Obama-Care, dead?

HarveyH42 · Mar 25, 2010

Wrong country? Iraq was the best choice for a military base in the area, runs pretty much from sea to sea. Saddam never really complied with weapon inspections, as he agreed to when Daddy Bush was there (should have finished the job then). Didn't really matter if there were any weapons to be found, Saddam refused, which would indicate he had something to hide, and there probably is still a few things stashed away. Keeping the backpack-bombers over there is always a good thing.

Wonder how they are going to enforce the mandatory insurance, how will they determine who qualifies for assistance. A healthy young individual, might choose to buy a home, rather than pay for coverage he most like won't need. But, now the government is telling him insurance comes first. If you don't buy insurance, you get fined. Will the fine keep growing, like when the city charges $100 per day, until you comply and fix a code violation? Will garnish wages, take your home or property? Jail time?

Insurers can't refuse coverage, but is there anything restricting the price they charge for coverage? Will the rates be the same for everybody, even obese, alcoholic, heavy-smoking homosexuals (cancer, liver damage, AIDS, diabetes, heart disease, or some other medical nightmare)?

This new law encourages irresponsibility. It takes away the consequences of unhealthy choices, since on a personal level, it will no longer be quite as expensive to fix later on. We already have to many people making unhealthy choices, people don't care about themselves or others, and now even less incentive and consequences.

This should be great for alcoholics and drug abusers, who are unemployable, since they will be given free medical, and medication, which they can abuse or sell, to pay for their substance of choice. I doubt they took into account all the potential uses and abuses, when they created the financial model (probably, Al Gore's Hockey-stick would apply here).

Hero999 · Mar 25, 2010

Your government are the really irresponsible oness.

Just think of the kind of healthcare system you Americans could have now if your government had spent the money it's wasted over the last 60 years on war (Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, cold war etc.) on health instead. You'd probably have one of the best systems in the world by not but there's no way your government would've ever thought of that.

BrownOut · Mar 25, 2010

Iraq was never a threat to the US. There was no need for any base in Iraq, and even if there was, that is no justification for invading and occupying a sovereign nation, bombing its cities, destroying its infrastructure and murdering its citizens. The US should not be in the business of building foreign empires. That makes us nothing more than a rogue nation. It absolutely does matter that weapons were not found, because the government told us, or else lied to us, that was the reason for invading. It was the most immoral lie ever told, and we should never forget that.

shortbus= · Mar 25, 2010

Hero- you got it correct! If I remember correctly Eisenhower warned Kennedy to "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex... Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

From; Dwight D. Eisenhower - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And Not One president since has listened!

PatM · Mar 25, 2010

Interesting statistics!

A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health Organization.

Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:

U.S. 65%

England 46%

Canada 42%

Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:

U.S. 93%

England 15%

Canada 43%

Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:

U.S. 90%

England 15%

Canada 43%

Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:

U.S. 77%

England 40%

Canada 43%

Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:

U.S. 71

England 14

Canada 18

Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in "excellent health":

U.S. 12%

England 2%

Canada 6%

I don't know about you, but I don't want "Universal Healthcare" comparable to England or Canada .

AND THE WINNER IS VERY INTERESTING!

The percentage of each past president's cabinet who had worked in the private business sector prior to their appointment to the cabinet. You know what the private business sector is... a real life business, not a government job. Here are the percentages.

T. Roosevelt........ 38%

Taft....................... 40%

Wilson ................. 52%

Harding..................49%

Coolidge............... 48%

Hoover ................. 42%

F. Roosevelt......... 50%

Truman..................50%

Eisenhower.......... 57%

Kennedy.............. 30%

Johnson...............47%

Nixon................... 53%

Ford..................... 42%

Carter.................. 32%

Reagan................56%

GH Bush............. 51%

Clinton ............... 39%

GW Bush............ 55%

And the winner of the Chicken Dinner is:

Obama............... 8% !!!

Yep! That's right! Only Eight Percent!!!..the least by far of the last 19 presidents!! And these people are trying to tell our big corporations how to run their business?

How can the president of a major nation and society...the one with the most successful economic system in world history... stand and talk about business when he's never worked for one?... or about jobs when he has never really had one? And neither has 92% of his senior staff and closest advisers! They've spent most of their time in academia, government and/or non-profit jobs...or as "community organizers" when they should have been in an employment line.

