Obamacare & Government Shutdowns

Jonny7

Anyway, this is getting eerily similar to the actual health care debate on capitol hill, petty partisan tit-for-tat.

The current admin are taking a stab at reforming the healthcare system. The opposition by virtue of the fact that they are the opposition have been.. opposing it, nothing surprising there

I genuinely like some of the Republicans, and I'm not having a go, but jesus christ some of them are relics from the Cold War who seem to think anything with the word "universal" in it is tantamount to rolling out the carpet for the reds

The career politicians and lobby groups and insurance behemoths and so on will extract their pound of flesh.. and most critics and cynics on both sides of the fence will likely have a stab.. but at the end of the day, it's nigh on impossible to introduce a system that is actually any worse than the previous system, any by previous system I mean the elephant in the room which has largely been untouched and unchecked since the 60's

I come from the magical land of Europe, where we actually have good universal healthcare.. begrudgingly.. so somehow we've managed to overcome petty politics for a brief moment in order to make something that everyone benefits from. My friend's friend got a very rare, very nasty form of cancer.. he didn't have to lie in a hospital bed going through the small print of a contract, searching for some clause, from a private profit-making company, that would saddle one of his relatives with debt for the rest of their lives

Where I live, healthcare costs are not a worry, because I don't have to think about them.. it's inconceivable that a first world country has to struggle to introduce something like this.

InTheTrees

Jonny7 wrote: »

I come from the magical land of Europe, where we actually have good universal healthcare.. begrudgingly.. so somehow we've managed to overcome petty politics for a brief moment in order to make something that everyone benefits from.

They have a functioning universal system right next door in Canada too.

You'll only rarely hear it mentioned though.

InTheTrees

Jonny7 wrote: »

Where I live, healthcare costs are not a worry, because I don't have to think about them.. it's inconceivable that a first world country has to struggle to introduce something like this.

That the government should be involved in Healthcare (meaning their taxes might be increased) is more abhorrent to them than caring for their fellow citizens.

It is hard to explain to someone from outside the US.

clairefontaine

InTheTrees wrote: »

That the government should be involved in Healthcare (meaning their taxes might be increased) is more abhorrent to them than caring for their fellow citizens.

It is hard to explain to someone from outside the US.

Right. Because a $9000 deductible will really help those who can't afford healthcare.

clairefontaine

Jonny7 wrote: »

She referred to the situation as "an undeclared civil war".

Polarisation and generalisation are a big part of the problem with this debate and the wider issue, something I think you'd agree with considering your last remarks on the auld generalisations

What I said was it was LIKE an undeclared war on its citizens. Call it pedantry or call it precision, but Like is not the same as IS.

jman0war

clairefontaine wrote: »

Right. Because a $9000 deductible will really help those who can't afford healthcare.

Yeah i'm sure that's a representative figure too, and not some extreme outlier figure you've plucked from a right wing rant.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

clairefontaine

It's important to consider too the impact on divorces and single parents, given the high numbers. They have to cover themselves and their kids.

No doubt as costs go up so will child support orders, so will the clogging of the courts, so will the enforcement of orders, and more non custodial parents in prison for non payment.

This has ripple effects no one has begun to consider.

jman0war

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'm still waiting for Claire to produce her source.
You call it a fact but that has not been determined.

Regarding your Chicago Tribune story, there are no guarantees that one's insurance premium and deductibles remain the same year on year.

While it is regrettable that that person's insurance provider has taken decisions that raised the deductible, perhaps the best thing to do is to shop around?
For example, does that person get similar coverage they had before with another provider?

Its like this person has some expectation that they should get the same coverage, for the same amount, with the same deductible, with the same clinic and same doctors while the world is changing around them.

jman0war

clairefontaine wrote: »

It's important to consider too the impact on divorces and single parents, given the high numbers. They have to cover themselves and their kids.

No doubt as costs go up so will child support orders, so will the clogging of the courts, so will the enforcement of orders, and more non custodial parents in prison for non payment.

This has ripple effects no one has begun to consider.

Yeah, let's also not loose sight of the millions of Americans that now WILL have healthcare, having been turned away previously for "pre-existing conditions".

