Will the united states ever have universal healthcare?
|
Will the united states ever have universal healthcare?
As far as I know, you would need a time machine to answer that question with a 100% conviction.
In the meantime, Barrack Obama is saying that he is trying to get it, there is tons of controversy, and nothing is really finalized (as far as I know) yet.
The majority of Americans don't want it. But it's very possible it could be imposed on us.
Hello m:
The majority of Americans want it. The beginnings of it will probably pass this year.
excon
Close to 70% of Americans have said that they are satisified with their current medical system. 80% have stated that there is no MEDICAL CRISIS that is driving Obama's policies. 60% say that they would like to see changes and reforms in the medical system that would lower costs and increase accessibility but SEE NO EMERGENCY NEED to do so. And 67% of Americans have said that they are against Obamacare in its various legislative forms currently in debate.
But it is still possible, despite the overwhelming lack of support for it, that Obamacare will pass anyway.
Elliot
Can you site a poll that says that they want Obamacare? Or any form of Nationalized health care?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Yes, there are plenty of people who want reform... but when examined, the vast majority of them support the CONSERVATIVE-PROPOSED reforms that Tom and I have listed... towit:
1) Make the cost of it tax-free. That automatically lowers the effective cost by 15-30%. That will make it more affordable to more people.
2) Create tax exempt Medical Savings Accounts
3) Lower taxes so that more have the disposable income to afford health care
4) Modify Medicare and Medicaid to cover those that SHOULD be covered under these programs but are not
5) Tort reform, if properly enacted, could lower medical spending by as much as 60%, especially in "high risk" specialties.
6) DEREGULATE the medical industry. Useless regulation costs money that could be spent better actually HEALING people.
7) De-unionize the hospitals. Union benefits cost a fortune. Union contracts require minimum numbers of employees even if those employees are redundant or not needed. That costs money that could be better spent elsewhere.
8) As an ABSOLUTE LAST RESORT, the government could give uninsured citizens a stipend to pay for their health insurance (adjustable based on family size). This stipend would have a time limitation built in so that it doesn't become an "evergreen" welfare program. But it will give families some time to get their feet back under them after a job loss that lasts more than a couple of months by allowing them to purchase the insurance plan of their choice. It is NOT meant to be a permanent benefit and should have a cut-off of, say, 18 months or 2 years. After that, you're on COBRA and pay for your insurance yourself.
9) Since private insurance is cheaper when you have group coverage, let everyone who is collecting unemployment insurance in every state form their own group via the state unemployment office. This group can then find the group coverage that suits them best. Even if they have to pay out of pocket, they'll be paying group rates that are cheaper than trying to pay the individual rate.
10) Create a "build-your-own-policy" service. It allows people to get the coverage they want and need without having to pay for the stuff they don't want or need. This can make policies WAY cheaper while still providing the coverage needed.
11) Keep the government out of running health care!! Government is the least productive and most wasteful organization in existence. It should not be used to try to bring efficiency to any part of the economy, much less the health care industry.
These are the reforms that most Americans want... not a government takeover of the medical system.
Elliot
Hello H:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Close to 70% of conservatives make up numbers. Otherwise, why don't they cite their source?
The numbers that interest me, and should interest you, are the numbers we got in the last election. Obama won with 52% of the vote. Therefore, I'd say that 52% of the American people support his policies.
excon
Lol ;that's hilarious . President Bush won in 2004 and yet that did nothing to help him get Social Security reform passed ;even though he made it the centerpiece of his 2005 legislative agenda.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
That's because his centerpiece was dufusorian in its breadth and scope. Whereas, health care reform is a necessity.
What is it about going broke, like we just did, so appeals to you right wingers?
excon
That doesn't tell us anything about what people think about natiuonalized health care.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Obama is only looking at that 52% number from 2008 too. That's why he's going to lose. He's stuck in the past, just like you are, and isn't able to deal with the changing landscape.
Obama is indeed the bringer of change. He's changing the political landscape from liberal to conservative. And he can't see it any better than you can.
So you just keep relying on that 52% number from 2008. Keep ignoring the fact that Obama's personal poll numbers are dropping like a stone to well below 50% from 65%+ back in April, support for his health plan is in the low 30s and dropping, and his "wrong-track" numbers are well over 55%.
And the Dem Congress is in even worse shape. Remember the sweep of the Congress in 2008 by the Dems? Predictions right now are for a massive Republican sweep in 2010 to take back Congress.
If Obama manages to pass national health care, you can consider it the death knell of the Democrat party. Especially on top of TARP, TARP2, the Stimulus Bill, the Omnibus Bill, Cap & Trade, and the government takeovers of priivate industry. It'll take the Reps years, maybe even decades, to repair the damage. But the Reps will be guaranteed to be in power for decades to fix it. As much as people didn't like Bush, they never believed that Obama would ever do the crazy things he's done... and now they'll forevern take a Republican they can't stand over a Democrat they don't trust.
The Dems are done if Obamacare passes.
Elliot
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Wrong again. The Dems are done if Obamacare fails.
excon
It beats the hell out of someone increasing the national deficit 800% in one year while we are broke.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
People can understand a business cycle that includes recessions and even depressions. What they can't handle is someone who INCREASES spending by 800% while it's happening.