BrownOut · Mar 25, 2010

The "private business" stats are total baloney:

We did a little digging and found that the claim is based on a study by Michael Cembalest, the chief investment officer for J.P. Morgan Private Bank. In a Nov. 24, 2009, column titled "Obama's Business Blind Spot" and published on Forbes.com, Cembalest wrote, "In a quest to see what frame of reference the administration might have on this issue, I looked back at the history of the presidential Cabinet. Starting with the creation of the secretary of commerce back in 1900, I compiled the prior private-sector experience of all 432 Cabinet members, focusing on those positions one would expect to participate in this discussion: secretaries of State; Commerce; Treasury; Agriculture; Interior; Labor; Transportation; Energy; and Housing & Urban Development."

...

In an accompanying chart, Cembalest reported that in the Obama administration, fewer than 10 percent of the Cabinet appointees counted under those rules had private sector experience. According to the chart, all other administrations going back to Theodore Roosevelt's had rates in at least the high 20s, with the Eisenhower and Reagan administrations approaching 60 percent. (He wrote in a footnote that the data came from a number of sources, including capsule biographies of Cabinet members posted on the Web site of the University of Virginia's Miller Center for Public Affairs.)

...

In Obama's Cabinet, at least three of the nine posts that Cembalest and Beck cite — a full one-third — are occupied by appointees who, by our reading of their bios, had significant corporate or business experience. Shaun Donovan, Obama's secretary of Housing and Urban Development, served as managing director of Prudential Mortgage Capital Co., where he oversaw its investments in affordable housing loans.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu headed the electronics research lab at one of America's storied corporate research-and-development facilities, AT&T Bell Laboratories, where his work won a Nobel Prize for physics. And Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, in addition to serving as Colorado attorney general and a U.S. senator, has been a partner in his family's farm for decades and, with his wife, owned and operated a Dairy Queen and radio stations in his home state of Colorado.

Three other Obama appointees had legal experience in the private sector.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and Commerce Secretary Gary Locke spent part of their careers working as lawyers in private practice. Clinton and Vilsack worked as private-sector lawyers at the beginning of their careers, while Locke joined an international law firm, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, after serving as governor of Washington state. At the firm, Locke "co-chaired the firm's China practice" and "helped U.S. companies break into international markets," according to his official biography. That sounds like real private sector experience to us.

Finally, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner worked for Kissinger Associates, a consulting firm that advises international corporations on political and economic conditions overseas.

The occupants of the two remaining Cabinet posts cited in the chart do not appear to have had significant private-sector experience: Labor Secretary Hilda Solis and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.

Obama's Cabinet has even more private-sector experience if you go beyond the nine. Two of the Obama appointees could be considered entrepreneurs — the very people Beck would "unleash." Vice President Joe Biden, officially a Cabinet member, founded his own law firm, Biden and Walsh, early in his career, and it still exists in a later incarnation, Monzack Mersky McLaughlin and Browder, P.A. (The future vice president also supplemented his income by managing properties, including a neighborhood swimming pool.) And Office of Management and Budget director Peter Orszag founded an economic consulting firm called Sebago Associates that was later bought out by a larger firm.

It's also worth noting that if you examine a larger group of senior Obama administration appointees, you'll find that more than one in four have experience as business executives, according to a June study by National Journal . That compared with the 38 percent the magazine found eight years earlier at the start of George W. Bush's administration. That's at least three times higher than the level claimed by Beck.

There is never a lie too big or disgusting for the political right.

source

smanches · Mar 25, 2010

Stats without references are nothing. Post your references.

You also have to realize that only those who could afford doctors in the US are the ones on the stats. All the uninsured who didn't go to doctors are not counted.

I'm getting really sick of this subject, everywhere. Lets see what change can bring, instead of everyone trying to be a prophet and "knowing" how it's not going to work. Change always brings good if you're willing to work it. It may not always be what was expected, but at the very least something is learned. Stagnation teaches nothing.

BTW, for all those people who think they are now paying for those who didn't have insurance before. You were paying for them anyway, as well as paying for all the illegal immigrants as well as many Mexicans. US hospitals cannot refuse service to ANYONE, EVER. And that costs a hell of a lot more than buying insurance for someone to keep them healthy.

Hero999 · Mar 25, 2010

PatM said:
Interesting statistics!
A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health Organization.

Statistics are great at misrepresenting and distorting things.

I wonder if they would be any different if you looked at how many people who had and of the illness you've listed and were actually able to see a doctor?

Those statistics prove that the US has excellent healthcare, for those that can afford it.

How many people are they who might have an illness but can't afford to see a doctor?

Access to healthcare in the US leaves a lot to be desired.