But i suppose it's the effect on the wallets of Republicans that's most important.

jman0war

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

From your article:

Avita Samuels has worked at the Mall of America in Minneapolis for the last four years, juggling a sales job with her studies in political science and law at the University of Minnesota. The 24-year-old has been the top sales associate for the last three years and works between 29 and 35 hours a week. But over the past few months, she said, she has watched as friends working in stores around her have their hours and benefits slashed – and she's worried that she will be next.

So she herself isn't actually having the problem, but is just concerned she might.
The article goes on:

Typing Samuel's average earnings of $15,000 a year and her state into the subsidy calculator on the Kaiser Family Foundation website, reveals that, if her employer did not offer healthcare and she were to enter a healthcare exchange, she would be eligible for government subsidy and would pay $300 a year towards the $1,449 cost of a plan. Samuels, who is already struggling financially, said this will represent a massive additional burden should her hours be cut by her employer.

$300 is a "massive burden"?
That's $5.77 per week / 82 cents per day.
Seems like an overstated burden.
She likely spends more per day on a can of coke.

The article doesn't state what she intends to do (even if the Affordable Healthcare Act wasn't around), once her student policy runs out either.

The other case:

The wife of a Trader Joe's part-time worker who contacted the Guardian in response to a callout said her husband was so concerned about potential cost increases, he was considering not buying healthcare insurance at all.
The mother of two, who did not want her name published, said: "My husband is debating getting insurance which scares me as the job is physical so there is always a risk of on site injuries that require medical attention.

On site injuries?
Sounds like something the employer would be responsible for.

Regardless, i'm sure there are genuine cases of people falling through the cracks.
Nobody is claiming that the Affordable Healthcare Act is the single answer to USA's health care problems, but one should be slightly skeptical of the hysterics, the sensationalized, un-sourced, 2nd-hand information the detractors are wildly claiming.
Not a single mention of what THEY would do instead, to bring millions into the health system that were otherwise omitted.
Other people on boards have claimed that the insurers are basically price gouging.
We haven't seen an actual cost analysis of the extra costs to insurers via the Act, vs the extra money from new subscribers they'll receive.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Jonny7

clairefontaine wrote: »

How about the 13 year old boy just shot yesterday by California police because he was carrying a toy gun?

and just to address this

A thirteen year old kid was walking around with this "toy gun"



He didn't put the weapon down when ordered by officers

A day after a 12 yr old shot a maths teacher and 2 pupils

In a country plagued by shootings

Any shooting like this is an absolute tragedy, for the victim, for his family, and even the officer that shot him.

However it should be viewed objectively and in context rather than hijacked for the sole purpose of gravedancing

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Amerika

jman0war wrote: »

Regarding your Chicago Tribune story, there are no guarantees that one's insurance premium and deductibles remain the same year on year.

You’re correct. If, as is becoming evident, the healthy young won’t sign up in anywhere near the numbers expected and needed, and the sick and older Americans end up being the primary individuals taking advantage of the exchanges, then expect to see enormous healthcare premium increases in 2015. The cornerstone of ObamaCare is based on using insurance premiums from younger and healthier people to subsidize health care for older and sicker people. Even MoveOn.org admits that if younger, healthier people don’t participate, then costs will skyrocket and ObamaCare will fail. And thats coming from one of the biggest cheerleaders of ObamaCare.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jman0war

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Are those figures representative of what most subscribers face, or are they outlier figures, extremes?

Here's my original post: Yeah i'm sure that's a representative figure too, and not some extreme outlier figure you've plucked from a right wing rant.
I guess you have chosen to ignore the main point, namely that your side is plucking figures from the extremes to try and justify your general whinge.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Paleface

And the last paragraph of that CNN article states:

It's true that health reform is contributing to higher premiums and plan changes. But Obamacare, which is imposing new fees on companies and insurers starting in 2014, is not the driving factor, experts say. Health care costs are rising because the economy is improving so people are going to the doctor more.

jman0war

You omitted some other choice quotes from that link:

Bryan Tackett, 33, was amazed at the choice of policies on the Washington, D.C., exchange. A contractor at a government relations firm, Tackett has been paying just under $400 a month for a Blue Cross Blue Shield plan with "not terrible, not great" coverage and a $1,500 deductible. But he enrolled in a gold Kaiser Permanente plan on the exchange that has no deductible and "good" co-pays. It includes dental benefits and an annual eye exam -- all for about $270 a month.

