The Obama Care bill should NOT have been passed

1) While voting along party lines is nothing new, it is still concerning in this case that these closed and locked door meetings resulted in special deals for states, special groups and unions. Those special deals are a problem in this bill. This bill is forcing the American public to pay into a system regardless of their desire to do so and then exempts specific groups of people. (http://www.mofopolitics.com...) That is not fair legislation and creates questions as to why these deals were put in place to begin with? Was it to get extra votes? Yes (and my opponent admits this in point #5). 2) It is true that this bill does not cover those who do not choose to pay, but let me point out that the only choice people have is to pay a private company to be covered or not to pay a private company. They still have to pay either way. This is the first time in American history that to be a citizen in good standing, one must pay money to a private industry or be held in penalty by the government. This bill may not cover those who do not wish to pay the private entities, but those people will still be paying money for others to receive care. This is wrong and some states and attorney generals would argue violates the constitution, though that will be something for the courts to decide and is unclear at the moment. 3) The addition of a totally unrelated piece of legislation being added to the most controversial law passed in recent memory should not be overlooked at all. In fact, the reason the initial Congressional Budget Office numbers came out favorable to Obama Care was because of the interest they expected to be made from student loans and had nothing at all to do with the debt Obama Care itself would create. Additionally, the 'doctor fix' was left out of this particular bill even though it is fully related, though this too costs a lot of money. The student loan take over is not only a problem in terms of the government taking over and regulating more of the private sector but also in the dishonest way it attempted to frame this bill as to decrease the debt. This health care bill will increase the debt (http://www.cnsnews.com...) in a time when our focus should be on decreasing the debt and job creation. 4) If the universal coverage in Massachusetts is any indication, my opponent is correct, we will not see the number of primary care doctors staying the same. We will actually see that number decrease. There is a chance the government takeover of the student loan industry can be used as an aid to direct medical students into primary care with some sort of student loan decrease or things of that sort, but that gets into a very sticky situation. (http://online.wsj.com...) If no special deals are made for primary care doctors, there is no indication that their numbers will increase. Most medical students avoid primary care because they have very busy days filled with patient and poor hours and because of the poor payments they get in return to not only live their lives but also pay off huge student loan debts. This bill will cause a problem to both main areas. It will increase the number of patients being cared for by these doctors and will cut Medicare and Medicaid payments. This is a growing problem and not passed in this very costly Obama care bill. 5) Back to the special deals, see #1 and remember this is not just a 'side affect' but rather a major problem because it 'bought votes'. This is a crime in our legal system when it is found in any place other than our government. These special deals were added to 'buy votes'. My opponent even admits "These exemptions we(r)e necessary for the bill to pass..." This is bribery and it is happening in such a way as to pass controversial legislation that forces the American people to pay private entities money, regardless of the use of their product, or the IRS will implement a fine. It is no wonder the American people are outraged at the government getting bigger, such as taking over the student loan industry, and that they are passing such legislation which may or may not violate the constitution. 6a) It is not the job of the individuals to provide for the rest of the country. I understand this legislation is forcing everyone to do so, but using this enforcement as part of your argument as to why it should have been passed does not hold water. I agree the government is forcing healthy people who don't want insurance to pay into the system. They are forcing insurances to cover people who are at high risk. And to make both work the government must force payments from those who have more money than others. To answer my opponent, yes, I understand the government is forcing many people against their will. This bill has countless flaws and should not have been passed. I reached my character limit. Thanks for the debate JBlake.