Other statistics tell a different story, for example the US's health system is ranked 38th in the world, well below most other well developed countries and below some less developed countries.
The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems

HarveyH42 · Mar 25, 2010

Some impressive statistics. I don't know the current population number for the United States, but would guess that the 50 million uninsured, is kind of a small percentage, compared to the number impacted by this new law. Obama never really went into detail how many of the 50 million were uninsured because of unemployment, choice, or high risk lifestyle. Mostly he just kept repeating that heath care was a 'right', but now insurance is an obligation, no choice. Still don't get how health care, is the same thing as health insurance. My insurance at work has a big list of things not covered, limits, and restrictions. I've never done more than thumb through the book, since we get one each year, kind of thick, and the changes are usually kind of subtle, and don't expect to make use of any of it, anytime soon.

Still think they should have started over from scratch. Buying insurance, isn't going to reduce medical bills, just cut some of the out of pocket expenses. We all are going to pay, whether we see a doctor or not, and the premiums will still add up. They posted a memo at work, which wasn't specific, but did indicate that the new law is going to change our coverage, and it didn't sound like a good thing. Guess by next year we will all have a clearer understanding of how much more we are going to have to pay.

Hero999 · Mar 25, 2010

HarveyH42 said:
Some impressive statistics.

No references and they only count the people who can afford it, as mentioned above.

My insurance at work has a big list of things not covered, limits, and restrictions.

Well, as far as I'm aware, part of the bill is supposed to stop companies from wriggling out of paying and will hopefully make some of the limits and restrictions illegal.

Still think they should have started over from scratch.

I agree but I think your country has being going down the road of expensive private insurance for too long tyo change now. If your government had decided to implement a universal public health care system 60 years ago, they probably wouldn't chosen something more similar to what they have in Canada now.

Buying insurance, isn't going to reduce medical bills, just cut some of the out of pocket expenses. We all are going to pay, whether we see a doctor or not, and the premiums will still add up. They posted a memo at work, which wasn't specific, but did indicate that the new law is going to change our coverage, and it didn't sound like a good thing. Guess by next year we will all have a clearer understanding of how much more we are going to have to pay.

I wouldn't know about that, let's wait and see what happens, as mentioned above.

Reloadron · Mar 25, 2010

One place I see a problem is with medicare for our seniors. Medicare is being seriously cut with this plan. Many large US corporations like John Deere and Caterpillar to name a few include a health plan for their retirees. They have the right to drop that coverage and always have. Now when they start dropping the plan what will happen to medicare part D? The only way to prevent these corporations from cutting retiree medical plans and driving them to medicare is for the government to literally subsidize those plans for those corporations. Since they cut medicare with this inept plan medicare can't take the hit.

The people behind this are clueless and that is the problem. Not that the US doesn't need a plan but right now the last thing we needed was something hastily tossed together by inept fools.

Yeah, like many I figure it won't be long before I hear how my current plan will be toast. Rather than model after a plan that works elsewhere they reinvent what will be a mess.

Ron

BrownOut · Mar 25, 2010

If John Deere and Caterpillar have had the right to drop medical coverage all along, as you've stated, then the bill doesn't change anything, and there's no reason to believe they will suddenly start breaking their promises to their retired employees. Most Medicare recipients will see no change to their plans, and those who do will only see special "advantage" privileges trimmed. The changes to basic Medicare coverage is minimal.

HarveyH42 · Mar 25, 2010

Even though the bulk of it was signed Tuesday, we'll still have to wait and see what happens with the changes bill. I doubt I'll get around to reading 3,000 pages or so of basically BS, and image there won't be many people who will take the time either. I do plan on downloading it, and give it a quick look though. But I do believe that employers are going to be hit pretty heavy when it comes to paying for all this, either with increasing wages, so the employees can pay higher costs, or paying a larger portion of the cost. Dropping coverage for retired employees, where the government is still carrying the burden is an attractive option to cut costs. I don't think health insurance will be the only benefit to be drop either. The economy is already in rough shape, many businesses are already cutting back. Mine has been for the past year, just to cover the reduced sales.

Wonder how many people are going to shifted (shafted?), from a fairly decent and affordable plan, into the bare minimum required by law? Times are tough, doing nice things for employees, or doing what keeps the business afloat. Health care for everybody, is a nice dream, but somebody has to pay the bills. That someone, is the workers and consumers. I'm so much concerned about the health care, don't use it or need it, but I do work for my income, and pay taxes, and a consumer. This should have been done during better economic times. The Cleaner Energy promises have to be Obama's next 'achievement', since he does seem too aware of the economic situation, least not for the working man. Sure it will create jobs, but mostly for the people over-seas, kind of like the train (light rail) project he chipped in for Florida (something, I'm sure we really need, and will see lots of use in the future, ha ha).

mneary · Mar 25, 2010

Some of us labored under the illusion that working harder and/or smarter, and making better life choices would give us a shot at a better outcome.

