Obama and health care

[glenn1]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

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.

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?

Why bother with that, when instead you could instead just fix it by mandating that no one gets sick?

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

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.

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?

Why is it a moral travesty when its a choice? Why should people have to pay for insurance? Auto-insurance makes sense since you might directly affect someones life, but why not mandate all insurance than? Mandate renters insurance, home insurance, boat insurance, land insurance, dental insurance ect ect? Seriously, you want to force 95% of the people to purchase insurance to make sure 5% get it. Why should they not have a choice? Maybe they don't have the money for insurance? So instead of fixing that issue you want to take what little money they have for insurance?

 

[RY62]

The original goal, for most Dems, was UHC and Clinton offered a plan for UHC. The last time I checked, Obama's plan was being called "Affordable Health Care" and does not cover everyone. The OP is right in saying that anyone who calls the Obama plan UHC is way off base. It seems the original goal has changed and healthcare for almost everyone is ok now.

Personally, I've never gotten comfortable with the whole government healthcare thing but I do believe if the government is going to get in they might as well go all the way. Of the two, Clinton's plan just made more sense to me.

Undecided

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

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?

Why bother with that, when instead you could instead just fix it by mandating that no one gets sick?

That doesn't make sense. There are always going to be people who get sick and just because you mandate it doesn't mean that they're not gonna get sick

Try again

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Vic

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:

Nope, try again and make sure you read what I posted this time.

 

[Vic]

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.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: RY62
The original goal, for most Dems, was UHC and Clinton offered a plan for UHC. The last time I checked, Obama's plan was being called "Affordable Health Care" and does not cover everyone. The OP is right in saying that anyone who calls the Obama plan UHC is way off base. It seems the original goal has changed and healthcare for almost everyone is ok now.

Personally, I've never gotten comfortable with the whole government healthcare thing but I do believe if the government is going to get in they might as well go all the way. Of the two, Clinton's plan just made more sense to me.

Undecided

Even Hilarys plan is not UHC....Its "Forced Health Insurance for Every American!"

UHC is government paid for medical expenses..

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: M0RPH
hopefully getting us on a path to eventually eliminate the money-grubbing insurance companies altogether.

Can you define 'money-grubbing' for me please.

While you are at it, please name the company you work for or at least the specific industry that you work in so we can see how many 'money-grubbing' companies are in your field.

AIG had a net profit margin of 6% in 2007
Aetna also has about a 6% margin
CIGNA also has a 6% margin
Aflac is really greedy with a 10% margin

Microsoft 30%
ExxonMobil 10%
Walmart 3% <--they need to make more money for their shareholders
GE 11% <-- and they are the most profitable company in the country

(numbers are from a variety of sources, so don't bitch if you find something different)

 

[RY62]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: RY62
The original goal, for most Dems, was UHC and Clinton offered a plan for UHC. The last time I checked, Obama's plan was being called "Affordable Health Care" and does not cover everyone. The OP is right in saying that anyone who calls the Obama plan UHC is way off base. It seems the original goal has changed and healthcare for almost everyone is ok now.

Personally, I've never gotten comfortable with the whole government healthcare thing but I do believe if the government is going to get in they might as well go all the way. Of the two, Clinton's plan just made more sense to me.

Undecided

Even Hilarys plan is not UHC....Its "Forced Health Insurance for Every American!"

UHC is government paid for medical expenses..

The only way to cover everyone (UHC) with health care most economically is single-payer. This would require a minor increase in tax rates, offset by the premiums you're no longer paying to the private insurance company. Clinton's plan is the better transition model; it covers more people more cost effectively than Obama's plan does. Coverage for everyone while transitioning to single payer.

Whether it's good or not, I can't say but if the goal is UHC, Clinton's plan is better.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: RY62
The original goal, for most Dems, was UHC and Clinton offered a plan for UHC. The last time I checked, Obama's plan was being called "Affordable Health Care" and does not cover everyone. The OP is right in saying that anyone who calls the Obama plan UHC is way off base. It seems the original goal has changed and healthcare for almost everyone is ok now.

Personally, I've never gotten comfortable with the whole government healthcare thing but I do believe if the government is going to get in they might as well go all the way. Of the two, Clinton's plan just made more sense to me.