"I didn't think there would be that much of a differential between what the private market would offer me and what Obamacare would," said Tackett, who is not eligible for a federal subsidy. "I was surprised, amazed and shocked, but pleasantly so."

---

For Shaundra Smith-McKeithen, Obamacare could literally be a lifesaver. The 43-year-old single mom was laid off from her job as a quality manager at a hospital in May and is now uninsured. She's run out of her blood pressure and depression medications and can't afford to go to the doctor for checkups on her $330 weekly unemployment check.

Since the Savannah, Ga., resident qualifies for a subsidy, she can get a silver level plan for about $50 a month. While she's not thrilled that she'll have to shell out for deductibles and co-pays, she is relieved she'll have coverage again soon.

---

Margaret Hill has been shopping on the Maryland exchange for her unemployed brother, 53, who has hip issues but is uninsured. Since he qualifies for a subsidy, she's found a Coventry One plan for him that could cost less than $25 a month. But she was put off by how much he'll have to spend out of pocket. The Coventry One plan has a $1,500 deductible, and policies with lower costs are hundreds of dollars more.

"I didn't realize the deductibles would be so high," said Hill, who has coverage through her employer.

Still, her brother will sign up. "It's better than what he has now, which is nothing," she said

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

clairefontaine

Jmaowar, I notice you keep demanding numbers and links from all the so called right wingers but haven't provided any yourself.

jman0war

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes i wonder what her expectation was.
At least she HAS insurance now, whereas before she had none.
Is that preferable?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No, i have only insinuated that they are outlier figures.
Something you have not attempted to address.

There is widespread discontent with the realities of Obamacare, even in the Democratic base. For many people, it makes their situation worse, not better.

I don't know how widespread it is.
I notice you offer no alternatives to the millions of americans that had no insurance due to pre-existing conditions before.

jman0war

clairefontaine wrote: »

Jmaowar, I notice you keep demanding numbers and links from all the so called right wingers but haven't provided any yourself.

I have not cited figures.
You have however, so why don't you just post up your link to freerepublic so we can all have a good laugh.

clairefontaine

South Carolina makes Obamacare illegal.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/2/south-carolina-house-passes-bill-making-obamacare-/

clairefontaine

jman0war wrote: »

I have not cited figures.
You have however, so why don't you just post up your link to freerepublic so we can all have a good laugh.

I love free republic. Has good info on it.

PB has very generously put up many links with lots of credibility. If those wont open your eyes nothing will.

sin_city

clairefontaine wrote: »

I love free republic. Has good info on it.

PB has very generously put up many links with lots of credibility. If those wont open your eyes nothing will.

Some people are just too proud to admit they're wrong.

nagilum2

jman0war et. al. of your ilk, here's a pile of raw data for you to parse though since all the facts others have provided don't seem to suit you:

https://data.healthcare.gov/dataset/QHP-Individual-Medical-Landscape/ba45-xusy

If you look them up, you'll see that deductibles on any of the bronze plans for a family are often more than $10k/yr. Nothing paid until that is paid, out of pocket, on top of the premium.

You might also be interested in this: http://www.rstudio.com/ and this: http://cran.r-project.org/

Have fun. Make sure you let us know your results. We want facts, now.

PS - Don't be upset when we dismiss them out of hand because of the source, though

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Paleface

Intertesting video here from Fox News top dog Bill O'Reilly.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/2769870043001/data-on-obamacare-begins-to-roll-in/

It starts off with his Talking Points memo (this regular feature by the way is as close to propanganda as I have ever seen on prime time tv!) which paints a bad picture of Obamacare in relation to people having their existing insurance policies being cancelled. However this is then followed up by a very interesting interview with a professor of ecomonics from MIT who helped shaped Romneycare and was also an advisor on Obamacare.

O'Reilly tries to point out the flaws in Obamacare but is repeatedly told that he is being too selective with his points and the professor is able to counter his argument almost comprehensibly.

