Obama-Care, dead?

[kchriste]

The rest can starve, I don't care.

The "rest" will break into your house when you are working and steal your stuff. They won't starve.

 

[Hero999]

What does the workhouse system of the UK have to do with anything?

Nothing, my previous post wasn't directed at you.

I was responding to various points raised in the last page without quoting: tcmtech talked about the workhouse and shortbus mentioned Communism.

The Soviet system was in disarray long before Gorbachev came along. Gorbachev took a shot at capitalism which takes time and some honesty to grow. The reason people fled the former USSR was to escape poor living conditions. I don't see people fleeing this place. Not unless they have an urge to go from frying pan to fire.

That's debatable.

I don't think it was the capitalism that was the problem, Gorbachev also attempted to implement democracy which enabled people to revolt. Deng successfully reformed China's economy but didn't attempt democracy: when the revolt happened there was the Tienanmen square massacre.

Arguably if the USSR has copied the Chinese reforms it'd still be here today. There again, I don't know if the same can be said for the USSR which was an empire, China has been a single entity for 1000s of years.

That gets a little complicated. This subject shows up in countless forums and in one forum I am active in we have a considerable number of Canadian members. The majority of the hard working ones despise their national health care program. They wait to see a doctor (sometimes days) they wait for needed surgery and they wait and wait. Many who are of the ways and means cross the border and would rather pay here than take what is offered there.

It all comes down to funding, if the system is poorly funded then it will be poor.

From what I've gathered the Canadian government has cut spending on health over the last few years so their system isn't as good as it used to be.

The problem with the US system of private coverage is, it's so inefficient. France has the best health system in the world, yet its spending per capita is half the US's. If all the money you lot spend on private insurance were invested in some sort of cooperative, then there would be more than enough to provide all of you with the best care in the world with a bit left to spare.

 

[kchriste]

That gets a little complicated. This subject shows up in countless forums and in one forum I am active in we have a considerable number of Canadian members. The majority of the hard working ones despise their national health care program.

We have our own right-wing-nuts here too you know! But most of us are happy with what we have. Otherwise we would vote for a party which aims to privatize health care and move to a US style system. Notice that that hasn't happened?

They wait to see a doctor (sometimes days) they wait for needed surgery and they wait and wait.

I have never had to wait "days" to see a doctor. Maybe an hour or two at most, and that was at a drop in clinic. Surgeries are prioritized based on need, not the ability to pay. Someone with a heart attack in the emergency is going to be seen before the whiny rightwing mom with her flu ridden hell spawn.

Many who are of the ways and means cross the border and would rather pay here than take what is offered there.

There are always the rich who can travel anywhere in the world to get what they want. Lots of rich tourists go to Thailand, and other places, to get what they want. Should we make "that" available here too?

 

[shortbus=]

While I'm not a fan of his, Michael Moore made a movie "Sicko" that everyone should see before discussing health care. It shows all the differences in the large country health systems. A real eye opener.

Like most things, people think just because US health care is the most expensive that it's the best. As far as Canada's goes from what I understand, the wait to see a doctor is only if you don't go to a clinic. Some people are to "important" to go to clinics.

To me it's time to set term limits on Senators and Congressmen. They are so removed from how the real people have to live, they have no idea . And corporations giving them bribes/influencing them, should be a Treason offense.

Reloadron, I'm from Youngstown, the Mafia capital of Ohio.

 

[tcmtech]

Life, liberty and the "pursuit" of happiness is as good as it gets. Nothing in there about a free ride.

So is that where the millions of free loaders on welfare got their idea to be parasites on the system instead of contributors?
When I am sick of fighting the good fight to be a productive and contributing member of society and decide that my personal pursuit of happiness can be far better fulfilled and served as a welfare case then should I too join the ranks of the welfare class being if I do it right I will definitely live far better than I do now and with far less personal efforts?

What life do I give up?
The one where I didn't have any health insurance and had no idea what I would do or loose if I do get sick or injured.
What liberty do I give up?
The one where someone else has the liberty to lay me off because it make this months bottom line look better on paper.

What will I gain?
less work, a better life style, better health coverage, no taxes, and piles of handouts for most everything I will ever need.

Over the years I have often thought it me who is the stupid one for NOT being a welfare case.
For a moderate percentage of my life I would have had more to gain than loose by doing so.
Sure I give up some pride and feelings of self worth but hey get dumped by a company because some paper pusher felt it would make the number look a but better for a few weeks by eliminating your entire department and you dont feel any worse any way.
Beside at least on welfare I can think of it as being his tax dollars carrying my butt then!

