Well I had a friend, long sotry short, she worked for a long time, divorce, crisis, she didn't have health care while she moved to a new place and was looking for a job. She had a problem with her shoulder, where she couldn't really move it past certain angles without serious pain. She couldn't even get an X-Ray done to know what was up until she found insurance of some sort.  I am sorry, but a system where you can't even get an X-Ray done is an outright broken system. Even in the broken economies of Eastern Europe I can go get an X-Ray done for about 20 USD.  Definitely doesn't go along with the "pursuit of happiness" idea.

@Mafoo

I am going to overlook the laughable metaphor you used to call taxes slavery. I'm well aware it was supposed to be property since those are the exact same words Locke used. Again you cite that the government shouldn't take your money for someone else, then here is my question. By those standards why should they take your money for defense or the roads? Are you going to use the roads on the other side of the country? Will the soldiers over in Alaska somehow personally defend you? Why do you accept even those taxes? It seems to me that you are a very strong supporter of anarchy.

So if we were a country of two, and you made twice as much as me, you would not think the government taking 25% of your income to give to me (so we made the same), is not a hindering your pursuit of happiness?

As for military, all people are protected the same by it. Yes, the Navy personel in Alaska is defending me, along with all Americans just the same.

You keep calling me an anarchist. I guess I will start doing the same. You are starting to sound a lot like a communist.

See how stupid that sounds?

I don't see how those Alaskan personel are defending you considering that attacks seem to be coming in from a completely different direction. In fact you don't even live there so they don't really protect you, they protect whoever is in Alaska. You seem to have dodged the infrastructure question as well.

If I and you were just a country of two I''d give you 100% of my income if I had to keep you around because otherwise I'd go insane by being alone. Also if we made the same there's a lot less chance you will stab me in the back to get my money. In either case, we'd prosper more if we had equivalent monies.

I'm fine with being a communist, at least it's some semblance of government that ensures human progression.

It will pass but by a slim margin. The executive order (which doesn't take effect until 2014 and may be reversed at anytime) brought the pro-life Stupak Dems on board.

I would expect a judicial challenge by the states but the question here is standing.

From my (limited) understanding knowing many Canadians who have paid out of pocket for medical care in the US, there is very little you can't pay cash for in the American healthcare system; and an X-Ray and medical consultation would probably cost less than $500. While that is certainly not cheap, lack of insurance was certainly not the reason she couldn't get it.

@mirgro -

Here is my question:

Why didn't she have insurance when she moved to another state?

Well for one... it's not free healthcare.  And not in the "someone has to pay for it" free healthcare.

It's in the... people still have to pay for their own healthcare, this does nothing to control costs, and are going to offer subsidies that will probably at best cover the increases that result in all of the assesability additions.

As was already stated... the WHO studies didn't actually hold a single statistic that involved the results of actual healthcare... the closest thing they rated that was considered how effective healthcare was, was asking people "How healthy they feel."

That was it, and that doesn't even take in numerous cultural factors that would effect such an answer.  For example, the US is VERY high on stress.

Here is the problem:

No system is free. Someone pays in every system. In European systems, there are general taxes to ensure that everyone has health care. It does see *some* health savings.

In our system, if we had such a tax, and kept the underlying problems intact (which for the most part, they are still there with current legislation), then the cost to people for a European-style system would be FAR more expensive.

Imagine suddenly paying 2-3 times as much for your health care as you do now. Would you want such a system? If not, that is what we would get. The American system of health care has some problems - there isn't sufficent competition, and there is much frivolity and corruption in the current program. Oh, and don't forget that any extra health care in the US doesn't tackle underlying problems like obesity which increase health care costs in general.

Just chiming in that Obama cancelled his trip to Australia to pass this bill. Great show of support for supposed allies. Then in his speech about his newly planned trip to this part of the world he only mentioned Indonesia and had to issue an clarification that he was going to Australia aswell.

Plenty of Aussies are pretty pissed atm about it. Not that I personally care that much, but it seems that everything the Obama administration does this week has pissed people off.

Efficiency: Collect premiums from your healthy customers for years. When they eventually need health care, refuse to pay their claims, then find a reason to drop them entirely.