It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The U.S. Senate has passed an $871 billion health care reform plan.

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 02:07 AM
The US health sector is much like the energy sector in New Zealand it has been under regulated for a long time . Forcing people to buy health insurance wont make the poorest of the poor people to be able to do so . Clearly without any new regulations the rip off merchants will continue to plunder the American people . My own personal feeling is that Obama wanted to create a system based on the NHS but the insurance company lobbyists wouldn't let him . So that himself and the dems would be seen as acting on the issue of health care affordability the current scheme was devised .

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 10:34 PM
These statistics from the U.S. Bureau of Labor are pretty eye-opening.

The VAST majority of the highest paid jobs in America are in the
healthcare field. No wonder even President Obama is afraid to upset these
professions with a Public Option or Medicare Buy-In program for those under
age 65.

posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 08:43 PM

Originally posted by Seiko
reply to post by infinite

Well they're not providing healthcare, they are forcing us to buy insurance. The whole reason this started is because people think the insurance system is failing, but now we're forced through law to buy it or be criminals.

Uhmm, we already have to buy it in order to drive, or be criminals. It's more of the same, but I think when they forced us to have auto insurance (even if we can't even afford it), they handed lots of power and money to the insurance companies, years ago. They were already getting tons of money from regular customers, then more with the addition of new customers that didn't want to get jail time/ tickets (and even if you get a ticket for no insurance, that money goes to the government, who is backing insurance in the first place). But they still needed a bailout hardly a decade later, and now they are after more money and power, and that's even less money the already struggling everyday person has to feed themselves and their family. Not to mention that insurance is a system set up of betting against yourself. It would make more sense to make people open a savings account and put money into it so that they will have it for any need, not just what their insurance covers, and so they won't have a set limit on coverage amounts.

Sorry for the rant!

posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 09:31 PM
reply to post by Libertygal

health insurance at 8% - %14 of my income would be fantastic, but I am over 50 and of course I have had "pre-existing conditions", though not serious or expensive to treat at all.

ATS, in general, from I have seen and read is a very young bunch of people so please keep that in mind, as things are now, the older you get up to the age of 65 - it gets incredibly expensive even if you're healthy, so yeah, 14% of my income would be great. My brother pays about 1/3 of his income to his health insurance company. He's incredibly healthy and fit and has never once gotten any health care or testing at's just the way it is for us over 50.

posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 10:31 AM
All I can think about is how The Dems supposedly were voting for this "change".

Can some of you think back to the elections?

When I tried to understand Obamas messages, He was talking about cleaning up washington, stopping corruption etc. All of those people who voted for him surely aren't the biggest supporters of the IRS and taxation. So basically free HC sounds like a great idea and may be needed, but giving more authority to the IRS however you want to define it, flies right in the face of what all these people were trying to accomplish when they voted the way they did. These are the sides of these policies some of you aren't paying attention to.

new topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in