Undecided

Even Hilarys plan is not UHC....Its "Forced Health Insurance for Every American!"

UHC is government paid for medical expenses..

The only way to cover everyone (UHC) with health care most economically is single-payer. This would require a minor increase in tax rates, offset by the premiums you're no longer paying to the private insurance company. Clinton's plan is the better transition model; it covers more people more cost effectively than Obama's plan does. Coverage for everyone while transitioning to single payer.

Whether it's good or not, I can't say but if the goal is UHC, Clinton's plan is better.

You guys should be able to cover everyone at the same quality you have now for the price per person you are currently paying. If Canada influxed that much money (the difference in cost per citizen) we could get wait time down to what you guys have and maybe lower. You have other cost issues that need to be address before throwing on a band-aid solution.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: RY62
The original goal, for most Dems, was UHC and Clinton offered a plan for UHC. The last time I checked, Obama's plan was being called "Affordable Health Care" and does not cover everyone. The OP is right in saying that anyone who calls the Obama plan UHC is way off base. It seems the original goal has changed and healthcare for almost everyone is ok now.

Personally, I've never gotten comfortable with the whole government healthcare thing but I do believe if the government is going to get in they might as well go all the way. Of the two, Clinton's plan just made more sense to me.

Undecided

Even Hilarys plan is not UHC....Its "Forced Health Insurance for Every American!"

UHC is government paid for medical expenses..

The only way to cover everyone (UHC) with health care most economically is single-payer. This would require a minor increase in tax rates, offset by the premiums you're no longer paying to the private insurance company. Clinton's plan is the better transition model; it covers more people more cost effectively than Obama's plan does. Coverage for everyone while transitioning to single payer.

Whether it's good or not, I can't say but if the goal is UHC, Clinton's plan is better.

This is actually my only reservation about voting for Obama. In some ways I would prefer him to do nothing. The system we have now is horrendously inefficient and needs to be scrapped, I worry that if he implements his plan it will put off true universal health care in the US by another 20 years.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: RichardE
You guys should be able to cover everyone at the same quality you have now for the price per person you are currently paying. If Canada influxed that much money (the difference in cost per citizen) we could get wait time down to what you guys have and maybe lower. You have other cost issues that need to be address before throwing on a band-aid solution.

I've only been saying this here forever. The UHC fanatics have this notion that slapping UHC on our flawed existing system will fix everything. And if you disagree with them on this, they'll tell you that you love our current system. You gotta love politics in America.

Originally posted by: eskimospy
This is actually my only reservation about voting for Obama. In some ways I would prefer him to do nothing. The system we have now is horrendously inefficient and needs to be scrapped, I worry that if he implements his plan it will put off true universal health care in the US by another 20 years.

Why do you want "true" universal health care in the US except as an ideological goal?

What does it matter if the only people who don't have it are those who don't want it?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: eskimospy
This is actually my only reservation about voting for Obama. In some ways I would prefer him to do nothing. The system we have now is horrendously inefficient and needs to be scrapped, I worry that if he implements his plan it will put off true universal health care in the US by another 20 years.

Why do you want "true" universal health care in the US except as an ideological goal?

What does it matter if the only people who don't have it are those who don't want it?

No actually not at all. I think that the example of other countries has shown that it genuinely provides a higher standard of medical care for less money. It simply seems to be the best available solution. I think that Obama's plan does not address the structural problems that our system has, but it will (as already said) serve as a form of band-aid and so I'm not sure it's sustainable.

I would be open to the idea of people choosing to 'opt-out' of the government system, but that's pretty problematic as I can't honestly see letting people actually opt out and leaving them to die if there's a problem.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: eskimospy
This is actually my only reservation about voting for Obama. In some ways I would prefer him to do nothing. The system we have now is horrendously inefficient and needs to be scrapped, I worry that if he implements his plan it will put off true universal health care in the US by another 20 years.

Why do you want "true" universal health care in the US except as an ideological goal?

What does it matter if the only people who don't have it are those who don't want it?

