This bill will save millions of American lives and help extend the lives of millions more Americans. You may know some of these people as your friends, relatives and co workers. History was made yesterday. A better country is finally upon us.

This is why Obama wants China to devalue the Yuan

With NEW OBAMACARE TAXES on healthcare goods WE WILL EXPORT EVEN LESS TO CHINA

Global competition? Private Sector Jobs? NOT UNDER OBAMACARE

Obamacare will SWELL the ranks of government bureaucrats and healthcare unions further increasing the costs of healthcare, healthcare goods and services and killing private sector jobs.

ALL THE NEW GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRATS ORDERING US AROUND UNDER OBAMACARE WILL BE EXEMPT FROM OBMAMACARE JUST LIKE CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT AND THEIR FAMILIES.

Obamacare "stimulus"? 16,500 new IRS agents with the power to sieze the bank accounts of US citizens and counting.

Change we can believe in?

Changes that would occur this year include:

• Senior citizens would get more help paying for drugs in Medicare.

...

Capretta says that the legislation has big downsides for Democrats, including the sharp cuts to Medicare Advantage.

So it's good because it helps them pay for drugs but has huge cuts in the rest of Medicare? Isn't that robbing Peter to pay Paul?

TSVG, save millions of lives? Not even Obama, who exaggerated the benifits of every point of this bill, has said" saves millions of lives". Where are you getting your numbers?

The bill is so good that 30+ states are planning some sort of legal action to stop the whole bill or parts of it.

Conservatives screamed as Roosevelt cajoled Congress to enact the Social Security Act. They cried that the process was moving too quickly, that the legislation was too complex, that it would destroy private enterprise. But a Democratic House and Senate passed the bill and on Aug. 14, 1935, Roosevelt signed it. Conservatives filed lawsuits and promised to drive the Democrats from office and undo the Social Security Act.

Instead, Roosevelt and the Democrats swept to landslide victories in 1936. By 1938, FDR's administration declared: "At the third-year milepost, the road back shows well over 30,000,000 men and women now building up insurance against want in their old age (and) about 2,350,000 of the needy receiving assistance in their own homes; and health and welfare services reaching out into all parts of the country."

Today, Social Security is so integrated into the fabric of American life that even conservatives defend it, just as they one day will defend national health care. Notably, that health care program was first proposed not by Barack Obama or Bill Clinton but by FDR, who announced in 1939 that "a comprehensive health program (is) required as an essential link in our national defenses against individual and social insecurity."

Roosevelt was proven right with regard to Social Security in his time.

Roosevelt will be proven right with regard to national health care in our time.

Indeed, as Hoyer said Sunday night: The health-care reform that FDR imagined and Democrats in the House have finally enacted "will stand the test of time."

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/543657/a_historic_vote_for_health_care_reform

It is obvious that the majority in Congress are too stupid to understand the meaning of this but , for what its worth, Margaret Thatcher said it best- "the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples money".

Not only will there be higher taxes but have they considered what the healthcare industry will have to do to supplement the expenses they're going to incur. Higher premiums? Reduction of coverage?

Gramps, hopefully the mid term elections will let us see a change in leadership so we can kill the bill, or at least cut the funding so it dies a slow death.

"So it's good because it helps them pay for drugs but has huge cuts in the rest of Medicare? Isn't that robbing Peter to pay Paul?"

No. It is just going to "cut back" on Medicare Advantage plans (which is a misnomer, at best). Those are not "advantageous" plans, especially not for the people who have them. Regular Medicare provides essentially the same coverages, for the most part, for about 15% less. The difference? The profits being made by the private companies who offer these plans, instead of Medicare. The label was slapped on to make it more palatable, but it is not. People who swear by M.A. don't really know what they are talking about. They are, in essence, getting ripped off by private companies.

Other cuts to Medicare include coverages that are very expensive to administer, but for rarely-used services that are not even medically necessary. Fraud is expected to be reduced as well. All you should need to know is, the AARP backed this reform law. I know, as I'm a member. Doctors generally don't like it, either, which confirms it's usefulness to health care consumers.

AARP backed this bill because they are now pushing a Medicare supplement designed to compete against Medicare Advantage, which will cost more then Advantage and provide less. All you need to know is that AARP started loosing membership when they came out for Obama care.

How can they say that they will now reduce fraud? If they have known there was fraud, why wait for a new bill to reduce fraud? Was fraud okay before but the new bill makes it not okay? And with the balloning of health care under government control why wont fraud just ballon with it?

Way to go, Carl390. Quoting Margaret Thatcher, one the most morally bankrupt and hated leaders of the 20th century, to make your point. Why not quote Hitler next time? He was a master at fear-mongering, too. Oh, and PLEASE look up the definition of socialism. This bill has nothing to do with socialism. The fact that you even use the term which has no relevance in this argument, shows that you are just another of the many mindless sheeple who cannot think for themselves.

We are absolutely robbing Peter to pay Paul. Healthy individuals no longer have the option of whether or not to buy insurance. They are now going to be FORCED to pay for someone else's healthcare! Additionally, taxes are going to go up. So, did we actually make healthcare more affordable? No... that's an outright lie.

And to the people that claim solcial security and medicare are a success... Really? Are you living on them? Becuase the people forced to use these services are largely disgruntled. Both are near bankrupt for starters, and neither provide for the needs of the individuals they are supposedly servicing. Try living on a social security check if you don't believe me. And if Medicare was so great, why the popularity or need of the additional coverage?

What a crock. I think all our government people should be forced to utilize the systems they create... maybe then we could get "change we can believe in".

For all of you talking about how our country is 'screwed' now that we've finally passed this bill, take a look at all of the other countries who are under single payer systems in the WHO statistics and data section:

http://www.who.int/healthinfo/statistics/mortality/en/

Also, take a look at this other set of WHO statistics from a Wikipedia page on health care plans:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_compared#Cross-country_comparisons

We are getting our butts kicked by the rest of the free world! And I know that all of you will shout about waiting times, but the US actually has some of the worst waiting times in the world. We're only slightly ahead of Canada...whose waiting times aren't nearly as bad as they're made out to be. You can look up 'us health care waiting times' on Google and pull up some articles:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_28/b4042072.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deborah-burger/ugly-health-care-waiting-_b_55749.html

By all means, continue searching. I found this tid-bit particularly interesting

Canada also has no waits for emergency surgeries. It also doesn't have 44 million people who are uninsured because everyone has a national healthcare card guaranteeing health care from any doctor or hospital they choose. And it doesn't burden those with insurance with rising deductibles or co-pays.

Canada also surpasses the U.S. in a broad array of health barometers, including life expectancy, infant mortality rates, adult mortality rates, deaths due to HIV/AIDS, mortality rates for cardiovascular diseases, and years of life lost to injuries and communicable diseases, according to data from the World Health Organization and the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development.

But you'll see all of that if you decide to look at the facts. Truth is, our free market system of health care is a stain on our claim of being a 'civilized nation'.

Those new taxes are going to be passed down to us, so higher cost of living right there.

AARP has started expanding it's membership rolls, again, Gary. I never said the GOP wasn't effective in using scare tactics; they obviously are, and THAT'S why some retirees thought AARP had suddenly turned evil overnight. But when the truth comes to light regarding reform, most of those people who got scared by GOP tactics eventually come back to reality. The AARP is obviously not selling any insurance in direct competition with Medicare itself, and M.A. is an expensive version of the same basic Medicare coverage, but privately administered.

What is wrong with AARP backing strong reforms and then offering a safe Medicare Supplement plan, to compete against Medicare Advantage? MA is a rip-off, and I actually trust AARP. I don't mind if they back reform and help seniors at the same time. I guess you disagree. That doesn't surprise me.

