Obama's Health Plan

[ageofknowledge]

I guess some people don't really want the Government in medical decisions and they don't really want to give the Government to control there medical decisions. The worrying thing is if the government would drop their insurance.

There are plenty of people in this country that would allow tens of millions of their own countrymen to perish in the most suffering and tragic of circumstances while they enjoy fine wines and build their portfolios at the expense of the poor. They are called Republicans and most of them are Christians to boot. Now read the Sermon on the Mount.

[Byblos]

There are plenty of people in this country that would allow tens of millions of their own countrymen to perish in the most suffering and tragic of circumstances while they enjoy fine wines and build their portfolios at the expense of the poor. They are called Republicans and most of them are Christians to boot. Now read the Sermon on the Mount.

That's a most horrible generalization if I've ever seen one. And wildly untrue at that.

[Gman]

There are plenty of people in this country that would allow tens of millions of their own countrymen to perish in the most suffering and tragic of circumstances while they enjoy fine wines and build their portfolios at the expense of the poor. They are called Republicans and most of them are Christians to boot. Now read the Sermon on the Mount.

Hi age.. As you may have known, I voted for Obama so I'm not too far from your beliefs here. What worries me the most here is not doing anything and letting these rich insurance companies get richer. Of course I'm not for socialized medicine, but something has to be done to correct the problem now. While I don't think the government has all the answers, it can enforce laws that can perhaps thwart the problem from getting worse.

We all acknowledge there is a problem here right? I think what many fail to see here is that government provides important checks and balances not only to the economic survival of our nation but it can also influence these decisions made around health care. What I mean by checks and balances is stopping greed where it might flourish. Denying health insurance to an unhealthy person or jacking up prices is not only wrong, it's simply immoral. Not that government has the complete monopoly on moral issues, it still can influence private institutions or individuals where it can. As an example, fish and game. Sure we can let hunters kill everything they want, but who is going to keep track of the hunting seasons? Who would enforce it? The hunter? Of course not.. He only hunts. He may be trying to support his family, brush up on his hunting skills or need the cash. Why would a hunter enforce the hunting seasons? Hence government.. We need government to establish the boundaries, the does and the don'ts. It's a lesson that I learned awhile back and I believe it's vital to the issue.

Just a thought..

[ageofknowledge]

There are plenty of people in this country that would allow tens of millions of their own countrymen to perish in the most suffering and tragic of circumstances while they enjoy fine wines and build their portfolios at the expense of the poor. They are called Republicans and most of them are Christians to boot. Now read the Sermon on the Mount.

Hi age.. As you may have known, I voted for Obama so I'm not too far from your beliefs here. What worries me the most here is not doing anything and letting these rich insurance companies get richer. Of course I'm not for socialized medicine, but something has to be done to correct the problem now. While I don't think the government has all the answers, it can enforce laws that can perhaps thwart the problem from getting worse.

We all acknowledge there is a problem here right? I think what many fail to see here is that government provides important checks and balances not only to the economic survival of our nation but it can also influence these decisions made around health care. What I mean by checks and balances is stopping greed where it might flourish. Denying health insurance to an unhealthy person or jacking up prices is not only wrong, it's simply immoral. Not that government has the complete monopoly on moral issues, it still can influence private institutions or individuals where it can. As an example, fish and game. Sure we can let hunters kill everything they want, but who is going to keep track of the hunting seasons? Who would enforce it? The hunter? Of course not.. He only hunts. He may be trying to support his family, brush up on his hunting skills or need the cash. Why would a hunter enforce the hunting seasons? Hence government.. We need government to establish the boundaries, the does and the don'ts. It's a lesson that I learned awhile back and I believe it's vital to the issue.

Just a thought..

If they reformed tort, the private medical system and insurance industry, and improved Medi-Cal for the poor (which currently exists in all 50 states) and raised the bar on it a little so people on unemployment without medical insurance could get it for example between jobs; we could all go home happy (except maybe a few malpractice lawyers who might have to sell off a yacht or two) and the "turn or burn" conservatives and libertarians who want to save everyone's souls and then exploit them and let those that fall under the heel of their boot pass away in misery without any sort of care or concern.

[Byblos]

Hi age.. As you may have known, I voted for Obama so I'm not too far from your beliefs here.

Wow G, so how far are you from these beliefs?

There are plenty of people in this country that would allow tens of millions of their own countrymen to perish in the most suffering and tragic of circumstances while they enjoy fine wines and build their portfolios at the expense of the poor. They are called Republicans and most of them are Christians to boot.

[Gman]

Hi age.. As you may have known, I voted for Obama so I'm not too far from your beliefs here.

Wow G, so how far are you from these beliefs?

