Obama and health care

M0RPH

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2003
3,302
1
0
I keep hearing Obama talking about universal health care, as if his plan was a universal health care plan. It is absolutely not. There is no provision in his plan to ensure that everyone has health care coverage.

There are two ways to bring about universal health care. One would be to eliminate private health insurance altogether and convert everything to a government-run system where everyone pays their share through taxes. Obviously this is the most radical approach and would be difficult to pass and to implement.

The second way is to keep private insurance but mandate that everyone must purchase health insurance, and to provide low-cost or free options for those who need it. This is much easier to do as it keeps the current system in place, but because it ensures that everyone is paying into the system, should do a lot to lower health care costs, besides the obvious benefit that everyone always has health coverage if they need it.

As many of you know, Hillary Clinton chose the second form of universal health care as her plan. In my opinion, this is the best way for us to get universal health care right now, while hopefully getting us on a path to eventually eliminate the money-grubbing insurance companies altogether.

Obama, on the other hand, did not have the guts to go after a true universal health care plan like either of the two options above. Instead, he took a third path which is not universal health care, but instead makes vagues promises about lowering health care costs so everyone can potenitally afford coverage. This will not do anything to ensure that everyone carries health insurance coverage, as there are some people who will refuse to buy into the system no matter how reasonable the cost. And when these people get sick, the rest of us will end up paying for them.

Instead of having the courage to go after a universal health care plan, Obama chose to take the safe route and not piss off the conservatives too much to ensure a better chance of his being elected. Very dissapointing from someone who is supposed to be representing change for the sake of the people.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Why should we force health care coverage on people who don't want it, just so we can call it "universal?" This kind of basic pragmatic common sense is what got me interested in Obama in the first place.

BTW, say this louder... maybe the Republicans will listen. ;)
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
61
There is no provision in his plan to ensure that everyone has health care coverage.

It doesn't force people to buy it.

Unless I am misunderstood, his plan would make sure anyone who wants it, can get it.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
He's just reading from the far left's playbook that tries to muddy the waters concerning INSURANCE v "CARE".

Uh, no... the far left is actually pissed off at Obama's healthcare plan (see OP), but thanks for playing.

The political REALITY is that the exact same healthcare plan is going to be enacted by Congress no matter who is elected President.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
He's just reading from the far left's playbook that tries to muddy the waters concerning INSURANCE v "CARE".

Uh, no... the far left is actually pissed off at Obama's healthcare plan (see OP), but thanks for playing.

The political REALITY is that the exact same healthcare plan is going to be enacted by Congress no matter who is elected President.

Uhh - try reading. I did NOT say the far left likes his plan, but thanks for playing....
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
61
Originally posted by: Vic
The political REALITY is that the exact same healthcare plan is going to be enacted by Congress no matter who is elected President.

Obama's?
 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Originally posted by: M0RPH
I keep hearing Obama talking about universal health care, as if his plan was a universal health care plan. It is absolutely not. There is no provision in his plan to ensure that everyone has health care coverage.

There are two ways to bring about universal health care. One would be to eliminate private health insurance altogether and convert everything to a government-run system where everyone pays their share through taxes. Obviously this is the most radical approach and would be difficult to pass and to implement.

The second way is to keep private insurance but mandate that everyone must purchase health insurance, and to provide low-cost or free options for those who need it. This is much easier to do as it keeps the current system in place, but because it ensures that everyone is paying into the system, should do a lot to lower health care costs, besides the obvious benefit that everyone always has health coverage if they need it.

As many of you know, Hillary Clinton chose the second form of universal health care as her plan. In my opinion, this is the best way for us to get universal health care right now, while hopefully getting us on a path to eventually eliminate the money-grubbing insurance companies altogether.

Obama, on the other hand, did not have the guts to go after a true universal health care plan like either of the two options above. Instead, he took a third path which is not universal health care, but instead makes vagues promises about lowering health care costs so everyone can potenitally afford coverage. This will not do anything to ensure that everyone carries health insurance coverage, as there are some people who will refuse to buy into the system no matter how reasonable the cost. And when these people get sick, the rest of us will end up paying for them.

Instead of having the courage to go after a universal health care plan, Obama chose to take the safe route and not piss off the conservatives too much to ensure a better chance of his being elected. Very dissapointing from someone who is supposed to be representing change for the sake of the people.

Neither of your two definitions fit the Canadian model and we have UHC....

Your definitions are lacking.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
He's just reading from the far left's playbook that tries to muddy the waters concerning INSURANCE v "CARE".

Uh, no... the far left is actually pissed off at Obama's healthcare plan (see OP), but thanks for playing.

The political REALITY is that the exact same healthcare plan is going to be enacted by Congress no matter who is elected President.

Uhh - try reading. I did NOT say the far left likes his plan, but thanks for playing....

Oh, so you were just DUH-verting. Got it. :roll:

 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Vic
The political REALITY is that the exact same healthcare plan is going to be enacted by Congress no matter who is elected President.