Look it up there are only approx. 33 million people in Canada. All of the countries with a social health care program have less than 60 million people, only insure their citizens and are all losing money or going broke. The USA is the 3rd largest country in the world next to China, India and then the USA with 310 million people.

Health care reforms are needed, yes. This bill does not do it. More effort is needed to reduce health care costs.

There sure are a lot of people posting here today who are concerned about higher taxes due to this health care bill. And that leads me to only one conclusion: there must be an unusually high number of Newsvine posters who earn over $250,000 per year.

so peter...you are telling me that, without me having to type out an essay, you are saying the overall cost of covering another 30M people via removing 500 billion from the funding of Healthcare is going to result in lower taxes for everyone except those over 250K?

1. anyone that is currently buying healthcare from their employeer will see their healthcare cost go up. you simple minded fools think 500 B is being removed from these companies and they are just going to do business as usual..only if you are lucky! Automatically people premiums will go up 50% or so..there is NO legislation preventing it..so get ready.

2. Where do you get the 250k mark? We are printing money like noones business and our debt is trippling per year...we have to pay that sometime...and that payment will be via taxes. EVERYONE will have to pay it.

3. NOTHING in this bill keeps insurance companies from profiteering...which is the issue. The gov protects them and the Big Pharma from competition. I am not talking interstate commerce I am talking the other 1000 Pharma companies int he world that would love a piece of our pie..and compete for it. HERE is the issue.

So all you Sheeple rejoice until 4 years from now..when this kicks in..and you see your taxes have gained 2x from 2010. Bank on that. Those who support this bill support profiteering by the insurance companies. Enjoy working till you are dead because that is the only way you will have money when you are older..SSI will be gone and this is the first step of it.

I am ecstatic that I will be able to get back 35% tax back for premiums. I cut health benefits to the employee due to the fact it was too costly. A tax credit has open up the possibilities of giving them back their health benefits.

It might not seem like a lot to you, but one of my employees is ecstatic and she didn't vote for Obama.

"Mark McClellan, a former Bush White House official who supports passage of the reform package, said he believes Democrats have a shot at turning public opinion around marginally in the short term. But scoring big swings in public opinion could be years away.

“What really matters is showing people it really works. Some people will see benefits next year. But for most people it will not have a big effect — except maybe some increases in premiums — until 2014. That’s two election cycles away,” he said."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20100322/pl_politico/34785

Even supporters know the bill is going to start costing us immediately. How something like this could be done at a time of rising unemployment, rising foreclosures, decreasing wages, and exploding deficits is reprehensible.

This is just another way for the government to take over our lives. Can't you see that?! It has been happening slowly for years, but in the past year, it has snowballed. This government will break us all. So what if a few million don't have health care. Those who do, like me have to pay for it. I already support the breeders and the illegals and aid to other countries. It will never stop until the american people are handed an allowance for the week, like we were children. Those people want us to buy new cars, houses and so on, but people keep getting laid off. So, all the crap about how things are getting better is all bull. Just some lies by government so they can sneak their crap on us. Government let all these big companies go crazy with their prices that we have to pay for, while these companies make billions of dollars every year. Just like the oil. They say they import, why? We have capped well all over the place that we could use and gas would be much, much cheaper. Never mind, they would still screw us and the pay offs to government will let them.

People should really call for these government crooks who keep raping us to resign, NOW. Not wait until election time. By then, those pigs will find away to keep their jobs. If this health care is so great, congress should get it also instead of what they have.

People with health problems that left them uninsurable could qualify for coverage through a federal program.

Gee when I lose my employer insurance Aug. 1st due to Obamacare and can't get a personal policy since I have a pre-existing condition, is this what I get???

To Ryan - try looking at sources that are NOT the WHO and Huffington. The results will be MUCH different. I don't want my care rationed. Let alone, I most likely won't have care for the next 4 years while businesses and tax payers give their money to govt. instead of having their own care. I find it astonishing that you can't see how the govt. is seeking to destroy the private insurance industry. That is not their job. I am glad the lawsuits are being filed already. This is sooo Unconstitutional.

To Yankee - you might get 35% back, but the projected increase in premiums far exceed the 35% mark, let alone the increase in taxes you will be paying.

All these supposed benefits come with big prices tags that haven't been disclosed in full as yet. They are just trying to buy the taxpayers' votes and are in for a rude awakening.

The next bill on their agenda is Amnesty for illegal.........makes you wonder if the illegal have any idea what they'd be getting into because they'd lose all their special benefits for their votes. To be able to vote they have to have signed up for voters registration 90 days before the November elections. ACORN is going to be busy!

Vote them all out in November anything they give now they will want back trifold!

I have a grand-daughter (now 5) who was born with Tetrology of Follet (a collection of four serious heart defects.) She was diagnosed in the womb and my daughter and son-in-law very wisely elected to pay for two family plans until things sorted themselves out. It turned out to be a wise decision. My grand-daughter has had several surgeries to immediately allow her to live, then to "replumb" the arteries to the heart and lungs and to try to reduce some thickening of the walls of the heart. During that repair, the surgeon damaged the nerves to the diaphragm and there was another surgery (this time from her back) to repair that. At this point she is a healthy, active, bright and well-adjusted 5-year-old.

But (isn't there always a "but"?) she will have to have at least one more surgery when she nears adulthood (to resize the dacron arteries to adult size) and possible there could be complications arise as she grows through puberty (about a 50/50 chance.)

Now here's where things get depressing --- my son-in-law has a premier health plan and my daughter works for an (albeit crooked) very large health care insurer, and her plan is just kinda average. And the state provides some benefits under their disabilities coverage (infants who have extensive surgery usually have some developmental difficulties that can be fixed if promptly dealt with. Luckily my grand-daughter has none of these, but the benefit helped at a critical time.) The state benefits stopped at age 5. My daughter's policy is capped out for my grand-daughter and is nearing the lifetime family cap. My son-in-law's policy is nearing the individual cap for my grand-daughter but has a pretty healthy amount left on the lifetime cap. We have sat down at the dining room table and done the math. If my granddaughter has new serious problems that arise, both insurance companies will cap out and there will be a huge unpaid bill. Ditto for her "adult" surgery. If she is unable to have her "adult" surgery before she is 17 years and 9 months old, she will nave no health coverage under either plan. Under the current insurance practices, she would be unable to obtain health insurance anywhere at any price.

In some ways I feel very bad for my daughter and son-in-law. They have had to deal with a terrible load. And the future is very scary for them. My daughter is very familiar with exactly how crooked these health care companies are. Her job is reviewing rejected insurance claims (under a court order.) Her department has over 300,000 rejected cases to consider. There are four of them reviewing the cases. The last I heard, about 92% of the rejected cases are paid (even though many of the insured's are dead.)

I say in some ways, because all the worry and heartache has been accompanied by a very angel of a child. She is so normal and active it is scary. But in the meanwhile neither my daughter nor my son-in-law can change jobs, even if the amount of income to be gained was huge. They would lose their insurance coverage. They can't even work second jobs because any employer who checks "credit" records will see that they have reached an individual cap on their health insurance and that is a huge black mark on your credit.

But look around. Almost everyone knows someone who is in a similar situation. People don't like to talk about it because it is so depressing. And why is it that a significant part of this country's citizens simply don't care? Are we as a nation just that base and selfish?

In 2009, 63% of all bankruptcies were caused by unanticipated medical bills. Around 30% of foreclosures were caused by the same thing. (You have to remember that under the GOP's "bankruptcy reform" your house is not protected unless it is worth less than $150,000 minus legal fees and bank fees.) Of the 62% who filed bankruptcy because of medical bills, over 40% had health insurance that fits the government's definition of "adequate" coverage.

