Yet another Federal Judge rules Obamacare Unconstitutional.

It's ridiculous how AMERICANS claim to be so awesome they can save the world by freeing people from mass destruction weapons, starting wars, while, when really needed, they can't even pay A BIT MORE to help ill people that can't pay their treatment ON THEIR OWN DAMNED COUNTRY.

If you ask me, that shows it's a statistically arrogant country.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF8gQfGEvsc
Ron Paul states that we never had this issue before corperations got involved in healthcare and forced the prices to skyrocket. On top of that in the past we never had this issue, because most hospitals never refused to treat people regardless of their financial situation and owing a hospital money didnt destroy your life back then because of far lower costs and insurance companies and banks didnt have so many oppresive policies and had their hands out of the healthcare system.

Healthcare reform is needed, but pumping more money into the current system will solve nothing, and all Obamacare does is force people to participate in this broken system.

HMOs also caused a lot of problems for people seeking health care as well by limiting what doctors they saw, what hospitals they could use, and if or not they could get treatment if it was cost effective.

I had PPO coverage up till a few years ago, but since then it got too expensive for me as my deductible was too much causing any doctor visits I got to be full price until I spent out my deductible. I dropped it altogether because realistically it wasn't working for my benefit.

I should also mention that while it is illegal for the Federal Government to issue univeral healthcare, it is not illegal at most state levels. In fact, if we are to have any healthcare systems like that, it should be up to the states, and the states should have their own individual plans that fit their own state's needs. But even then, universal healthcare still wont fix any issues with the healthcare system.

The current problem with the healthcare system is its design and how insurance companies, and not the government, attempt to dictate care. I have a relative that suffers through chronic pain, and is having issues maintaining her treatments because our insurance company no longer wants to pay for her treatments and is constantly attempting to push her towards one of the insurance company's doctors. Its a shame to see a 3rd party putting so much influence on choices that should be between the patient and doctor.
Obamacare makes this issue worse by making the 3rd party the government. This is a terrible choice because the government is a monopoly, and there will be no choice in the 3rd party that attempts to dictate your care.

Then we need to find ways to promote competition. I'm not very knowledgable on the specifics on how your insurance company is decided, but I know the current system doesnt promote competition. For example, people are often stuck with the insurance offered by their employer. In my opinion, it shouldnt be this way. People should just simply be able to go into the free market and purchase any service they want on equal grounds with eachother.

The problem with Obamacare (aside from being illegal) addresses none of these issues. It just makes things worse.

I should also mention that while it is illegal for the Federal Government to issue univeral healthcare, it is not illegal at most state levels. In fact, if we are to have any healthcare systems like that, it should be up to the states, and the states should have their own individual plans that fit their own state's needs. But even then, universal healthcare still wont fix any issues with the healthcare system.

Does that factor out-of-state citizens?
College students?
Vacationers?
People who might cross state borders for better health care?

Does that factor out-of-state citizens?
College students?
Vacationers?
People who might cross borders for better healthcare?

I cant answer any of that. If a state were to offer universal healthcare, it would be on the state's own individual terms. If a state wanted to cover all four things you mentioned, then yes.
But obviously the problem with any Universal Healthcare system is the fact that the government runs it, sets the rules and limits, and you have to deal with the limitations rather than just telling your healthcare provider "screw you, I'm going to go next door where they dont treat customers like pomegranate,"

Personally, I'd prefer to leave healthcare and the choice of your insurance up to the free market. It costs less, reduces government puts more money in people's pockets so that they may be able to afford healthcare on their own, and it would definitly leave any hospital open to anyone.
Of course, I might make exceptions in my opinions for some of the less fortunate. For example I agree with the concept behind Michigan's MiChild program that offers healthcare to those under the age of 18. but I mostly support it because it ensures a form of healthcare for those extremely volnerable because of all the legal restrictions put on children.

I cant answer any of that. If a state were to offer universal healthcare, it would be on the state's own individual terms. If a state wanted to cover all four things you mentioned, then yes.
But obviously the problem with any Universal Healthcare system is the fact that the government runs it, sets the rules and limits, and you have to deal with the limitations rather than just telling your healthcare provider "screw you, I'm going to go next door where they dont treat customers like pomegranate,"

Personally, I'd prefer to leave healthcare and the choice of your insurance up to the free market. It costs less, reduces government puts more money in people's pockets so that they may be able to afford healthcare on their own, and it would definitly leave any hospital open to anyone.
Of course, I might make exceptions in my opinions for some of the less fortunate. For example I agree with the concept behind Michigan's MiChild program that offers healthcare to those under the age of 18. but I mostly support it because it ensures a form of healthcare for those extremely volnerable because of all the legal restrictions put on children.

So it's an "all or nothing" (Gov) VS complicated options and possibly very bad options ( states)?

Why not both exactly?

Have the right to choose which way you want to go...

I'd prefer to leave healthcare and the choice of your insurance up to the free market. It costs less, reduces government puts more money in people's pockets so that they may be able to afford healthcare on their own, and it would definitly leave any hospital open to anyone.

I'm sorry, but could you provide a single scrap of evidence saying that this is true? That the free market leads to cheaper health care?

I'm not looking for an opinion here, I'm looking for a factual study - a comparison, any where any time, that found the free market option to be cheaper for the consumer.

I mean, to my knowledge, in the USA, pre-obamacare, people were paying the most in the world for their healthcare. Sure doesn't sound cheap.

It's still not free and we all still pay for if we use it or not.

Show me one person in the USA who will never need health care. It's not something you choose to use or not - it's mandatory, for everyone. Fact of life: you will get injured, you will get sick. You will need health care.

It's ridiculous how AMERICANS claim to be so awesome they can save the world by freeing people from mass destruction weapons, starting wars, while, when really needed, they can't even pay A BIT MORE to help ill people that can't pay their treatment ON THEIR OWN DAMNED COUNTRY.

If you ask me, that shows it's a statistically arrogant country.

Manifest Destiny. We won't stop until the Universe is a sub entity of America.

So it's an "all or nothing" (Gov) VS complicated options and possibly very bad options ( states)?

Why not both exactly?

Have the right to choose which way you want to go...

The Federal Government can have "complicated options and possibly very bad options." Its technically the same at the state level as it is at the federal level, except for the fact that it is much easier for each state to set up plans that fit the needs of the states more, and it is far easier to ammend the current plan to fit changing needs. Having universal healthcare at the federal level would be less likely and slower to adapt to the needs of the individuals.

This is partially why we have seperation of powers between the levels of government in this country. The Federal level is suppose to be weak, but maintain authority over issues that would rarely, if ever, need amendments to policies. Then we have States where they have more power than the federal government within their individual borders, but a smaller population with more similar needs and are able to adapt faster. Then we can go further down to the City level. City governments are meant to have the stricted regulations and greatest power over the people within the city limits, and because of the small population they are able to change policies more often and better serve the small mount of people. Basically, the federal government governs too many people to effectively rule with too much power. The lower levels of the government are better suited for having such power and control, because its much easier to adapt to the needs of fewer people and its much faster to adapt with a smaller population.

@Stereo: I dont believe there are any real studies into the matter. But if you look at our country, it isnt exactly capitalism anymore, and Obamacare will not solve the cost issue. It will just force every American to join into a broken system. We just wont notice the costs as easily, because we will be paying through taxes instead of our wallet. Since I'm about out of time, I'll let Dr. Ron Paul explain his professional opinion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF8gQfGEvsc
Basically, we need to take the hands of the government and banks out of our healthcare and start over.

They should allow insurance companies to work nationwide rather that localized strictly to states. The lack of competition is what drives up costs. The system is broken and Obama Care breaks it more. And sadly while I don't agree with Ron Paul, he is right.

However Stereo, yes everyone does use Health Care at some point in their lifetime, but often there are people who can lead a health life and almost never once go to a doctor except for a immunization maybe, and possibly for the birth of a child. Then there are those people who are in and out of hospitals for legit medical purposes because they are extremely sick.

The problem is look at the rest of the world where socialized medicine is commonplace. You have lots of waiting and rationing of health care because it's less costly to treat a well person than a sick person. Yes, as sad and unlikely as it is, there are countries that believe you are better off dead than alive if you are sick because the economics favor the well person.

Many countries that have socialized medicine like Canada, for example, often have people leaving there to have medical procedures here in the U.S. because they can get the treatments they seek right away instead of waiting a week, month, year, or forever. I'm not going to cite a source on this one, but you can ask anyone who lives in Canada about going to a doctor or hospital and how much red tape you have to go through for things.

