Not so much the voter as the representatives we send to speak/vote for us. The system is designed to send those with a proclivity to give stuff away.

Americans want free (AKA paid for by taxes and deficits) stuff. In that sense, we have free roads, free sidewalks, free policing, free parks and free beaches. In the final analysis, the argument over anything supported out of the public purse -- Obamacare is just one example -- is where to draw the line.

Sadly, this guy is typical of MIT economists. That's one reason why this MIT alum doesn't give the school any money.

The stupidity of the American voter did not make the Supreme Court decide that truckloads of dark money could be funneled around the political system, that corporations are people, or that Congress could be trusted to pass a transparency law for campaign contributions.

We're a two-party nation: the wealthy elites and everyone else.

The American voter did not vote for Obamacare. This was strictly the work of the Democrat-controlled Congress. The American voter told the Democrats that the proposed healthcare law was not wanted. The Democrat-controlled Congress still approved it without reading it and a lot of people found that they got replaced by Republicans in 2010. In 2012, the American voter told the Democrats that they could stay in office as long as they were able to make the healthcare law work. In 2014, the law was found to have a large number of flaws, which deeply affected the American voter. The American voter replaced more Democrats with Republicans and this even extended to the state level in many locations. The American voter is not stupid, but is willing to give those they vote for a fair chance to prove themselves.

The stupidity of the American voter did not make the Supreme Court decide that ... corporations are people.... ~ Posted by: Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at November 10, 2014 8:54 AM

The Supreme Court did not decide that corporations are people. It decided that, for purposes of freedom of speech, associations of individuals (including unions, nonprofits, and corporations) have the same rights as individuals and cannot have their rights to free speech abridged by the government.

This ruling overturned a 2002 federal law that banned organization-sponsored political speech that mentions a specific candidate within 1-2 months of the election.

This all came about because Citizens United was blocked in its efforts to air a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton in 2008 while she was the presumptive Democratic nominee (before she got bumped off by Barack Obama). Can you imagine the political left getting upset if that ruling had been about a documentary critical of a presumptive Republican nominee?

Nice of the rat to fess up. Since he's not a Congresscritter he won't be covered by their immunity -- so how about a class action suit by the American people for fraud?

The fine print is so important, don't you agree?

Democrats bad. Republicans good.

I must be stupid, then. Because I have no problem, being healthy, giving up a small percentage of my income to benefit the sick.

Get a law that says healthy people are going to pay in; sick people are going to get money; it's not going to pass.

I'm a healthy person. I've never been hospitalized a day in my life. I eat well, I don't drink, don't smoke. I exercise. I'll pay taxes to take care of those who get sick.

I could one day be among those sick. And I think about who those sick are.

It's not that the underlying idea behind ObamaCare was bad. The flaws lie in how it was written (and by whom). It was a textbook example of how not to write and pass a bill.

Democrats farmed the job of writing the bill out to their lobbyists and allies, who wrote in all sorts of goodies for themselves.

Democrats ignored any objections or concerns that did not fit their ideological viewpoint (or was inconvenient for their political allies).

With an overwhelming majority in Congress, the Democrats steamrolled the Republicans on ObamaCare.

All concerns about the high cost of malpractice insurance and the effects it has on medical care costs were blown off because the trial lawyers didn't want the discussion to lead to restrictions on their ability to sue.

Concerns about competition, recovery of drug development costs, declining doctor availability rates for Medicare and Medicaid, and the decaying of already-existing socialized medical systems were all ignored or casually dismissed.

Finally, the law did nothing more than entrench many of the problems that were in the system already. There was no "thinking outside the box" on this law. It did little more than ensure that those who were getting rich under the existing system continued to get rich.

There's little to no evidence that the Republicans would have written a better law if they'd had the overwhelming majority in Congress that the Democrats had at that time along with a president who would rubber stamp whatever healthcare law that was put in front of him.

Perhaps with a divided government, a better law can be written, taking into account the concerns and viewpoints of a wide spectrum of Americans. Perhaps a better written law's passage won't require either party to bribe, cajole, and outright threaten its own membership.