 

[HarveyH42]

The "rest" will break into your house when you are working and steal your stuff. They won't starve.

Well, in my house, they might not starve to death, but then again, neither would my dog... Not to mention there are a few things that shouldn't be played with, if you don't know what you are doing. Was never much for labeling stuff either, some of the stuff in the kitchen and refrigerator shouldn't be ingested. I recycle containers. Just me and my dog, family knows to ask first, when they visit. I count on everyone else to have some manors when in my house. The really bad stuff is out of reach of the dog, still a puppy, sort for several more months. Always felt a big dog is the best security. Unless a thief knows you got something worth the risk, they'll try next door.

 

[Reloadron]

It was nice to see a Canadian chime in since they have a health care system in place.

My take right now, the way it is written, I still oppose it but that is just a me thing.

I like the thinking of tcmtech but if I say the hell with everything and go on welfare and medicaid I think they take my house which we actually own and plan to sell and move south for retirement in several years. I need to think this thing through.

I agree we need to clean up capitol hill, that is needed in a big way. The ability of special interest groups to buy elected officials needs to come to an end.

As to Youngstown, Ohio and refrence to the Mafia Capitol of Ohio, all I can say is Go Jim Trafficant!

Ron

 

[Hero999]

I still oppose it but that is just a me thing.

Why can't more people vote for what's best for everyone in the country rather than just themselves?

If more people did that then I think we'd have a much better government.

 

[Reloadron]

Why can't more people vote for what's best for everyone in the country rather than just themselves?

If more people did that then I think we'd have a much better government.

I didn't mean me as in it's all about me. I am saying as things are written I don't see this working well. First and foremost how exactly they plan to pay for it. Every time I see government cost estimates I see cost overruns. Every program the current government attempts to run ends up as a big bureaucratic mess bloated to the max and full of fraud. They can't seem to manage. This is the same government that failed with rail roads and as I mentioned earlier even had an epic fail when trying to run a whore house. Why would I for a moment believe they could run efficiently a massive health care program?

Overall looking at the big picture I agree that those who stand to gain seem all for this move while those who stand to lose are against it. There is no surprise there. So when we say what is best for everyone, exactly who is everyone? Would everyone be those who have no health care or would everyone be those who have good health care and stand to see what they have diminish. I am not adverse to a national health care plan. I am adverse to a few thousand pages of paper most elected officials haven't even read or digested being pushed through.

I also made it clear that people with pre existing conditions should not be denied insurance when changing jobs and those suddenly unemployed should have some form of government paid COBRA for a minimum of a year. I am not against all of it, just some of it.

Just My Take
Ron

 

[HarveyH42]

This Health Care Reform bill, doesn't really seem to do much for the doctors or patients, just who is going to pay the bills. The price will still continue to grow. It's not really going to be much help for most people, as it stands, needs a lot more work, and a lot of special interest stuff needs to be dropped all together. The people who are putting the bulk of these health care dollars in their pockets, need to find a new business to exploit. Insurance companies aren't doctors, and shouldn't be making medical decisions. You pay for financial protection, and they should provide the service they sell. Most of the uninsured Americans they are trying to get coverage for, most likely don't want another bill to pay. Most jobs, career oriented jobs, do provide insurance options. I don't think of flipping burgers as a long-term job, nor clerk at a convenience store. Insurance is available and easy to get, if you want it, and willing to work and make a commitment. Insurance isn't health care, it's just somebody else taking control and responsibility for your money, for a fee.

Did my taxes last night, made less than $27k last year, business has been very slow, but turned out that it saved me almost $400 in taxes (thank you G.W. Bush), which basically gave me about the same refund as usual. I was a little concern, since Obama thought withholding less from my paycheck would help stimulate the economy. $2900 didn't seem like enough to cover what they usually charge for taxes. Just thankful I didn't owe them money this time, still haven't paid my property tax. Now I know it's covered.