Interesting to note that insurance premiums are rising at a rate of 7 - 10% nationallly as things stand regardless of Obamacare so to then turn around and say its all down to Obamacare is just neglecting that fact plain and simple.

Also the professor stresses this is a long term solution and this has been proved in how Romneycare has been implemented in Massachusetts.

clairefontaine

Washington State is considering forcing its employees to go to the Federal exchange and drop them from the State covering their insurance. Apparantly Virginia is considering something similar.

http://nypost.com/2013/04/24/washington-state-may-force-some-government-workers-to-join-obamas-health-insurance-exchange/

jank

Looks like all the mess regarding the roll out of Obamacare is due to the whitehouse.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/6a192e9c-3c9a-11e3-86ef-00144feab7de.html

The simple explanation is that Mr Obama’s White House is dominated by a coterie of insiders who have learnt that their boss does not like to hear bad news. Nor are friendly whistleblowers made to feel welcome. Whether on Syria, spying revelations or the White House’s preferred candidate to head the Federal Reserve, the president has been caught off guard by recent crises. This is well into his fifth year in office. Even George W Bush grew in his job during his second term – to a large extent by freezing out Dick Cheney, the vice-president, as Peter Baker shows in his new book, Days of Fire.

Of course electioneering has a part to play as well.

As recently as August, the Obama administration made the blunder of telling the exchange’s website to show visitors the price of subsidised insurance rather than the true cost of the premiums. This was to avoid the political fallout of “rate shock” that would hit users when they saw the pre-subsidised cost of insurance. It meant the website had to verify each visitor’s identity before it could display the relevant prices. Changing such a big element of a huge system so late in the day inevitably contributed to its seizing up.

Mjollnir

clairefontaine wrote: »

I love free republic. Has good info on it.

PB has very generously put up many links with lots of credibility. If those wont open your eyes nothing will.

That's the funniest thing I've read here in likely years.

sin_city

Mjollnir wrote: »

That's the funniest thing I've read here in likely years.

You should get out more

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

With all the people getting screwed by politicians posts, I wanted to post a shimmer of light. As a result of Congress and the President exempting themselves and staff from mandates of ObamaCare, Rand Paul (R) has introduced a Constitutional amendment that would hold government officials to the same standard as the American people. No special treatment for Congress, the Executive Branch and the Judicial Branch.

Of course chances of the proposal becoming the 28th amendment of the U.S. Constitution are very remote as it will take both Houses of Congress to support it with a two thirds vote, and then going to each of the 50 states where three fourths of their legislatures would need to approve it.

But if it were voted down, it sure will make the next election rather interesting.



http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1011

So you support this constitution ammendment?

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

So you support this constitution ammendment?

Yes I do.

Even without the ammendment, House and Senate members must decide by 10/31 who out of thousands of congressional aides will be placed in mandated health-insurance exchange, even though they have made themselves exempt. Several Republican leaders, including Mitch McConnell, have decided their staff will enter the ObamaCare exchanges. I have not heard of one Democrat saying they will make their staff follow the same law the rest of the country must follow. And the entire Obama administration has exempted itself from mandates of their own law. But Obama and the Democrats should get a pass as they’re better then the rest of us, right? It’s not like We The People means anything anymore.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Yes I do.

Even without the ammendment, House and Senate members must decide by 10/31 who out of thousands of congressional aides will be placed in mandated health-insurance exchange, even though they have made themselves exempt. Several Republican leaders, including Mitch McConnell, have decided their staff will enter the ObamaCare exchanges. I have not heard of one Democrat saying they will make their staff follow the same law the rest of the country must follow. And the entire Obama administration has exempted itself from mandates of their own law. But Obama and the Democrats should get a pass as they’re better then the rest of us, right? It’s not like We The People means anything anymore.

So you've changed your belief that the constitution should be a frozen document, subject to no further change.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

So you've changed your belief that the constitution should be a frozen document, subject to no further change.

Huh... Revisionist history, eh? I’ve always stated changes to the Constitution should be accomplished through amendments, not as is happening now -- with bizarre interpretations contrary to original intent. But don't take my word for it... use the boards.ie search tool.

rockonollie

Finally got details of my health insurance premiums for next year. Fortunately I'm insured through my employer and they pay a portion of the premium but the most cost effieicent plan we had is no longer available......the plan I subscribe to will have a 30% increase in premium.