The ultimate medical nightmare:

So what happens if one day they decide rationing of health care is constitutional? Say you have a cancer treatment that could save your life and cure your cancer but it costs 25,000 dollars, but they are limiting you to 20,000 dollars in health care. You can not pay for the treatment privately as it's against the law, and it's now illegal to travel to another country to receive treatment as you now are on a medical watch list of people trying to leave the country, and if you attempt to cross the border you face arrest and imprisonment. Even in prison you are denied health care because you are now considered a deviant of society. If anything, you are left to die of cancer by a system that favors the well rather than the sick. In the end a single treatment was all that was needed and you could have lived say another 25-50 years, but because you fell outside the cost bracket, you could not receive coverage because you and your treatment were too expensive and considered a liability to the health care system, and you would have denied 5000 dollars of care to another person, which was deemed unconstitutional.

This is an analogy story. It's not real, but it is a grim reality of what we could face if we don't repeal ObamaCare and get our system fixed for the better, not for the worse.

Look at how many people in Unions, Government offices, supporters, and friends of the President already are exempt from this (read Moose's other post on this). If everyone has to join and it's oh so great and good, then how come they are so adamant about getting off the ObamaCare system?

Hello! Red Flag tossed by Referee! Think carefully... If they don't want to be on it, maybe something isn't right about it?

you can ask anyone who lives in Canada about going to a doctor or hospital and how much red tape you have to go through for things.

Okay, since I'm from Canada... and I've been to an emergency room...

You show them your health card. It has a valid expiry date (ie. in the future). They assess you and schedule necessary care. If it's not covered, you can go to your privatized health insurance, which most employers provide.

It takes a long time when it's not a time critical thing. If you want to jump the line, you can go to a private clinic (either in Canada or in the USA), but you'll have to pay for that.

Scheduled health care... and why can't they just do that right away even with the government backed system?

So, what if you aren't employed or your employer doesn't have a health care plan?

So when you have something minor you have to wait... why not treat it right away and keep you from getting even worse? Wouldn't it be cheaper to treat you right away and get you back to health quickly rather than wait and "uh oh!" now you have something worse... example: Bronchitis turning into Pneumonia.

If you don't have the money for the private clinic, how is the government system actually working to benefit you if stated above you have to wait?

Think about what you just said Stereo...

If I have a serious illness such as Bronchitis (which I have had), I'm taken in and treated right away and (if I still had it) my PPO insurance would say treat her right away and we'll see what's covered and bill you later, you just charge her this 35 dollar fee. I'm treated that same day, didn't have to wait, they didn't care if it was minor or serious, and in several days on the proper meds. I'm better. Few weeks later I get a bill for 75 dollars out of 250 dollars covered by the insurance company.

Even then there was the Free Clinic I could have gone to which runs off charitable donations from organizations in the community and possibly gotten nearly the same medicine, treatment, etc. in the same time frame.

Now realistically how is that system wrong?

To address your concerns one by one:

Why is it scheduled, rather than doing it right away?
Because they don't have as many doctors as patients. It's called triage, treat the patients who need immediate care first. Plenty of medical problems aren't urgent - or are planned so far in advance that it's not a problem to schedule. Is it a problem to schedule a C-section a month before the expected due date? Not really.

What if you aren't employed, or don't get insurance through work?
You miss out on cosmetic health concerns. In Ontario (where I am), the government system covers "medically necessary" procedures. No free dental, no free eyeglasses. (or rather, like your plan, you pay $75 and have the rest covered by the insurance company). If you're vacationing somewhere that vaccines or other treatments are recommended, you'll probably have to pay for the vaccination.

When you have something minor, it's not hard for a doctor to take a look at it and prescribe something. In your example of bronchitis, you see a receptionist, who most likely refers you to a nurse (doesn't take long even on walk-ins, 20 minutes is about what I usually wait). The nurse has the medical knowledge to confirm that you have something that needs a doctor's attention, and signs off on a doctor's appointment. Which depending on severity, and your schedule, would happen same day or within the next few days.
When you see the doctor, they prescribe you the same treatment, and you get better. Since health care is covered, there's no bill for anything mentioned. (ambulance trips have a co-pay, but most people don't need an ambulance for bronchitis)

It's basically like your Free Clinic, except the money comes from the government (and, ultimately, from the same people charitable donations come from) - and you don't pay fees all over the place.


The things that take a while are the big ticket items - MRI/CT scans, etc. And from what I hear south of the border, you have to schedule them months in advance too.

Well, my doctor has never told me to come back in a few days unless it's for a follow-up on a medication he's given me. He's also never left any of his patients to the care of his nurses, so those are clearly instances based on your doctor's preference and not our healthcare system.