Elliot
That too.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
They've pretty much trapped themselves.
If they win the issue, they lose independents and blue-dog Dems and therefore lose the elections.
If they lose the issue, they lose their far left which is DEMANDING national health care by any means necessary. The unions and the Moveon.org types are already talking about abandoning them and pulling their support for the Dems in Congress if Obamacare doesn't pass.
The dems are done. They had 4 years to screw things up in Congress, and they did so with great aplomb. They created their own no-win environment.
This is exactly what Tom, Steve and I predicted during 2008... that the Dems would have one chance, and they would screw it up massively.
Elliot
Hey where are these things in HR 3200, as well as health insuurance portability and nationally / across state lines?Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
G&P
That's kind of the point, ITB.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
They are perfectly good, relatively low-cost, FREE-MARKET solutions to health care reform, but nobody on the left even wants to talk about them.
Why not?
Elliot
A friend sent me this email. I went to the link and read the whole thing. You should too.
Obamacare
I thought you might find the following article from snopes.com interesting: This article explains obamacare and tells what part of healthcare has already been voted on when it was hidden in the stimulus bill passed earlier. snopes.com: Dr. Dave Janda - The One Word to Describe Obamacare
This article makes exactly the same points I have been making.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
Speaking of Democrats trapping themselves, just look at the two faces of Barack Obama. He has taken to using "diametrically opposed claims in the same speech in order to argue for his policies."
This is the theme of the week by the way, the rousing success of Medicare. I heard Anthony Weiner (D-NY) arguing this same point this morning, how efficient Medicare is - while admitting they were going to have to cut services to "bend the cost-curve" as Obama would put it (which is a huge reason to be suspicious of the "death commission"). It was also argued for in Huffpo yesterday.Quote:
At the 17-minute mark we hear this:
“Medicare and Medicaid are on an unsustainable path. Medicare is slated to go into the red in about eight to ten years. I don’t know if people are aware of that. If I was a senior citizen the thing I’d be worried about right now is Medicare starts running out of money because we haven’t done anything to make sure we are getting a good bang for our buck, when it comes to health care”.
Five minutes later:
“I do think it’s important for, particularly seniors who currently receive Medicare, to understand that if we’re able to get something right, like Medicare, then there should be a little more confidence that maybe, the government can have a role, not the dominant role, but a role in making sure the people are treated fairly when it comes to insurance.”
So that's the latest theme, we'll take a "successful" albeit broke, unfunded program and expand it to everyone with the necessary cuts to "bend the cost-curve" and all will be "well."
Oh, wonderful. I wonder who came up with the brilliant idea to use a bankrupt government program as a model for success?
Could it be the same speech-writer that told Obama to use the Postal Service's competition with FEDEX, DHL and UPS as an example of what happens when government and the private sector compete?
Elliot
Something like that. Either these guys are really clueless or think they think we are. Maybe some of both.
The whole point of ramming this down our throats quickly without giving us a chance to look into it was so that we would remain clueless. That's been Obama's MO from day one.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Now that the process has been slowed down, the more we check into it, the more it smells like rotten fish. He and the Dems had been hoping we wouldn't get a whiff, and that he could hide the rot under a mask.
But the mask is off and the smell is pretty strong. And instead of getting some fresher fish to sell, Obama is still trying to sell us the rot.
Elliot
I can't believe who I'm agreeing with on all of this, but I absolutely do NOT want a government run medical program.
But--it's because I'm selfish.
I worked very hard to get where I am financially. I'm not rich, but I no longer live paycheck to paycheck. I held off having kids until I could afford them. I paid off my debt, and got rid of my cell phone, cable, and got a library card.
Yes, there should be medical programs to help those who have fallen on hard luck through no fault of their own.
BUT---I can't feel sorry for people who can't go to the doctor to get a pregnancy test because they can't afford it because they already have 4 kids. I can't feel sorry for people who are homeless, doing drugs, and detiorating their OWN health.
Yet---I'm in the highest tax bracket for my income range. Until this year, we didn't have a house to write off. We still don't have kids to write off. Why should I have to wait longer to see a doctor (like it is in countries with social health care) because everyone ELSE has a complaint too? Why should I PAY to have to wait longer to see the doctor?
Screw that.
Hello Syn:Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
I can't believe it either... But, don't let them fool you anymore... You know how your insurance company writes a check to the doctor?? That's how the government will do it. I don't think you'll have to wait any longer... That's what the RIGHTY'S say, but they have NO evidence to back it up - NONE - they ain't got DIDDLY!
excon
I knew there was someone in there somewhere that didn't always have to disagree with me ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
Yes, but will what I pay to the GOVERNMENT to have Obamacare be less than I pay to my INSURANCE company?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
With the way the government handles money in every OTHER endeavor they do, I'm betting that it won't be.
Hello again, Synn:Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
That IS the question, of course... I don't know if the government WILL be able to manage the health care budget, or not. I DO know that it's a DOABLE job. To wit. We spend twice as much as any other western nation in the world, and we're not TWICE as healthy. As a matter of fact, we're FAR from the healthiest...