I really don't like the idea of mandatory insurance for every individual. I could get into requiring all employers offer insurance, since everyone who would be using it, would be also paying in, and working for it. There already too many free rides, needs to stop. Insurance is a financial service, it's an option, a luxury. I do my own accounting, write my own checks, did my own taxes, and everything else. Seems ridiculous to pay someone to do, what I can for myself. Do most I my own 'doctoring' as well, don't need a PHd to slap a band-aid on a little cut or scrape, need anyone to hold a bucket for me if I get the Flu. Yeah, I'm not everyone, but not everyone needs, just wants. I want a lot of things, but make sure what I need is taken care of first.

 

[kchriste]

Every program the current government attempts to run ends up as a big bureaucratic mess bloated to the max and full of fraud. They can't seem to manage. This is the same government that failed with rail roads and as I mentioned earlier even had an epic fail when trying to run a whore house. Why would I for a moment believe they could run efficiently a massive health care program?

And what's your reasoning to think that the private sector is any better:
Enron, AIG, Goldman Sacs, GM, et al.

 

[Hero999]

Like I said before, it's how well it's funded that makes more difference than whether it's private or public sector, both have their shortcomings and advantages.

An insurance cooperative wouldn't have to be directly government run, it could be set up like as an independent non-profit organisation with the government as the main source of funding.

Why is it that every other developed country has universal healthcare which costs less per capita than the what US's spending and covers everyone? It's obvious that your system is bad and needs fixing.

Of course most Americans won't understand this because they haven't left their country and have been bombarded by right-wing propaganda, sponsored by insurance companies, in the media.

 

[shortbus=]

Hero999, AMEN!!

 

[Reloadron]

And what's your reasoning to think that the private sector is any better:
Enron, AIG, Goldman Sacs, GM, et al.

I never said the private sector is better, I simple said the US Government had a bad track record. Hell, given a choice I would have the Mafia run it as they generally manage well.

What I have said here is the I am personally against this as it is currently written. That is just my view and obviously views differ (that being a good thing). I am just not in a hurry to buy into something that is somewhat less than transparent when in the beginning it was going to be transparent. Nebraska deals come to mind on that note.

As to our Canadian friends who have national health care I have run across some who seem to despise it and some who like it just fine. Those who like it seem to call those who don't right wing ... which is humorous and much how things seem to be viewed here.

Is Obama Care dead? Nope, I don't think so. I guess we just wait and see how it plays out. Don't blame me for the stumble along the way as I don't live in Mass.

Ron

 

[HarveyH42]

Like I said before, it's how well it's funded that makes more difference than whether it's private or public sector, both have their shortcomings and advantages.

An insurance cooperative wouldn't have to be directly government run, it could be set up like as an independent non-profit organisation with the government as the main source of funding.

Why is it that every other developed country has universal healthcare which costs less per capita than the what US's spending and covers everyone? It's obvious that your system is bad and needs fixing.

Of course most Americans won't understand this because they haven't left their country and have been bombarded by right-wing propaganda, sponsored by insurance companies, in the media.

Unfortunately, insurance is highly profitable, and strongly tied to banks, which of course many of the politicians have a huge financial interest in. They take in a lot more money, than the pay out, and they don't have to produce anything (except profits). Universal healthcare would be great for everybody, except those making millions off the insurance industry. First, we need to get the politicians, with a financial interest in the insurance industry off the bill, they aren't going to hurt their own businesses and investments. The economy is still hurting bad, probably not a good time to beat up on the guys that control a good portion of the country's money. A good portion of those 2400 pages were to keep the big guys happy, in exchange for a few concessions. I didn't read the whole thing when it was 1900 pages, just too much, but didn't see anything about reducing rates, or any controls on how high or how often they could be raised. The only thing about rate, was they couldn't charge more for high risk people, or people that file claims.

Unfortunately, our president seems to think if he gives these people a lot of money, they'll return the favor. How many of those company's used that bailout money, to pay themselves bonuses? And how much of a return can you get with $500 billion, in one year? Sure, most repaid the 'loan', but who pocketed the proceeds?

 

[kchriste]

What I have said here is the I am personally against this as it is currently written.

I have to agree with you here. The health bill on the table now is a watered down mess full of amendments and clauses to appease the special interests. Obama needs to take the bull by the horns and lay out a clear concise frame work that the new health care should be built on. So far that hasn't happened.

 

[Reloadron]

I have to agree with you here. The health bill on the table now is a watered down mess full of amendments and clauses to appease the special interests. Obama needs to take the bull by the horns and lay out a clear concise frame work that the new health care should be built on. So far that hasn't happened.