And yes, our scheduling is no different than the way America schedules appointments for any operation. If you need it right away you get it right away; otherwise you are made to wait it out a bit.

Well, my doctor has never told me to come back in a few days unless it's for a follow-up on a medication he's given me. He's also never left any of his patients to the care of his nurses, so those are clearly instances based on your doctor's preference and not our healthcare system.

Not my personal doctor, I usually go to the campus health clinic cause it's closer & just as free. Also I don't have to phone first.

Now that the Canadians have cleared up some of the lies and misconceptions about how their socialized health care works, maybe some of you would like to read a bit more on how other countries handle it and explain why, with all the other systems as examples, we can't find a way of doing it right.

Now that the Canadians have cleared up some of the lies and misconceptions about how their socialized health care works, maybe some of you would like to read a bit more on how other countries handle it and explain why, with all the other systems as examples, we can't find a way of doing it right.

At the moment, I dont think most of us are concerned about how Canadian's or other countries do it. We are mostly concerned about the effects of Obamacare. For one, I'm concerned with the opinions of the healthcare workers. Personally, I have a family member that works in a hospital, and I had the chance to speak with her about the opinions of doctors that she works with and Obamacare. Simply, they hate it and believe it will ruin the system. For one, Obamacare gives the federal government to determine the wages of healthcare workers. As a result, doctors fear that the rates will be too low for doctors to even pay off their student loans, and specialist doctors are outright quitting. Then we have some assinine restrictions put on the hospitals themselves. The bill specifically states that hospital expansions are forbidden, illegal. However you can file for an exception, and an unelected official will have complete dictatorial power to accept or deny your request. Also, this request can be made as often as once every two years.

I think I'm going to end up reviewing my notes on Obamacare. I'll be back after I review some specific details.

I think I'm going to end up reviewing my notes on Obamacare. I'll be back after I review some specific details.

Why bother? It's not like anyone cares. It's already been ruled unconstitutional and likely to be removed or changed.
We already know you don't like it. Nitpicking it won't accomplish anything but kicking a dead horse and this isn't the angry dome.
More second hand feedback on what the effects "may" be certainly don't interest me. If you want to tell me something, tell me something constructive about how it can be made to work, effectively.

Why bother? It's not like anyone cares. We already know you don't like it.
More second hand feedback on what the effects "may" be certainly don't interest me. If you want to tell me something, tell me something constructive about how it can make it work.

You'll care when the full effects of Obamacare are in effect, and I believe you dont speak for everyone on the forum. The specific problems I mentioned will result in the loss of doctors, small hospitals legally unable to expand to fit the needs of the community, less choice by the consumer under the current healthcare system, etc.
And I would tell you how to make it work, but I cant. Obamacare is just such an abomination that it cant. Our best option is to throw it away and let the individual states in this country decide how they want to deal with healthcare. The most the federal government should do is work to disolve the barriers preventing companies from selling insurance across state lines.
In terms of why it cant work, its because it is fundamentally flawed. It just pumps money into an already failing system and mandates that all Americans contribute to this failing system. We will have all of the original flaws of our current system and that will be combined with the flaws of Obamacare.


Also, people dislike Obamacare partially because it is more than a healthcare mandate. It includes things like invasive house visitations. For anyone interested, this is a rather decent commentary on this Obamacare mandate: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=106427

Also, why should people pay a special Tax (technically a punishment) for choosing to not have healthcare?

Edit: Speaking of mandates, it looks like Obama himself disagrees with Obamacare, “We've got a philosophical difference, which we've debated repeatedly, and that is that Senator Clinton believes the only way to achieve universal health care is to force everybody to purchase it. And my belief is, the reason that people don't have it is not because they don't want it but because they can't afford it.” - Obama 2008

You'll care when the full effects of Obamacare are in effect....

When that happens it'd be a tangible reality one could actually address. Until such a time you're frothing over a work in progress as if it were a set in stone divine mandate that Will Never Change.

Which again goes back to my exact point. Don't obsess over the flaws. Fix them. You insist it's damaged beyond repair and should be completely done away and start from zero but if you do that all you'll get is another one of the same, made by different people with equally conflicting agendas and idiotic compromises on unrelated topics just to achieve consensus.

You don't burn down the house and start over every time you need a new addition or want some adjustments made. You rip down what you need to and put in what you want. By the time you're done the house may have no relation to the original, but it still had a structure in place to work from while you go rather than having to re-lay the entire foundation.