There are a lot of people in this country who could use a hand. The whole purpose of society is to spread both risk and benefit over the larger group. We have found Neanderthal burials where the person buried was either severely injured or had birth defects that would have prevented them from caring for themselves. They lived to ages that could only have happened if their social group was caring for them. Have we regressed to a society that doesn't even have the moral compass of a Neanderthal?

And I hear so many lies --- death panels and rationing and tax increases and socialism and takeovers and healthcare in other countries that come from people who seem to be ready to believe any lie that comes out without even bothering to check even the simplest facts.

And you have to remember that of the six pieces of enabling legislation for Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, no Congressmen who was a Republican at the time of the vote, voted for any of them except the Medicare Part D fiasco (which was opposed by about half the Democrats but supported by every Republican.) And that piece of legislation imposed fines on people who did not subscribe to Part D and added hugely to the deficit, reduced the self-sufficiency of Medicare, and raised everyone's drug prices by an average of 15% across the board (even those not on Medicare) by changing the pricing of drugs from Usual and Customary Charge (UCC) to Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price (MSRP). Where was the GOP opposition then? If you do not subscribe to Part D the moment you become eligible, you are fined 1% per month cumulatively until you do sign up. I have private health insurance, so it is not cost effective for me to use Medicare Parts B & D. I am 66 and are now up to 22% in fines. It will be 23% on April 14th --- and there is no limit to how high the fine can go? Where were the Republican voices then? Where were the state lawsuits then?

Everyone seems to remember Cain's question to God, "Am I my brother's keeper?" But they seem to conveniently forget that God answered in the affirmative.

My kids were out of college and had jobs. Why would I want to pay for some ones kid to stay on a parents' insurance? November!!

Missingjohn- Don't respond to my posts. You're not smart enough. Besides, taking my money to pay for your insurance is exactly the definition of socialism.

Willowbrook, I also cited Business week, and Huffington and Business Week both cited other sources. And what's wrong with WHO? Now if an organization puts out facts (and releases, in great detail, their data gathering methods) that don't agree with your point of view, that makes them illegitimate? Maybe you should accept that the US is as backwards as some third world countries when it comes to health care. This new bill seeks to fix that and hopefully it's a step in the right direction.

We all know people who are without insurance -- but if you think this is the 'fix'; how wrong you are. Check out other programs the government runs
and the waste will amaze you. There is no accountablity by the people running these programs. We sent a governor to jail for accepting sleeping bags for accepting from state surplus. That is nothing compared to the in a huge program as this. (15 dollar hammers!) Kickbacks - campaign funds given to our 'politians'. Those companies taken to task - aren't lining the politicans pockets.

Support your local small business - it won't be there soon.

I have found one good thing about this bill. It has exposed just how corrupt Washington has become, with the back room deals, bribery, liars, arm twisting and just out and out blackmail. Amazing how the Constitution is being thrown out. Time to clean out Washington or better yet move it to a condo in Kansas, remove all lobbyists and the only perk the politicians get is a travel expense of $1.25 a mile for 2 times a month from home to the condo in Kansas, no side trips of any kind. They can use that $1.25 towards driving, flying, bus or hitch hiking. If they travel more than 2 times a month it is on their dime. Driving through Kansas will give them lots of time to think over any bill they have to sign. which from now on they will have to personally read before they can vote on it (questions will be asked).

Government oversight: Insurers must report how much they spend on medical care versus administrative costs, a step that later will be followed by tighter government review of premium increases.

Is this:

A: Bull @!$%#

B. Horse @!$%#

C: Dog @!$%#

D: All of the above

AARP has been too much of an advertising tool for insurance companies and countless other advertising mediums. I get a monthly magazinewith a few sometimes interesting health articles but tons of adertisements.

Lots of AARP advertising junk mail and flyers for Chase credit cards, investment ads and other BS that help fill my garbage bag every week.

I cancelled my membership when AARP and it's ceo proclaimed strong support of Obama and the health care reform bill. So have thousands of other seniors totally disgusted with the direction they have taken politically.

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Does anyone notice that MSNBC's own poll,,,,

http://politics.polls.newsvine.com/_question/2010/03/21/4048693-the-house-has-passed-an-historic-health-care-overhaul-are-you-excited-or-angry?GT1=43001

indicates that almost 65% of Americans are angry about this disaster and its eventual implications? If you add the 13% that are concerned about the mandates the total goes up to over 78% are against it. Only 21% are happy about it.

Oh and by the way, there are over 500,000 votes in total so this isn't a straw poll by any means.

Someone is going to have to explain to me how this is going to help us and the economy if the bulk of it doesn't go into effect until 2014.

My personal opinion is that this is an absolute disaster.

To Ryan - WHO is notorious for "counting down" any country that is not single-payer. Read their home page. Their agenda is quite clear. Did you realize that cancer survival rates are higher in the US than the the countries the WHO rates higher than us? Do you look at delivery of care and time involved? There is plenty of information out there that shows America has better care than the Socialized countries. Yes the cost is higher, but we get more as well.

All I am saying, you have chosen only those sites that support your opinion. Do a little research and learn. I know we need some reform. We do not need a government take over to accomplish the reform. The bill does not address the needed reform as well.

I am a poster child for the good thing health care can provide in America. I am going to fight and support those who will keep the good things going in American Health Care. Obama and his minions are the ones trying to destroy health care, while keeping a cushy plan for themselves. What makes them more worthy then you or me?????

It was a great day if you are a parasite that lives your life sucking off the others.

It was a great day if you love crying and whining that others must take care of you.

It was a geat day if you are waiting for the day the Government controls the WHOLE US economy (half way there now, with the banks, student loan industry, car companies, and health insurance)

It was a great day if you think giving the IRS more power is a good idea (remember with the IRS you are guilty until you prove you innocence)

If was a great day if you think that being somewhere around 100 trillion in debt for unpaid entitlements is a good idea.

It was a great day for those of you that hate freedom.

It was a great day for everybody that hates AMERICA!

US healthcare costs will skyrocket, quality and availability will plummet under Obamacare

Government will blame insurers and providers, never government

Government's solution?

More government

That's how they "fixed" medicare

That's how they "fixed" medicaid

Assuming responsibility for ANOTHER $2.3 TRILLION

Creating another 100 federal agencies give or take

Hiring 16,500 new IRS agents for starters to sieze your bank accounts

They "fixed" Fannie and Freddie by EXPANDING THEIR MANDATES AND ASSUMING responsibility for ANOTHER $400 billion in unfunded liabilities

The progressive (communist) democrats all work for the government and are exempt from Obamacare

What do they care?

A few of you could benefit from the acquisition of a tinfoil hat. Your paranoia about the government taking over the economy is off the charts.

There sure are a lot of people posting here today who are concerned about higher taxes due to this health care bill. And that leads me to only one conclusion: there must be an unusually high number of Newsvine posters who earn over $250,000 per year

What about the tax on Cadillac plans? What about the local/state taxes which will go up to offset debts from Medicaid expansion?

Let's see how well the government has run the other two big programs they've taken over - Social Security and Medicare;

"The 2009 Social Security and Medicare Trustees Reports show the combined unfunded liability of these two programs has reached nearly $107 trillion in today's dollars! That is about seven times the size of the U.S. economy and 10 times the size of the outstanding national debt. The unfunded liability is the difference between the benefits that have been promised to current and future retirees and what will be collected in dedicated taxes and Medicare premiums. Last year alone, this debt rose by $5 trillion. If no other reform is enacted, this funding gap can only be closed in future years by substantial tax increases, large benefit cuts or both."

Social Security and Medicare are only a small % of the economy, but now they're taking over 18% of the economy with this bill.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

How's that "Hope and change" thing working out for you?????????

If you don't like healthcare plan then opt out... Wait, GOP did not like that plan either. You have ZELCH for solution, and you are trying to prolong the corporate campaign funding for as long as possible.

Right now, I am disappointed, because of the loopholes and lack of public option and single payer system in the bill that Democratic Congress is trying to forward to the President. Haven't you Republicans and Conservatives been tellin the Democrats to leave America if we don't like it. WELL, that option is still open to you. Oh, don't let the door hit you on the way out. Please drop the keys off on your way out.

Duh, GOP is simply doing the double Santa Claus theory...

Dame Quixote: The taxes on Cadillac plans go to the insurance companies, who would pass the cost down to an employer, who would then switch to a cheaper plan that was less than $27,500 a year. Since all the companies would have to compete for employers, this would drive the cost of those plans down. The recipients of the plans will not be taxed. As for state and local taxes, I don't believe that they are required to pay for the bill.

Willowbrook: WHO ranks health care systems based on many factors. It just turns out that the single-payer systems work better than ours when you compare them all to each other. I read WHO's homepage and their 'Our Agenda' page, and no mention is made of a single-payer system or anything similar, or trying to require everyone to have one.
Here is a ranking of countries' health systems given by WHO:

Rank       Country

1         France
2         Italy
3         San Marino
4         Andorra
5         Malta
6         Singapore
7         Spain
8         Oman
9         Austria
10        Japan
11        Norway
12        Portugal
13        Monaco
14        Greece
15        Iceland
16        Luxembourg
17        Netherlands
18        United  Kingdom
19        Ireland
20        Switzerland
21        Belgium
22        Colombia
23        Sweden
24        Cyprus
25        Germany
26        Saudi Arabia
27        United  Arab  Emirates
28        Israel
29        Morocco
30        Canada
31        Finland
32        Australia
33        Chile
34        Denmark
35        Dominica
36        Costa Rica
37        United States of America

If you look at cancer death rates per 100,000, Malta, Singapore, Oman, Iceland, Colombia, Cyprus, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Israel, Australia, Chile, and Costa Rica are all doing better than us. In fact, it seems that many of the countries with the lowest cancer death rates are places like Rwanda, Uganda, Tajikistan, Syria, Sudan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Yemen, Chad, the Congo, Cambodia, and the list of third world countries goes on.... To me, the pattern shows that countries with the lowest life expectancies also have the lowest number of cancer deaths because people simply don't reach old age (70% of cancer deaths are people over 65). That would explain our low cancer death rate compared to countries with single payer systems, because they have higher life expectancies than us. So your cancer statistic isn't a great indicator of how well a country's health system is doing. If anything, it proves that our health system is doing poorly compared to other systems because our people can't even live long enough to develop and die from cancer.

 As far as delivery of care/time involved, the articles I posted before talked about waiting times, and I'd assume that we're not doing so well on the 'delivery' part since tens of millions of people don't even have access to health care right now. They don't have access because our cost per capita is more than twice as much as many of the single-payersystems. What other statistics would you have me look at? Are the WHO statistics inaccurate? If so, can you explain to me how they're inaccurate? Can you suggest places for me to go to get some more statistics/data? And I apologize ahead of time if the formatting on this is messed up... 

Tad:

I don't blame you for cancelling your AARP subscription. So did I; and wrote openly on the outside of the envelope to never contact me again. Their endorsement of this bill has cost many of their members. I'm sure they'll console themselves with the supplemental policies they intend to sell.

While in school today, a nursing program, I asked fellow students how they felt about the bill passing. Almost all were thinking of getting out of the nursing program and moving into an entirely different field.

I think this is a BIG problem for the future of healthcare in this country. Without the nurses, there will be long waits and poor care. Welcome to it folks!

I take it Ryan you don't know what a Socialist Agenda is?

You show Japan as # 10. Do you realize their is HUGE business there for supplemental insurance as the govt. insurance only has a "core" of coverage? And, of course, it doesn't get the job done. Keep looking........

And Cancer death rates are not the same as Cancer SURVIVAL rates. There are many reasons for cancer, including genetic and environmental. The survival rates shows how the research has tackled the problem and used what they learned to save patients. Comparing us to countries that have lower rates of cancer does not make any sort of argument. Research is another area that will be cut dramatically with this bill. The money will be gone. Can't do research on a dime.

TSVG - where do you get your numbers? According to the article only 200,000 uninsured are helped at a cost of $1BILLION a year! The Congress has earmarked $5 BILLION a year for helping the uninsured- that only comes to ONLY 1million uninsured annually who are helped NOT the "Millions" you claim. And Obama and the Democrats CLAIM over 30 MILLION are uninsured that this bill with help.

So do the MATH according to the article - 5 BILLION x 30 = $150 BILLION A YEAR to cover all the uninsured. The total bill is $940 billion over 10 years. Thus to cover the 30 million at $150 BILLION per year for 10 years over $1 TRILLION. The numbers don't add up.

People on both sides need to stop parroting the party line and take a closer look at the cold hard facts. Do you seriously think that each and every member of Congress READ 2700 pages in the bill and understand it all!!????

peterparker - The government has taken over two car companies, bailed out most banks, taken over Fannie and Freddi(which have more than half of all US mortgages, the student loan industry, and now the health care industry, that is over 50% of the economy in a year and a half.

Is that paranoia?

they want to pass cap and tax, that will basically take over the energy sectory, what does that leave?

Dame Quixote: The taxes on Cadillac plans go to the insurance companies, who would pass the cost down to an employer, who would then switch to a cheaper plan that was less than $27,500 a year. Since all the companies would have to compete for employers, this would drive the cost of those plans down. The recipients of the plans will not be taxed. As for state and local taxes, I don't believe that they are required to pay for the bill.

State and local taxes will go up because the States still have to pay 50% into Medicare.

Also, the Cadillac plans are incentives for employees to take lower pay for professional jobs. Our family has one. It's worth a lot of money. We got a letter from husnand's employer stating that as it stands, we would be subject to a $2,000 annual tax (40% above the cost of what the government allows) in order to keep the plan he currently has. The company while at this time there are no plans to change the coverage, they do not plan on offering raises to anyone to accommodate the tax or a potential drop in plan. So yeah, we'll have to pay.

Thank you, for supporting this bill when it's my husband who took a job making 15K less than he's worth for the benefits which now, he's subject to lose or pay taxes on. I like that all four members of the family have all their medical needs and wants covered and we SACRAFICED a higher salary, better home, and new car to get it.

We've decided to move recently since it's obvious that the country is changing. My husband has found another position elsewhere. Of course now we have to uproot the kids from their schools and friends to deal with the "transformation" of the country to ensure we can keep saving for the future.

Please stop quoting the WHO rankings. It's the most idiotic survey done ever, which is why those numbers are a decade old and they stopped conducting it. In 2000.

They're not NEW taxes, they're the same taxes that existed in 1999 when we had a federal SURPLUS. To refresh your memory - Bush borrowed $1.3 TRILLION in the name of a "tax cut" from the budget.

Simple math: $1.3 TRILLION - $0.9 TRILLION cost of this program = $400 BILLION surplus if we eliminate the Bush tax cut that was simply borrowed money.

Willowbrook: I take it you don't know what a Republican Agenda is?

Dame Quixote: If you want to move based on some personal ideology, then you don't really have grounds to complain (since you're inflicting the move on yourself). It's your idea to move, no one is making you. If your husband wants to give up a perfectly good job just because he's getting taxed $2000 to help cover his medical plan (which, at 40% above $27,500 would be $38,500), then by all means, go ahead. And I don't think that he really sacrificed a whole lot of money, because while he took a $15,000 hit, he gained a $38,500 insurance plan, so he actually made $23,500 in the end if you think about it. This health bill will force insurance companies to lower costs on Cadillac plans so that you still get the same coverage for much less. If they don't lower costs, employers, in order to compete with *other* employers to hire good employees, will have to switch to another insurance plan in order to keep salaries high. So this bill actually encourages competition instead of collusion in order to jack up prices beyond what they should be. The fact that any family of four has to pay nearly $10,000 each per year to get decent coverage is a travesty.

