Subscribe to Money Morning get daily headlines subscribe now! Money Morning Private Briefing today's private briefing Access Your Profit Alerts

We Want to Hear From You: What Do You Think About the New Healthcare Law?

After months of controversy, political bickering and maneuvering, and intense media speculation and scrutiny, this week became a historically significant moment in the annals of U.S. healthcare when U.S. President Barack Obama signed the new healthcare bill into law.

Thus begins a new chapter in the healthcare saga, when the country will feel the effects of this sweeping, costly and controversial policy overhaul.

As with any sweeping legislation, the law is facing both fierce support and opposition as the country digests what the provisions mean for individuals, for the healthcare industry, for the government – and for the taxpayers. The fact is that many Americans will have healthcare for the first time ever. Offsetting that bright spot, however, is the reality that the program could add trillions in debt to the country's already burgeoning national debt, further complicating the matter.

Analysts and sector experts are having a field day dissecting the news, but Money Morning wants to hear your thoughts on this crucial development.

Money Morning Question of the Week: U.S. President Barack Obama's controversial healthcare proposal is now law. What do you think? How do you feel? Do you think it's a beneficial or harmful move for you as a consumer, as an investor, and as a taxpayer? What do you think it means for our nation's economy?

This is part of our efforts to hear what you think, feel and care about. The results will be posted in an upcoming issue of Money Morning as part of our new "Question of the Week" feature.

For a summary of the new legislation, please click here.

And then be sure to e-mail your healthcare-related questions and comments to: Check back on to see what readers are saying.

News and Related Story Links:

Join the conversation. Click here to jump to comments…

  1. Viola | March 25, 2010

    Thank God now i have a chance i had no chance befor. We got are foot in the door a good way to start.

    • bill dougher | March 28, 2010

      this bill is the best thing to improve the health care of the people in this country since medicare was started

  2. TERREE | March 25, 2010


    SOMETHING SMELLS!!!!!!!!!!!!

  3. felicia popa | March 26, 2010

    i lived 30 years in comunism regime and i believe democrat and capitalist regime is the best butut in comunist i dind have problem with health insurance and i had acces to free educationand university too and in school was big competition even student very poor can to go to univercity but now?if now i have chance to choise comunism i will vote many people want in estern europa including germanyand nobody can to explain or do nt want to explain?

    • Ferdinand | March 28, 2010

      I have lived in a socialistic central european country and my brothers and sisters are still there. Yes they have government controlled Healthcare – sometimes it works – most of the time it is an exercise in incompetence.

      With the other social services intrutuced over the last 50 years the country has become the favorite place to live for eastern europeans. Free medical, free child support sufficient allowance to live with out going to work – why even attempt.

      End results is that it is impossible to advance finacially unless you are a politician or government emplyee.

      Obamas Healthcare reform, I see, as the first step towrds socialism making the people depending on the hand outs of the government.

      None of this programs are isolated, implimentation is followed by other similar programs to take controll of the people, the economy and the country by a small group of power hungry egoists.

      The reason the Congress, Senate and Obama excempt themself from the Healtcare plan is because they know what they have is much better than what they legislated.

      Since this is basically a give away program it will effect the economy of the country drastically and for a long time.

      I pray that the challenge to be courtchallenge launch by the States will succeed.

      • Gordon Harkins | April 28, 2010

        I do not know very much about socialism. I tend to agree with this person who has lived in this type of environment. As I recall, national health care was brought up several years ago. Some pointed out that a person needing a doctor could wait for a long period of time before seeing one. This is going to cost taxpayers, possibly all of us. The present administration plus many of those in the recent past have helped to get us to this point. The United States is bankrupt and we need a miracle to get us out.

  4. John Ruckman | March 26, 2010

    This is a bad law that could have been done better. An incremental approach taking place over several years would have been much better for Americans. Tort reform wasn't even considered. Taxes go nowhere but up over time. Somehow this country became the beacon for people all over the world without these health care laws. Now the democrats tell us it's a "right'. Where does this crap end? This law subsidizes poor behavior and irresponsibility. To say the Health Care is a deficit reduction is the biggest lie I've ever heard.

