer statutory ban on the federal funding of abortion. Step forward, the public option and the Stupak Amendment.

It should have been the House Bill after all. In the end, indeed within the next three or four years, it will be. Although a slight delay might be endurable in order to see it signed into law any time after January 2017. By President Stupak.

Verity

No, Fergus Pickering, I am not against a health plan for poor, or fairly poor people. I am against it being the law that the wealth creators - working people and corporations - and OAPs have to fund it.

A solution would be giving corporations major tax breaks for contributing to general provident funds for the poor. (Not just their own employees, but as a charitable donation to provident funds.)

There are probably many other solutions that do not involve strong-arming people with jobs into paying for care for drug addicts who created their own health problems and lardos who created their own health problems, and also for the unemployed who created their own circumstances one way or another.

Obama's programme is Frankenstein on speed and is being propelled for the same reason that the vile Jack Straw and Brown and all the rest of the coven are such supporters of the hideous NHS. Votes. (Once again, the non-contributing sector must be disenfranchised because their vote is used for only one thing: voting themselves a free lunch.)

I see former NHS minister or whatever she was called, Patricia Hewitt, is in a spot of bother.

By "coincidence", some of the reports on those NHS hospitals read like Solzhenitsin's "Cancer Ward" (a very good novel, btw).

Nick

I think this post pretty much sums up 'missing the point'.

1. Obama has expended political capital, true. However, I would expect a bounce from passing the bill. The principal cause of opposition has been excellent Republican messaging and general antagonism towards a Washington embroiled in apparently self-serving conflict. Actually getting something done will be seen by many as a boost. Not passing the bill would have been catastrophic.

2. A 'drag on the economy' should be seen in the context of providing healthcare for an extra 30 million people and guaranteeing quality and value for millions more.

3. There will be no 'drag on the economy'. The bill is 1) Tiny in comparison to overall spending 2) DEFICIT REDUCING. According to every single body that has costed it. It would save more if Democrats had had their way with a public option or tax. The behaviour changing incentives combined with revenue raising should begin to curb the growth in healthcare spending (which is exactly what is driving the deficit). It won't solve it in one go, but it is a start. Incrementally, the US may now be able to start reforming its healthcare system and start lowering costs. Projections show that if any previous presidents had successfully passed their healthcare bills (Nixon, Clinton, Johnson etc) then healthcare spending growth would have levelled off. The same can be expected of this bill.

DavidDP

On the other hand, it's good news for the 30 million or so who will finally get healthcare. As a human being, I think I can cope with the bad news part in that case.

DavidDP

Also, the bill will, according to the independent CBO, help reduce the deficit, which I thought the Speccie was generally in favour of.

bbay

Unfortunately, the author is correct... It will exactly replicate the current misfortune of the few states that have implemented it...

I am by nature an optimist, but a realist amidst folly. The Nation would be better to scrap both of the bills, and draw according to its means.

Major Plonquer

A socialised medicine system will be a massive dissincentive to Americans to stay fit and healthy. By sharing the load of paying for medicine across rich and poor I fear that we may soon see American people neglecting their health and possibly even becoming fat. Sheesh.

Olaf Rye

God help them if they get the costs of the NHS coupled with the poor treatment. Those wanting socialised medicine may think twice when they are told that it is not cost-effective to treat them for cancer and therefore they must die for the common good. This talk, too, of how much less the costs are in Britain is probably misrepresented--how much of our socialised care is passed on to other agencies, such as those concerned with the nursing homes and such ? Moreover, why can the NHS afford sex change operations, lots of managers, and IVF for single women and lesbians but not hospices ? So they will have a Potemkin medical system that is good for minor injuries but will let them down when something serious occurs. I would rather be bankrupt and alive, then get what the NHS has provided to my friends and relatives when they were seriously ill.

porkbelly

Don't look now Europe but the guarantor of your security just voted to bankrupt itself.

DavidDP

"God help them if they get the costs of the NHS coupled with the poor treatment."

They currently have higher costs coupled with less treatment for a huge swathe of people. That's just not efficient.

"Those wanting socialised medicine may think twice when they are told that it is not cost-effective to treat them for cancer and therefore they must die for the common good."

