There is no difference. A doctor should and can be responsible for deciding when and where they want to work. Many doctors and other medical professionals today don't accept insurance. They have every right in the world to do so if that's what they choose. This isn't a dictatorship.
Which predictions are you talking about? This sentence doesn't even make sense. However, I do know that health insurance could have been supplied to EVERY SINGLE uninsured person in the country for MUCH less than obamacare is projected to cost, without affecting the insurance of those that already had it. That is a fact. This mandate isn't about getting coverage to those that truly can't afford it. If you think that is the real goal, I've got a bridge to sell you.
You've got to be absolutely kidding me. You're calling out somebody who gave $506 MILLION for not giving enough? How much did you give last year? What a joke. What a disgrace.
There's a huge difference. Doctors take an oath to heal the sick. Next you'll be saying they can choose to deny their services because of their political affilliations or race..Granted it's expensive to go to medical school. The cost of higher education is another topic for discussion. The Nazis could refuse to provide medical services to the Jews or Gypsies for example. That's not democracy, that's facism. If we want our country to be a shining example of democracy, we need to address our public health system. It's not perfect but it's an effort to start changing things. Obama care has flaws. Not quite as many as Congress, but it has flaws. If you are a doctor, you can choose to only care for the wealthy or become a plastic surgeon in Beverly Hills. Then you just won't have to deal with the disadvantaged or homeless. Many do.
We're not a democracy. ObamaCare doesn't address our public health system. It actually is fascist - a government rigidly controlling private enterprise (insurance industry). If it were about a public health system, they'd have made another public health system to go along with the Veterans Administration (which is a public health system). http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism fas·cism [fash-iz-uhm] Show IPA noun 1. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism. 2. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism. 3. ( initial capital letter ) a political movement that employs the principles and methods of fascism, especially the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.
Sorry Denny, we are a democracy and the president is not a dictator. I have several dictionaries as well. I understand you dislike Obamacare but this is beyond a stretch. One might suppose insurance agencies and their lobbies in the capital are involved in politics. If a president takes on Wall Street for insider trading, it's a good thing, not a dictatorship. If he takes on the banking system when it's causing chaos in the housing industry, it's not a dictatorship and all of those are independant companies. If a president goes after tax shelters in the Caymans or Swiss banks, that's not a dictatorship. It's a president trying to do his job. I commend the man. I'm proud of our democracy.
We are a republic, not a democracy. Use your dictionary, dammit! The frigging law has his name on it, and he's changing it without consent of congress. It's as dictatorial as it can be under the current political/economic environment. If telling insurance companies what they must cover isn't regimenting industry, then what is it? If telling consumers they must buy it or else isn't regimenting commerce, what is it? The connection between Insurance giants and government is downright fascist. What's the difference between health insurance and health care? You don't need the former to provide the latter.
In my view, the biggest difference between health insurance and health care is one will pull your tooth and the other will repair it. Don't get me started on Congress. The same Congress that's made it's primary concern voting itself raises and vacation time while stalling any progress in order to make the administration appear to be unable to pass any legislation, although they have tried. I'm not a Democrat or a Republican but this GOP led Congress is an insult to representation. Their job has been to discredit the government in order to keep lobbyists happy and get some fuel for the next election.
If auto insurance worked like health insurance, you would have a copay to put gas in the tank. But it works like INSURANCE. If you total your car, it buys you a new one. Health care is hiring doctors and buying medicine and providing facilities to treat people who have some ailment. Insurance companies do not buy medicine, hire the doctors, etc. The difference is a fairly important one. It's unconstitutional for congress to vote itself pay raises. AMENDMENT XXVII Originally proposed Sept. 25, 1789. Ratified May 7, 1992. No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.
No dicatatorship will allow a leader to be voted out of office or impeached. (amendment by riverman after his second double espresso)
It's not a fixation, it's a choice and a point of view. I support the president's actions and although I'd never make the debate team, I do love our democratic freedom of speech. I've been in countries with soldiers armed on the streets and to call this country facist is a point of contention with me. Comparing Obama with a Kim Jong Un is a gross distortion of reality. The espresso is good though, we agree at least on that
Which would cost less: 1) paying a middleman (insurance companies) 2) hiring doctors to provide the required care It is absurd to charge someone $250/month for a plan with $5000 deductible. The person is paying for $5K of care out of his pocket on top of the monthly theft. Get rid of the $250/mo and charge people what it costs for the actual care at the point the care is provided. Let people shop for the combination of price and expected result. We already have hundreds of programs to help the poor, it is only an incremental bit more to subsidize catastrophic care. If govt. wants to control costs, it can open its own hospitals and hire doctors and buy equipment and meds in bulk. Consumers can choose that over private options, and many will. ObamaCare extracts that $250/mo from someone's wallet and gives it to the insurance companies. Good for shareholders, not for anyone else. $250/mo pays for dozens of flu shots, doctor visits, lab tests, and prescriptions. Or food and rent.
Yes, very similar to Hitler's government and the relationship with several of his industrialist, Krupp being the most notable.
A dictator is not defined by how he leaves office, but by the fact he creates and changes the laws without interference from others. It is yet to be determined how Obama leaves office.
Giving away medicare to poor people will do that. Obama cheerleader site: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...macare-percentage-uninsured-falls-156-percent The Congressional Budget Office has projected that 13 million Americans will get health insurance because of Obamacare. Gallup's numbers would correspond to a significantly smaller decline, although the numbers depend on what you choose as a starting point. Then again, Gallup's numbers don't account for the end of open enrollment—when, by all accounts, large numbers of people rushed to sign up for coverage. They also don't account for a full year of enrollment in Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, since people can sign up for those programs all year long.
