More and more doesn't mean completely. Take a second, look at my front page. It's been like that for a while now. Please, stop judging people based on their opinion of one topic and not actually knowing the person.

You think I am judging you, I am not, to be honest I dont care who you are or what you do. What I cannot stand is people who are content being ignorant on a subject or being blindly hateful about something, and YES that is what you are doing. I dont care that you dont agree with it, because you have no say at this point, its passed. Thank god. I have no desire to look at your front page, there is absolutely no reason for me too, because you hearing about people who are dying without health insurance doesnt change your opinion on this matter does it? What the hell will your front page tell me? Did I message you and say wanna be best friends? Nope, all I am doing is telling you how incredibly ignorant and hateful your argument sounds TO ME. I do believe I have the right to say I dont agree with you.

Oh wow, talking down to me really won't help you in this category either. I don't know you, I've made NO assumptions about your character, personality or anything. But you have definitely made a definitive decision about mine, despite the fact that all you've ever heard out of me is my opinion of "free" healthcare. But, that's ok. You can judge me all you want, I don't really mind. You know, I'm not the only one who feels this way, but most people won't come in here and continue to debate this because of THIS kind of behavior from people like you.

You are making an assumption that I am judging you, I am not, tomorrow, I wont even remember this because to be honest it doesnt matter to me how you feel. If you posted a question tomorrow, I would completely keep this out of it. Why is that its okay for you to ASSUME that about me, but when I tell you I think you are heartless FOR THIS then I am judging you. BASED ON THIS YOU HAVE NO COMPASSION. That doesnt mean tomorrow when something happens you wont have compassion, but this we do no agree on. I dont understand how you get off telling me you arent judging me or assuming things about me when you are. You know nothing about how I disagree with people. I have disagreed with many people and told them they are ignorant and become best friends with them. Just because you have ignorance on ONE subject doesnt mean I hate you forever. But then again that is an assumption you have made.

I just want to say something and I'll leave it at that. Jacqueline is my best friend (in real life actually), and I think there may have been a serious miscommunication here that has led to her being painted as some kind of villain. For the record, she and I share the same political views. However, I want to clarify that neither she nor I believe that our current health care system is adequate. We both believe that serious changes need to be enacted so that people like Mindi's brother do not go without care. One simple idea that many conservatives have proposed is to regulate the practices of our current private health care companies and also revamp Medicare and Medicaid so that it is more accessible by those who need health care. Unfortunately, our legislators have decided to instead make sweeping unconstitutional laws that now REQUIRE us to purchase health care for others.

Now hold on, put your torches down! I'm not saying that i don't care about others, and neither is Jacqueline. We are both people who love to help other people. Jackie is one of the most caring people I know and I'm afraid you might have misinterpreted her opinion. The problem we both have with the new bill is that THE GOVERNMENT is FORCING us to give. Forced charity. I don't care what side of the debate you are on - it should be alarming to you that your government is forcing you to pay for someone else's well-being. It's just not how our government is supposed to work.

You might be wondering what I think the solution is. Well I'd be happy to share! Here's a thought. The government needs to keep their hands off our money so that we can help people ourselves. At the moment, my husband and I use about 30% of our income to help others. I care very deeply about those less fortunate than I and I LOVE to give when I can. (FYI, not trying to give props to myself here - just make a point.) However, if Uncle Sam takes more of our money to distribute as he sees fit, we will be unable to give money away because we won't have any. If history continues to repeat itself, our health care system will be a failure just like all the other government programs that suck (i.e. social security, medicaid, the public school system, etc.). So as you can see, this is not about me saying that you're lazy, stupid, inept in any way, etc. This is about the fact that THE PEOPLE should not be required by law to give charity. THE PEOPLE should no be required to purchase insurance because it is unconstitutional and unacceptable. And for goodness sakes...why do we assume the government is better at helping others than WE are?

Bottom line - disagreeing with the health care bill does not make one heartless. It just means that you've taken the time to THINK about the situation, scratch your heard, and say, Hmm... this is illegal and senseless!

I KNOW there's been a miscommunication. I was able to tell as soon as the relentless aggressiveness came when I said, "Well here's why I disagree, please educate yourself." She took her own lack of education on the matter as some sort of personal attack and started spouting things without thinking about what she was saying.

Now that we have this out of the way, perhaps you could be an interpreter for her opinions and we can exchange thoughts peacefully...

The problem with her argument is that the bulk of the bill wasn't about raised taxes or re-distributed money going to the less-fortunate. There was nothing on the bill that requires you to pay for the health care of others. If you choose not to have health care, then you get fined. This money coming from fines gets distributed around many different parts of the bill, including a budget which will heavily reduce the deficit over 10 years as well as subsidize people who simply can't afford health care and need it. The idealized conservative viewpoint is that people will give charity to these people anyway without being forced to, and that's simply not the case. These people WON'T get health care unless there is a stable entity either helping them or providing it for them.