As opposed to being told by an insurance company that you won't be covered as you have a pre-existing condition, or being told that they will only pay out up to a certain amount, or that they will not pay out at all?
Is it somehow better to be told to die by a private company?

"I would rather be bankrupt and alive"

The problem is the number of people with no money to start with not being able to get health care. You're at least starting from the position that you can pay for the treatment you need, even if it wipes you out. Although, as you no longer have any money, how much longer you'll be alive without the ability to pay for heating or food is a question.

ndm

-- This means that this bill is, I fear, going to act as a major drag on US economic growth;

And spending almost 20% of GDP on healthcare while your competitors spend 10% (with better outcomes) is not itself a "major drag on economic growth?"

BMC

Oh dear James. Using pretty shoddy economic arguments to support a purely political (and misguided) stance... We expected better from you.

TomTom

I doubt it will cap healthcare costs and I suspect it will increase unemployment. It will certainly affect consumption and will lead to moves to cap drug costs which will raise prices in Europe.

I do not think the consequences will be as intended, they rarely are

Charles

I work in the healthcare industry, so have spent a considerable amount of time focusing on the costs of the system.

The statistic that I keep coming back to is that the US and Germany diagnose the same number of serious diseases per capita, but that it takes the US between 6 and 10 times as many diagnostic tests to achieve that outcome.

This is driven by the physician's fear of individual medical liability is he/she misses something and has NOT don't every possible test imaginable.

Clearly you need some protections in place to prevent abuse, but some kind of tort reform (and here I am straying away from my area of expertise) to reduce the number and damages paid in medical malpractice suits would dramatically reduce the cost of healthcare throughout the system.

Additionally, altohugh this gets more difficult from a federal vs state and a regulatory angle, I would say that any insurance company that is approved in, say, at least 3 states covering a minimum of 10% of the population should be able to sell their products throughout the US. This should result in lower costs and better products for everyone - albeit at the risk of encouraging consolidation in the insurance industry (which is why the lobbyists don't like it)

THX1138

The drag on economic growth is when 18% (and rising) of your wealth is spend on HC and millions of citizens go without cover or adequate cover & yet the US languish at the bottom of all the tables for the health of it's citizens.

echo34

the denials depts. in the us healthcare insurance sector will still be there though to put the brakes on.

AndyinBrum

After last weeks use of A&E and childrens ward due to our 18 month old getting pneumonia, I have to say that our service has been excellent & under the US's previous scheme, I can't see how anyone would cover him.

As far as I understand it, the new US scheme will allow people to afford to go to the doctors& get prescriptions that let them go to work, instead of having to go Sick. The hysterical over reaction by the Republican's suggest that obama's policy is the right one. Plus one of the things he was elected on was for healthcare reform

Olaf Rye

Let me give you an example of the NHS in action, David. A friend of mine was diagnosed with prostate cancer, which could be treated by surgery, but the NHS refused to undertake this because of the risk that he would die and they would therefore be liable. So, even though he was going to die from the cancer, they refused to perform surgery to possibly save his life. In short, they condemned him to death because of their guidelines. Fortunately, he paid privately and he is alive and well, no thanks to the NHS. Nonetheless, he paid all his life for this service. The moral problem is this: we pay for a system that, when we require assistance, will not provide it to us. At least you can choose not to pay the insurance companies and sue them, but the NHS is more or less immune from public disapprobation.

Finally, the US does have socialised medicine if you are unemployed. This is just a matter of leaving medicine in the hands of the state, and therefore making us all dependent on government officials (not doctors !) in deciding what is best for us. Look at the NICE website--there is actually a formula to decide whether you are worth treating. And also, consider the points I made about sex-change operations, managers, hospices not paid for by tax but by charity, and the costs of ongoing care pushed on to the social services rather than the NHS. I suspect that when we begin comparing like for like, the NHS is not such a good bargain, not least because the medication they decide to purchase tends to be the cheapest and less efficient forms because the bureaucrats must save money so there is more for hiring further managers.

Dorothy Wilson

Now his troubles really begin!