Willowbrook: I found this article on WebMd,

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20080716/cancer-survival-rates-vary-by-country

With this quote, "The highest survival rates were found in the U.S. for breast and prostate cancer, in Japan for colon and rectal cancers in men, and in France for colon and rectal cancers in women, Coleman's team reports. In Canada and Australia, survival was also high for most cancers."

So, yes, with some cancer survival rates, we're doing a little better than other countries. That doesn't change the fact that our cancer care costs more, is available to less people, and can be cut off if the insurance company decides that an individual has 'reached their lifetime limit' (talk about death panels). We do have a better research program and I see no reason for it to stop under this bill. The research program is probably the reason why we have better survival rates, because we have so many experimental treatments. Once again, the bill doesn't require any of this to stop. Research is key to improving survival rates around the world and I don't think that anyone wants to see it come to a halt.
You still haven't answered my question about what's so wrong with the WHO statistics. Cherry picking certain statistical fields that the US is excelling in doesn't change the fact that we're behind in almost every other way. Does the research program work? Good! Keep it! But change the rest of the system that doesn't work, while still accommodating research.

Does that mean everyone who hasn't had insurance and were saving that extra money has to pay for insurance and be healthy again? Darn it!!! I was saving that for a yacht to hang out with the rich repub guys. Looks like a few more years in my old fishing boat. sigh............

You still haven't answered my question about what's so wrong with the WHO statistics

They're a decade old and the study based on of five factors on "affordability". Affordability has nothing to do with quality. It has to do with money.

Even if affordability were an indicator of quality the US would be much higher.

Want to talk about cherry picking, look at how you butchered my comment out of context.

thturd - I take it you don't know what a Conservative Agenda is........

Actually, Dame, the WHO statistics I put up a link to in my first post are from as early as 2008, so your unfounded 'decade' figure is a little off. I only posted the rankings to illustrate a point to willowbrook. The original statistics I posted a link to were about life expectancies, disease mortality rates, infant mortality rates, etc.
And of course affordability is an indicator because you can't get health care if you can't pay for it, and the US's health care costs are two to three times as much as those of other first-world countries. So no, we're not doing well in that arena.
As far as taking your comment out of context, I don't agree. I may have been a little harsh and I apologize that I let my politics related anger cloud my judgment on that one. However, you have to admit that no insurance plan with the coverage a family needs should cost that much. It's ridiculous, and this bill seeks to put an end to unjustly high prices.

Yep, there are now millions of doctors closing their practices and picking up cans on the side of the road and heaven forbid that we "Americans" might not be able to invade another country for no reason.

12 generations and you're still on the bottom of the food chain?

That's really nothing to be proud of.

We have plenty of doctors, but we offer them too much incentive to specialize. What we really need are more primary care physicians, and we will have to offer some incentives to get enough of them to choose that side of the profession, no doubt about it. We'll face that as it becomes necessary, though.

You're just flat wrong on the money angle. We need more money, alright, but not for health care. Still, we can start by raising taxes back to where they should have been all along, especially for the wealthy, if that helps with your question. We generally want the services, so we generally need to pay more. That can wait until after the recession, obviously. But at that point, I think we need to raise taxes back to a truly sustainable level and KEEP THEM THERE...for once.

It is an obscene notion to believe that any government can effectively control an economy. The FORMER USSR is the perfect example of that. Take even a basic level economy class and you will learn that every time the government gets involved, there is a definite cost to the constituents.

Bottom line... we need less government, not more. What happens when the government becomes the largest employer?? Think about that for a minute. The government does not make money, it takes it from the people. When there are less people earning their money from the private sector than from public, our nation goes ka-put.

LDK, I not only want more, I want BETTER government, too. Which is why I vote democratic. It's as if the GOP says "Hey! I hate government, so elect me and I'll make sure to screw it up from the inside, and make it look EVEN WORSE! That way, we'll WIN!".

No thanks. They sure tried their best last time, though, I'll give 'em that.

Why should the wealthy pay proportionally more taxes? This has always baffled me. I'm not wealthy, and probably never will be, but why should a portion of the population who benefits the least from tax-funed programs (live in nice neighborhoods, don't need police as much, pay out of pocket for thier own healthcare, don't collect any kind of welfare, send kids to private schools) have to pay for the lion's share of them? Wouldn't it be more fair if everyone paid a flat percentage? Please explain to me the reasoning behind why the wealthy should pay 40% or more when a huge chunk of the population pays NOTHING.

Aquatone..you socialist....So you want to tax the rich more than the poor..what happened to free market Capitalism? You are talking Socialism at best and communism at worst. Good luck on that.

The doctors won't have to pick up cans but they will flood Social Security with their applications for retirement and many of the young ones are already back in school training for a different profession.

This country has had a shortage of doctors for a long time. Today the government just added an incentive to increase that shortage. What is pathetic is that these people actually think they'll get healthcare when most doctors haven't been taking new patients for years. Doctors don't have to take gov. insurance as payment or accept new patients at all.

Canada and England maybe our wealthy will come to you for treatment.

I have found one good thing about this bill. It has exposed just how corrupt Washington has become, with the back room deals, bribery, liars, arm twisting and just out and out blackmail. Amazing how the Constitution is being thrown out. Time to clean out Washington or better yet move it to a condo in Kansas, remove all lobbyists and the only perk the politicians get is a travel expense of $1.25 a mile for 2 times a month from home to the condo in Kansas, no side trips of any kind. They can use that $1.25 towards driving, flying, bus or hitch hiking. If they travel more than 2 times a month it is on their dime. Driving through Kansas will give them lots of time to think over any bill they have to sign. which from now on they will have to personally read before they can vote on it (questions will be asked).

Remydon, I am sorry to say, but I doubt you will ever get an answer to your very valid and very appropriate questions. I too have wondered by my husband and I, who combined make more than $250K (but live in NYC so that is like making a combined income of $100K everywhere else in the country), have to pay exponentially more taxes for this program and watch our own insurance be eviscerated while having the double punch of having to pay significantly higher premiums. What did we do to be penalized like this? We both worked hard for every single thing we have ever accomplished, on our own, with no hand outs from anyone or anything. So why do we have to give up what we earned to help everyone else out? I agree that something should be done to help out those who don't or can't get health care (I said health care, not health insurance). I think everyone should be able to get medical care! But why do I have to pay for it for them??!! Why am I stuck paying the tab for all of these people?

By 9:30 am this morning my employer sent out a notice that we are no longer going to be able to have good insurance and they are changing our insurance to a plan that barely pays for 20% of any medical cost. All because of Obamacare. But (according to Obama) we make too much money to qualify for his new Obamacare health insurance. So, we are going to get thrown into this no-man's land of people who are going to be unable to get good insurance, unable to actually afford the cost of medical care, and ineligible for Obamacare! I might as well just quit my job - what is the point of working any more...

coleslaw1 - obviously the point of you going to work is so that somebody else doesn't have to.

But with this new program you would be better off paying the fine $2200, and paying other expenses out of pocket, than sadly if something bad happens, sign up for the same health care that everybody else has for the same price.

Coleslaw:

This is the redistribution of wealth we heard about. I am our family's primary wage earner, and do not make $100,000. I will still not qualify for any assistance with insurance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt4Eh3Y_JwA

Arslp, that is terrible that you don't qualify either. Upon looking at this further, it appears that this bill is only going to assist the uninsured who are below or around the poverty line. Everyone else, including our long suffering middle class, are going to be left out in the cold as being ineligible and get nothing from this bill other than a lot of new taxes and lower quality of any insurance they do have. This bill appears to help 10% of the population while harming the other 90% through lower quality health care, higher costs of insurance and more taxes. How on earth can anyone think this a good thing??

