This article says Obamacare means people would be entitled to purchase healthcare and then says people would be compelled to purchase healthcare. Which is correct?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24353675

Many people previously couldn't get coverage due to pre-existing conditions. They now cannot be denied coverage. However they do have to buy insurance if they are not covered under an employer scheme or similar. There are subsidies for the low-paid.

The bill is a compromise which keeps insurance companies happy.

The current (pre-Obamacare) set-up means that uninsured people present at emergency rooms. If they cannot pay the hospital bill, they are driving up the costs for others. But some who are used to this arrangement prefer it to having to pay something. Also they are fed a lot of scare stories about 'socialized medicine' and how it will kill you.

It is compulsory and it isn't. I think this explains it quite well: Obamacare explained

Basically, if you are not covered by your employer, you will have to purchase it if your income is above a certain level.

That sounds reasonable and is long overdue.

It's good that Obama is finally showing some backbone on something.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...obamacare.html

Let's not forget some things though. The US Government "shutdown" orchestrated by the fringe Tea Party loonies is really a manifestation of the whole gamut of problems inherent in the present day US.

But, on the bright side for the US, the Tea Party loonies are still fringe.

In Canada they're the government.

Obamacare will ruin the American healthcare system...

The USA presently leads the world in it's innovative, ground breaking approaches to health care, an example of which can be seen here, in this effective, if somewhat unconventional, postnatal depression counseling session.

That pretty much sums it up.