RKing

I think that the major drug companies are behind this legislation in the US.
Ask anyone who is/was reliant on Armour Thyroid and other natural thyroid medications. It is believed that the manufacturing plants in the US have been hounded out of business by the FDA in favour of the more inferior synthetic products. Cheaper to produce and more profitable which makes a bigger savings for the government if they are to foot the bill in future.
And this they say is only the start in America!!
For more information see:-
http://thyroid.about.com/b/2009/08/19/fda-desiccated-thyroid-armour-nature-throid.htm

DavidDP

"The moral problem is this: we pay for a system that, when we require assistance, will not provide it to us."

And insurance companies in the US will often withdraw coverage despite the fact that you have paid in for years, or cap it. Or, worst of all, you won't get any coverage at all because your condition is pre-existing.So the insurance companies, like NICE, have their formulas to decide whether you are worth treating. Even if you have paid for years.

If we take your points on the NHS as given, what we end up with is a system in the US which costs more, experiences the same rationing, and fails to treat more people.

From a purely economic perspective, that's a system that is less efficient and therefore flawed.

Ally S

I and my family have had excellent treatment from the NHS all my life, for both very serious (cervical cancer, type 1 diabetes) and less serious illnesses. Despite being well able to afford private treatment, we've simply had no need.

The commenter above who thinks they'd rather be alive than bankrupt, I'd suggest that is not a binary choice that anyone in a civilised society should ever have to make.

marbury

James - is that REALLY all you have to say about this? That Obama expended capital on it, and - shock, horror - postponed a foreign trip to get it through?

Whether you think the bill is a good thing or not, this is a seismic, plate-shifting moment in American politics. It deserves a more thorough and thoughtful analysis.

AndyinBrum

Politician in doing something they were elected to do SHOCK!

Christ on a bike, the hysteria on here's as bad as the retards claiming it's a communist plot.

TGF UKIP

Quite clearly the massive Obama propaganda campaign is also working on this side of the Atlantic through his conduit of the BBC.

The costs have been hugely spun and massaged to make them wholly fraudulent. "Doctor fix" at $250bn is excluded and so is the $500bn to be sliced off the already insolvent Medicare, and what Congress is not going to make good that added deficit back to Medicare?

The things that might have helped bring insurance costs down such as selling insurance across state lines and most of all malpractice suit reform, which is what puts up costs more than any other item, are left untouched. Special interests, What special interests!

This is a huge 2,300 page bill extending government into people's lives and with the corollary of a huge new federal bureaucracy. Not surprisingly it also contains billions for "community organizing" aka ACORN or stealing votes for Democrats.

The whole legislative process has been hugely corrupted and poisoned to obtain passage for this bill which not only has no bipartisan support but is also opposed by a substantial number of Democrats which is why the levels of bribery and blackmail applied to congressional Dems have reached such extraordinary levels.

One lovely example of all this is the inclusion in the bill of Student Loan legislation to include an element of "budget" to qualify it for "reconciliation." Henceforth, all Student Loans are to be available via only a single bank which just happens to be in the state of N. Dakota Senator Kent Conrad, chairman of the senate budget committee who was less than enthusiastic initially for the Healthcare Bill and all its attendant fiscal poison.

Two other points to bear in mind on this are, that many costs are outside this bill altogether and are being passed down to the states many of whom are already teetering on insolvency and most important of all is the central Obama aim of extending entitlements. This he is doing and planning to do across a number of areas and if he gets his way the US economy is going to be swamped by the huge tax rises that will be required to pay for them all.

Frank P

AinB

The heavy ballast comprising retards that fail to realise that it is indeed a communist plot, despite overwhelming evidence blatantly presented and boasted by this communist POTUS and his many 'czars', is what will drag the West down to Stygian depths. But when you're already washing your feet in the Tame and the Rea, it's much of a muchness I suppose. And from your previous posts it can be safely deduced that you do indeed suffer from Tame-Rea syndrome. Very debilitating, unless of course practised as a profession, in which case I’m told it is quite lucrative.

AndyinBrum

Frank, you're a fool then.

David Preiser

The ignorance on display here is dismaying, but not surprising. Note to all those who feel better about themselves for approving of government-funded health care for those who don't have insurance: That already exists in the US, and it's called Medicaid. You should stop listening to the BBC and look it up for yourselves.

If all The Obamessiah and Princess Pelosi actually cared about was providing health care for those who don't have insurance, they'd fix the bloated, inefficient, wasteful program which already provides it for them first.

But they didn't, and they won't, because that's not what this is really all about.

