scrubbedexpat091

If thats what they are calling affordable, I must be in the not poor enough but not rich enough because the amounts its bringing back for me is still not within a range I can afford.

HarryTheSpider

Looking at this feed on the BBC web site - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18582607

I note an email from a reader - "Ricardo in Grand Prairie, Texas Emails: The only reason the NHS in England and CHA in Canada work is because there are less people in those countries. Such a system would be unsustainable in the US simply because there are 318 million people in the US.
The US is slowly but surely losing its way as laws such as these, which increase the size of the government, continue to be enacted. What happened to the freedom to choose whether or not you wanted health insurance, or even what kind/amount of coverage? Such a question is best left to the individual person."

Interesting logic - the NHS only works in England (what about the rest of the UK?!) because of the small size - try running a national health service with a population of 1, and see what that costs the individual!!!

And what about the freedom to choose to not have health insurance?

I'm all for that... don't pay, don't go and seek medical help, you blood sucking freeloading kn*b head...

Actually, I'm not all for that - there are plenty of people in any society that simply lack the capability to reason at a usefully critical level, and this may be due to many factors beyond their control - I'd rather not pay elevated costs to cover their medical bills while they pay nothing. I'd much rather have a single payer system, or what ever it's called...

Also of interest is the largely party-line split. What does this say really about the nature of the SCOTUS really? What does it also say about the nature of the cases put before it? Tricky.

Does this present a problem for the GOP in getting on side those voters who clearly like the benefits of some, if not all, of the provisions of the act? And what about Romney, who has enacted some similar provisions when Governor of Ma?

Interesting indeed.

WHat I hope does happen is that my employer gets to retain the on-site, $0 co-pay clinic we have at work - they're excellent on so many different levels...

fatbrit

You may find it good, but the connection between your employer and your healthcare is where the system started going wrong. I'm afraid my hope is that the next healthcare legislation breaks this insidious link.

Bink

I'm not sure I read it correctly when I entered all my info (and assume no employee healthcare) but it seemed to imply that my maximum costs would be $10,699 premium and $12,500 out of pocket.
Surely they don't consider that affordable... I mean I guess the premium isn't a rip off, but the maximum out of pocket costs are massive, or at least seem to be.

helwardman

Absolutely agree.

Bink

It's mad isn't it. It's not until you stop and think about it but when you aren't working, you're up a very brown and smelly creek without a paddle (whether that's retirement or unemployment between jobs or whatever).

fatbrit

How many people in America are cowered into a job just to maintain their/their families healthcare coverage? Stalin was a mere beginner compared to corporate America.

kimilseung

The Bill seems to be a Republican dream bill, although not a Tea Parties. Not far off Romney-care, not far off the Republican solutions during Clinton. Makes people responsible. The ability to have some choice as to which policy to have (beyond changing job). All seems very Thatcheresque. It is what Reagan would want.

It was amusing listening to Romney trash the verdict, just no correlation to the facts that I could see.

Giantaxe

I'm convinced that a lot of opposition to the mandate has come about solely because it was proposed by Obama.

Bink

My biggest peeve with politics... It often comes down to an us vs them mentality, not what is best for the country and its people.

Sally Redux

This seems to be taking it to extremes though.

HarryTheSpider

I understand that.

In my particular situation, my employer doesn't pay any medical insurance premiums - it pays the medical bills and pays an insurance company to administer it. I get coverage that is very very good by US standards, from what I'm told. I pay $50 approx a month to have some little extras, mainly my spouse, included on the same cover. The clinic is on site, very convenient. There are no restrictions on anything on the basis of religion or politics. In fact the whole set up drives a preventative mindset in the employees. It's good for health, and it works very well for the company on several levels. Frankly I'd like to see everybody in the US have this kind of cover, ease of access, quality etc etc. Then it wouldn't matter. I'm fortunate to work for an enlightened employer, with an equally enlightened CEO. That puts him in a minority of probably 10!

And yes, it is a reason to not jump ship to another employer. It is a way to add more value to my overall package without having to layout the actual value of it in cash terms... I get that. I appreciate that in many other situations we see the insidious side of unintended consequences, as pointed out by FatBrit. Romney claims Obama Care means the government gets between you & your doctor. How is this different than your employer getting between you & your doctor in many cases? Or the insurance company, for that matter?

HarryTheSpider

Meh. Stalin did manage to kill many more people, and get away with that and a dodgy 'tache. And he managed to do it without spending anything like as much money.

fatbrit

Are you sure he killed more?

Lion in Winter

The point of a government is to make it possible for you to see your doctor (and pay him/her).

Better yet, the point of a government is to make it possible for everyone to see their doctor, because public health is a public good from which we all benefit, and because it is the mark of a civilized society to care for its members as a society. The point of a government is to solve problems for the members of its society that cannot be solved by individuals.