So, Obama originally required non-church religious organizations to offer insurance policies to their employees which include coverage for contraceptives and abortifacients.
After a lot of uproar about government infringing on religious rights, he modified his position so that non-church religious organizations are required to offer insurance policies to their employees which include coverage for contraceptives and abortifacients.
So it’s all good, really. Move along citizens. Nothing to see here.
At least he’s not having the government make everybody pay for such things regardless, which is how it works over here. That’s one thing I really do find objctionable about the way healthcare works in the UK (apart from all the money they waste on PFIs, pointless IT systems and more, of course…)
Ah yes, and homeopathy (you can’t make this up…)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8524926.stm
Good grief… that’s where we’re heading, though – Obamacare is designed to move us into a single-payer system. And its proponents – Obama and many others – have said so many times, on camera.
Thing is, though, in principle I still prefer such a system as exists in the UK. I am, however, admitting it has its downsides (governments who can’t seem to not waste money, quite often messing about with harebrained schemes) and its dark side (are we funding abortions?)
I hear a few horror stories about people falling through the gaps in the US system, though I understand you hear just as many horror stories about ours (well, so do we). Neither system is perfect.
I say in principle, of course, as the ideal is good, but in practice it’s a very different matter!
People definitely fall through the gaps in both systems – no country has a perfect health care system. So that being the case, I advocate for a system which provides the maximum amount of freedom and choice. The more government is involved, the less freedom and choice we have. I think the people who supported Obamacare because they believed him when he said, ‘if you like your plan, you can keep your plan’ are going to end up pretty angry. Unfortunately, by then it will be too late.
Not so sure what the “gaps” in our system are, though they’e different in nature from what youhave. Recently I watched a documentary (parto fo the BBC’s Panorama strand) on poverty in MAeirica, largely dealing with the homeless/disposessed. There was this guy who had managed to get to see a doctor free as part of some charity initiative, who had a hernia and was advised he needed to be operated on quite urgently, but was put off by the cost. Eventually was persuaded to go to the ER, but was told it would cost something like $10,000, and I know you’ve said before tey have to teat people anyway, but he was put off again. Presumably didn’t have insurance and couldn’t get Medicaid. That ‘gap’ would not exist over here- in an emergency, people are treated pretty much straight away so there’s none of the delays you hear about. On the other hand, people might be expected to wait for long periods if it isn’t an obvious emergency, so there is a ‘gap’ there. Also I suppose the NHS can’t afford all the latest treatments which also need to be approved first. But I’d be bothered by a system where treatment is in any way impacted by one’s ability to pay, even if it simply puts people off. “Choice” is fine when you have the money to choose.
On the other hand I am bothered that taxpayers’ money is used to fund abortions. One wonders which is worse.