No actually not at all. I think that the example of other countries has shown that it genuinely provides a higher standard of medical care for less money. It simply seems to be the best available solution. I think that Obama's plan does not address the structural problems that our system has, but it will (as already said) serve as a form of band-aid and so I'm not sure it's sustainable.

I would be open to the idea of people choosing to 'opt-out' of the government system, but that's pretty problematic as I can't honestly see letting people actually opt out and leaving them to die if there's a problem.

Other countries have significantly different systems than we do, making impossible this leap of logic that UHC alone made for the differences in cost.
What is most structural broken about the current system is that our employers control it, and this is something that Obama's plan does address (as does McCain's I might add).

And in case you missed where I posted it above, this whole "whose candidate's health care plan is better" argument is meaningless and always has been throughout this election cycle. If whoever gets elected does write up some health care plan, it won't ever become law, because Congress is already going forward with its own.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

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.

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?

Put me in control of your life. I guarantee you won't like what I think is good for you and I will even be right. I love you more than you could ever love yourself, trust me. I know what's best for you.

 

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: Vic

What does it matter if the only people who don't have it are those who don't want it?

Oh god. How can you ask this question? You say these people 'don't want it.' Will they want it when they are diagnosed with cancer and are facing $40K in medical bills from surgery/radiation/chemotherapy? (speaking from personal experience here, btw) Or they've been in a major accident, or any number of other things that can hapen to anybody, I don't care how young or healthy you think you are.

You seem to think it's a great idea for people to have the freedom to choose not to carry health insurance. But are these people ready to face the consequences of having to pay 10's of thousands of dollars for health care if it comes to that? I'll tell you what, let's have these people sign an opt-out, stating that they will be required to pay out-of-pocket, in full and up front for any and all medical care they need. And if they can't pony up the cash, then they don't get the care, even if that means them dying from lack of treatment. Will they still say they 'don't want it' to insurance?

 

[M0RPH]

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.

Unfortunately there are a lot of people, conservatives in particular, who will oppose any sort of government intervention in people's lives just based on principle, even if it is the right thing to do in the case of health care.

 

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Why is it a moral travesty when its a choice? Why should people have to pay for insurance? Auto-insurance makes sense since you might directly affect someones life, but why not mandate all insurance than? Mandate renters insurance, home insurance, boat insurance, land insurance, dental insurance ect ect? Seriously, you want to force 95% of the people to purchase insurance to make sure 5% get it. Why should they not have a choice? Maybe they don't have the money for insurance? So instead of fixing that issue you want to take what little money they have for insurance?

It's not just yourself that is affected when you get sick without health insurance. In this country we don't just let people die, we treat them whether they have insurance or not. But if they cannot pay, those costs are paid by all the rest of us who do pay for insurance. So yes, it does afffect others.

And no universal heath care (or insurance if you like) plan can go anywhere without provisions to ensure that everyone can afford to buy the insurance they are required to keep. Hillary Clinton's plan, for example, would subsidize insurance so that it would never cost more than a certain percentage of anyone's income. And if they have no income, then obviously they get covered for free under some government program.

And why are you so worried about having a law that requires those 95% of people to have insurance when they already have insurance anyways? By the way, that 5% is more like 15% in the USA, smart guy.

 

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

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?

Put me in control of your life. I guarantee you won't like what I think is good for you and I will even be right. I love you more than you could ever love yourself, trust me. I know what's best for you.

People didn't like the idea of being told they had to wear seat belts either, but that's saved quite a few lives now hasn't it?

Like I said earlier, you reeally want to risk having no health insurance then sign an opt-out saying that if you can't pay for any health care you need, you don't get it, even if that means the death of you. Are you ready to sign on that dotted line? Take control of your own life, freebird, but don't come crying to society when your decision turns out to be a grave error.

 

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: M0RPH
hopefully getting us on a path to eventually eliminate the money-grubbing insurance companies altogether.

Can you define 'money-grubbing' for me please.

While you are at it, please name the company you work for or at least the specific industry that you work in so we can see how many 'money-grubbing' companies are in your field.