THX1138

I trust that TGf , Frank P etc will giving up any treatment they might receive from the "socialist" NHS as a gesture of solidarity for their 'wingnut' chums in America?

I thought not!

TGF UKIP

David Preiser, well said - in a nutshell and bang on!

AndyinBrum

Yes it's to allow the Soviet Union to take over and finally pave the way for Global Communism to suceed! Hurrah Comrades, Hurrah!

YouCannotBeSerious!

A poor, breathless piece of analysis, James. Focusing on securing the passage of a transforming piece of legislation which Obama promised during his campaign is a sign of leadership. You seem to argue that significant opposition to the legislation means that Obama is weakened - on the contrary, this will be a totemic moment for his Presidency. My bet is that today is the day that Obama secured his re-election in 2012.

Olaf Rye

Well, I have seen people close to me die from cancer and the NHS being useless and mendacious. In fact, I was told by a doctor friend to get my father-in-law out of Britain and to the US for treatment. I also saw them tell us that they would provide the best possible treatment, and not even bother booking a palliative care appointment for over six weeks. Their answer: letter lost in the post ! Then obstructions to receive a second opinion, and so on. Finally, we discovered that the 'best' treatment consisted of rather pedestrian and somewhat antiquated medication. Since the bureaucrats followed guidelines, their investigation proved that they had done everything in accordance with protocol. Perhaps private insurance companies do badly, too (and I worked in the US for years so I do know about this), but the NHS is supposed to be for us and it screws us, lies, wastes money, and has an army of apologists. Let us not forget that despite the vast quantities we spend on the system (mainly managers), they cannot even work out how to keep an hospital clean. Let me add, too, how venal and cowardly many staff are: remember when the hospital in Kent experienced so many deaths from C. difficile ? Not one of the staff made an official complaint, despite claiming to have known about the situation, for fear of losing their jobs. With people like this, who really needs to wonder how the Stasi, KGB and Gestapo got their assistance ?

If people must believe in socialised medicine, then please let those of us that want no part opt out and not pay ? Since the consensus is that it is wonderful, undoubtedly there will be enough subscribers that some of us can be left alone.

David Preiser

AndyinBrum,

I noticed you are unable to address the facts at hand, so you resort to sarcastic hyperbole instead. Righteous indignation is not the same thing as an informed opinion.

David Lindsay

"But they don't have it America" has always been held up by such British opponents as the NHS has, as if it were somehow a clinching argument. Well, it would take a heart of stone not to laugh today. And every other day for ever hereafter.

KarenV

It seems some people don't understand what the passing of "that" Health Care Bill actually means, otherwise they wouldn't be rejoicing so much.

17,000 IRS (FEDS) HIRED TO POLICE US. The people (elite bankers) who enacted the FED, the Federal Reserve Bank ( which is not federal nor has reserves) are the same people who started the IRS. Now, through the government's Health Care bill, 17,000 more IRS (FEDS) are to be immediately hired to investigate, regulate, bill, follow up on Americans on a monthly basis, and the IRS will penalize those who misses payments with hefty fines and some will be thrown into. Incidentally, as prisoners you would receive health care but you "be working for it" under the close eye of the military inside the newly renovated concentration camps perhaps - since this offense would be considered a FEDERAL violation? Not paying health insurance WILL be considered a FEDERAL CRIME so,yes, you would go to their prison. What a BIG business.

PARENTS PAY FOR CHILDREN UNTIL 27 years of age - Most likely this will fall on the divorced parent who pays child support, many of whom struggle just to survive because of exasperating difficulty in trying to pay for two households. I wonder how much it is going to cost employers (and individuals) to insure employees and their children for so many years, until that child becomes an adult and moves near to middle life?

BUSINESS SHUT DOWNS - SHIPPED OVERSEAS. How many small businesses will eliminate employees because of their inability to pay the governments high insurance premiums?

How many will struggle to operate their business without help? How many, already, struggling small business owners will be forced to shut down completely? How many bigger companies will ship over seas, what few good paying factory jobs we still have in the US, to save money.

It is bad enough that we have lost so many jobs after Clinton signed papers to allow our jobs to be shipped across seas - then Bush didn't try to help or attempt to bring our jobs back either. It matters not if Democrat or Republican is president - they appear to work together towards a hidden but mutual goal towards a BIGGER GOAL, which is hidden from the citizens. Obama appears to be doing his part to help fulfill the really "big IDEA".