Now that equal outcome is the guarantee, it will be interesting to see what choices are made by the next generations.

PatM · Mar 25, 2010

It will be interesting to see what happens when the people who think they are going to get something for nothing realize that everyone will be required to buy insurance now.
Nothing will be free.

HarveyH42 · Mar 26, 2010

What incentive do people have left, to go out and work for a living? The government provides, food, housing, cellphones. and health care. Guess when Obama starts handing out cars and TVs, not too much reason to sweat eight hours a day.

It will probably always bother me, that work hard, and make healthy lifestyle choices, are being punished. Those who don't, get rewarded. They should have only required employers to offer a health insurance, let the employees decide if they want to participate, and the government could subsidize those who need help. You want insurance, get some sort of job. This would guarantee most people have access to insurance, if they want it, income taxes to help pay down Obama's credit card bill. They made it clear from the start, every American will have health insurance, whether you work for it, or it's subsidized (given) to them. Those that refuse will get beaten, until they comply. They've mention more than a few times, that this law will only slow the rising costs, not stop or reduce, much like the war on Global Warming. It's going to keep going anyway, just putting the worst off until later generations...

Reloadron · Mar 26, 2010

BrownOut said:
If John Deere and Caterpillar have had the right to drop medical coverage all along, as you've stated, then the bill doesn't change anything, and there's no reason to believe they will suddenly start breaking their promises to their retired employees. Most Medicare recipients will see no change to their plans, and those who do will only see special "advantage" privileges trimmed. The changes to basic Medicare coverage is minimal.

There is every reason to believe they will cut medical for retirees beginning here:

**broken link removed**

They made this known well in advance. No reason, again they made it well known or I would have not brought it up. Additionally others will follow suit.

Ron

BrownOut · Mar 26, 2010

The article does not say that Caterpeller and John Deere are going to cut their medical coverage, not did it say others will follow suit. It only says they will pay a one time charge on governement subsidies for thier company sponsored drug benefit plan. That was going to happen with or without health care refrom. BTW, the American Spectator is an awful place to try to get news. It's no better than Fox.

HarveyH42 · Mar 26, 2010

Nothing comes free in this world, and the money to cover every American has to come from some place. How are all the people who lost their jobs this past year (over 200 from my warehouse, and our company has 23 others across the country, which also had to cut back on staff), going to buy insurance? Will they have to pay it out of their 2 years (can't imagine going that long without a job) of unemployment benefits?

Companies are already cutting back on staff, raises, and benefits, just to deal with the slow economy. Increasing their burden, will just bring more cuts. These people are struggling to keep their businesses operating, and will strip away anything non-essential. Really poor timing for this. Fortunately, I work for the paycheck, and don't depend on the benefits or perks. We've already lost most of the fun stuff anyway, don't use the insurance, and my 401k does little more than break even (would probably be safer, buried in the backyard).

I'll be surprised if they get this thing working, before I reach retirement age (probably move to Canada). Which reminds me... Didn't WWII end, about 65 years ago? Social Security and Medicaid are about to receive a large number of new recipients over the next 5 years. Guess now, you only retire when you die, since you stop paying income taxes. I've got another 23 years, unless the change it again. Seems like a short time, considering the mess we are working with. Hoping that Global Warming is still going strong, and maybe it won't be so bad living up north.

Reloadron · Mar 26, 2010

BrownOut said:
The article does not say that Caterpeller and John Deere are going to cut their medical coverage, not did it say others will follow suit. It only says they will pay a one time charge on governement subsidies for thier company sponsored drug benefit plan. That was going to happen with or without health care refrom. BTW, the American Spectator is an awful place to try to get news. It's no better than Fox.

Actually the original read was the Wall Street Journal. I did a quick Google to find it again. I take it you have a dim view of Fox?

OK, but don't be surprised if Faux News (err Fox News) overlooks sending you a chocolate Easter bunny this year.

I said it before and I'll say it again. There were those for this and those against it. I was in the latter group as it was written and shoved through and still don't believe anything is better than nothing. I figure wait a few years and see how this plays out. I am just not quick to figure it is the best thing since sliced bread and that is just my opinion.

So can we do gun rights next week?

On another note here is how it ran in the Cleveland Plain Dealer business section:

https://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2010/03/deere_says_health_care_law_wil.html

Ron

Obama-Care, dead?

Banned

Banned

Banned

Well-Known Member

Member

Banned

New Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Well-Known Member

Banned

Banned

New Member

Member

Banned

Well-Known Member

Banned

Banned

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency