I don't care for the either/or argument. If we actually followed the rule of law, an insurance exec decision to sell your information would land you in jail. Universal healthcare as written in Obamacare would have been overturned by the Supreme Court. We are not supposed to be a Democracy. Why oh why do you NEVER mention the Constitution, Rob?

I've made many calls to my ins. company and never had to deal with India. The ins. co. is NOT the gov...I GIVE the Ins. permission to view my records NOT the gov. What's your definition of a fat cat anyway? Someone who EARNS a good living? How DARE they? And I've never had anything denied either. Both of my sons' lives have been saved by "fat cats" and I'm okay with them having a bigger house and a nicer car than I have. They provided a very valuable service that I can never properly repay them for. And thanks to people who think like you do I will soon have lower level medical personnel to deal with....all the smarter ones will bolt the hell out of bo care. Thanks!

Which of the 1,200 pages promises this?

Medicare patients are having trouble finding participating doctors, as I type.

The Canadian single payer plan (which Obama lauds) makes it illegal to pay for your health care out of system, and out of pocket. So much for choices....

For his chuffer??
Not everyone has a communicable disease...you're wearing out that argument...put contagion aside and explain why your health record is the gov's business? Why? You're the one arguing in favor of it so you must be okay with it...otherwise you're conflicted.

PRIVACY!!!!

They are a necessary part of the Affordable Care Act, and will be all too apparent when (or, if) the Act ever gets into full swing.

More patients...fewer doctors...budget in the 'red'...Medicare cuts...government flash flood of paperwork.

Stay tuned, sports fans!

As of today, you can go to ANY doctor that you want...if they are accepting new patients.

All of your claims of being unable to choose your own doctor, really amount to your not willing to foot the bill.

Not the same argument, is it?

Because my healthcare is none of the gov's business...the gov isn't supposed to force people to pay for a product or service that they do not want....and MY healthcare shouldn't be YOUR problem...and vise versa! Why doesn't it bother you that the friggin' gov will have a say in your health?? What is wrong with you? (Besides the delusional stuff I mean.)

Hello Rob,
Where is the government run organization that a private sector couldn't run more efficaciously? This is not to say that there are no extraordinary constitutionally enumerated responsibilities which only the government can operate. Insurance is not one. The government does not have the same restraints as the private sector. The private sector must remain solvent, while the government can print money or overtax and in so doing bankrupt the nation with each successive program.

If your employer doesn't offer insurance to your satisfaction, find another job, negotiate with your employer for more pay in lieu of insurance and purchase your own, or accept the insurance your employer provides and purchase supplemental policies to cover the gaps you perceive. You are free.

When the insurance companies deal with you unfairly you have the government to appeal to if it is operating as designed. If the government tells you your mother is too old to justify that knee replacement, who will you appeal to? You will have to appeal to the only institution with no superior…no competition... the institution which by virtue of forcing and enforcing the institution of this policy against the will of a huge portion of the American citizens is committing tyranny and calling it democracy. The end result is the elimination of choices and competition, a loss of innovation, freedom and opportunity.

What is best for Americans is congruent with what is best for the individual. I am not concerned with what is best for all Americans, when equal opportunity is the best man can hope for. Equal outcome is folly. Even if you believe that universal coverage could and should be accomplished, why couldn't something be done for the 15% who were uninsured without upsetting the apple cart for the 85%? What is moral about penalizing/impacting those who have already done their duty to themselves and others by taking care of themselves and not being a burden on their fellow citizens?

You seem to have faith that the government is made of incorruptible people while all insurance companies are run by crooks...

“If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?” Frederic Bastiat

O.A.

" "If you do not like the policies of the insurance company or trust them to pay what you think is deserved you can find a competitor." "

"Doesn't work for those who work for an employer."

You have always had the right to shop for an insurance plan, outside of your employer's benefits. No one has ever tried to stop you....

Ironically, under ObamaCare the above stated 'rights' will all but disappear. Obama has publicly stated that he expected our health care system to become his "single payer" dream within 10 years. You will have seen another of your freedoms to choose gone forever.

But according to WHO countries with single payer insurance has BETTER health care than what America has. We don't need to save 100%. Everyone dies sometime. But other countries are doing far better than we are for far less.

http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre... U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds."

None of those nations you reference save 100% of the people they treat, and in all of them, they could save more if they invested more (maybe not 100%, but at least one more person than they do). Therefore it's a cost/benefit tradeoff - a matter of degree - you must agree with this otherwise you would not reference nations that do not spend 100% of GDP on saving that one more person. Those nations that you hold aloft "let 'em die" and you support that. I'd rather give each one of them the best fighting chance they've got.

What I don't understand is: why do you wish to take this chance away and let 'em die just so you personally can get what you want?

Dathan

I don't support "let 'em die". I support "let 'em fight for their lives." But unfortunately this ridiculous system is killing my wife.

I want her (and I) to be able to invest in her wellbeing, rather than sacrificing herself to pay for somebody else's plantar wart removal.

The only extreme statement here is "I can't treat everyone all by myself, but as a society we can." That's very extreme. As a society we cannot. We do not have infinite resources (if we did, economy would not exist, and we'd agree: heal everyone!). But since resources are not infinite, I want to direct my own, and I'd like you to get your hands off of my wife's neck.

Investigate the IPAB.
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/hea...
It is a board of directors that will decide just the same , only you will not be able to sue the gov't like you could an insurance company. If you do not like the policies of the insurance company or trust them to pay what you think is deserved you can find a competitor. The gov't has no equal.

Yes, but you can't stand on saving everybody at the expense of everyone. There is no outcome in which everyone is productive to society, and so the question is how to handle those that "cost" more than they "produce". The answer can only be charity or taxes (the second in this case being the mandated version of the first). Mandated charity is a "help now hurt later" process: I give a dollar to the man on the street today, and tomorrow there are two men and my family is hungry. I agree principally that this is a nice thought, and I might myself give that dollar to a man whose character I had somehow measured (he got there by bad luck), but I would never mandate my neighbor to do so because I said so. That is the pattern here, and it's wrong. The moment you dictate charity you create a reward system for influence rather than performance. Each must have the right to be charitable to the causes they believe in. My wife has Cystic Fibrosis and because the medication is not covered, she pays taxes for others challenges and then pays out of her after tax income to save herself from her own terminal illness. That's ridiculous, but these cases are unavoidable in your structure.

Dathan