You can't make sweeping generalizations about people being subsidized by the government or are living on government care, because there are an infinite amount of ways they could have ended up in that position. A majority of these reasons being uncontrollable. I don't doubt that the system will be abused, but an abuse-safe system is impossible. So there are safe-guards to help handle abuse-heavy situations. Like fines for people choosing not to purchase health insurance, or raised taxes.

What's really messed up, though, is that no matter what way you look at it, the insurance companies win, and they're going to be receiving piles upon piles of money come 2011-2012, and they will still look for ways to fuck people out of their money and their health care. And it's sad.

About your last point... first I should say that I'm not against health insurance companies making a profit. Insurance is a service and this should be a free market economy. That being said, why do you think the companies will be receiving so much money in '11-12?

The bill is a mandate for people who don't have insurance to get insurance or face a penalty. It only logically follows that quite a large majority of the people who didn't have health insurance will get health insurance.

Obviously that is where you and her differ your opinions. When someone says "To clarify about pre-existing conditions, which I spoke far too abruptly on. Most people who don't like that they can't be covered once they have a pre-existing condition never had healthcare in the first place. How is a company supposed to pay thousands of dollars for your treatment when you haven't paid anything into the system? Any company in this country, unless it's a non for profit, is there to MAKE a profit. ALSO - now, why would I EVER want healthcare on a regular basis? Since there is this new pre-existing condition idea, I have no need of buying it until I really need it. Say, in 20 years and I get diabetes. Well, I just saved a ton of money by not paying monthly for healthcare and now they HAVE to cover me, regardless of the fact that they will be paying more than I did. I can't imagine getting into a car accident and not having insurance, but then expecting the car insurance to pay for the damage to my car. " that to me doesnt say Hey I want people who are dying because they cannot be covered by insurance to be covered, that to me is saying, why the hell should they get insurance?

Its a HUGE generalization, MOST people who have pre-existing conditions have never had health care. Where does this information and general judgement on people with pre-existing conditions come from. Unless there are stats that say "this percent of people with pre-existing conditions have never had healthcare" then you cannot lump them all into a category and say they are getting something for nothing.

THAT is where my issues are. I dont care who supports the bill, I dont care who doesnt support the bill, but when you (a general you) come in here and say the one part of the bill that in my opinion is the most important part, then yes, in my eyes, I see you as heartless on this issue. You dont have to agree with that, that is my opinion.

I could be wrong, but I don't think that's what she meant at all. I'll give her a call later and let her know that she might want to clarify. I can guarantee, however, that she and I agree about government involvement. In MY opinion, that is not heartless.

The problem is, you guys are generous people who will give to those less fortunate, but the vast majority of the population is not. Donations to charities are lower than ever before because of the recession. Left to their own devices most people will be greedy and not give a single penny away to others. But others NEED the help. And often through no fault of their own, and certainly often not because of laziness or lack of effort. The only way to really help a large number of people who are currently suffering is through taxes.

Allowing people to keep their money to give it to charity themselves just won't happen. It's unrealistic, and dare I say it, a little naive. Most people are far too selfish. People are generally NOT good at helping others when it comes to a choice between that and helping themselves.

Unrealistic and naive, perhaps. I guess I expect too much. However, it's the constitutional way to help others, and that is what I support.

But what's the point in that? Do it because it's constitutional, even although it won't help people and people will continue to suffer? What is more important, something that was written down many many years ago, or real people's lives?

First of all, preserving our country's principles is absolutely essential, and no I would not support something that so seriously undermines the intentions of our constitution. Second, you're again assuming that I am against other types of reform, which is not the case. The health care problem did not need to be "resolved" by the taking of people's rights and could have been done through other means.

I wasn't assuming that. I know you want reform. I was simply responding to your point that the only constitutional way of helping others is through individual charity. I simply asked is it more important to you that something is 'constitutional', or that more peoples lives are helped and saved? There are currently only two options (and actually, even that point has passed now)... THIS bill, or no bill. Help people or don't help them. Consitutional or unconstitutional.

I don't think that's a fair ultimatum. I'm now forced to pay whether I like it or not.

If I had to choose, I'd still choose the constitutional route. This bill was about power, not health care. We now have an unregulated government (a government which SUCKS at financial management, btw) in control of our health care. People's suffering will likely continue and I'll have no money to make a difference either. Of course, this is all speculation. We'll see what happens. I don't have high hopes.

I don't believe it was about power. Obama speaks very highly of the NHS in the UK (which has treated his mother), and that is not about power. I believe he would love a system like we have, which helps everyone, but is not about power and control. But he was pushed into a corner, because Americans don't want public healthcare. His options then for making healthcare available for everyone were pretty limited. The government doesn't really gain from this bill (and politically they will likely suffer)... the people who will benefit are the people who need healthcare and don't have it right now. As a healthcare professional I'm afraid I just have more sympathy for those who are suffering needlessly from untreated health problems than for peoples pockets which may suffer a little as a result of the bill. :P

But thank you for answering the question. I can't understand your answer to choose a piece of paper over lives, but I'm not American, and at least you provided the answer honestly.