There are plenty of people in this country that would allow tens of millions of their own countrymen to perish in the most suffering and tragic of circumstances while they enjoy fine wines and build their portfolios at the expense of the poor. They are called Republicans and most of them are Christians to boot.

Not to worry.. I've voted Republican before so I would disagree with the statement. But I still think something needs to be done. I'm not for socializing the entire system, but I am for fixing it. I think there is a general fear from the public whenever government steps in. I would disagree with that. There are times when government needs to intervene into these corporate monopolies, break them up or restructure them. It think it's good to foster competition or rework some of the issues here. That's about all..

It's a dance.. They private and public sectors need to rely on each other in order to survive... You need two to tango.

[cslewislover]

Yeah, something needs to be done. I could be there soon, who knows. http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/09/18/de ... insurance/ I know this is from CNN, but I'm sure it's not totally skewed.

[zoegirl]

There are plenty of people in this country that would allow tens of millions of their own countrymen to perish in the most suffering and tragic of circumstances while they enjoy fine wines and build their portfolios at the expense of the poor. They are called Republicans and most of them are Christians to boot. Now read the Sermon on the Mount.

Ah yes, what a broad brush we paint with, don't we!!


How sad that your argument against this is to label us greedy and un-Christian. How shameful of *you* to resort to attacking the Christianity of an entire group of people.

Not the most lucid and convincing argument.

Let's see if my Republican status works with your comparison. Hmmm, no portfolios except a very modest TIAA-CREF account for retirement that isn't growing right now.

Oh, and let's see about all of those fine wines...oops, don't have those as well....in fact, none of my family do....hmmm except for the two democrats in my family (who both spend waaayyyy too much on gourmet foods, cheeses, wines, and a ridiculously high amount on a kitchen renovation...etc....shall we label them greedy and lecture them on reading the sermon on the mount....oh but wait...I forgot....they're democrats....they must automatically be great at compassion)

Oh and let's examine my riches....oh wait...I TEACH!!! AT A PRIVATE SCHOOL....at a private PROTESTANT school that has been on a salary freeze for the last three years and had to lay off our librarian. We barely approach 70% of the PUBLIC school salaries....

I saved and scrapped money for ten years in order to buy a modest townhouse (How evil and greedy I am!!!).

I own a ten year car and have neither inclination nor means currently to buy a new one.

All of my furniture save one piece is either bought at good wills, garage sales, or hand-me-downs.

and once again i will repeat that while I agree that we need to address problems, I don't agree with the solution that Obama and the Democrat members of congress have come up with. And yes, you will say those solutions don't work. Not a surprise. But amazingly this is still a country where ideas compete.

I have stayed away from this thread because I had said my piece and it was going in circles but this is a stupid statement and needs retraction.

[ageofknowledge]

Here's a statistic for you. An American citizen dies every 12 minutes due to a lack of health insurance: http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/ ... 3&src=news

THAT's what's shameful.

[ageofknowledge]

Yeah, something needs to be done. I could be there soon, who knows. http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/09/18/de ... insurance/ I know this is from CNN, but I'm sure it's not totally skewed.

Keep in mind these are only the ones they documented. There are many more.

[Byblos]

Here's a statistic for you. An American citizen dies every 12 minutes due to a lack of health insurance: http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/ ... 3&src=news

THAT's what's shameful.

Yes it is shameful. So to resolve this most awful situation we should increase our government triple fold and multiply our deficit by a factor of 10 in a decade, thereby bankrupting our future and increasing said statistic to an American citizen dying every 12 seconds from lack of common sense. Yeah, that's the ticket. But I understand your bitterness considering your situation.

[ageofknowledge]

[zoegirl]

George Will has said it very well

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02334.html

To dissect today's health-care debate, the crux of which concerns a "public option," use the mind's equivalent of a surgeon's scalpel, Occam's razor, a principle of intellectual parsimony: In solving a puzzle, start with the simplest explanatory theory.

The puzzle is: Why does the president, who says that were America "starting from scratch" he would favor a "single-payer" -- government-run -- system, insist that health-care reform include a government insurance plan that competes with private insurers? The simplest answer is that such a plan will lead to a single-payer system.

Conservatives say that a government program will have the intended consequence of crowding private insurers out of the market, encouraging employers to stop providing coverage and luring employees from private insurance to the cheaper government option.

The Lewin Group estimates that 70 percent of the 172 million persons privately covered might be drawn, or pushed, to the government plan. A significant portion of the children who have enrolled in the State Children's Health Insurance Program since eligibility requirements were relaxed in February had private insurance.


