FoxNews and Rush Limbaugh TOLD everyone it was bad.

I could go into it and not finish in a day. Just a few things off the top of my head. Small businesses will suffer. If employers are paying for part of the national health plan, they have fewer dollars for salaries, meaning fewer jobs.Next, Obama would like to expand eligibility for government programs, such as Medicare and SCHIP—new entitlements that will mean higher taxes.The bottom line is that Obama’s first move would be to get everyone in the U.S. covered—to the tune of about $100 billion,In truth, it simply shifts the costs from the private sector, which has the tools and motivation to manage them, to the government, which has no incentive to keep them under control. And remember: When the government incurs a cost, the taxpayers pay it. The bill is something like 2000 pages long. You think he has hidden anything in there? I bet he has. Parents will be required to buy health care for their children but he does not say how this will be enforced. Im betting large financial penalties to already poverty stricken single parents is the answer. I could go on and on

don't forget about the manditory coverage. i am not covered atm and i am living from check to check just hoping to have enough to pay bills and gas, food is almost a secondary concern, now they want me to pay out more money for health insurance i don't want or need now.

It's not bad. It's only bad to those who have great insurance and money to pay for it. Too many Americans are dying from things that shouldn't be fatal but if you have no health insurance you can't see a doctor and get treated. It's all an excuse like increased waiting time, dying while waiting on transplants, etc. It works well in other countries but in the best country in the world people can't get treatment. It's better to have to wait 6 weeks to see a doctor (which usually happens anyway) than not see a doctor at all. Another excuse is "why should I pay for someone who doesn't take care of themself". Yet they can't justify why someone like a small child get sick (is that their fault) or someone who does take care of themselves gets cancer. Who cares if they go bankrupt or become homeless right? It's down to greed.

The idea behind this bill is not free health care but universal health care. Universal health care would require all citizens to carry insurance. Currently in the US, health care is run by for profit insurance companies. Businesses contract with the insurance companies. Many businesses contribute to their employees premiums (membership fees) up to half and the employee pays the other half through payroll deductions. A family of 4 could pay $150 to $300 a month for premiums and still have a copay at the doctors office. The current bill not only does not change this, it allows the insurance companies to raise the premiums, while requiring us to accept this insurance if offered. (remember, our company pays on an average, the other half of the premiums) The doctor also contracts with the insurance companies. Doctors may not perform tests or give treatment to a patient that is not authorized by the insurance company or they will lose their contract. So, if your patient comes from a family that is prone to prostate cancer and there is a real need to perform more than one prostate cancer test a year but the insurance company only allows for 1 a year, you can't prescribe it, even if the patient is willing to pay out of pocket. The current proposed bill does not change this. If the doctor you have been going to for years, decides to drop his contract with your insurance company, you can not continue to see your doctor. You have to pick a new one. The current proposed bill does not change this.

About the most coherent objection from the Right Wing to the proposed health care reform legislation is that they believe it is the first step towards eliminating for-profit private insurance-based health care. Most other objections simply boil down to "We don't like President Obama, and we want to prevent him from doing ANYTHING" From the perspective of Progressives, the problem with the Obama framework for health care reform is that it bends over backwards to PRESERVE for-profit private insurance-based health care. If Obama genuinely wanted to overthrow the system, his proposal would have simply been "Every American citizen is eligible for Medicare, regardless of age". For those of us who think health care should be a public utility (I am one such person), this preservation of health insurance company profits is irrational. I hope this helps. . . .

It will cost us more jobs. It will punish people who don't buy it by putting them in jail. It will put an end to privately owned Insurance policies. It will destroy the insurance industry causing loss of jobs It will be headed by Czars appointed by the president who answer only to him and is not under the scrutiny of the Congress or elected by the people. It will cause shortages in availability of health care. It will create more bureaucracy in Washington And the final and most important of all, It is not Constitutional in any way for the Government to be doing any of this. It is a violation of the core principles of our government and is a violation of every American's rights. You can forget the other stuff I listed, this is the biggest issue.

Corporate sponsored TV personalities and politicians here in the US convince Americans to take a stand against things they would benefit from. See also:net neutrality

where are the doctors going to come from to take on the load of these additional patients. Has anything the government took over made a profit? There is fraud in medicare and medicaid...what's going to stop it from happening here? You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence. You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves. ......Abraham Lincoln