My husband brought up a good point for those who are planning on using the Obamacare plan and the collective group plans - you get what you pay for (nothing for nothing). It is simply an insurance plan so doctors can choose if they will accept insurance from those plans or refuse to accept them. I remember when I was young and bought a cheap health insurance policy for myself - it cost me very little and I got very little. The only doctors who would take it were in scary back alleys with dirty offices and questionable degrees from made up looking medical schools. One doctor I went to was so drunk that he could barely form sentences and his exam room was utterly filthy (I walked out). I was terrified to let any of them practice medicine on me because they were likely going to cause much more harm than do any good! So, technically I had insurance, but it was virtually useless! I imagine Obamacare is going to be exactly the same.

It is important to note that Obama and Pelosi and crowd promised insurance to all - not quality medical care to all! The reality is the insurance that these plans will provide people will only give them subpar medical care. The good doctors (and even the mediocre ones) will not accept those insurance plans. So, the practical effect of this bill is higher costs and taxes to the middle class and dangerously low quality medical care for the poor. The only people who are going to make out on this are the medical malpractice attorneys because of the inevitable huge boom in malpractice lawsuits because of the increased use of low quality medical care and practice. Guess what that will result in - massively increased malpractice insurance. Which will lead to an even further increase in medical costs for all of us! Yippee! Love the bill.

If Madison is against healthcare reform, there must be some good in the program after all!

30 + states are filing lawsuit to not follow the bill...good luck with Obama care with 40% of the states buying in.

That is not true at all. Only one state - useless Idaho - has passed a bill requiring a lawsuit.

There are 30 states in which such a bill has been proposed, which only requires one member of one legislative house to do. Less meaningful than renaming a library.

Those are token symbolic gestures that in 90% of the cases will result in nothing. There are Democratic Governors in 29 states, meaning bills in those states will go nowhere, and in most of the other states Democrats control at least one house - again, going nowhere.

My apologies in advance for teaching you some basic civics.

NJGuy - 12 state Attorney Generals(so far) wrote Pelousi a group letter before they voted and they do plan to file legal action on this bill as Unconstitutional because among other reasons Amendment 28 says quite clearly that no bill shall be pass that treats any group unequally to another. So it quite clearly is Unconstitutional because The DC Crooks get FULL healthcare, Nebraska won't have to pay in, several other states got special rates, and UAW got special treatment as well. These are the ones we know so far but since they got a bunch more to vote their way you can bet your boots that they all got something for their votes.!

I have found one good thing about this bill. It has exposed just how corrupt Washington has become, with the back room deals, bribery, liars, arm twisting and just out and out blackmail. Amazing how the Constitution is being thrown out. Time to clean out Washington or better yet move it to a condo in Kansas, remove all lobbyists and the only perk the politicians get is a travel expense of $1.25 a mile for 2 times a month from home to the condo in Kansas, no side trips of any kind. They can use that $1.25 towards driving, flying, bus or hitch hiking. If they travel more than 2 times a month it is on their dime. Driving through Kansas will give them lots of time to think over any bill they have to sign. which from now on they will have to personally read before they can vote on it (questions will be asked).

Last....I understand your post to be true. Just read an article about this. Unfortunately, I currently live in NYS, which is not doing anything.

So, according to your logic, we should perhaps allow 12% of our American population to suffer and die, so that the rich can get richer? It sounds like money is your true God. Which of the 12% of Americans do you want to die for the cause? Do you have a list of names? Hopefully, none of your relatives names are on that list.

TSVG, you are a sick individual to even think that way.

Even the Democrats say the immediate effects of this includes 1% of the population. That's 1 TRILLION per percent. Try calculating what that would be if you just wrote them all a check.

wow! I wonder what will happen twenty years from now when someone describes your generation. I can see it now, These radical 80's and 90's extasy taking, crackhead space cadets have ruined 50% of all life on the planet. What the &*#%?????????

Who now has insurance that didn't have it before? Answer none - at least not until 2014. The only thing that will happen right now is that companies are going to be taxed huge for providing health insurance (hello increased unemployment) and health insurance companies will be both taxed huge and have more mandates on them (hello skyrocketing premiums) and old people will lose their Medicare Advantage.

So that's it - Higher unemployment and higher premiums and the elderly get their benefits cut.

Allen, take a course in Macro Economics. Improving the lives of workers primes the economic pump like you wouldn't believe! Healthy workers mean healthy profits. God Bless Democrats for voting for the good of the country.

Allen, take a course in Macro Economics. Improving the lives of workers primes the economic pump like you wouldn't believe! Healthy workers mean healthy profits. God Bless the Democrats!

Healthy workers collecting unemployment checks on the other hand....

you could learn a lot from a Dummie..Dummies, they all want your MOney and that's not SO FUNNY..they don't care if you don't Eat or have Shelter..It's a gimmie all your MONEY thing, WAKE UP, WOULD YOU.......

TSGV... apparently, you're the one that needs to take an economics course. The government actions are going to shift the demand curve outwards. That means increased demand for health services. Increased demand = increased cost until the market equilibrium (supply curve) resets at a much higher price.

And that is just one impact! The profit margin of these companies is being affected as well. That will likely lead to some health care businesses becoming unprofitable, and then closing. When that happens, the demand for current supply raises again... and the prices go up again. See the pattern? Many of the "more civilized" countries currently employing national healthcare are at tax rates close to 40% average. We are currently around 30%.

You obviously do not know what you are talking about.

LDK...you are wasting your breath bro..all thy know is Obama sent them a letter with "FREE HANDOUT" on it and they LOVE it. When the Drs office next door closes..and the one 5 miles away..and the one 20 miles away..all close and they have to travel to a DR 50 miles away and then have a 5 week wait...

They will Blame Bush.

ENJOY!!!

Who now has insurance that didn't have it before? Answer none - at least not until 2014. The only thing that will happen right now is that companies are going to be taxed huge for providing health insurance (hello increased unemployment) and health insurance companies will be both taxed huge and have more mandates on them (hello skyrocketing premiums) and old people will lose their Medicare Advantage.

I do. I have heath insurance now and didn't before. I work for a small business and they didn't offer insurance to employees outside of NY or TN. Now because of this bill and the potential of it passing, those of us outside those two states also have health insurance.

Q22 - I can answer your question in the reverse. Who had insurance before this bill passed and now doesn't? Me.

My employer notified us this morning they were cancelling our good insurance policy and replacing it with a policy that might pay for 20% of our medical bills, Rx's, etc., IF we are lucky. How's that for "early deliverables"...

Q22 - Who has it now that didn't before? My step-son. He graduated college and is having trouble finding work. Now at least he can get treated when he gets sick or breaks a leg w/o going into debt forever.

Q22 - Who has it now that didn't before? My step-son. He graduated college and is having trouble finding work. Now at least he can get treated when he gets sick or breaks a leg w/o going into debt forever.

That was very generous of the Democrats to force your company to subsidize your stepson's insurance. I hope they don't have to lay anyone off to pay for this new benefit.

Caterpillar has determined that it will cost them $100 million to comply with this new law in the first year alone. How will they make up for that $100 million? Raise prices or lower payroll expenses?

Cat 's revenue was 13 BILLION last year. They could turn off the lights at night in their empty offices and limit their reps bar tabs to $50 a day and made up 100 million. Big companies lay off people first so they can hire back without paying the benefits. Its a quick way to improve the bottom line and keep the perks.

nut

Some people send their kids to college....but I guess that's only the "liberals"...

Other people that have become assets to a company have better insurance than a kid that's just getting their footing in the work force is offered.