AIG had a net profit margin of 6% in 2007
Aetna also has about a 6% margin
CIGNA also has a 6% margin
Aflac is really greedy with a 10% margin

Microsoft 30%
ExxonMobil 10%
Walmart 3% <--they need to make more money for their shareholders
GE 11% <-- and they are the most profitable company in the country

(numbers are from a variety of sources, so don't bitch if you find something different)

I say money-grubbing in the sense that these insurance companies main motivation is to make a profit, in an industry which should not be dictated by profit, but by making people healthy and saving lives. If Exxon or Walmart adds an extra percentage point to their profit margin, nobody had to die to make that happen. If there was any industry where one could argue that government has a moral obligation to step in and control things instead of profit-seeking corporations, I'd say it would be health care.

 

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: Vic

And in case you missed where I posted it above, this whole "whose candidate's health care plan is better" argument is meaningless and always has been throughout this election cycle. If whoever gets elected does write up some health care plan, it won't ever become law, because Congress is already going forward with its own.

And thank you for the info on the health care plan being pushed by Senator Wyden in congress. I'm sure it would help, though, to have a president backing the plan. Also, after reading the plan I could not help but notice that it is very similar to Hillary Clinton's plan, including insurance mandates.

And consider what they've agreed to. The Healthy Americans Act is based on the premise -- rejected by John McCain, among others -- that covering everyone is required for getting costs under control. To achieve that, the bill would require that all Americans purchase health insurance -- yes, the very individual mandate that Barack Obama condemns as a Hillary Clinton scheme to "go after people's wages." Ruth Marcus, Washington Post

Sounds like a good plan to me.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: Vic

What does it matter if the only people who don't have it are those who don't want it?

Oh god. How can you ask this question? You say these people 'don't want it.' Will they want it when they are diagnosed with cancer and are facing $40K in medical bills from surgery/radiation/chemotherapy? (speaking from personal experience here, btw) Or they've been in a major accident, or any number of other things that can hapen to anybody, I don't care how young or healthy you think you are.

You seem to think it's a great idea for people to have the freedom to choose not to carry health insurance. But are these people ready to face the consequences of having to pay 10's of thousands of dollars for health care if it comes to that? I'll tell you what, let's have these people sign an opt-out, stating that they will be required to pay out-of-pocket, in full and up front for any and all medical care they need. And if they can't pony up the cash, then they don't get the care, even if that means them dying from lack of treatment. Will they still say they 'don't want it' to insurance?

Why don't you join a religion so you can save their souls too? :roll:

 

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Even Hilarys plan is not UHC....Its "Forced Health Insurance for Every American!"

UHC is government paid for medical expenses..

Yes, that is the most PURE form of UHC, where a person just walks into a hospital and gets whatever they need without cost ever coming up. The government handles all the costs and it's transparent to the citizens. I commend Canada for having such a system.

However, all that's really happening here is that you are paying, through your taxes, the same thing that we are paying through our health insurance. So basically you are being forced to buy into a really good health insurance plan (with zero copays) through your taxes... i.e. "Forced health insurance for every Canadian!" Congrats on that.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Can people please stop using "care" and "insurance" interchangeably. They are NOT the same. UHC is not UHI just as UHI is not UHC.

 

[Xavier434]

There is so much debate about this topic. This is all I want right here:

I want all of the American people regardless of class to be able to much more easily obtain and afford quality health insurance. I want that insurance to be worth purchasing which means the dollars justify the means way beyond the cases which involve that extremely expensive medical emergency which often forces Americans to go bankrupt despite having health insurance. This means it needs to cover many more prescriptions. It needs to cover more specialists. It needs to cover people with many more pre-existing conditions. By "cover", I don't mean they only pay for something like 25% of the cost either. I expect them to pay for most of it. I want this kind of quality health insurance to be available and affordable by everyone regardless of class and not just the upper middle class and the rich. This doesn't mean everyone should be forced to have it. It just means having it should be a very realistic option. As it stands today, the majority of Americans out there can barely afford health insurance and even if they do buy the stuff it is only to cover them if they develop a condition which needs regular health care for the rest of their lives or if they need a serious operation performed. Sure, the plans cover other stuff too but the cost is not worth it at all considering how little most of them cover.

Our government spends so much money in this country on so many things which mean nothing if you cannot afford to be healthy. It just doesn't make any sense to me.