Its not really Obama's package, the mess that is currently underway in Congress is Nanny Pelosi's bill. Considering its almost 2000 pages long there is plenty of room for unpleasant things to be hidden in there. A few of the issues I have with it: After 2013 private health insurance will be illegal, all must enroll in the government mess. Should you choose not to comply with this garbage you can go to jail, there are assorted penalties from up to one year in jail and/or up to a $10,000 fine to up to five years in jail and/or up to a $250,000 fine depending on the degree of noncompliance, your income, and whatever else the bureaucrats decide on a whim is relevant. That makes sense, someone unemployed or otherwise poor will be bitchslapped with a nice fat fine or jail time (likely jail time if they can't afford a fine). Perfect, lets take someone with at least the potential to be productive and put them in jail where they are a drain. Lastly, the cuts in Medicare spending they are so proud of are not attained through more efficient running of the system, they are simply cutting payments which will have a direct impact on seniors. Myself I have issues with the Medicare/Medicaid program, however, do not sit here all smiles about cutting spending to it and telling people they'll be just fine when they will NOT. All this will do is further decrease the number of doctors willing to participate in Medicaid/Medicare because it doesn't pay well. Unless of course they force all doctors to participate (that may well be in there but I'm not sure) which will have the same effect as they simply quit or file for bankruptcy. THere is not a word about tort reform in the whole bill, considering that I know several doctors and between 30 and 40% of their costs incurred are for carrying malpractice insurance that would be helpful. They also would be less inclined to perform unnecessary tests and whatnot that cost additional money. As it stands now they do so because if they don't run the test and a patient who was too stupid to be bothered to know their own medical history has a bad reaction or a side effect they can sue their pants off. I've seen it happen, if you or your close relatives have potentially dangerous allergies or other issues and are not willing to take a simple step like getting a medical bracelet that alerts EMTs and others to this fact then you should have no ground to sue, but it does not work that way, self-responsibility is a joke anymore. There are issues with the health insurance system, not least of which is that you are currently prohibited from shopping across statelines, Blue Cross Blue Shield in your state is a different BCBS than in the neighboring state, if that one happens to offer lower rates thats too bad, you can't have theirs. Also, individuals and small companies that buy health insurance are not allowed to use it as a tax write off whereas larger entities are allowed to do so, that makes no sense either. Lastly, why not allow small companies and individuals to pool? This provides a larger pool and access to the lower rates available to larger companies. There are issues that can be fixed but this bill addresses none of them, it will ultimately result in lower quality care and worse yet less research and advancement. That is the worst of it, we still lead in medical research and development, its easy to have socialized medicine in these other countries when you can merely copy those creating new tools, methods, etc. I know thats not really simple terms but thats as simple as I can make it.

I am definitely somebody who supports health care reform, but here's why I think it's a bad thing, and it's not just Obama's or the current administration's fault. . First of all, insurance companies in general are unethical entities meant to make money and not heal their customers. That's part of the reason why the debate is so charged, since it's been the insurance companies who generally deny people who need the care and keep people who don't need care. It's generally not a very effective plan. Also, when you consider the amount of money spent on advertising and it's easy to see why insurance companies are just an extra cost in the way of getting actual health care. . If there were an universal health care plan then what you have to worry about is funding cuts to health care, similar to the funding cuts to education. With health care funding cuts all you're doing is weakening even further the health care offered to the citizens of the U.S. . The problem is money. A very large majority of the population, I'll say 75% to underestimate by a lot, doesn't have enough money. Throw in the fact that gov't relies on employees to pay taxes and now we have gov't and every single person who doesn't have enough money. How can anyone ever solve the problems of society without enough money? It is the desire/greed for money that is tearing this country apart. If we are to improve the health care system in our country, then we need to reevaluate the monetary system and put in place a more sustainable and equitable system. A system where doctors, and various other health care professionals, desire to help us because they want to help us and NOT because they don't have enough money to buy a new car or house or etc. +3

Posing the question this way is just exacerbating an already insane argument on here. Why not ask what it means and leave why is it bad out of it. I'm not answering this.

Bear in mind that I am a Democrat and I think his plan is a good thing. . But.... . Republicans believe that private sector initiative should always be preferred to public sector action. They believe that, particularly in the realm of health care, substituting political forces for market forces is a recipe for disaster. . I do not happen to agree with them on those points, but they are intellectually honest arguments and worth considering as cautionary notes, at the very least.

Because most Americans no longer trust Obama or that Nancy Pelosi

Because our government has been in the health care industry for a very long time in a smaller way in the form of Medicare and Medicaid and they have a very bad track record. They have a long history of waste, fraud, denying coverage, inefficiency and of putting roadblocks in the path of people who have genuine need. My child has both private insurance and a medical card to cover her copays, as cancer treatment is very expensive. I would ten times rather deal with the private insurance company. Medicaid workers broke the law in dealing with us from day one. They refused to set up an appointment to see us in the first place, which is against the law. We had to go to ombudsman to even get an appointment to see them. It took us over a year to get coverage. And then they deny more often than they pay. Why anyone would want to switch to government care if they had a choice is beyond me. If they had been our only option, we'd have a dead child and be bankrupt. I can't say that I'm happy with private insurance either, as they keep raising the rates, but at least our child is still living and functional.