Or, perhaps no law can be written and Americans will be free to figure out the delivery and pricing of medical care - the same way they figured out the delivery of everything else: by finding the most efficient way to get a wide variety of goods and services to the market at prices the market will bear.

Oops ... slipped into a libertarian utopia fantasy for a minute.

Or, perhaps no law can be written and Americans will be free to figure out the delivery and pricing of medical care - the same way they figured out the delivery of everything else: by finding the most efficient way to get a wide variety of goods and services to the market at prices the market will bear.

Oops ... slipped into a libertarian utopia fantasy for a minute.

Posted by: Conan the Grammarian at November 10, 2014 2:24 PM

The solution to government restricted supply and demand has always been a black market or a "cash market"

When Obamacare removes the ability of people who are covered by it, to get medical care, the fall back will be cash.
Of course a lot of medical services that are boutique items like dermatologists, and podiatrists are either going to fail, or have to drastically lower their prices, but it will sort itself out.

IMO Obamacare is the result of a logical fallacy I like to call "the fallacy of 'something must be done.'"

It goes like this: "Something must be done. This is something. Therefore this must be done."

It doesn't take into account that the proposed fix may make things work, or just be prima facie asinine.

Our healthcare system is broken and we do need to do something about it, but Obamacare was not the fix we were looking for.

Honestly, the older I get the more I want a fed limited to military, postal service, financial regulation, ensuring uniform infrastructure, and the federal courts.

I'm all for as much government people want at the local level -- state, county, and city -- but the fed is a bunch of meddling incompetents. Bio-regionalism!

David is right. There are also two other things that contributed:

- The perception that government money is "free" money. The connection to people's taxes is too remote, they don't realize that every penny the government spends ultimately comes from their pockets.

- The confusion between "something must be done" and "the federal government must do something". Americans have come to look to the federal government for nearly everything.

I have no problem, being healthy, giving up a small percentage of my income to benefit the sick. (Patrick)

Small percentage of my income: how much is that?

These things get framed in terms of "we're only taking a little" and soon they've morphed into the healthcare behemoth we have today. Or the federal gov't behemoth, etc.

I must be stupid, then. Because I have no problem, being healthy, giving up a small percentage of my income to benefit the sick. ~ Posted by: Patrick at November 10, 2014 1:13 PM

Who decides what that "small percentage" is?

And what happens when you discover that you're paying for Billy's appendectomy, not because Billy is poor, but because Billy decided a big screen TV was more important than health insurance?

And what happens when the doctor says, "I'm outta here. I spent ten years training for this and I make less than a plumber. And the plumber doesn't have to deal with malpractice lawsuits, government oversight committees, and conflicting regulations from the state and the federal governments."

And what happens when the drug company decides to forego research since the patent only lasts so many years and the government healthcare committee won't pay enough per dose to cover the research costs?

And what happens when the system gets so overwhelmed that it starts leaving patients on gurneys in the corridor with no one looking after them?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2204748/Department-Health-figures-The-hospitals-leaving-patients-trolleys-50-hours.html

Centralized government-run taxpayer-coerced healthcare is not the way to take care of the sick and indigent.

It is, however, a convenient way to feel righteous that you're doing something to help the poor without actually having to break a sweat or physically interact with a poor person.

"Because I have no problem, being healthy, giving up a small percentage of my income to benefit the sick."

Actually, you have no problem with government taking someone else's money to "benefit the sick", and have not noticed, or are not honest about government being the LAST entity you should hand your money to - because it's not getting where you seem to think it is.

I note that the ACA mandates reevaluation of health care plans on a periodic basis. So your earlier assertion that your plan "isn't going anywhere" is apparently wrong. I hope you are not stranded by your abject surrender to authority.

This should have been one of the alarms that even the relentlessly stupid should have heard. Even after Ms. Pelosi's brain-dead statement that the bill had to be passed to see what's in it; even after the President (didn't you vote for him?) lied and lied about people being able to keep the plan they choose, it remains that some idiots thought that government could do this. "Oh, yeah. I need a doctor. I'll give my money to... the Federal government! They'll take care of me!"

Are you sick? The clerk is not sick. Fill out this form. Is the form filled out? Then the system is working perfectly. No sir, you're not being denied care - it just isn't available right now. The form is filled out. You have to wait.