Amerika

rockonollie wrote: »

Finally got details of my health insurance premiums for next year. Fortunately I'm insured through my employer and they pay a portion of the premium but the most cost effieicent plan we had is no longer available......the plan I subscribe to will have a 30% increase in premium.

Reality, like gravity, sucks!

Rather then sell ObamaCare to the public as it should have portrayed…that we’re adding 30 million people to the roles of health care insurance, many of whom have expensive health issues, and it requires sacrifice in the form of higher premiums for all in order to achieve the greater good; president Obama sold the public a pack of lies to get his signature health care law passed. Such as… If you like your health care, you can keep your health care! If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor! ObamaCare will decreases premiums $2,500 annually, and healthcare will become "affordable!" But we know the truth would have never allowed ObamaCare to come to fruition. And now the cloak of invisibility has been shed by the reality of higher premiums. Promises mean little to this president because it has been proven over and over again that when they're broken; he simple redefines the promise. The president seemingly relied on an apologetic media to defend him and this boondoggle of a healthcare law when the sh!t finally hit the fan. And the media is happily doing their part ... It's the fault of the public relying on the flashing neon signs of flowery rhetoric by the president, rather than relying on the Rosseta Stone of nuance. And of course, according to the media, the majority of failures in ObamaCare are the fault of GOP obstructionists. But unfortunately for the media, the president and Democrats, the GOP doesn't alter the foundational truth that we were sold a pack of lies by this administration.

But it’s now the law, truth be damned, and to paraphrase Hilllary Clinton… "What difference at this point does it make!!!???"

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nagilum2

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Until more stories come out about scores of people who lost their healthcare coverage with a plan they liked and were unable to pick up additional coverage because the exchange either still didn't work or had plans that would have forced them to drop their existing care.

It's going to get ugly...

MonaPizza

Paleface wrote: »

We are yet again at a point where the GOP are using the threat of government shutdown to prevent Obamacare from becoming law.

In my mind this has got to be the most idiotic political posturing to come out of US politics in recent years. The GOP cannot come out of this looking good and stand to lose no matter what happens.

If Obamacare is so bad and destined to fail, why don't they just let it happen and pick up the pieces afterwards? Makes much more sense strategically to me.

It has NOTHING to do with "obamacare" or anything else.

In America if someone, anyone, wants or needs something then corporations will do their damnedest to make that profitable and fleece those who need this product whether it be a few painkillers, an education, or a roof over your head when things go badly.

In Cuba, that hellhole of Socialist Satanism, not a single child will sleep rough tonight and not a single person who needs medical attention will have to worry about it.

In Holland, you will have 2 to 3 doctors tending to you within 30 minutes of your "episode" and that's simply if you are there. Not some private paying doofus.

In America you could die on a stretcher. You might have to take a train to Canada to get the same box of anti-inflammatories for 40 dollars that would cost you 600 in the US.

I fell on a camping trip in the US and cracked 2 ribs. I spent almost 5 hours in a waiting room in Pennsylvania.....not the busiest hospital by any stretch.
I broke my ankle playing football in Germany 3 years later. I was seen and treated within 15 minutes. And that was in Hamburg, not some hamlet in the arse-end of nowhere.

American healthcare provision is a game, played by ****. Sick people are in need of help but their masters tell them that they are commies or fagg!ts if they want it. And the poor fools believe it.

Black Swan

Before ObamaCare, family health insurance premiums in America had been growing at an extraordinary rate.



Setting aside all the speculations, 2014 political candidate speeches, media spin, or talk show host plays to their bias audiences, if ObamaCare continues (and is not repealed, modified, or otherwise amended out of existence by Congress), it will be interesting to see if medical insurance premiums continue their past increases, increase more, or less overtime as a result of the Act for American families.

Annual per capita health care spending has shown a marked increase overtime in America. Between 2000 and 2010 it almost doubled from $4,550 to $8,402 USD. Will these costs continue to increase at the same rate, increase more, or less after ObamaCare?

While the cost for healthcare in America has increased substantially, has health care improved accordingly? One of many indicators of healthcare is infant mortality rate. The US currently has the highest rate of first-day infant mortality of all industrialized countries.