  5. Robert Gifford | March 26, 2010

    I thank it is a good start. We should have had it long ago, I know the Republicans hate
    it but they didn't hate the surplus Bush gave them when he came into office, or the two
    huge tax cut's that would have just about covered the new health care.
    We should take care of all our people and how can we turn our backs on them. Robert Gifford

  6. Kat | March 26, 2010

    We have reached a turning point in this nation and unless we turn back soon, we will see a transformation that will cost every American their freedom. We have been traveling this road for years but this administration is propelling us toward socialism at warp speed. The new health care legislation creates disincentive to work, disincentive to invest and disincentive to start or grow a small business.

    I worked seven days a week for 35 years to obtain what I have. I worked two jobs while raising kids. I worked jobs that no one else would take. I lived in travel trailer with two kids for eight years. I know what it is like to do without. I ate canned food, wore thrift store clothes. My kids didn't wear disposable diapers: I couldn't afford them. I didn't have a washer and dryer. I washed my clothes in the bathtub and hung them out on tree limbs in my yard. Yet, through it all I was NEVER on the public dole. I grew my own food rather than ask for a handout. I have paid my taxes and paid my bills. I never made stupid choices. All my life I have lived within my means. I worked VERY hard to have what I have. I do not want to give what I have worked for to someone who won't take a menial job and thinks they deserve something for nothing.

    For many years, I didn't not have health insurance. Contrary to "popular opinion", health care is not a right. It must be earned, just like a pay check. I do agree that certain aspects of the health care bill are warranted and necessary. However, the bulk of the bill is a power grab aimed to redistribute the wealth of we Americans who have worked and struggled to get ahead.

    I know what it is like to struggle and I have a heart for those in need. I currently give away 20% of my income to the needy, sponsor 9 children in third world countries and donate my personal time and energy to help the less fortunate. I donated the finances to drill 10 water wells in India. I am not stingy. I have taken one vacation in my 36 years of marriage. I spend my disposable income to help others. I worked very hard for my money and I want to choose who I help and when. I do not need the government telling my how to spend my money or my time. But, as we all know, the health care legislation has nothing to do with helping Americans, and everything to do with government control. Yes, Terree, something does smell….and I am mad as hell! I hope American's have enough common sense boot these power mongers out of office asap!

    • Jim L | March 28, 2010

      Hi Kat,

      My nickname as a child in our inner city community was "Casper the Friendly Ghost." Many people in our inner city neighborhood did not work and recieved Welfare. I worked hard in the classroom and delivered papers, what ever it took to make a nickel or dime and further my knowledge and education. Getting "something for nothing" was what it was called in the inner City; "dollars from Sam" I've read the biographical and chronological timeline of our president; he worked for and represents the citizens of the inner cities. These minions overwhelmingly voted for this president; they have taken over the ethics and morals of our country. Our president said he was going to spread the wealth; don't believe the guilt ridden independants understood how comprehensively he meant it. Health care is just the first government power grab in the name of spreading the wealth. State run countries have proven failures those of the far left and the communal European efforts at medical are objective evidence of failure. How else could these 60's radicals now calling themselves progressives or community organizers lift their chins high and bypass our government processes to dictate their approach to wealth distribution on us if it wasn't for power and greed. I think we need to stick to our constitutional guns and vote them out of office at the first chance.

  7. William Patalon III | March 26, 2010

    These are great comments….keep them coming…

    Watch for a feature next week when we post some of the best answers in our new "Money Morning Question of the Week" feature … when we'll also be asking the NEW question of the week.

    Is there a topic you want to see covered as a "Question of the Week" feature? Then let us know by e-mailing Money Morning at Make sure to put the words "question of the week suggestion" in the subject line.

