Looks like Obama is making all the right moves...

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
How is this change on and not more of the same?

When did we have UHC before? The stuff you conservatives are saying is absurd. You know damn well that it was Republicans who blocked UHC in the past.

Your revisionist history is pathetic. Who controlled both chambers of Congress when Clinton's healthcare plan died? The Dems. And who refused to even bring it to a full vote in the House? Oh, that's right, the Dems. Sen. Daniel P. Moynihan (among many critics) said "anyone who thinks ((the Clinton plan)) can work in the real world as presently written isn't living in it.", but he wasn't a Dem, was he? Please explain to us all how the GOP managed to kill UHC in the 103rd Congress when the Dems had an 82 seat margin of majority in the House. This should be interesting.

Republicans opposed HillaryCare and a lot of Democrats went along with them.

 

[jpeyton]

The next eight years is going to be so great.

 

[Born2bwire]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
How is this change on and not more of the same?

When did we have UHC before? The stuff you conservatives are saying is absurd. You know damn well that it was Republicans who blocked UHC in the past.

Your revisionist history is pathetic. Who controlled both chambers of Congress when Clinton's healthcare plan died? The Dems. And who refused to even bring it to a full vote in the House? Oh, that's right, the Dems. Sen. Daniel P. Moynihan (among many critics) said "anyone who thinks ((the Clinton plan)) can work in the real world as presently written isn't living in it.", but he wasn't a Dem, was he?

Please explain to us all how the GOP managed to kill UHC in the 103rd Congress when the Dems had an 82 seat margin of majority in the House.

This should be interesting.

Because you are lying as usual.

103rd United States Congress

Democrats were just short of full control:

Democratic Party 258 59.3%
Republican Party 176 40.6%
Independent 1 0.2%

Who is the revisionist here and pathetic?

wow dave, you can't do simple arithmetic? 258-176=82

Are you kidding me? Remember his milk watch thread?

 

[JohnnyGage]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: nkgreen
What do you mean, you wouldn't have to pay for the unhealthy around you? Where the hell do you think the money comes from that pays for those unhealthy fat asses?

By your argument, you should want private healthcare because your premiums would be lower.

I see your point. But I disagree. If only 60% have health coverage now the 40% who don't still get emergency care therefore the cost is folded into the 60%. This would become 100% therefore my totals would go down. If I owned a business i would no longer be responsible for the healthcare costs of my employees. Also a for profit business model means that as much as 30% total payed into the system never goes to healthcare it goes to profit. I contend that the layer of bureaucracy created by going UHC is lesser then the layer of bureaucracy now in place.

Now if you are ultra rich you will still have health care above and beyond the normal person. This won't change. Brain cancer? You want to go to cedars and see the specialist that only takes 100k cash? He's still there. The pillow top will still exist with uhc just like it exists in our current system.

Yes, but you will only get 40% of your paycheck. So I guess it will be cheaper.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: JohnnyGage
Yes, but you will only get 40% of your paycheck. So I guess it will be cheaper.

Where do you get those numbers?

 

[JohnnyGage]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: JohnnyGage
Yes, but you will only get 40% of your paycheck. So I guess it will be cheaper.

Where do you get those numbers?

Where do you think? How are they going to get all the money for the 'free' health care? Through the taxpayer!! Admittedly I just picked a number it could be higher but aint going to get lower than it is now. Don't be naive to think that for one second that all taxes won't have to be raised significantly on everyone to pay for health care. Medi-Cal in California is in a monetary black hole--where billions go to evaporate. If you pay an avg or 25% now it will have to be at least another 25 or 30% for all the 'free' health care. And to top it all off service and overall care will be worse than it is now.


Daschle is not the right guy for the job--we need someone to change the system and the answer is not UHC. It should be the opposite--more choice, more competition. That is the only way to get things cheaper. If you think dealing with your insurance company sucks, wait til you have to deal with the federal government.

Edit: Just wanted to add: How do you contend that there will be less bureaucracy? When has the federal govt. come in and created LESS bureaucracy?

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
You can do all that and still fall dead of a heart attack or get cancer.

The problem I have with UHC is the abuses of people who gum up the system who aren't sick but insist on going to the doctor for a sniffle.

Actually the entire health care system would cost less if we had preventative care instead of waiting for a problem to become so severe we are taken by ambulance to the hospital. Yes there would be more people going with a sniffle then before but the over all costs of catching things early would be less.

True, but going in for a sniffle is not preventative care.

Yes it is. You don't know what a sniffle is a symptom of. Could be something that is much cheaper to treat early than wait to find out. People going to see doctor for sniffles is not what's bankrupting our healthcare system, it's chronic illness, medical care for the elderly, and people getting healthcare through ERs because they don't have insurance.

 

[Timorous]

In the UK National Insurance is 11% of the paycheck after your 1st £6,000 earned (~$9,500). This covers our NHS, Police and Fire services as well as others so how much is for the NHS directly I do not know.

We also have private health insurance with private hospitals which is around £40/month (~$65) for someone my age. This is for the platinum coverage with £0 excess(This covers all in and out patient treatments as well as a lot of other benefits). It also has a no claims discount so each year you do not claim the premium goes down, this can reach a 50% discount on the premium.

This is what the UK health system is like. You get good coverage from the NHS, and private insurance is very cheap since it has to provide a benefit over the NHS to make it worth the extra cost.

It surprises me how against UHC a lot of Americans are. The benefits it can provide are huge and the people who still want private insurance get a much better deal because they have a high baseline to compete against. It does have to be done correctly and the NHS is not perfect but it does make the insurance companies more honest because they know if they do not provide an excellent service you will just cancel your coverage and stick to the NHS which does a good enough job.

For profit health insurance as your main form of coverage is just backwards since they make money by refusing to cover you. Private insurance is good as a bonus to a UHC system which provides good coverage for all but as your main for of coverage it is a horrible system and I feel sorry that you do not have it any better.

 

[Zebo]

Looks like Obama is making all the right moves... o'rly....Obama will be a worse disaster than Bush on foreign policy - couldn't even wait to hold office to nullify his promises, and play the antiwar voters who put him there, about Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan among other things with solid war party neo-con appointments and promises to nuke Iran should they mess with Israel. Least Bush waited until Sept 12 to renig. Can't comment domestically as I don't think there is hope or a change you can make our indebtedness, lack of industry and fading fast and their consequences. You are seriously deluded if you think national HC is coming though.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Timorous
In the UK National Insurance is 11% of the paycheck after your 1st £6,000 earned (~$9,500). This covers our NHS, Police and Fire services as well as others so how much is for the NHS directly I do not know.

We also have private health insurance with private hospitals which is around £40/month (~$65) for someone my age. This is for the platinum coverage with £0 excess(This covers all in and out patient treatments as well as a lot of other benefits). It also has a no claims discount so each year you do not claim the premium goes down, this can reach a 50% discount on the premium.

This is what the UK health system is like. You get good coverage from the NHS, and private insurance is very cheap since it has to provide a benefit over the NHS to make it worth the extra cost.

It surprises me how against UHC a lot of Americans are. The benefits it can provide are huge and the people who still want private insurance get a much better deal because they have a high baseline to compete against. It does have to be done correctly and the NHS is not perfect but it does make the insurance companies more honest because they know if they do not provide an excellent service you will just cancel your coverage and stick to the NHS which does a good enough job.

For profit health insurance as your main form of coverage is just backwards since they make money by refusing to cover you. Private insurance is good as a bonus to a UHC system which provides good coverage for all but as your main for of coverage it is a horrible system and I feel sorry that you do not have it any better.

Simple - propaganda from those getting rich off keeping it as is . Read this thread you can see much of it parroted.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

You think it wont? How about we go the other way. I eat fruit and veggies every day. I do yoga and run 3 miles 3x a week. I lift light weights. My body weight is right where it should be. Now half of you are over weight, never exercise and eat pizza once a week. Why should I have to pay into a health care system to support you fat asses? Why should my premium ever be anything over $50? Because you choose to eat mcdonalds the cost of your heart surgery is folded into my premium. This is a broken system. We need to fix it with uhc. I've been to the doctor 3 times in the last 10 years! Why am i paying for you!

I really don't eat veggies, or do yoga, or run at all, nor do I lift weights, and my body weight is not really where it should be, and I love pizza, but I have been to the doctor two times in the past ten years...why am I paying for your thrid visit?

As others have said, UHC won't save you any money, you will either continue paying the same or will have more stripped from your paycheck in the form of higher taxes.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

You think it wont? How about we go the other way. I eat fruit and veggies every day. I do yoga and run 3 miles 3x a week. I lift light weights. My body weight is right where it should be. Now half of you are over weight, never exercise and eat pizza once a week. Why should I have to pay into a health care system to support you fat asses? Why should my premium ever be anything over $50? Because you choose to eat mcdonalds the cost of your heart surgery is folded into my premium. This is a broken system. We need to fix it with uhc. I've been to the doctor 3 times in the last 10 years! Why am i paying for you!

I really don't eat veggies, or do yoga, or run at all, nor do I lift weights, and my body weight is not really where it should be, and I love pizza, but I have been to the doctor two times in the past ten years...why am I paying for your thrid visit?

As others have said, UHC won't save you any money, you will either continue paying the same or will have more stripped from your paycheck in the form of higher taxes.

Matt you should really watch what you eat, control your weight and see a Doctor more often, if not for yourself then for your Wife and child. They are depending on you being around for a long time.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: JohnnyGage

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: JohnnyGage
Yes, but you will only get 40% of your paycheck. So I guess it will be cheaper.

Where do you get those numbers?

Where do you think? How are they going to get all the money for the 'free' health care? Through the taxpayer!! Admittedly I just picked a number it could be higher but aint going to get lower than it is now. Don't be naive to think that for one second that all taxes won't have to be raised significantly on everyone to pay for health care. Medi-Cal in California is in a monetary black hole--where billions go to evaporate. If you pay an avg or 25% now it will have to be at least another 25 or 30% for all the 'free' health care. And to top it all off service and overall care will be worse than it is now.


Daschle is not the right guy for the job--we need someone to change the system and the answer is not UHC. It should be the opposite--more choice, more competition. That is the only way to get things cheaper. If you think dealing with your insurance company sucks, wait til you have to deal with the federal government.

Edit: Just wanted to add: How do you contend that there will be less bureaucracy? When has the federal govt. come in and created LESS bureaucracy?

Do you understand how insurance works? THere are things called insurance companies. See, an insurance company has to make more money from covering you than it spends. Can you comprehend that? That means that it's in their best interests to pay for as little as they can. If they can't make money off you, they just won't take your business.

Tell me what choice a 60 year old person has. Or what about a 7 year old child with a heart murmor? What choice do you think those people have now?

What about someone with diabetes and employer provided health insurance? You know what his choice is? STAY JOB LOCKED. Do you at least understand that? Job locking? Is that a good thing? Is that choice to you?

What about in-network/out-of-network providers? Does having to go to certain doctors and hospitals amount to more choice? Or is that less choice?

Or is choice just a buzzword you throw around without understanding what private health insurance actually is? John McCain's campaign is over- stop parroting that meaningless garbage.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

You think it wont? How about we go the other way. I eat fruit and veggies every day. I do yoga and run 3 miles 3x a week. I lift light weights. My body weight is right where it should be. Now half of you are over weight, never exercise and eat pizza once a week. Why should I have to pay into a health care system to support you fat asses? Why should my premium ever be anything over $50? Because you choose to eat mcdonalds the cost of your heart surgery is folded into my premium. This is a broken system. We need to fix it with uhc. I've been to the doctor 3 times in the last 10 years! Why am i paying for you!

I really don't eat veggies, or do yoga, or run at all, nor do I lift weights, and my body weight is not really where it should be, and I love pizza, but I have been to the doctor two times in the past ten years...why am I paying for your thrid visit?

As others have said, UHC won't save you any money, you will either continue paying the same or will have more stripped from your paycheck in the form of higher taxes.

Matt you should really watch what you eat, control your weight and see a Doctor more often, if not for yourself then for your Wife and child. They are depending on you being around for a long time.

Sucks for his wife and kids when he changes jobs and loses coverage, and no insurance company is dumb enough to lose money on his fat ass. I wonder if he'll refuse Obama's UHC and say "why should my tax dollars pay for my kid's chemotherapy?"...

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
How is this change on and not more of the same?

When did we have UHC before? The stuff you conservatives are saying is absurd. You know damn well that it was Republicans who blocked UHC in the past.

