Is Obamacare because of costs or loss?

Outraged about cost of medical care? Don't be. It was 5% of consumer income in 1901 and is 6% today. And look at the change in life expectancy. What has increased is the amount of our income that goes to entertainment/reading: 3% in 1901 a...nd 7% in 2003. More than health care. Food costs have been reduced tremendously in percent of income. 40% on food down to 13%. The biggest increase has been in transportation. What I can't tell from the graph (because it is consumer income), is how much we contribute to these categories through our taxes--artificially low food prices because of agricultural support, and the various government health programs and research.

http://visualeconomics.creditloan.com/100-years-of-consumer-spending/

Obamacare isn't about insuring the poor or pre-existing coverage. The employer deduction and the employee tax free benefit amounts to a "loss" to the government that is twice that of the mortgage deduction loss. It's the biggest "loophole" in the system, and the way the government controls both business and labor through tax laws. Both Republicans and Democrats think that's their money--and they want us to pay up! That said, the money that employers use to purchase health insurance comes out of workers’ wages. We would all be better off if we were just allowed to purchase the insurance we want (without employer involvement) and health care were tax neutral, but that will never happen.