This "spreading the wealth" means many who did well financially at one time are now expected to step down (with help from government they have little choice) and countries who were poor are given our jobs so they may become richer and we are to become poorer.

SENIOR CITIZENS - first it was, "here is $250 for you" at income tax time. What a nice surprise - followed with a bad surprise - seniors & disabled are not to receive another raise for 2 straight years; Obama felt it was fair since they already got $250 the year before at tax time. Give it and take it back, actually equals worse than zero, considering the way cost of living has been going up.

Seniors and disabled had been receiving about $25 to $30 monthly raises, each year for awhile - now the government orders them to go 2 years without a raise, regardless of the cost of living hikes. One year at $25 a month is equal to $300 for a year times 2 years equals a loss of $600 subtract $250 supposed gift, still leaves this people losing about $350 or more each.

Why did the government bother giving the $250 at all? As if that wasn't bad enough, seniors and disabled, who with their prescription plan were paying $0 dollars previously for some of their medicines, this year it has raised to $2.50 co-pay for prescription. Now, it appears with the passing of the health care bill, life is going to become more difficult for them, as the government begins cutting approx. $500,000,000,000 (half a trillion dollars) from their social security benefits.

Then to add salt to the wound, they are expected to talk to government hired people periodically, on a regular basis as they get older or if they get any kind of cancer - they want to discuss "dying" and "death" with the senior or person with cancer. The last thing older people want to do is think about dying all the time, they'd rather enjoy the moments of life they yet have on a daily, moment to moment basis without being reminded and prompted to think about and talk about DEATH.

"MEDICAL REGISTRY" (computerized chip) And what is that "MEDICAL REGISTRY"thing they speak of in the Health Care Bill that that will be used to "collect data" on you? The word REGISTRY is misleading - it is actually a computerized DEVICE which the government wants to PUT INSIDE your BODY (your arm, hand, or somewhere), that they may monitor all DATA about you and know where you are at all times.

ALL your personal information(data)will be on that device "inside" your body ... maybe at first, it will be outside your body, until they push for the law that says you must allow them to put the device inside your flesh.

The device will tell the Federal Reserve, IRS, Doctors, government, and their employees, what medical services you have had or not had, medicines you take, which vaccines you have had or not had. Then when the government decides to cry "National Pandemic" and wants to enforce vaccines, they will know whether you've had it or not, making it easier for their military police to find you and retain and even imprison you.

With the implementation of the REGISTRY the next step will be easier - getting rid of the "cash" and putting all your worth into that REGISTRY DEVICE ... without it you will not be able to buy food, go to a doctor, purchase a house or car or clothing or anything since the only, soon to be, receiving pay and paying out will be through access of that "computerized chip" which will have been implanted into your flesh as a medical data collecting device - the REGISTRY DEVICE as named within the pages of the Health Care Bill.

ABORTION; all taxpayers will be paying for the killing of more babies whether they like it or not, regardless to the government trying to say this is not now so - watch and see - they want less people, they will make this happen with your taxes. Abortions have become big business - the little baby's body parts, flesh, and fluids are used in many products including vaccines, makeup, and not only coveted for "life saving" purposes.

NO HEALTH CARE FOR 4 YEARS - YOU PAY FOR 4 YEARS BUT NO HEALTH CARE YET.
Yes, those who expected to get help immediately form this Health Care Bill will be disappointed to find out that nothing is to "begin" to take place as far as being insured for 4 years although they will take your money. Those callers I heard saying they might die if the health care bill didn't pass, I feel sorry for because many will probably die before the government provides a way for them to be insured.

AndyinBrum

David P, you'll forgive me for not attempting to argue with these idiots, they'll only drag me down to their level and then beat me with experience. (to steal someone elses Words)

To shout communism is the same as shouting Nazi, it's the last resort of the desperate and stupid.

How this bill can be seen as communist is beyond me. Still hysterical over reaction appears to be the name of the game for a number of people on these pages

TGF UKIP

THX1138, I have private medical insurance so I have to use the NHS as little as possible and, being a posh well-off N. London Blairite I bet you do too like so many others of your hypocritical ilk.

AndyinBrum

Obama ran on reforming healthcare, and was elected by quite a large majority, if the majority of Americans didn't want it, they should have voted for that nice republican gent and his lovely vice presidential candidate.

David Preiser

AndyinBrum,

Nonsense. The Obamessiah ran on the nebulous 'Hope and Change' slogan, and on not being George Bush. He was presented as the one who would restore the US in the world's esteem because He wasn't that nasty unilateralist cowboy. He was going to be the first President in a post-America world. The BBC championed this notion especially.

He presented Himself as the one who would change the partisan sclerosis of Washington, DC, because He was so much smarter and above partisanship, and so would reach across the aisle and make us all work together. Health care reform was only one tiny part of the platform. That was more a desire from the far-Left wing of the Democrat Party waiting for their chance than anything else. In fact, when the time came, He didn't even participate in creating the bill - it was all done by Pelosi and her minions.

He spoke far more about withdrawing from Iraq, not being a Republican, and wealth redistribution. He won mostly because the media campaigned for Him (the Washington Post had to apologize for that, if you'll recall) and worked overtime to perpetuate the myth that McCain was a Bush clone, and that if we elected Him the world wouldn't hate us anymore. Health care reform as entombed in this bill has very little to do with the main thrust of the presidential election.

THX1138

TGF yes I do have PMI.

Olaf Rye

Well THX1138, for what is worth, in my opinion you are quite sensible to have PMI given the alternative of leaving your fate in the hands of the NHS. A pity you must still pay for the latter service, though.

Frank P

THX 1138

You seem to live under some misapprehension that Healthcare in Britain is 'free'. It might be for you - are you on welfare? It certainly hasn't been for me, I paid into the kitty known as 'National Insurance' for over 50 years. I also had (and still have) exorbitant Tax extracted from my income before it even crossed my palm. Moreover I paid first Purchase Tax and later VAT on almost everything I purchased throughout my long life and for a considerable period of it paid into a Private Health Scheme, too. On top of that I have paid top whack for my spectacles and have also paid for private dentistry for most of my life.

Please don't waste your time, or mine, trying to make me feel any undue gratitude to the government for any healthcare I receive in my old age. Governments of both hues have wasted billions on the top heavy bureaucracy of the NHS (comprising a strong contingent of cronies of whichever government is in power) and engendered concomitant contractual graft throughout the existence of the Service.

The clinical and nursing staff, in general anyway, certainly deserve praise and gratitude for devotion and caring expertise against a backdrop of government meddling and graft. The NHS was a day dream of Beveridge & his team, which was implemented by a demonic Welshman who cut a bad deal with Harley Street, just to ensure that Marxist ideology too firm root in British Life. He certainly succeeded in that sub-agenda.

Obama is now performing a similar scam on the American electorate. The die is cast. Even if he is a one-termer, he will go down in the annals of infamy as the man who socialised the USA and thereby neutered it as a a World Power.

In my opinion, a competitive Private Health Insurance Scheme, with an oversight of sensible Government regulation would have produced both better health and better health care here; it would also have curtailed the exponential exploitation by the army of malingering spongers we all support through government extortion of workers and business. So no, I won't 'give up any treatment' but I will certainly support those of my friends in the USA who have seen through the scam there and are trying to expose it for what it is: the thin of the Socialist wedge up the very fundament of Uncle Sam.

Frank P

AndyinBrum

Hear it from an Obami:

http://www.newsmax.com/Manage/Videos/VideoGallery/Sharpton---America--Overwhelmingly-Voted-For-Socia.aspx?s=al&promo_code=9A09-1

THX1138

Frank P I rather thought that you'd spend your working life sucking from the tax payers teat.. Didn't us poor tax payers have to pay for you to harass and beat up the Caribbean community of west & south LDN!

Bill

You are all missing the point in the great USA Health care for the poor already exists it is called Medicaid and the S-chip program. The only people that are uninsured that will become insured under Obamacare is the young healthy people that do not feel that they need insurance and CHOOSE with their own FREE WILL not to have health care. Now they will be forced to buy it or have the IRS chasing them down.
No ONE is EVER turned away from a hospital if they need care whether they have money or healthcare insurance or just the shirt on their back.

Karen

What do you people mean. Sory peope don't have health insurance, but why should my family pay 5,000-20,000 dollars a year for health insurance? I have insurance, I was smart enough to get a job with insurance. I am sick of funding the poor. There are enough oppurtunities for them. Don't be naive. There are health care oppurtunities for the poor. I pay enough as it is, Educaton is available if they want to better themselves. This is not a good plan!! The health insurance comanies will make sure that money is never saved. But you are right about focus on wellness, this is a problem in the US. Doctors are not reimbursed for keeping patients well, This does need to change.

Daniel Lauzaw

Everything has a cost, but sometimes when you truly believe in what you do, you do it anyway. You have to move on, even when they are some opposition, because if not you never move. Opposition will always be here, the question is : can you deal with it, and can you expose your arguments to make people at ease with this law.

Scrabble Cheat

SEO Service

I'm so agree with annie.
Why would an healtcare can make US economy drag down??
Isnt if the people get healty it will increase the economy??

SEO Service

Vedavyas Puppala

I and my family have had excellent treatment from the NHS all my life, for both very serious (cervical cancer, type 1 diabetes) and less serious illnesses. Despite being well able to afford private treatment, we've simply had no need.

The commenter above who thinks they'd rather be alive than bankrupt, I'd suggest that is not a binary choice that anyone in a civilised society should ever have to make.

Affilojetpack

Mike Rowan

Annie is misguided because of the fact that healthcare makes up 15% of the total US economy.

If government takes this over, they will do what they do best.....spend 3x as much money, and provide 1/3 of the value. As result, people will not be attracted to the industry, and it will start to decay, affecting the economy as a whole.

Mike the term life rates guy

James Ray

I feel so lucky to live in the UK were every single member of the population gets to enjoy free healthcare in the form on the NHS. I don't think a lot of people realise how lucky they are.

All the very best James from Manchester Escorts. Again thanks for the post

buckyuk

If people must believe in socialised medicine, then please let those of us that want no part opt out and not pay ? Since the consensus is that it is wonderful, undoubtedly there will be enough subscribers that some of us can be left alone.

Amanda Tillson

I think it is really great that we have approved that reform. We will get many advantages from it. First of all cheaper medications. Moreover we will be able to use more professional and efficient health care service. Nowadays there are many unprofessional doctors out there. Some of them don't even have their cna certification exam passed. It is a real craziness. I hope that health care reform will change everything. Thanks for posting this one here and keep publishing such nice ones in the nearest future too.

Bill

There are pros and cons with offering a free public healthcare system. I live in the UK and it's great to know there is free health available with the NHS.

However, the standard of service is up and down. Quite often I have ended up paying for private healthcare as the NHS have been unreliable. Part of me cringes with the amount of money I am forced to pay on tax to fund a sub-standard service but at the same time it's good to know that this free service albeit of a poor standard is available for myself, friends and family if we need to use it.

Brenda

The NHS in the UK is great.

Even though I earn a high salary and can afford to use private healthcare, I feel society needs a free healthcare solution. I'm lucky to have a career as one of the busy Leeds escorts in Yorkshire and am happy to pay tax to fund the public purse.

Paul Haris

Now healthcare services are very expensive and even i am worried that how will i manage my family's healthcare cost! Looking to find a quick solution of it!

SEO Services

petersamuel007

Lots of countries providing healthcare services for their citizens free its good to provide such services for their citizens , not many countries doing this but hope in future many will think of their citizens.

petersamuel007

<p>Lots of countries providing healthcare services for their citizens free. Why not all goverments in all countries doing this for their citizens, i hope soon major contries will go ahead with this plan, they do deduct taxes but services are not good </p><p><a href="http://www.brieflyyours.co.uk">Manchester Escorts</a></p>

petersamuel007

Lots of countries providing healthcare services for their citizens free. Why not all goverments in all countries doing this for their citizens, i hope soon major contries will go ahead with this plan, they do deduct taxes but services are not good

Manchester Escorts

warren

The answer to healthcare cost is the insurance, get insurance done to avoid healthcare bills, i know this is also not easy but best alternative to expensive healthcare bills, i have cover with 3 companies, this is what a normal man can do because in many countries goverment is not taking any step for give such package to the citizens living there.

Adjutable Beds