Assurances that the government plan would play by the rules that private insurers play by are implausible. Government is incapable of behaving like market-disciplined private insurers. Competition from the public option must be unfair because government does not need to make a profit and has enormous pricing and negotiating powers. Besides, unless the point of a government plan is to be cheaper, it is pointless: If the public option conforms to the imperatives that regulations and competition impose on private insurers, there is no reason for it.

The president characteristically denies that he is doing what he is doing -- putting the nation on a path to an outcome he considers desirable -- just as he denies any intention of running General Motors. Nevertheless, the unifying constant of his domestic policies -- their connecting thread -- is that they advance the Democrats' dependency agenda. The party of government aims to make Americans more equal by making them equally dependent on government for more and more things.

Arguments for the public option are too feeble to seem ingenuous. The president says competition from a government plan is necessary to keep private insurers "honest." Presumably, being "honest" means not colluding to set prices, and evidently he thinks that, absent competition from government, there will not be a competitive market for insurance. This ignores two facts:

There are 1,300 competing providers of health insurance. And Roll Call's Morton Kondracke notes that the 2003 Medicare prescription drug entitlement, relying on competition among private insurers, enjoys 87 percent approval partly because competition has made premiums less expensive than had been projected. The program's estimated cost from 2007 to 2016 has been reduced 43 percent.

Some advocates of a public option say health coverage is so complex that consumers will be befuddled by choices. But consumers of many complicated products, from auto insurance to computers, have navigated the competition among providers, who have increased quality while lowering prices.

Although 70 percent of insured Americans rate their health-care arrangements good or excellent, radical reform of health care is supposedly necessary because there are 45.7 million uninsured. That number is, however, a "snapshot" of a nation in which more than 20 million working Americans change jobs every year. Many of them are briefly uninsured between jobs. If all the uninsured were assembled for a group photograph, and six months later the then-uninsured were assembled for another photograph, about half the people in the photos would be different.

Almost 39 percent of the uninsured are in five states -- Florida, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California, all of which are entry points for immigrants. About 21 percent -- 9.7 million -- of the uninsured are not citizens. As many as 14 million are eligible for existing government programs -- Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, veterans' benefits, etc. -- but have not enrolled. And 9.1 million have household incomes of at least $75,000 and could purchase insurance. Those last two cohorts are more than half of the 45.7 million.

Insuring the perhaps 20 million persons who are protractedly uninsured because they cannot afford insurance is conceptually simple: Give them money -- (refundable) tax credits or debit cards (which have replaced food stamps) loaded with a particular value. This would produce people who are more empowered than dependent. Unfortunately, advocates of a government option consider that a defect. Which is why the simple idea of the dependency agenda cuts like a razor through the complexities of this debate.

[Gabrielman]

Conspricy Theory time! First they will control when and how (and if) you are treated for illness. Then they work on getting rid of your guns and rights to defend yourself. Then they will tell you how to raise your kids, how you can disapline them. They will regulate religon, how much you money you make, and what kind of "enviromently safe" products you use in your house. It is just goverment growing, into a dictatorship. lol. Okay not funny but the conspircy theory crazy guy (me) will more than likely make you all laugh, but you won't be laughing when you have no right. They are already taking away our right to speach. Check out the book "Speachless: Silenceing The Christians" I will see if I can find the link to it for you.
Zoe I liked your post.
God bless!
https://store.afa.net/
Here is a link to show you what the book looks like, couldn't find the summary though. It is all connected. It starts with the health care and your well being. One should look at the contries that have a single payer system, many people die every year from easily treatable disseases because the government is already busy with its other problems, so they pay little or no heed to the people. The gov needs to handle the problems it created first, then they can talk to us about health care. Until then they should stay out of our private lives. I take that back, they should always stay out of our personal lives. What business do they have telling me weather or not I should have insurance? I will make my own personal decisions. This new bill will allow them to make such decisions for you. They will also decide what kind of care, if any, you get. No thank you. And yes it will end in a single payer system. Who can compete with the gov, espically when they are making thier own rules as they go along to make it easier for them to win. They are supposed to answer to us, but instead they are ignoring an overwheming number of citizens (and a majority, that actually means something in a democracy... or at least it used to) who do not want this bill to pass. Bravo! You just killed any chance of you getting re-elected! They think they are untouchable... oh well. When they control 1/7 of our economy by this single payer system we will see the light and hopefully fix things as fast as we can. You see this is exactally why I hate politics. It is a compound word, ploy-many ticks-blood sucking insects, ploy-ticks.

[zoegirl]

And while the plan won't *force* you to choose, there is nothing that prevents a business to eventually choose to opt to enter the public option. Sure, there are penalties at first. But all the "If you like your healthcare you don't have to give it up" means nothing when businesses can eventually, over several years, choose to drop the policy and essentially force the employees to choose the public option. Over five year period the penalties eventually decrease.

And that from the same source: politifact.