To further complicate the current administration's problems that damn recent vote in Mass really threw them for a curve. You can't find a more democratic state than Mass (well OK you can) but there was no doubt in the administration's party the Mass was sending another democrat to replace Kennedy. Now Mass apparently has a state health care plan, I have no clue how it works or maybe does not work but apparently a majority dislike it. Capitol hill got a message that spooked the hell out of them.

Now I figure it this way, Brown didn't get elected just for his stance on health care but several key issues. The democratic majority on the hill are suddenly nervous. Those from CA, NY and several other states have nothing to worry about but the remainder sure do and they know it. For Obama to "take the bull by the horns" will require the strong support of right now some nervous people. They may begin to distance themselves from Obama. Hell, I still can't believe Brown won a US Senate seat in Mass.

That is why I figure this is now a wait and see thing. I doubt it is dead but will be a harder sell and need some change.

<EDIT> The real ***** here is if I wanted to sell a health care package to the American People I would have done my homework in the UK and Canada and modeled something after them and used it as a selling point. Nope, not these idiots. It works in the UK, it works in Canada and here is why it will work here and here is how we plan to do it and here is what the cost will be. Nice neat package. We also just need to shoot all lobbyist, that would be a good start towards transparency and integrity. </EDIT>

Ron

 

[HarveyH42]

The real ***** here is if I wanted to sell a health care package to the American People I would have done my homework in the UK and Canada and modeled something after them and used it as a selling point. Nope, not these idiots. It works in the UK, it works in Canada and here is why it will work here and here is how we plan to do it and here is what the cost will be. Nice neat package. We also just need to shoot all lobbyist, that would be a good start towards transparency and integrity.
Ron

That kind of sums up why this bill has very little to do with actual healthcare, and more to do with increasing profits for the insurance companies. The legislators are too busy trying to keep the insurance industry profitable, and figure if they help them, the insurance companies will makes compromises to help out. We shouldn't be making deals, but laying down the law. The insurance companies can either work with the new rules, or find another business. There are likely a lot of smaller companies, that can do much better, if the big guys step aside, and won't mind a smaller profit margin. There will be some chaos and hurt feelings for a while, but if they want to get affordable healthcare, more of the money being paid in, needs to actually go to the healthcare providers. Like you said there are several countries with working heathcare systems, and the bill should be modeled from them. We can modify it later if needed, or come up with something better. They went the way they did, to protect their interests. That bill is dead, they can't just shove it through, and its an election year for many of them, now they have to focus on their jobs. Most of those who voted for this bill, and strongly supported it, are going to get very quiet, and will avoid the topic. Brown's victory, let them know that voters aren't tied to the party thinking, and are willing to make a change if necessary.

 

[shortbus=]

The other countries were smart enough to do health care right after WW2. And before the internet and TV. A lot of peoples thinking/views are based on what their told/hear not on the truth. Fox news is terrible on this, they treat news as their own views, Reality News.

As far as Obama goes, it wouldn't make any difference if he was Democrat or Republican, anyone coming into the mess Bush left couldn't fix the US in a year. Most of what he (Obama) gets blamed for was in place before he took office.

 

[HarveyH42]

Bush-Bashing isn't going to fix anything, regardless of who created the mess, it's still our mess to fix. Bill Clinton was in office before Bush, and he took a stab at fixing health care, so it must have been a problem when he got into office. Oh wait, maybe you were referring to G.H. Bush instead. No, wait, didn't Jimmy Carter also work on the health care problem as well, Guess Ronald Reagan left it for him. The Democrats blame the Republicans, the Republicans blame the Democrats, one group actually tries to fix the problems, the other just throws some money on top, and hopes it goes away. Most of our country's problems have been around for a very long time.

I don't watch Pay-TV, so miss out on all that stuff. Think most television politics, are just that. You get one side or the other, but not an objective view of the issues. They side with who ever signs the paychecks.

Let see, Obama's budget is $3.8 Trillion dollars (sounds insane), but in his State of the Union speech, he plans to freeze spending in 2011, so we can expect a huge budget surplus, just like Clinton. Sounds like somebody is already focusing on re-election... Unless he can accomplish one or two of his bigger campaign promises, and at least repay the portion of the national debt he add to the tab, doesn't seem likely. Think Health Care is off the table, unless the start over and keep it simple and direct this time. Don't think he is will to make enemies, or has what it's going to take to tell insurance companies to cut profits, and put the money where it belongs.