Media admits Joe Wilson was rude--but right--on Obama's Obamacare shilling.

[Nanuk]

I still need to know how the government will have control over it. It's all still the same players in the game. It's nothing like the NHS in the UK.

1. The government now requires everyone to participate.
2. Those who do not participate will be fined and/or jailed by the government.
3. The government now requires all employers to fill out a 1099 tax form showing the value of health insurance it provides every employee.
4. Everyone getting health insurance from their employer will now be taxed bu the government on the value of those benefits.
5. The government will now set fees for many medical procedures, taking the right to set their own fees away from the providers.
6. The government will now determine which treatments a person may or may not receive under it's policy. (Say hello to death panels, folks!)


In short, there are few aspects of medical care now that will not have a government hand upon them, either determining who can get what, who will be paid how much, or assigning the costs to other people who aren't even seeking treatment.

Oh, and as to your last bit, like many other Americans, I'm willing to at least consider whatever it takes to get Big Brother's hand off my back and out of my wallet.

The Obamacare scheme should be put to a vote of every citizen, and only the people who vote "yes" will be bound by it's requirements or forced to pay for it.

[Kensey]

Likewise, if the nation's insurance companies had been allowed to compete freely for everyone's business instead of generally being restricted to only operating within one state's boundaries, there would have been plans offered for almost every budget.

But the "prohibition" on interstate insurance competition is a result of the McCarran-Ferguson Act, which exempted insurance companies from federal anti-trust regulation where the states regulated insurance. All states do, and all states apparently prohibit buying plans out of state. That protects insurance companies in each state, which they all love because they get to charge higher rates. So it's not a matter of "allowing" interstate competition, as though the insurance companies were chomping at the bit for it. In fact, the insurance companies themselves are the biggest opponents of any attempt to narrow or repeal McCarran-Ferguson.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

But big brother's hand is already on your back, and in your wallet. That's why it's important to stop those types of advances on privacy dead in their tracks. There's a reason that terrorists were propped up in the wiretap/privacy legislation, to minimize opposition. Look at how you mocked my opposition to it, as opposed to considering potential future impacts on your privacy. There's a reason that people are talking about drug testing for welfare recipients. The privacy thing, well, that will pretty much stop an actual real revolution which would most likely be conducted by the same type of people who supported the Patriot Act. Irony, indeed. And the drug testing welfare folks thing will eventually lead to ignition interlocks being made standard on all vehicles.

Big Brother IS the slippery slope that you've warned me about so many times before...

People really should look into the long-term effects on legislation, instead of looking at the 'instant gratification' aspect that so many Americans seem to be geared towards. Never forget that you can't have freedom without risk.