So only liberals send their kids to college for 8 years? I'm not sure if you're being inflammatory or just implying that only liberals go for Doctorate degrees or are really slow at learning. Why is the left so hateful of people who don't think the way they do?

So now we force companies who are already burdened by providing health care coverage to dependents with a mandate to cover those kids well into adulthood.

Great who pays for that? Some at the bottom will lose their jobs no doubt.

So now we force companies who are already burdened by providing health care coverage to dependents with a mandate to cover those kids well into adulthood

How is covering dependants a burden? You pay a higher premium when you add a dependant. This just lets college students without the means to buy insurance pay through their parents plan longer.

Many people will be glad to be able to cover their children longer. Now they can. Who pays? The insured will pay the additional premiums.

Many people will be glad to be able to cover their children longer. Now they can.

OK. Back here in the real world employers subsidize insurance plans - even family plans. Employees often pay some to off-set the costs for dependents but most employers pay the lion's share of health insurance costs. Sure many people would "like" other people to pay for their obligations. Rarely do we codify it into law.

Not if you are self employed, then you pay the entire amount. The difference between a couple and family is nominal.

fireryone:

Exactly right. You also pay both portions of social security; as well as all corporate/franchise taxes/unemployment/workman's comp/etc. Employer costs are so much more than just the salaries that are paid. I am self-employed and my salary is less than half the revenue generated. Initiative and hard work has led to ever-increasing taxes; while all the time seeing the people in this country who will not work yet live off the fruit of what others earn. I am not talking about the unemployed; but those who have lived off of entitlements for generations. It is sickening. Now, those of us who do work will be mandated to not only continue working, but subsidize the lazy and shiftless individuals that have never worked and refuse to get up off their backsides. Again, I am not talking about the unemployed.

Not if you are self employed, then you pay the entire amount. The difference between a couple and family is nominal.

No it's not. It's 40% more to cover our children than just us on our plan.

gee 12th generation you just blew your credability with me.better stick to things you know something about but now i know you will talk about anything.tell me something else that you know about canada that i didn`t.

hockeypuck:

Gee, if this is your example of healthcare, we're really screwed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jc2n8JxYXgs

Why would anyone use Medicaid?

All whom have retired will sign up for Medicare...that liberal socialist program that the GOP voted against in 1965 and that Reagan said would be the downfall of America.

All whom have retired will sign up for Medicare...that liberal socialist program that the GOP voted against in 1965 and that Reagan said would be the downfall of America.

A significant number of Republicans voted in favor of the Medicare bill. The House adopted the conference report on July 27, 1965, 307-116, with 70 Republicans supporting it. And on July 28, the Senate adopted the final version of the bill by a vote of 70-24, with 13 Republicans in favor of the bill.

OK: half the folks opposed to reform complain that it will create a new layer of jobs in the bureaucracy - the other half say it will result in unemployment. BINGO - you've just cancelled out each others' arguments. (This post belonged up higher in the thread, but just appeared here ... so I'll reply to 12th generation: No one has read that bill, because it doesn't exist. It's conservative double-speak.)

Peace

Cece... that's an absurd statement. Are you saying that we cannot lose jobs in the private sector while simultaneously growing them in the public sector? Where have you been getting your info. It's absolutely possible. And who pays for those public sector jobs? The people left in the private sector.

Government jobs are not productive jobs, they suck from the overall economy, they produce nothing....obviously you're one of them with very little education to understand that.

You are preaching to moonbats LDK. Again..they got an envelope of..FREE...That means noone pays for it wheeeeee. As the private sector shrinks the public sector grows and our ability to tax new money is disappearing..taxing a gov check is not generating new tax dollars..it is reclaiming what was paid in form the private sector. But you know..it all goes back to th big FREE stamp on the box.

Government jobs now outnumber production jobs by more than a 2:1 ratio. There is no reason our governments (all levels) should be larger than the general population. Government jobs add nothing; zero to the economy. The only money the government has is what they take from us by threat or force. We have got to kill this leech before it sucks the very life out of us. We have got to vote the little suckers from this leech out of office in November.

It takes a liar or a fool to state this health scare program will create jobs or reduce deficit. Increasing the size of government is not growing jobs; it is taking away from the economic strength and personal freedoms of the individuals. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not unconstitutional for the government to force us into a contract with a third party, such as ANY insurance program?

Tookie:

You're exactly right. Government is the nations biggest employer, according to their own website:

http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs041.htm

They generate NO income, produce no goods or services that support themselves. They are like a malignant cancer, growing and growing at the expense of those supporting it. Of course Obama wants bigger government. Bigger government growing and sucking off the people who do work and pay taxes. He needs money to bribe Landrieus/Nelsons/Stupaks now and in times to come.

Yes, the politicians have an excellent health care program for themselves.

Everyone has their hand out to benefit themselves, they just don't want to offer anything to the middle class.

Ask anyone on Medicare or VA how often they pay for their own health care instead of utilizing the "liberal socialist" program that is provided for them.

And they will tell you: "That's different, I "deserve" it.

LU: Those on Medicare have paid their entire lives for the benefit they are now receiving. Oh, and by the way, they are still paying premiums from their Social Security checks. Those who have VA care served their country by putting their lives on the line in exchange for health benefits. In my book, both groups have paid for their services.

LU-404506

"Ask anyone on Medicare or VA how often they pay for their own health care instead of utilizing the "liberal socialist" program that is provided for them.

And they will tell you: "That's different, I "deserve" it."

WOW!!!!! I am a 100% disabled veteran and I have NEVER EVER thought I " deserved" my va health care. In fact it would probably do you good to march right on in to a va medical center and spew your mindless crap. I will wait in the car thanks. But I promise to pick you up on the front sidewalk when they are done with you. You need to stop letting people know what you THINK we think. Stop speaking for vets cause you LIE to further your moronic beliefs!!!!!!!!!!!

Without getting a handle on healthcare costs and regulating the industry, more companies will be out of business in trying to get coverage for employees as costs continue to spiral out of control. Healthcare reform will create jobs, and importantly: folks without healthcare will no longer be using the Emergency rooms as their primary care provider - they'll be getting doctors care BEFORE their conditions also spiral out of control and require costlier treatments. To counter your last phrase, "Without healthcare reform, it won't matter what they do about jobs".

Peace

yea right in Massachusett where health care is already law Emergency room has raise 75% because the doctor can not see them without appoint six month in Advance

I agree, JD, this health care plan has some good parts but I am just worried about the cost.

Can someone please explain how it will decrease the deficit by 138 trillion in ten years?

And you are aware of the reasons behind the increase, how?

quilter-how can you say yourRX was raised because of this bill when the bill wasnot even sure of passage.

You statement is based on what you assume, not on facts. In the last year everyones health care premiums jumped up and the prescription drugs are right behind them. If the bill did not pass, these costs would still have risen.

During negotiations with the pharms, there was an article about a raise by the pharms for their products, even though the economy indicated there should be a reduction in prices. I thought the article was probably written by some right wing radical until I got my next prescription and it had the 65% increase from the month before. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know price gouging when you see it.

And this isn't the first company to close because of the bill, and certainly won't be the last. Let's just hit Americans where we live, why don't we??

Are you serious?

LMAO!!!!!

It can't be that bad. After all, you have time to post here in the middle of the day.

No company has closed just because of the bill, and most likely, none will. The bill is not even signed, so there could be no possible effects yet. Someone who was going to close up anyway could use the occasion to shift the blame elsewhere. Also, I would be skeptical of businesses owned by republicans that might be trying to make some kind of false political statement. That is always possible, of course.

He closed before the bill is signed? I dont think thats why he closed my friend. Unless of course you work for a lobbyist firm.

excellent point, Paul

MANY employers have stated they will close their doors rather than be forced into the government health care scam. They know the bill is going to be signed, they know they are goingto get sucked into the abyss and they want to get out before they get embroiled in the IRS strongarm tactics.