    Thanks to everyone who's taken the time to participate, either by posting here, or by sending an e-mail to the mailbag mail drop.


    William Patalon III
    Executive Editor
    Money Morning

  8. Steve | March 26, 2010

    When will people understand that insurance companies and medical device companies do not pay taxes. All taxes that the government places on businesses will simply flow down to consumers/taxpayers. It may take 2-3 years before most people learn that this law increases their taxes, reduces their medical coverage and increases the deficit.

  9. Marilyn | March 28, 2010

    Once again is robbery and the worst thing ever. Y does the government need to control so much? What is the secret with all this?

  10. Mark M. | March 28, 2010

    Couldn’t they make and propose changes in targeted areas and zero in on eliminating the fraud, then see where we stand to reassess the situation. They could have had a fraud task force in play this whole year.

  11. fraenkl henry | March 28, 2010

    If someone or somebody provides the public with enough cash and credits, you would assume that this someone is a hero and that he would be entitled, for making everybody less dependent,to as much income as he asks for. So 100 billion yoy income would not be enough.
    Because the rich wont HAVE TO PAY ANY TAXES ANYMORE, the government can optain enough money by VAT and other. But mainly through the responsibility of the banks. So public healthcare will be only the first step to tax-abolition – … if the bankers start taking responsibility.
    This is the future. But they missed or had their chance…

  12. Steven D. Henry | March 28, 2010

    The Healthcare Bill recently passed is unconstitutional and boarders on treason. The history of socialism shows it to be a failed system as does socialized medicine. We only need to look at Britain and Canada. Free enterprise is much better since it promotes innovation and efficiency–and most of all freedom and liberty as intended by our founding fathers. Much of the ills with health care in this country are imposed by the Federal Government— placing the solution in the hands of the Federal Government bureacracy and myriad of regulations will be like trying to stop a fire by throwing gasoline on it! If we want further evidence of the veracity and efficiency of Goevernment run programs just look at Social Security and Medicare where estimates range 30 to 100 Trillion of unfunder entitlement programs that are called "trust funds", but are actually taxes with empted accounts. Nevertheless, we are told the Government needs to run healthcare (the mother of entitlement programs). The shipof the Federal Government is sinking under insurmountable, unsustainable debt yet we want to add healthcare to the load because it will save money. Do you believe that? It defies logic and is like to let the water out of a sinking boat by blowing another hole in it to let the water out.

  13. Michael Florkowski | March 28, 2010

    I hope it will help some people. but just remmber where this bill come WASHINGTON D C they are going to give you the america people the least coverage, I DO NOT TRUST WASHINGTON D C. they are people who are for themselves i am sorry i do not believe them and just one thing when are these people going take a cut in pay ever body else dose.

  14. john fitton | March 28, 2010

    The only way it gets right is: Public owns all hospital like school,roads that will stop their stealing. Get rid of ins. co rip off profit 7 fold get rid of this middle thief, all money that goes to them now is sent to medicare,medicad treasury,two years there be a surplus and then all people are treated and dentistry too.. 650 million lobbiest and politition money also go to treasury stop stealing, and Stop parma stealing also what a joke this country really is, admit the Big brother capitalism does not work for this new working class poor they now call us that built amd made rich man rich,but does not ,not equal of class,or worthless money… I get it no party tea or pee gets it,r or d,xyzebra.

  15. Jack | March 28, 2010

    Another leftist power grab/robbery, courtesy of the moronic voters.

  16. JOHN EPEPPERCORN | March 28, 2010


  17. Jerry Clark | March 28, 2010

    I agree that people that work but cannot afford Insurance need to be helped out on cost. What I worry about is the small business owner like myself who will have to pay for their employees during will not be able to stay competive and will have to lay off people. Also rather than taking away from medicare they should have taken time to figure a better way of paying for the health care.