So, is there waste in the system that can be cleared out?? Duh!! Will the billions earned by the health insurance companies help? Sure. Do I KNOW that that's what will happen?
NO - primarily, because there's no bill on the table, and there doesn't look like there's even going to be one. So, the info I provided above would be for an excon's WISH health care system.
What I DO know, is that if we don't fix it, it will BANKRUPT us.
excon
The other thing is we can just start letting people take personal responsibility for THEMSELVES and stop asking the government to help them out.
I grew up poor, I was poor in my 20s, and now I'm solidly middle class in my 30s.
If *I* can do it, so can other people. It's just how much they're willing to work and sacrifice to do so---and many are willing to work, but few are willing to sacrifice.
I am not a good person, though. I have absolutely no problem with people living on the streets, starving, whatever. People should go to their FAMILIES first. Then they should go to their CHURCH. The government should be the LAST place they go, and seriously? It SHOULD be shameful to pay with food stamps or medical vouchers or whatever else the government hands out.
Essentially I'm saying this: If the mom in front of me at the grocery store who is paying for food with food stamps, but is wearing all designer clothing gets the SAME benefits I do, without the sacrifice---what the hell is the point of trying to get ahead?
Hello again, Synn:Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
It's got NOTHING to do with that... We don't accuse people of asking the government to "help them out" when they drive on the highway, or flip on a light switch, do we? Of course not.
This debate has to do with pooling our resources for the best possible outcome. We let the government take responsibility for our roads, our fire and police protection... We pool our power needs, water, snow removal and dog catching responsibilities... Health care, as a matter of fact, is just another utility to be shared by all of us.
excon
I don't see MY health care as something that can be better managed by the government.
We're talking about whether I live or die here, not whether I can drive to work, or take a bus, or have electricity to talk to you here on my computer.
I just have absolutely no faith whatsoever that the government can get us out of this problem. How about LESS government interference, and see if THAT works? MORE government interference has simply gotten us to the place we are now.
Hello again, Synn:Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
Nahhh, we're not. Does the government tell you which road to take?? No it doesn't. It just gives you the roads. What we're talking about here, is who's going to write the check's.
Whether you live or die is STILL going to be between you, your doctor and your maker.
excon
Amazing!
Here I agree (somewhat) with Synnen AND Ex!
That is, if Ex is talking about REAL Co-ops run by private not-for-profit groups.
NOT RUN BY GOVERNMENT.
It has worked for over 100 years for real estate insurance, and the premiums are significantly lower than other insurance companies charge.
Is there any reason why this method would not work for health insurance? Or any other insurance, for that matter.
You do realize that you are the only industrialized nation that does not have some form of universal healthcare, right? So it obviously works for others (like us here). But I agree with you, there's something about the american mentality that probably can't allow this to pass.
Gal ;even the Heritage Foundation favors private co-ops . It's the Schmucky Shumer's gvt run co-op that is a difference without a distinction to the "public option" .
And what is Medicare and Medicaid ?Quote:
You do realize that you are the only industrialized nation that does not have some form of universal healthcare, right
For all citizens. All.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Yeah, we kind of like being different, leading instead of following others over the cliff.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
All citizens do not need public assistance . Are you saying all citizens in Canada need public assistance ? Pathetic.
Silly immature word games tom. It's universal healthcare for all. One less worry in our lives and a healthier population. Works for us, as pathetic as we are. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Let's do the math, Synnen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
The stated goal of this legislation is to
1) Add 46 million people not currently covered by insurance
2) Eliminate any limitations in health care due to pre-existing conditions
At the same time, based on 60 years of information and data from Medicare, we know that the cost of health care is increasing 35% faster for Medicare than it is for private insurance.
We also know that the government is less efficient than private businesses. The Congressional Budget Office (non-partisan arm of Congress) has determined that the administrative costs of running healthcare would be as much as 300% higher than the administrative costs of running the system through private insurance companies. (The Heritage Foundation estimates it at 500%, but let's assume 300% for a low-ball estimate.)
Please explain how we can add tens of millions more people to the system, eliminate any blockages to access currently in the system for pre-existing cconditions, increase operating costs per patient by 35% and increase administrative expenses overall by 300% and expect to pay LESS than we do now?
Even if you plugged the profits that insurance companies take back into the equation, you are only talking about 3.4% profits. That 3.4% plugged back into the system does not offset the 35% increase in operating expenses or the 300% increase in administrative expenses.
I'll admit that the stated goal of the program --- increased access to all, regardless of pre-existing condition or financial condition --- sounds laudible. But it is incompatible with the OTHER stated goal of the program, which is to lower prices. You cannot lower costs when you increase spending, and adding 46 million people will DEFINITELY increase spending. So will putting the administration of the system into the hands of the same inefficient government that runs the postal system, Social Security, and Medicare/Medicaid.
Simply put, your instinct on this is correct. It is MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for the government-run health insurance program that has been proposed in Congress to cost LESS than private health insurance.
Elliot
No, it works for YOU. Nearly 70% of your fellow Canadians say that it DOESN'T work for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:18 PM. |