Seems it finally passed. What are your views on the subject?

Personally, I'd rather prefer if they tried to change the insurance system, a broken mess that makes profit by not allowing coverage. The country is stressed enough as it is and I'm not sure we can actually handle healthcare of this size with our size and economic situation.

Well, I am not affected but from what I heard it is at least an improvement in several areas. Women and men get charged the same, and everyone is at least mandated to have some kind of coverage. etc.

And considering this is actually pretty much what the republicans wanted 20 years ago I think it is a reasonable legislation for the US context.

And it showcases how crazy the some parts of the far right have become in the last 20 years. (perhaps they were always this crazy and I just didn't notice). I mean some Republican from Michigan immediately started talking about armed resistance against the government about this. *shudders*

Its a success imho.

The Republican party had a massive change during the mid-90s when they started to try and appeal to the Christian right movements. They're a shadow of their original selves, I'm not even sure if they even remember what Reagen would actually want.

It's almost like I'm living in an alternate universe from America.

I look at the front page of the Huff post and the headline is about people up in arms about a proposition of a private healthcare option AND DIRECTLY UNDER IT is the line "Obamacare Lives", as if it's such a surprise that healthcare reforms can happen in north America that they just had to announce it.

I really don't have an opinion on this matter other than it surprises me to no end that this system has been going strong for this long without any reform.

THIS.

Again, I'm Canadian, so not really affected. I am rather concerned whether this was one of the right areas for Obama to introduce reform into first (especially given the American right's reaction), but something had to be done eventually. I shall watch what follows eagerly.

Some democrats did try originally to do this, but then Republicans and few more conservative Democrats refused to act on the bill, unless it was watered down (not that many Republicans actually voted for the bill even when the Democrats proposed a compromise).

I remember when I was in the U.K. where generally conservatives and more the socialist leaning parties (liberal means something different in the UK then in the US), both found the resistance to national health care in the U.S. amusing and silly. I'm not even sure the most radically conservative protectionist party in the U.K. would be against a national health system.

Yeah, because the UK has a great healthcare system that doesn't have people being forced to buy insurance they don't want and/or can't afford, even with the proposed reduced rates. UK also pays for their doctors to go to medical school and in exchange, they work for the crown for the first 5 years of their career. After that, if they want to open a private practice and make a lot of money, that's their business. I want that for the US. If fireman, police, and rescue teams are paid for by taxes, why aren't doctors? Granted, UK has CRAZY high taxes but at least it's doing SOME good. Because it would cause a tax increase, it'd be difficult to pass such a motion here. Not like there's this big, overly funded branch of the government they could funnel the money from.


Except, you know, THE MILITARY. And this is coming from a guy who likes the military-industrial complex and even I think the military way beyond over funded.

I'd like to note that all of this is based on what I know and am not trying to sound like a know it all. If I have made some error, please politely point it out to me. Nothing makes a conservative type like me dumber faster than out right mocking me. Seen it before. Hell, lived it before.

Well as I understand it people who can't afford healthcare get it for free. That is the reason why it actually is called "The affordable Healthcare act". And all others need to pay in because people who don't constitute the biggest group of private bankruptcies in the US.

Ok to clear things up about the UK, life insurance is never mandatory, you never have to get it, it is only if you go to a private hospital do you have to. Even if you body is in terrrible condition you will get treated for free.

Doctors do not have to work for the crown for the first five years, they can do whatever they want, it is just the market is comfartable enough for them here unless you are specialized, then it gets a bit more dicey.

Noone really has a problem with paying the increased taxs, it is better than finding you have a £10,000+ bill to pay suddenly and then not having the money at the time, it is a lot more convenient and we know we are going to get seen, even if it takes a while. The prolem we have is what else is taxed and to what rate (Whoop whoop highest petrol prices in Europe).

Of course it has it's own problems but I feel more comfortable with this system than what you lot used to have.

Everything has a cost to pay, one of the key questions is whether that cost is better handled by the more general choices the government makes through taxes or debt, or if it is better to let individuals bare the responsibility for choices on their own. In my opinion as much as the government can be incompetent and wasteful, it pales to how bad people are usually when they choose to handle there own costs and benefits.

Generally most people don't have the tools (experience and a team of expert advisers in a variety of fields) in my opinion to do what is best for themselves, let alone the general population where they live. While it is a good thing to distrust government, especially since officials generally put politics and election in front of helping others, it is still better to trust in them and the professional advise they have then to trust in the average person. Without a large body that manages what is best for people, I feel you are looking a system where individuals are mostly blindly and selfish trying to manage problems that are generally beyond them (without the benefit of borrowing a government has). This leads to major economic imbalance, and inequality.