Just had a look at the USA's federal budget graph:
![[Image: fedBudget2012.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=usbudgetalert.com%2FUSBudgetCharts%2FfedBudget2012.jpg)
Public health spending of the federal government is 22% of the budget - very similar to what it is here in Australia. As I said, I think Obama's intent is very clear, and he has a number of reasons he can use for wanting to push ahead with Obamacare: 1. to get more people covered by health insurance, 2. to make sure that people can be covered and don't find themselves in a situation where they can't get insurance, 3. to reduce the future projected health costs to the USA federal government, 4. to improve the value of services for the very high cost of healthcare, 5. to reduce wastage of unneeded pharmaceuticals, 6. to improve services overtime, 7. to improve equability, 8..9..10... etc. Those are all perfectly valid reasons, and he could use any one or a combination of them in order to promote or defend his policy.
Your claim was that he's "giving money to insurance companies" - how? I've not seen you defend this at all, as far as I know about the policy it is legislative, not budgetary. It aims to improve market conditions, not to increase government spending (although the increased spending is, as I've mentioned several times now, unavoidable).
Public health spending of the federal government is 22% of the budget - very similar to what it is here in Australia. As I said, I think Obama's intent is very clear, and he has a number of reasons he can use for wanting to push ahead with Obamacare: 1. to get more people covered by health insurance, 2. to make sure that people can be covered and don't find themselves in a situation where they can't get insurance, 3. to reduce the future projected health costs to the USA federal government, 4. to improve the value of services for the very high cost of healthcare, 5. to reduce wastage of unneeded pharmaceuticals, 6. to improve services overtime, 7. to improve equability, 8..9..10... etc. Those are all perfectly valid reasons, and he could use any one or a combination of them in order to promote or defend his policy.
Your claim was that he's "giving money to insurance companies" - how? I've not seen you defend this at all, as far as I know about the policy it is legislative, not budgetary. It aims to improve market conditions, not to increase government spending (although the increased spending is, as I've mentioned several times now, unavoidable).
For Religion & Health see:[/b][/size] Williams & Sternthal. (2007). Spirituality, religion and health: Evidence and research directions. Med. J. Aust., 186(10), S47-S50. -LINK
The WIN/Gallup End of Year Survey 2013 found the US was perceived to be the greatest threat to world peace by a huge margin, with 24% of respondents fearful of the US followed by: 8% for Pakistan, and 6% for China. This was followed by 5% each for: Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, North Korea. -LINK
"That's disgusting. There were clean athletes out there that have had their whole careers ruined by people like Lance Armstrong who just bended thoughts to fit their circumstances. He didn't look up cheating because he wanted to stop, he wanted to justify what he was doing and to keep that continuing on." - Nicole Cooke
The WIN/Gallup End of Year Survey 2013 found the US was perceived to be the greatest threat to world peace by a huge margin, with 24% of respondents fearful of the US followed by: 8% for Pakistan, and 6% for China. This was followed by 5% each for: Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, North Korea. -LINK
"That's disgusting. There were clean athletes out there that have had their whole careers ruined by people like Lance Armstrong who just bended thoughts to fit their circumstances. He didn't look up cheating because he wanted to stop, he wanted to justify what he was doing and to keep that continuing on." - Nicole Cooke