  18. Doris | March 28, 2010

    I am not happy with the outcome. I want single-payer! However, not that SOMETHING has passed, the system can be tweeked and hopefully we will end up with a single-payer system. Hawaii has had health coverage for all it's citizens for over 40 years. They have not gone broke! The people there love it. Europe does not allow GMO's and many of our pesticides in/on their foods as the government pays for their health care so they take action to keep their people healthy. Maybe our government will start watching out for us now. EPA, FDA are you listening?
    Historically, insurance companies are crime syndicates. Pay your property insurance to the mob, or you place WILL burn. Pay your health insurance and MAYBE we will cover you (but don't go over $x in expenses).
    I have a question for John R. How are the children going to provide their own insurance? Are you going to farm out the 2 year old to the dirty old man?

  19. DP | March 28, 2010

    I agree with terree, something does smell and it is going to cost us a lot more than they think. There will not be a big savings when all is done. Money will be diverted from one area to another trying to "hide" expenses. Our children and grandchildren, on and on will be left to pay for it. There will not be many doctors that will sign up for treating patients with the very small amount the government will pay. If the government really does compensate the health care workers, the cost will increase even more. More has to be done with frivolous law suits and malpractice insurance costs to be able to lower medical costs. This is hard to do when most of our government is run by lawyers. They all should be covered by the same insurance that they mandate for us. What is good for the rest of the country should be good for them.

  20. James Morgan | March 28, 2010

    Despite numerous polls showing the majority of Americans (58% vs 39%) are opposed to the Senate health care bill, Obama and the Democrats chose to ignore their objections schemed to find some way to sneak this terrible legislation into law. While the American people support reasonable health care reform, the bill that was passed by the Senate on December 24 is counterproductive, does not lower the cost of health care, causes increased cost of health insurance by imposing mandates and taxes on health care devices, fails to allow interstate insurance competition, is designed to force private insurers out of business and pave the way for socialized medicine, and it is not acceptable "reform". It implements crippling new taxes, fails to control malpractice jury awards or attorney fees, attempts to unconstitutionally force people to buy health insurance, fails to include tax incentives for individuals who buy insurance, includes unconstitutional provisions favoring unions and selected states, includes taxpayer funding of abortion, included back room deals with President Obama that had the pharmaceutical industry spending close to $80 billion to help brace up the government takeover in exchange for not being taxed and fined billions more, further attempts to cheat hospitals and doctors out of fair reimbursement under Medicare by cutting funding by a half trillion dollars which will cut reimbursement rates which in turn will encourage more doctors to stop treating Medicare patients (and you believed them when they said you can keep your doctor?), provides a 5% penalty for doctors who happen to be in the top 10% of Medicare costs per patient providing incentive to cut corners with their patients, fails to reform Medicaid while expanding it at states expense which will have to be paid for by states increasing taxes at the very time when state budgets are under water, fails to include actions to increase the supply of doctors which will result in health care rationing, and hurts private business ability to create jobs at the worst possible time for the economy. Further, the projected $1 trillion cost is obviously understated by several orders of magnitude based on the historical original projected cost of Medicaid, Medicare, the Drug program and almost every other government program, versus actual costs after implementation. In addition it cheats on the financial analysis by collecting taxes immediately but providing no "benefits" until years later. Certainly some of the projected revenue sources will not be realized such as the ridiculous tax on "Cadillac" plans. (Such plans will disappear.)

    At the present time the "public option" is out but there are many Democrats including Obama who will force it in as soon as possible. Undoubtedly it would operate just like Medicaid where medical costs are not fully reimbursed to doctors and hospitals forcing unrecovered costs to be charged to private health insurance companies which results in higher premiums than otherwise required, with the intended result of driving them out of business at a faster rate. And by the way, the bill includes a provision that you will not be allowed to sue the government for a denial of health care which should have been approved!

    When the country is in desperate need of increasing employment the current bill is putting pressure on existing and potential new business to avoid hiring new employees because of the fear of additional job costs, taxes, and regulation. It is estimated to cost corporations $14 billion to implement and already there are projections of thousands more job cuts because of it.

    I am hopeful that a truly bipartisan conference between the Administration, Senate, and House can bring all parties together and work for responsible reform that will enable creation of more jobs, get control of malpractice costs, reduce health insurance prices through real interstate competition, help revive the economy, and help everyone who wishes to purchase health insurance with options of their choice at a fair price. The Senate bill needs to be repealed!

  21. Gary Morgan | March 28, 2010

    Our employer-provided health insurance system is a major reason that our companies have a hard time competing in the world market. For the sake of our economy, we need to stop the insanity of allowing insurance companies from confiscating a third of our health care dollars. The rest of the industrialized world spends half or less than we do for health care. This money would be much better spent on wages and growing the economy.

  22. Mariiyn Herman | March 29, 2010

    The answer lto whether or not this beginning of an honest attempt to provide more Americans some hope for regular health care which has the potential to help us progress toward the desired wellness care instead of the enormously expensive and inefficient emergency room visits which uninsured citizenz have had as their only option (for which ALL of us who pay our insurnace premiums pay by the way) is good or bad for our country is easy. It is good legislation if we don't want the costs of care for the uninsured to all of us insured hidden in the ever rising insurance bills we pay for resticted coverage for as long as we don't have a long, seriouis illness because of our uninformed payment for those "other irresponsible folks. It is bad if we prefer to live in our cocoons of deceiving ourselves. Profit making Insurance companies have just been handed a bonanza of new people to buy their policies Hospitals will see significiant reduction in their "losses" for their mandated treatment of people with inability to pay and no insurance. My husband and I had wonderful, reasonably priced HMO coverage for the 22 years he suffered the ravages of Parkinson's Disease plus Lewy Body Disease. We would depleted our personal, carefully invested resources years ago but for our helath care coverage. Because we had that coverage John Q Public paid not a single dollar to help us pay. Many responsible, middle class, hard working, smart money managers whom we came to know t hourhg Parkinson's suport group activities spent everything they had set aside, moved from lovely homes into modest rentals, and ultimately finished life in a Medcaid facility with all of us paying. Yes, we needed this reform and it is only the beginnnig of what must be done to rein in costs. THis lelgislation's goal is to transform our current defensive illness treatment system into a wellness system which catches potential health issues early and provides incentives for people to treat their bodies responsibly instead of depending on some over priced medicine to repair the damage we do to ouselves. Why do we have so many knee and hip replacements and heart procedures? We allow ourselves to overeat and spent most of our leisure time in front of our TVs to the point our body parts are stressed and wear out. If we are to continue to call our country the best in the world, we the people must take the challenge to become humane, caring, reponsible people in our own care and that of all of our citizenry

  23. Shirley J. | March 29, 2010

    I think the new law is a travesty of justice. My husband is 81 years old and if a Dr. offers him "end of life counceling" I will walk out and take him to an alturnative Dr. I think the fact that they can deny services to older people simply makes medicare users pay the bill for their stupid decisions in congress. Look what they dished out to the banks! They sure didn't cut their funds! To be able to invade our checking accounts is another insult. I am all for the replacement of every congressman that voted for this bill and that is how I am going to vote this year.

  24. Shirley J. | March 29, 2010

    You can change stupid to unfair, but I think the rest of it is honest and to the point. I am very angry at all the ways the constitution has been ignored in all of this.

  25. Bruce L. Davies | March 29, 2010

    Your report states a glaring and factual error "The fact is that many Americans will have health-care for the first time ever.' Health insurance and health-care are two totally different things. America gives health-care to anyone with or without a payment ability. This confusion only clouds the acceptance of this bill on humanitarian basis. The "Social Justice" aspect of this and other like government programs are distortions of the mandate by religions to help the poor. No religion believes that to help the poor, one has the moral right to confiscate the goods from one individual in order to meet the moral mandate to help the poor. In fact, the 10 commandments admonishes those who steal. Furthermore, the "Social Justice" idea incorporates the distortion that all are not only born equal but "deserves" equal outcomes because everyone should posses the same prosperity. However the 10 commandments admonish those who covet a neighbors possessions. The entire idea that the acts of government to redistribute the wealth from one to another by the point of a gun as a virtue is the same as saying that the thug robbing you at gun point and feeding his family is not a crime. Do you not find it odd that the confiscators couch their immoral acts in religious terms yet admonish religion on other policies like abortion, public pronouncements of religious beliefs and a distinction of family commitments through marriage? After spending trillions on the poor for 50 years, we still have the same % of poor, Have you noted that the greater the size of government, the smaller your freedom to determine the use of hard earned compensation after taxes? Another distortion is that this is not costly because it is budget neutral. However, the new increased taxes will be costly. Also, this neutral idea leaves the impression that it is self funding. However it loads the cost after 4 years of revenue collection. Would you purchase a home by paying on it for 4 years before being allowed to move in it? Why would we pay 4 years of premiums before getting health insurance? This is not about health insurance nor health-care. It is about expanding the rights of government over the unalienable rights of individuals. We need to re-educate ourselves on the promise of our Constitution and understand the moral superiority of the real American "Social Justice".

  26. Jean J | March 29, 2010

    Obama says Obamacare will reduce the deficit. What he DOESN"T say is that the cost for this new Healthcare is being transfered to the American public in the form of new taxes.

    Obamacare forces WORKING citizens to give FREE healthcare to ILLEGAL ALIENS.

    Obamacare is not Healthcare. It is GOVERNMENT CONTROL of yet another free market enterprise.

    Obamacare creates yet another bumbling bureauocracy

    Obamacare increases government control of our lives and finances.

    Obamacare is just another step in his socialistic, 'spread the wealth' agenda.

    The methods he and his cronies used to cram this bill down the throats of the American public even when an MSNBC poll showed 76% of those who responded were against it – should be grounds for impeachment. He has broken the public trust and prostituted his Oath of Office.

  27. willis Young | March 30, 2010

    IT STINKS REAL BAD best thing you can say

  28. Anita | April 5, 2010

    This bill is a monstrosity. I want healthcare reform as a physician, I see people with minimal problems be excluded from insurance due to "preexisting conditions". Having said that, this law isn't it! It is robbing Peter (Medicare to the tune of 500 billion) to pay Paul and Peter is already broke!! Within the next 2-3 years, seniors will start to see routine diagnostic and treatment services be curtailed like MRIs and kidney dialysis treatment. To deny the latter to a patient is a death sentence. The greatest generation may be sold down the river with no care and premature death. None of the Tweedle dees/dums in Congress dealt with liability reform because the Democrats are in the back pockets of the trial lawyers association. We already have a deficit of 17 thousand primary care docs now and they want to add an additional 30 million without doing something radical to augment the supply side of the equation. It takes 8 years to make a doc and the obvious shortages are going to inflate waiting times just to receive routine care. People are going to die waiting to be seen. Also some docs are going to quit based on the New England Journal of Medicine recent poll which said 46% would quit if the bill passes. None of the pols have factored doctor disapproval into this equation. There could be thousands of medical John Gaults suddenly disappearing from the physician ranks. There are approximately 1 million docs in the US. 100,000 are over 65, 200,000 are between 55-65 and 250,000 are between 45-55. With regards to the poll, talk is cheap and financial reality may keep more docs working than the loss projected. However, even if 20% quit, the loss of experienced physicians would have a huge negative impact on the American patient's ability to even find a doc especially a primary care one. The hidden taxes on assets and restrictions on the private health care companies will ultimately force them out of business and everyone will end up on a government controlled plan which is the ultimate goal of the folks in charge. Let's hope we can make a change in the fall via the ballot box and then defund this thing. Nothing goes forward without money ;-0!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Some HTML is OK