Amerika

Under ObamaCare, which took effect several years ago, insurance companies have had to pay at least 80% on direct medical care. Yet premiums continued to rise. President Obama promised us that our premiums under ACA would decrease an average of $2,500, yet they increased over $2,500, a negative swing of $5,000 from the promises. 2014 rates under ObamaCare are often much higher on average, with higher deductibles and higher out-of-pocket limits, then they were this year. And rates will skyrocket under ObamaCare if the young don’t sign up in the numbers needed to pay for the sick who will be signing up. And early indications show the young aren’t signing up as expected. I believe the ACA has language in it that the insurance companies will be reimbursed by the government for losses under the ObamaCare. They can raise their premiums for next year (which will truly be unaffordable for the majority), and I forecast that we be hearing soon of another taxpayer funded bailout needed for the insurance companies because of ObamaCare. ObamaCare seemingly didn’t tackle anything other than hope to make healthcare in America affordable. You can't expect to add huge numbers of sick to the insurance roles without seeing the cost of premiums substantially increase, so ObamaCare can only cause insurance premiums to rise at an alarming rate.

And you can look at infant morality rate as an indicator, but it should be noted that the international comparisons rates aren’t comparing the same thing. In the US, we count every baby who shows any sign of life as a "live birth," and much of our infant mortality is contributed to premature births. In much of Europe, babies born before 26 weeks gestation are not considered being born alive. In Switzerland, unless a baby is at least 11.8 inches long, is not considered being born alive. And in Canada, Austria and Germany, only babies weighing at least a pound are considered born alive. I wonder how the US infant mortality rate would be if all factors were measured equally?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

Under ObamaCare, which took effect several years ago

"The Affordable Care Act, also known as 'Obamacare,' requires most people to have health insurance starting in 2014," states Kaiser Permanente, one of the major healthcare providers.

Black Swan

I am NOT in favour of ObamaCare, and I am NOT in favour of RomneyCare, both of which are poor solutions to healthcare in the America, one at the national level and the other at the state level. Both favour private sector for profit medical insurance corporations, and both will result in the state punishing you if you do not enroll.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Certainly Americans are evidencing a relatively recent obesity problem, but that only explains a small part of the problem with the extraordinary increase in these costs overtime (and before ObamaCare takes effect for most Americans in 2014).

In the source cited, we were not discussing "infant mortality" in general, rather very specific "first-day infant mortality rates," which shows the US significantly below other developed nations.

In a meta-review of journal articles that pertained to healthcare in comparison to other developed nations, the findings by Bezruchka, S. (April 2012) in The Hurrider I Go the Behinder I Get: The Deteriorating International Ranking of U.S. Health Status, Annual Review of Public Health, Vol. 33, 157-173:

"Over the past century, health outcomes have been steadily improving almost everywhere in the world, but the rates of improvements have varied. In the 1950s, the United States, having among the lowest mortality and other indicators of good health, ranked well among nations. Since then, the United States has not seen the scale of improvements in health outcomes enjoyed by most other developed countries, despite spending increasing amounts of its economy on health care services. Trends in personal health-related behaviors are only part of the explanation. Structural factors related to inequality and conditions of early life are important reasons for the relative stagnation in health."

"Trends is personal health-related behaviours" (e.g., obesity) are "only a part of the explanation," whereas the conclusions that the US was falling behind other nations was associated with inequity of healthcare, and "conditions of early life" (e.g., first-day infant mortality rates, etc.). This falling behind has occurred while healthcare costs have gone through the roof overtime.

If I were poor, I would much rather have my child born in the healthcare systems of Finland, Sweden, Norway, Iceland and the Netherlands (top 5) than the US ranked 30 (having dropped from 25 to 30 in 2012, in spite of the continuing upward spiral of US healthcare costs occurring before ObamaCare).

Of course, if I were rich, I would prefer to have my child born in the US, with the most expensive medical team based in the highest priced hospital, where healthcare is the best that money can buy. In America, "Money talks, and

OJ

baby walks."

InTheTrees

The US lags all developed industrialized countries in standards of healthcare.

Trying to spin the numbers to show otherwise is futile.