Your revisionist history is pathetic. Who controlled both chambers of Congress when Clinton's healthcare plan died? The Dems. And who refused to even bring it to a full vote in the House? Oh, that's right, the Dems. Sen. Daniel P. Moynihan (among many critics) said "anyone who thinks ((the Clinton plan)) can work in the real world as presently written isn't living in it.", but he wasn't a Dem, was he? Please explain to us all how the GOP managed to kill UHC in the 103rd Congress when the Dems had an 82 seat margin of majority in the House. This should be interesting.

Republicans opposed HillaryCare and a lot of Democrats went along with them.

Why'd it take two attempts for you to finally find the facts? First you accuse the minority party (GOP) of killing UHC in 93-94, when both chambers of Congress AND the White House were controlled by the Dems, and when you're confronted about your lies with the truth, you then change your story, but only part-way. You've only proven yourself the equal of Dave - a partisan troll spouting lies and unworthy of a serious response.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
How is this change on and not more of the same?

When did we have UHC before? The stuff you conservatives are saying is absurd. You know damn well that it was Republicans who blocked UHC in the past.

Your revisionist history is pathetic. Who controlled both chambers of Congress when Clinton's healthcare plan died? The Dems. And who refused to even bring it to a full vote in the House? Oh, that's right, the Dems. Sen. Daniel P. Moynihan (among many critics) said "anyone who thinks ((the Clinton plan)) can work in the real world as presently written isn't living in it.", but he wasn't a Dem, was he? Please explain to us all how the GOP managed to kill UHC in the 103rd Congress when the Dems had an 82 seat margin of majority in the House. This should be interesting.

Republicans opposed HillaryCare and a lot of Democrats went along with them.

Why'd it take two attempts for you to finally find the facts? First you accuse the minority party (GOP) of killing UHC in 93-94, when both chambers of Congress AND the White House were controlled by the Dems, and when you're confronted about your lies with the truth, you then change your story, but only part-way. You've only proven yourself the equal of Dave - a partisan troll spouting lies and unworthy of a serious response.

It happened that a lot of Dems voted with the Reps, thanks to the strong campaign against UHC by CONSERVATIVES and the political correctness of voting against "big government". How can you possibly blame democrats for voting against something because they'd lose conservative votes in the next election, and not blame the conservatives?


What next, you are going to say it was liberals' fault that the Civil Rights Act wasn't passed earlier?

Fine, blame Democrats. Now are you going to make up for OUR wrongdoing and support UHC?

 

[Skitzer]

Originally posted by: alchemize
I liked his chosing a physicist for the dept. of energy, I would have hoped he took this approach and took somebody from the healthcare industry (probably a physician)...instead of yet another do-nothing politician.

This!

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
I could be getting ahead of myself here but I'm concerned with this. We had a state run health care plan here in Tennessee that failed miserably. I believe it is back to some degree but nowhere near the level it was when the original 'vision' was put into play.

Does anyone know what type of health care plan Obama hopes to achieve?

Maybe it had something to do with the tens of thousands of folks in Tenn'see who were not eligible but received 'state' pharmacy benefits and used them for OxyContin diversion and abuse?

:laugh:

As far as Obama I think his foremost idea is the 'catastrophic' reinsurance coverage in order to reduce the base cost of health insurance. The contention is that you reduce the base cost thereby making insurance more affordable. Make the base coverage more affordable and more people can carry health insurance. Covering more people then reduces the overall cost of the base insurance and that mean less uncompensated care.

It's not a bad idea - but the devil in the details will be controlling 'catastrophic' (and this is where it gets really dicey). So much of our health care industry 'profits' from the 'big ticket' operations - and most of those occur in the elderly. 'Managing' these cost will be key, as will uncovering fraud.

Where do you draw the line? Do you provide a heart or kidney transplant to the 73 year-old but the 74 year-old is denied? If the 73 year-old has life expectancy of 4 more years would the transplant better benefit a younger person with a 20-30 year life expectancy?

What level of 'catastrophic' care is provided to 'terminal' patients? Where does the line between 'quality of life', terminal illness and 'catastrophic' care intersect?

But most importantly, will the gov't Big Pharma program give me free Viagra when I'm 79 years old?