I hope that with time you guys will see how much this bill is going to help people.

Here in America was have a representative government. We elect representatives to speak on our behalf. Last weekend, our representatives completely failed to do their job by voting against their constituents wishes. It doesn't matter if we're talking about healthcare or which something stupid like which color is the prettiest - a democracy that fails to recognize the wishes of it's citizens is a nation in trouble.

Yes, I live in a democracy too, and our government is elected in a similar way and for the same purpose. And I can definitely understand why this bothers you.

However, if you'd asked most the American public WHY they objected to the bill, a significant number of them would have repeated some of the nonsense Fox news had reported, and a significant number would have refered to something which wasn't even in the bill (as has been the case with most of the objections I've heard to it). The American public objected, but most of them objected to the bill on the basis of things which weren't even in it.

When you elect a govenment representative you put trust in them to make choices they believe will be of your benefit. And you accept that sometimes they may think differently to you.

I know first hand how frustrating it is when your government doesn't listen to your concerns and does it their way anyway, but in this case I do believe it has been done with the best of intentions, to help people.

One interesting story I heard reported that a lot of the polling about the bill was affected by the wording of questions. When asked if people supported Obama's plan, many said no-but when asked if they supported specific initiatives that were already IN the bill , many said yes. It seems that many didn't clearly understand what the bill contained, especially given how it covered and characterized by the media. Many Republicans went out of their way to say how "Obamacare" was a government takeover that would result in horrible things (i.e "death panels" and other nonsense), so it's no surprise people didn't think it was a good idea.

Alright, so yesterday I definitely could've toned it down. I apologize, no need to be so crazy. I should have specified what I meant and not made generalizations. No one is going to force me to pay for someone else's health care, I believe you said. I'm not being sarcastic, I really want to know where Obama plans to find the money to pay for however many people are now going to have insurance that didn't before. From the fines people pay that don't get health insurance? Mainly, my point is there is no cost control here. The price for health care didn't go down, it is still the same price and now it's probably going to sky rocket. I can't afford $300 a month for health insurance, even though this bill was passed, I still can't. But I am pretty sure I won't qualify as "poor." The main problem with the whole health care thing is how much money each treatment/medication/whatever costs. Why does it cost so much? WHY is it $300 for a tiny bottle of pills? It's not about the insurance companies, I'm pretty sure their profit margins are smaller than most other large company's. Why does it take X (seems like a billion) amount of dollars to sit underneath an x-ray machine for two minutes? That's the root of the problem and the government never addressed it.

I also think I gave the wrong impression. I am ALL ABOUT health care reform. I don't think people DESERVE it, but I do think in a country like this, we should be able to find out a way for the majority of people to get it. And I wish the root of the problem was addressed, at very least. But, it wasn't. You still can't buy insurance across state lines (correct me if I'm wrong) and all things medical still cost a fortune. Affordable health care is what we need and no one even attempted to talk about that issue. It's still not affordable. Which is why I only get treatment when it's absolutely necessary and have to use my back-up funds to pay for it.

Lastly, I do not have a lack of education on this subject. I've read far and wide about it. Also, I tried to read the bill for myself but I couldn't find it anywhere. Also, I always try to think before I speak and I'm pretty sure you kind of have to think about what you are typing. I also re-read my posts *before* I post them, so yes I most defintely think before I type/post.

One more thing. I do know that there are people out there who need assistance from time to time and DON'T abuse it. My family was one of them once upon a time. The people I encounter in everyday life do not use it properly (outside of the internet and television.) They use it for their own benefit and personal gain. These are the people I am angry about and I never meant to imply that ALL THOSE who use assistance are lazy or trying to get something for nothing. Although, from how I worded it I can see what could make anyone think I DID mean that.

I agree it's too expensive, but you guys have made it very difficult for the government to intervene there. Because you want private insurance companies, you want choice. And with it being a free market etc etc etc, no one can stop them from charging whatever they want. A public option to compete with the private insurance companies would have been one way to drive down costs, but Americans didn't WANT that.

Lol, most Americans didnt, I for one, was all for it.

Americans DID want the public option. The right-wing media has a knack for telling everyone what "Americans want," in conjunction with flat-out falsehoods. Congress put it into the bill as a negotiating point, projected to be cut out during a negotiation with the Republicans. The mistake was advertising, because I guess somewhere down the road, the Democrats forgot that a public option was a big fucking deal. So when they scrapped it, and found out the bill was a mandate to hand the insurance companies yet even more money, that's when percents of American disapproval doubled.