Just because you friends of Socialism say it's not so, doesn't mean it's not so. In fact, that is more reason to believe it is so. Listen around you. Watch as businesses close. Then blame it on Bush instead of on Obama's Health Scare Program.

Paul, aquatone: Are you two for real??? Any business owner faced with unstainable cost increases would close as soon as possible. To do so would save their assets! What the heck would you do, wait for bankruptcy, and lose everything??? Some of us even run our personal finances that way! Thats why we don't need a government hand out!

ridiculous. Illegals are specifically excluded from health care reforms, regardless of what you may have heard.

Yea the not going to care for them if they are sick or dying at the hospital.. 30 million that are now going to get it for free.. Obama needs the votes since he has just lost 60% of the American peoples votes..

Right. As if we just turn 'em away now, and let 'em die. How do you see an increase in such costs after reform? Are you predicting that illegals will be both helped, and harmed by it, at the same time? That's basically what you implied. Ridiculous.

illegals may be specifically excluded but the headlines yesterday was that Obama and Congress will now turn to immigration reform and "probably" turn all the illegals into legal citizens in a blanket amnesty. We'll pay for them either way.

If they go from being illegals to being tax payers...they will also have to buy insurance. This would end up in a reduction in the amount of money hospitals have to write off for non payment.

If you think that the illegals won't be covered simply because they wrote something in the bill, you might want to look at the recent Supreme Court decision against the Texas Board of Education! Remembering that obama is a constituional law professor, he knows full well they will be!

What does "on welfare" mean?

Can you explain it ?

Who said ANYTHING about free? I wish.

"Yes, I think I'll go on welfare and live below the poverty level, so I can enjoy the good life." Gadzooks, man.

Isn't welfare that check you get in the mail from the government? And if you want to make that check bigger, just plop out a few more babies.

coloradoan

DO you know how long a person could recieve a government check? Let me clue you in. IF you could qualify to get one (good luck with that) you could do it ONCE for 10 Months, and then if you could prove a disability (good luck with that too) you could possibly qualify for a review.

Thats the reality of Welfare. Once, for 10 months at $686 a month. Doesn't matter how many babies you have.

Wrong Clarke; Limited to a two year period out of every five years. Increases depending upon the size of your family. Maybe in your area the limit is $686.00 per month, but that is not everywhere. For example, Nebraska's medicaid will be superior to most states, since the other states will be paying whatever Nebraska spends under the Corn Husker Kickback.

That is just one example of how lopsided this system is.

That's not for you to decide, except in your own district.

unfortunatly pelosi isn't going anywhere! Acorn, you know aquas favorite group, will go overthere and drag her constituents out of their holes, hose them off a take them to vote. Fortnately, unless America is truly in terminal decline, she will lose her speakers job!

So you are THRILLED to have handed over one sixth of our economy to the same group of thieves that have plundered Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and mismanaged the post office into bankrupcy! Can you name one program that has been successfully managed by our government with out resorting to debt economics?

jack-that one sixth of the economy is false. Do some fact checking. It was a republican scare tactic. Absolutely not true.

You really think that this "health care bill" is a "basic need"? Let's just say for an instance that health care is a basic need for all the citizens of this country. Let's just "pretend" that an individual who is employed and has health insurance gets sick. This person has a rare condition that currently only has "experimental" options to treat it.

The experimental treatments are limited to a certain amount of individuals who are "allowed" to join. Don't you think that these indivduals who are told about the experimental treatments should have a choice to take the treatment and try to save their own life? Instead, MOST individuals are not ALLOWED to join due to federal policies and beauratric red tape.

Instead the person who has paid taxes, had insurance, and played by the rules DIES because of goverment red tape. Now you think that the health care bill is going to reform this? Do you really think that the government has the INDIVIDUAL's best interest in mind? Whether or not someone screams SOCALISIM, or the USSR did it and FAILED, government does not have the individual in mind.

you're not a democrat

I'm sorry, Lynn, but if you're on MA, you're now getting ripped off. Plain and simple. Life after reform will prove to be better for you, even if you help vote the representatives - who actually helped you - right out of office.

I have my doubts that you are a "registered Democrat", but...

Sorry aquatone, you are wrong. I have studied the health industry both domestic and foreign as well as being a key participant in this field. No one will be better off. Quality will deteriorate (the best and the brightest will not go into medicine) and, quantity will be a problem (who wants to study for 12 years in order to be a state employee). Even with out adding 31 million newly insured, our present system is sadly lacking professionals to handled those presently insured. Our medical schools are unable to provide the present level of physicians needed. There are so many other solid viable fixes to our problems. What our politicians have given us is a process that will create fiscal and moral failures. This is not an issue of Democrats vs. Republicans or Socialist vs. Capitalist. To view it so is to understand it from a narrow and myopic perspective.

Judging from your words, you have your mind made up and aren't in any mood to listen, so I'll just attack your statement regarding social security. You're either gullible, or just flat lying like a rug. Social security is totally solvent now, and will continue paying benefits until at least 2050, with NO CHANGES WHATSOEVER. If minor changes are made, it can last almost indefinitely. It will start taking in less than it pays out sometime this decade. That doesn't mean it's broke, though. Research it and see for yourself, since you won't believe me anyway.

No aquatone. Social Security's health is measured positively because they hold billions in IOU's. Guess who was the recepient of these loans? Yes, you got it. Other branches of the government. The Social Security Administration is recently attempting to collect on these IOU's The problem is that the government does not have the money to pay back its loans to the SSA. So, yes, technically you are right, the Administration is solvent on paper. But like every candy store that crosses a politicians path, it is raided. What good does it do you to have IOU assets of billions of dollars if they are un-collectable?

The dems just gave themselves the best possible shot of holding on to their majorities. If you think passing it was bad, just consider what these same people would think if it had FAILED. Winning was better, and I'm proud of them either way.

Aquatone, your "pride" in these congressmen and women is naive. They didn't do it for you. They couldn't care less about what you think. The fact that you agree with them is merely convenient, but not a factor in their decision making. They are not on your side anymore than they are mine.

And they have absolutely zero chance of keeping a majority in the house. It'll be a bloodbath.

Thank you-follow the money-you betcha!

I remember Clinton getting lots of money from china for his campaign.....and then......WOW.... China advances 50yrs on there nuclear program....YEAH HAW!!!

Just don't tell me you're surprised by any of this.

Why didn't you show the democrats lobbying receipt, because most of theirs is from attorneys, and much larger total than any republicans. Can you read. or just have a biased agenda like alphabet news?

For you other lost souls counting on low income to avoid taxes, do you really believe taxpayers over $250,000 pay taxes, majority of them are in business, do you know what happens when abusiness gets tax bill, cost of goods goes up to pay. You're not going to see cost of this abortion on tax bill yet, but you will start paying IMMEDIATELY. That's the only benefit.

As far as benefit of unlimited benefits, guaranteed issue, coverage for all. no prexisting denial, insurance companies base premiums on amount of risk it is approved by state department of insurance in every state they operate, when they demand these items be covered you will see a lot bigger premium increase than you saw this year. They can't operate without adequate premiums to cover benefits state won't allow it. Wait till government gives these policies to everyone who couldn't get coverage or didn't want to pay higher premiums for their conditions you are not going to recognize the cost of government demanded insurance.

There must not have been one knowledgeable congressman anywhere to come up with such asinine bills if that were purpose. But they didn't care about any one health care, THIS IS ALL ABOUT GOVERNMENT CONTROL, listen to all involved. Dingle takes a long time to get everything in order to control people.,

No, I wanna be JUST LIKE YOU, instead.