 

[Born2bwire]

Originally posted by: Skitzer

Originally posted by: alchemize
I liked his chosing a physicist for the dept. of energy, I would have hoped he took this approach and took somebody from the healthcare industry (probably a physician)...instead of yet another do-nothing politician.

This!

I think his health care proposals will need to navigate some rough political waters for it to succeed. The fact that the Clinton health care plan could not get through a Democrat majority Congress is a bit of a testament to this fact. So maybe he felt that a politician would be better able to get support for the his legislation.

 

[Skitzer]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: blackangst1
I think "health care challenge" needs to be defined, and what specific plan of action is considered. Pretty vague so far.

Yep, it is very unclear at this point. As someone who works in the field, I am concerned with the great unknown which is pretty much everything at this point.

I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt and see how this plays out but I would be lying if I said I wasn't already worried about my job.

In SE Michigan, Beaumont Hospital laid off some 165 workers, including 65 employed in direct patient care a few weeks back.

FFS I got into respiratory so I wouldn't have to worry about this kind of shit.

It will be ugly.

You will have be drafted militarily.

Wouldn't be surprised to see National Guard set up at the few remaining Hospitals.

Huh????
WTF are you trying to say?
Your train of thought is very difficult to follow.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
You think UHC will ever work here?

But I digress...so let the dream take flight!

You think it wont? How about we go the other way. I eat fruit and veggies every day. I do yoga and run 3 miles 3x a week. I lift light weights. My body weight is right where it should be. Now half of you are over weight, never exercise and eat pizza once a week. Why should I have to pay into a health care system to support you fat asses? Why should my premium ever be anything over $50? Because you choose to eat mcdonalds the cost of your heart surgery is folded into my premium. This is a broken system. We need to fix it with uhc. I've been to the doctor 3 times in the last 10 years! Why am i paying for you!

Than you would have to take into consideration people who are sick by choice. What about people who like my mom were generally healthy and working 40-50 hours a week but got hit by ms/epilepsy?

Though I do agree, if you are fat/overweight due to choice you should pay premiums that cover the expected health cost of your lifestyle.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: RichardE
Though I do agree, if you are fat/overweight due to choice you should pay premiums that cover the expected health cost of your lifestyle.

But we all know that will never happen.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: RichardE
Though I do agree, if you are fat/overweight due to choice you should pay premiums that cover the expected health cost of your lifestyle.

But we all know that will never happen.

Not yet, we have to wait until being fat becomes politically incorrect. Right now it is just too much big business in people being fat.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Do you understand how insurance works? THere are things called insurance companies. See, an insurance company has to make more money from covering you than it spends. Can you comprehend that? That means that it's in their best interests to pay for as little as they can. If they can't make money off you, they just won't take your business.

Tell me what choice a 60 year old person has. Or what about a 7 year old child with a heart murmor? What choice do you think those people have now?

What about someone with diabetes and employer provided health insurance? You know what his choice is? STAY JOB LOCKED. Do you at least understand that? Job locking? Is that a good thing? Is that choice to you?

What about in-network/out-of-network providers? Does having to go to certain doctors and hospitals amount to more choice? Or is that less choice?

Or is choice just a buzzword you throw around without understanding what private health insurance actually is? John McCain's campaign is over- stop parroting that meaningless garbage.

:thumbsup:

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
I could be getting ahead of myself here but I'm concerned with this. We had a state run health care plan here in Tennessee that failed miserably. I believe it is back to some degree but nowhere near the level it was when the original 'vision' was put into play.

Does anyone know what type of health care plan Obama hopes to achieve?

Maybe it had something to do with the tens of thousands of folks in Tenn'see who were not eligible but received 'state' pharmacy benefits and used them for OxyContin diversion and abuse?

:laugh:

Exactly! And that doesn't even count the people not from Tennessee who were on the rolls. What I'm getting at here is what so many people already know... governments blow at running huge programs. I just hope that whatever type of health care we get is small enough that it can be controlled.

I also hope that anyone who is under this program is forced to undergo necessary "healthy" lifestyle changes if they wish to continue receiving "free" coverage. Smoking cessation, weight management, etc.

I obviously "hope" for most of these things because I've worked hard to be where I am and have a bad feeling we (the "middle" class) are going to bear the brunt of this burden.