Obama's?

Ron Wyden's - Text
 

M0RPH

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2003
3,302
1
0
Originally posted by: bamacre
There is no provision in his plan to ensure that everyone has health care coverage.

It doesn't force people to buy it.

Unless I am misunderstood, his plan would make sure anyone who wants it, can get it.

And what about the people who don't want it? Do you think they have any less chance of getting sick than anyone else? When these people do get sick, should we tell them, 'sorry, you didn't want health insurance, and since you don't have $30K to pay for this major surgery, you're outta luck.' Maybe they should be told that, but in reality they will get their surgery and it will be paid for by the rest of us who were responsible enough to pay into the system. This is why health care costs are so high today.
 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Originally posted by: M0RPH
Originally posted by: bamacre
There is no provision in his plan to ensure that everyone has health care coverage.

It doesn't force people to buy it.

Unless I am misunderstood, his plan would make sure anyone who wants it, can get it.

And what about the people who don't want it? Do you think they have any less chance of getting sick than anyone else? When these people do get sick, should we tell them, 'sorry, you didn't want health insurance, and since you don't have $30K to pay for this major surgery, you're outta luck.' Maybe they should be told that, but in reality they will get their surgery and it will be paid for by the rest of us who were responsible enough to pay into the system. This is why health care costs are so high today.

You don't seem to actually know much about healthcare...


As a side though. Do you think if everyone has insurance premiums will never go up? Do you think its right to force people to pay a health tax? (Which is essentially what Hilary's plan is). Maybe the government should work on why it pays more per citizen over UHC countries that pay less per citizen but can insure everyone.
 

M0RPH

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2003
3,302
1
0
Originally posted by: RichardE

Neither of your two definitions fit the Canadian model and we have UHC....

Your definitions are lacking.


The Canadian system basically fits the first definition I gave. Health care is publicly funded through taxes. I understand that your health care institutions have remained private, and I never tried to say the government would take over EVERYTHING, just the payment system. Anyway I'm not saying there are only two specific ways, there are obviously variations in between. My main point is that there is universal health care, and there is something which Obama likes to call "universal health care" which is not universal at all.
 

M0RPH

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2003
3,302
1
0
Originally posted by: RichardE


You don't seem to actually know much about healthcare...

Actually no, it's you that doesn't seem to know much about it.


As a side though. Do you think if everyone has insurance premiums will never go up?


You don't seem to be comprehending the fact that health care costs have to be higher to pay for those who are treated without any health insurance. This is simple common sense.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Think of it the same way we think of "universal sufferage"- anybody who wants to vote can do so.

As for the rest of it, particularly the reasons for healthcare being so expensive in this country, there's a lot of misdirection coming from the rightwing in an attempt to protect the profit margins of insurers and pharma co's. They like it just the way it is, which serves to maximize their profits by maintaining high costs to both the insured and those under the govt umbrella while leaving many working class families w/o coverage of any kind...

we'd do extremely well to examine some of the best universal care systems in the world before we make any choices- The French, for example, have a hybrid system that's rated the best in the world at considerably lower cost per capita than our own system. It's not like we have to reinvent the wheel- the pros and cons of other systems can be evaluated in making our own choices...

I see Obama's plan as an intermediate step, anyway- it'll help, but won't really solve all the problems. We'll need to move on from there, but we need to take some sort of a step in the right direction if we''re to get anywhere at all...
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Originally posted by: M0RPH
I keep hearing Obama talking about universal health care, as if his plan was a universal health care plan. It is absolutely not. There is no provision in his plan to ensure that everyone has health care coverage.

There are two ways to bring about universal health care. One would be to eliminate private health insurance altogether and convert everything to a government-run system where everyone pays their share through taxes. Obviously this is the most radical approach and would be difficult to pass and to implement.

The second way is to keep private insurance but mandate that everyone must purchase health insurance, and to provide low-cost or free options for those who need it. This is much easier to do as it keeps the current system in place, but because it ensures that everyone is paying into the system, should do a lot to lower health care costs, besides the obvious benefit that everyone always has health coverage if they need it.

As many of you know, Hillary Clinton chose the second form of universal health care as her plan. In my opinion, this is the best way for us to get universal health care right now, while hopefully getting us on a path to eventually eliminate the money-grubbing insurance companies altogether.

Obama, on the other hand, did not have the guts to go after a true universal health care plan like either of the two options above. Instead, he took a third path which is not universal health care, but instead makes vagues promises about lowering health care costs so everyone can potenitally afford coverage. This will not do anything to ensure that everyone carries health insurance coverage, as there are some people who will refuse to buy into the system no matter how reasonable the cost. And when these people get sick, the rest of us will end up paying for them.

Instead of having the courage to go after a universal health care plan, Obama chose to take the safe route and not piss off the conservatives too much to ensure a better chance of his being elected. Very dissapointing from someone who is supposed to be representing change for the sake of the people.

What difference does it make that "some people who will refuse to buy into the system no matter how reasonable the cost"? You're already saying their premiums would be low or free, so they're not really contributing any capital to the risk pool anyway so it's already baked in that "rest of us will end up paying for them."

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,749
6,501
126
You are just playing a semantics game. Water is universally supplied in the US, but not everybody drinks it. It's universal in affordable availability.
 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Originally posted by: M0RPH
Originally posted by: RichardE

Neither of your two definitions fit the Canadian model and we have UHC....

Your definitions are lacking.


The Canadian system basically fits the first definition I gave. Health care is publicly funded through taxes. I understand that your health care institutions have remained private, and I never tried to say the government would take over EVERYTHING, just the payment system. Anyway I'm not saying there are only two specific ways, there are obviously variations in between. My main point is that there is universal health care, and there is something which Obama likes to call "universal health care" which is not universal at all.

Actually you said private insurance would be gone, which is false in the Canadian system. Private insurance is still very much alive in Canada. So even your idea of "universal health care" is not truly universal. Universal health care is where everyone has health care costs covered by the government. You guys are going more of the "universal insurance" So every plan anyone has put forth in the states is not universal health care at all, but Universal Insurance with the only difference being access to that insurance or forced to have that insurance. As I said, you don't know what you are talking about.
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,470
1
81
Originally posted by: Vic
Why should we force health care coverage on people who don't want it, just so we can call it "universal?" This kind of basic pragmatic common sense is what got me interested in Obama in the first place.

BTW, say this louder... maybe the Republicans will listen. ;)

Huh?

The only reason most people don't have health insurance is because the government hasn't told them to get it.

That's one of the biggest selling points of the plan Hillary had.
 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: Vic
Why should we force health care coverage on people who don't want it, just so we can call it "universal?" This kind of basic pragmatic common sense is what got me interested in Obama in the first place.

BTW, say this louder... maybe the Republicans will listen. ;)

Huh?

The only reason most people don't have health insurance is because the government hasn't told them to get it.

That's one of the biggest selling points of the plan Hillary had.

We really need the government forcing more things unto us now?
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,470
1
81
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: Vic
Why should we force health care coverage on people who don't want it, just so we can call it "universal?" This kind of basic pragmatic common sense is what got me interested in Obama in the first place.

BTW, say this louder... maybe the Republicans will listen. ;)

Huh?

The only reason most people don't have health insurance is because the government hasn't told them to get it.

That's one of the biggest selling points of the plan Hillary had.

We really need the government forcing more things unto us now?

When the alternative is 15 million who are left uninsured because the government didn't mandate them to have it?

Yes
 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: Vic
Why should we force health care coverage on people who don't want it, just so we can call it "universal?" This kind of basic pragmatic common sense is what got me interested in Obama in the first place.

BTW, say this louder... maybe the Republicans will listen. ;)

Huh?

The only reason most people don't have health insurance is because the government hasn't told them to get it.

That's one of the biggest selling points of the plan Hillary had.

We really need the government forcing more things unto us now?

When the alternative is 15 million who are left uninsured because the government didn't mandate them to have it?

Yes

Why? So you want to force something on 95% of the population because 5% don't have it?

I think you would do better to force jobs on the 10% of the population that is currently without one. Probably a better use of government money as well.
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,470
1
81
Originally posted by: M0RPH

Instead of having the courage to go after a universal health care plan, Obama chose to take the safe route and not piss off the conservatives too much to ensure a better chance of his being elected. Very dissapointing from someone who is supposed to be representing change for the sake of the people.

I think a pretty good argument would be that it would be easier to get it passed through congress because it's universal so more congress members vote for it. That's one of the reasons she does the mandate right?

Let me know either way. But either way, I support Hillary's plan.
 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: M0RPH

Instead of having the courage to go after a universal health care plan, Obama chose to take the safe route and not piss off the conservatives too much to ensure a better chance of his being elected. Very dissapointing from someone who is supposed to be representing change for the sake of the people.

I think a pretty good argument would be that it would be easier to get it passed through congress because it's universal so more congress members vote for it. That's one of the reasons she does the mandate right?

Let me know either way. But either way, I support Hillary's plan.

I'm surprised you both think change = force things unto people no matter what. :confused:
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,470
1
81
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: M0RPH

Instead of having the courage to go after a universal health care plan, Obama chose to take the safe route and not piss off the conservatives too much to ensure a better chance of his being elected. Very dissapointing from someone who is supposed to be representing change for the sake of the people.

I think a pretty good argument would be that it would be easier to get it passed through congress because it's universal so more congress members vote for it. That's one of the reasons she does the mandate right?

Let me know either way. But either way, I support Hillary's plan.

I'm surprised you both think change = force things unto people no matter what. :confused:

It's a moral travesty that so many people don't have health care. If you could fix it by mandating it on them, why wouldn't you? :confused: