|
Post by falgar25 on Aug 12, 2009 21:25:43 GMT -4
An idea: Health Care Stamps.
What if a national health care system was modeled after the food stamp program? For those who believe the Govt. can run big programs, this cold be a good model. For those who like the Canadian system, maybe this is similar.
Let me continue to purchase health insurance and receive my health care the way I do today. Mine is not the only health care plan or provider, let others continue to get their health care the way they do today. For us, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
For those who can't/won't/don't purchase their own health care, have a program that provides a minimum benefit. The program will provide the medicine that someone needs to live, but it won't provide the "luxuries." If someone wants plastic surgery, let them pay for it themselves. Food stamps won't buy a lobster dinner (at least they shouldn't) but they will get you fed. The Govt. provided health care system won't be the desirable plan, but it will keep people alive
If someone wants/needs free healthcare like they can get with the Canadaian system, let them have it but only at a subsistence level. If they want more healthcare choices, or better procedures or elective surgery, let them pay for it like they can with the US system. The best of both worlds.
I'm sure it won't work, but hey, it's an idea.
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Aug 13, 2009 7:07:21 GMT -4
2. Why is rationing by income, as we do it here, better than rationing by need, as they do it in Canada? Grr, Falgar beat me to it. There are other countries available for people who are enchanted by the pipers of Marxism.
|
|
|
Post by einebierbitte on Aug 13, 2009 7:39:29 GMT -4
Ok all, I am going to say up front that I clearly don't understand any of the arguments, as you know from a past rant about health care I am very biased and closed minded and have a hard time seeing any other side other than my own.
Why is health care so expensive in the United States? Malpractice Insurance that doctors must have in order to practice.
We are a nation who will sue if they apply a bandaid wrong.
Which I don't understand... Why do they call it a Medical Practice? Because that is what the Doctors are doing... practicing...because it's all hit and miss and yes, sometimes unforgivable mistakes happen...
But what I think should be done is that the Doctors should adher to a more rigourous quality control/evaluation or whatever it is that they do to keep their credentials upto date.
I also think they should fall under federal protection and not be allowed to be sued.
Yes, they do make mistakes, because they are human. But seriously, come one....being paid millions upon millions of dollars for whatever....too me is kinda ridiculous.
It's not the perfect answer, and I have my body armor on for the slams....cause I realize this is a very way out their idea...and naive..
It's just my thought!!
And too...this could be a good way to weed out the sorry medico's out there who only become a doctor to get rich.....
Once we get the doctors regulated....let's move on to the lawyers....LOL!!
PEACE OUT!
By the way, Falgar, thank you....
|
|
|
Post by shadow1 on Aug 13, 2009 9:07:52 GMT -4
Perhaps all those who are against socialized medicine now should no longer be allowed to contribute to Medicare in there income taxes. But when your 65 and your no longer working and your job has dropped your insurance. Then you will now have to pay for your own insurance. My great grandmother in the past 10 years has probably spent well over a million medicaid and medicare dollars for her healthcare. Where did that million dollars come from? Did the Govt. just print a few extra pallets? In some ways, Medicare is a Govt. run, endorsed, and mandated ponzi scheme. The payouts today aren't coming from any real profit, they are coming from the investments of those who expect to receive payments tomorrow. The payouts today exceed what those who are receiving the payouts contributed in their lifetimes. The only way the system can survive is if the number of investors in future generations continue to grow. If the number becomes static or begins to shrink, the system will break down. Likewise, if the number of recipients suddenly increases, as it will if this is the route congress chooses to take, then the system will break down. Falgar - do you mean like the Social Security system
|
|
|
Post by funnel101 on Aug 13, 2009 12:37:11 GMT -4
Ok all, I am going to say up front that I clearly don't understand any of the arguments, as you know from a past rant about health care I am very biased and closed minded and have a hard time seeing any other side other than my own. Why is health care so expensive in the United States? Malpractice Insurance that doctors must have in order to practice. We are a nation who will sue if they apply a bandaid wrong. Which I don't understand... Why do they call it a Medical Practice? Because that is what the Doctors are doing... practicing...because it's all hit and miss and yes, sometimes unforgivable mistakes happen... But what I think should be done is that the Doctors should adher to a more rigourous quality control/evaluation or whatever it is that they do to keep their credentials upto date. I also think they should fall under federal protection and not be allowed to be sued. Yes, they do make mistakes, because they are human. But seriously, come one....being paid millions upon millions of dollars for whatever....too me is kinda ridiculous. It's not the perfect answer, and I have my body armor on for the slams....cause I realize this is a very way out their idea...and naive.. It's just my thought!! And too...this could be a good way to weed out the sorry medico's out there who only become a doctor to get rich..... Once we get the doctors regulated....let's move on to the lawyers....LOL!! PEACE OUT! By the way, Falgar, thank you.... The problem is that sometimes doctors actually do make serious, life-changing mistakes.... like doing the wrong operation on a person, amputating the wrong limb, etc. To say that people who've had things like that happen should have no legal recourse is, I think, unfair. I do agree that a lot of the medical malpractice lawsuits are crap; perhaps what we need is a method to separate the real lawsuits from the frivolous ones. Oh, and I want to chime in on the food/health stamps idea. It sounds interesting, but how would it actually work? My understanding is that food stamps have a monetary value. So let's say health stamps work the same way. Now, I'm on several medications, maybe some of them I could live without (I could, for example, probably survive without my Singulair), but most of which are pretty necessary. And one of my meds is $1500/month (no generic exists), and it's a very common medication for rheumatoid arthritis. A lot of people with chronic diseases--i.e., the ones who would be using this system because private insurance refuses to cover us--survive by taking drugs that are expensive. So, while I think it's an interesting idea, I just don't see how it would work. Personally, I like the idea of a government-run plan to compete with the private ones. It would give those people who can't get insurance any other way an option and could have a positive effect on the private insurance companies as well. (If anyone can get insurance for, say, $200/month, how many people would stick with plans of more than $400/month?) I also want to combat a belief that the only people who support this idea are ones who would directly benefit from it. I wouldn't; I'm already on Medicare. As to how to pay for it, I think, ultimately, taxes will need to be raised a small amount. I don't think an increase of 1-2% on ANYONE's taxes is going to be a huge deal. And as for how this will affect businesses, I think it'll help them. It'll mean small businesses don't have to find ways to offer coverage to employees, a cost which can be really devastating to small, start-up companies. I have to admit to not having read the bill that's proposed (it's over 1000 pages long, from what I've heard), but this is my understanding of what's being proposed.
|
|
|
Post by dej on Aug 13, 2009 15:52:58 GMT -4
Personally, I like the idea of a government-run plan to compete with the private ones. It would give those people who can't get insurance any other way an option and could have a positive effect on the private insurance companies as well. (If anyone can get insurance for, say, $200/month, how many people would stick with plans of more than $400/month?) I also want to combat a belief that the only people who support this idea are ones who would directly benefit from it. I wouldn't; I'm already on Medicare. As to how to pay for it, I think, ultimately, taxes will need to be raised a small amount. I don't think an increase of 1-2% on ANYONE's taxes is going to be a huge deal. And as for how this will affect businesses, I think it'll help them. It'll mean small businesses don't have to find ways to offer coverage to employees, a cost which can be really devastating to small, start-up companies. Part of the problem is that it's not real "competition" when one side not only gets to make up the rules, but force the other side to play by them. HB 3200 requires private insurance to "evolve" over a five year period to meet the standards of the public option. In essence, private companies will have to mirror the government program. What you would have left is choice in name only. The public option doesn't have to be cost effective to stay in business, it will jsut soak us for more money when it needs it. You ask why people would stick with a $400 plan if a $200 plan were offered. That's an easy one that I answer every fall. I have options every open enrollment in the fall. I have always stayed with the option have now, which is actually the most expensive one offered, because I get more for my money. The lower cost programs generally have higher deductables, fewer doctor & hospital choices, more limits on services. Had I gone with a less expensive option years ago when my wife was battling cancer, I would probably still be trying to pay off medical related bills. While the cancer is no longer an issue, she is a diabetic, dealing with neuropathy, and has heart problems. I honestly can't afford to try going cheap on my insurance options. There is a need for reform. Trying to address issues with pre-existing conditions and the uninsured is a good thing that needs to be done. Just doing these two thing right would take Congress and the President years to get it right. But instead of addressing the most critical issues first, this Congress and President has decided to try wholesale reform, with no regard or consideration for the parts of our health care system that do work, and think they can get it down right in a few weeks. Actually, I think they are smart enough to know it can't be done right in a few weeks. That's why it was so urgent to try and ram it through before they went into recess, and before people could realize what had been done to them. As for the little 1-2% tax increase, the problem is that it won't stop with that. A prime example of that it the Social Security program. It started as a little 1% tax on income. Now it's up over 12%, and I expect that percentage to go even higher before I can hope to start drawing on it, if it's still there. A new one percent doesn't sound like much, but we are already looking at other increases to support government spending. Wait until people start seeing the effects of cap & trade on their electric bills and gas prices, along with the state constantly creating or increasing taxes, and the counties increasing property tax and transfer tax rates. These taes generally never go away either. The only tax I can remember going away in my life time was a tax on our phone bills that was originally imposed to fund the Spanish-American War. This was just eliminated a few years ago. I guess they waited over a 1oo years to make sure the Spanish really had ended the fighting? ?
|
|
|
Post by funnel101 on Aug 13, 2009 16:38:40 GMT -4
Valid points, dej.
|
|
|
Post by kl on Aug 14, 2009 7:03:35 GMT -4
Like Falger said, you wrote a lot to address. Some points I might buy into, some I don't, and some I'm not sure about. but for starters, I will address the one I am sure about. 7. If Medicare--a single-payer system here in America--is so popular with the elderly, how come it's no good for the rest of us? I'm not sure I would describe this program as "popular" with the elderly. At least for my parents, in-laws, and many of their friends, "a necessary evil" would probably be a more accurate description on their part. The paperwork involved for both enrollment and even routine procedures, along with requirements for supporting documents can be extensive and confusing for some elderly. Anything less than perfection when this paperwork is submitted can lead to even more paperwork and supporting documentation. Actually, I was a little surprised you weren't more critical of Medicare, considering the Part D "donut hole' inflicted as part of the effort by Bush to reform it. You rarely pass on the opportunity for a "Bush Bash" ;D Not really a Bush Basher, but more of a reminder that all this didn't start with the election this past Jan. There's a long, and rough road ahead, but I'll always remain an optimist.
|
|
|
Post by kl on Aug 14, 2009 7:05:09 GMT -4
Misplaced Rage
by Bruce Bartlett Info RSS Bruce Bartlett
Bruce Bartlett helped develop supply-side economics while on the staff of Rep. Jack Kemp in the 1980s. In 2006 he was fired by a conservative think tank for writing a book critical of George W. Bush from a conservative point of view, Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy. His new book, The New American Economy: The Failure of Reaganomics and a New Way Forward, will be published in October. X Close Bruce Bartlett Emails | print Multiple Pages | text - + Facebook | Twitter | Digg |
Enter your email address:
Enter the recipients' email addresses, separated by commas:
Message: Your email has been sent. Thanks for recommending The Daily Beast!
X Close
Barack Obama, George Bush AP Photo; Getty Images Leading conservative economist Bruce Bartlett writes that the Obama-hating town-hall mobs have it wrong—the person they should be angry with left the White House seven months ago.
Where is the evidence that everything would be better if Republicans were in charge? Does anyone believe the economy would be growing faster or that unemployment would be lower today if John McCain had won the election? I know of no economist who holds that view. The economy is like an ocean liner that turns only very slowly. The gross domestic product and the level of employment would be pretty much the same today under any conceivable set of policies enacted since Barack Obama’s inauguration.
Until conservatives once again hold Republicans to the same standard they hold Democrats, they will have no credibility and deserve no respect.
In January, the Congressional Budget Office projected a deficit this year of $1.2 trillion before Obama took office, with no estimate for actions he might take. To a large extent, the CBO’s estimate simply represented the $482 billion deficit projected by the Bush administration in last summer’s budget review, plus the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, which George W. Bush rammed through Congress in September over strenuous conservative objections. Thus the vast bulk of this year’s currently estimated $1.8 trillion deficit was determined by Bush’s policies, not Obama’s.
I think conservative anger is misplaced. To a large extent, Obama is only cleaning up messes created by Bush. This is not to say Obama hasn’t made mistakes himself, but even they can be blamed on Bush insofar as Bush’s incompetence led to the election of a Democrat. If he had done half as good a job as most Republicans have talked themselves into believing he did, McCain would have won easily.
Conservative protesters should remember that the recession, which led to so many of the policies they oppose, is almost entirely the result of Bush’s policies. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the recession began in December 2007—long before Obama was even nominated. And the previous recession ended in November 2001, so the current recession cannot be blamed on cyclical forces that Bush inherited.
Indeed, Bush’s responsibility for the recession is implicit in every conservative analysis of its origins. The most thorough has been done by John Taylor, a respected economist from Stanford University who served during most of the Bush administration as the No. 3 official at the Treasury Department. In his book, Getting Off Track, he puts most of the blame on the Federal Reserve for holding interest rates down too low for too long.
While the Fed does bear much responsibility for sowing the seeds of recession, it’s commonly treated as an institution independent of politics and even the government itself. But the Federal Reserve Board consists of governors appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
Because the president appoints the board, he has primary influence over its policies. This is especially the case for chairmen of the Fed appointed by Republicans because they often have ties to Republican administrations. Chairman Ben Bernanke was originally appointed as a member of the Fed in 2002, serving until 2005, when he became chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers in the White House, a position that made him Bush’s chief economic adviser.
As early as 2002, a majority of the seven-member Federal Reserve Board was Bush appointees, and by 2006 every member was a Bush appointee. While many critical decisions about monetary policy are made by the Federal Open Market Committee, the board’s position always prevails.
The Treasury secretary also has had breakfast with the Fed chairman on a weekly basis for decades. Consequently, most economists generally believe that every administration ultimately gets the Fed policy it wants. Therefore, one must conclude that if there were errors in Fed policy that caused the current downturn, it must be because the Fed was doing what the Bush administration wanted it to do.
To the extent that there were mistakes in housing policy that contributed to the recession, those were necessarily committed by Bush political appointees at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other agencies. To the extent that banks and other financial institutions made mistakes or engaged in fraudulent activity, it was either overlooked or sanctioned by Bush appointees at the Securities & Exchange Commission, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and elsewhere.
But in a larger sense, the extremely poor economic performance of the Bush years really set the stage for the current recession. This is apparent when we compare Bush’s two terms to Bill Clinton’s eight years. Since both took office close to a business cycle trough and left office close to a cyclical peak, this is a reasonable comparison.
Throughout the Bush years, many conservative economists, including CNBC’s Larry Kudlow, extravagantly extolled Bush’s economic policies. As late as December 21, 2007, after the recession already began, he wrote in National Review: “the Goldilocks economy is outperforming all expectations.” In a column on May 2, 2008, almost six months into the recession, Kudlow praised Bush for having prevented a recession.
But the truth was always that the economy performed very, very badly under Bush, and the best efforts of his cheerleaders cannot change that fact because the data don’t lie. Consider these comparisons between Bush and Clinton:
• Between the fourth quarter of 1992 and the fourth quarter of 2000, real GDP grew 34.7 percent. Between the fourth quarter of 2000 and the fourth quarter of 2008, it grew 15.9 percent, less than half as much.
• Between the fourth quarter of 1992 and the fourth quarter of 2000, real gross private domestic investment almost doubled. By the fourth quarter of 2008, real investment was 6.5 percent lower than it was when Bush was elected.
• Between December 1992 and December 2000, payroll employment increased by more than 23 million jobs, an increase of 21.1 percent. Between December 2000 and December 2008, it rose by a little more than 2.5 million, an increase of 1.9 percent. In short, about 10 percent as many jobs were created on Bush’s watch as were created on Clinton’s.
• During the Bush years, conservative economists often dismissed the dismal performance of the economy by pointing to a rising stock market. But the stock market was lackluster during the Bush years, especially compared to the previous eight. Between December 1992 and December 2000, the S&P 500 Index more than doubled. Between December 2000 and December 2008, it fell 34 percent. People would have been better off putting all their investments into cash under a mattress the day Bush took office.
• Finally, conservatives have an absurdly unjustified view that Republicans have a better record on federal finances. It is well-known that Clinton left office with a budget surplus and Bush left with the largest deficit in history. Less well-known is Clinton’s cutting of spending on his watch, reducing federal outlays from 22.1 percent of GDP to 18.4 percent of GDP. Bush, by contrast, increased spending to 20.9 percent of GDP. Clinton abolished a federal entitlement program, Welfare, for the first time in American history, while Bush established a new one for prescription drugs.
Conservatives delude themselves that the Bush tax cuts worked and that the best medicine for America’s economic woes is more tax cuts; at a minimum, any tax increase would be economic poison. They forget that Ronald Reagan worked hard to pass one of the largest tax increases in American history in September 1982, the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act, even though the nation was still in a recession that didn’t end until November of that year. Indeed, one could easily argue that the enactment of that legislation was a critical prerequisite to recovery because it led to a decline in interest rates. The same could be said of Clinton’s 1993 tax increase, which many conservatives predicted would cause a recession but led to one of the biggest economic booms in history.
According to the CBO, federal taxes will amount to just 15.5 percent of GDP this year. That’s 2.2 percent of GDP less than last year, 3.3 percent less than in 2007, and 1.8 percent less than the lowest percentage recorded during the Reagan years. If conservatives really believe their own rhetoric, they should be congratulating Obama for being one of the greatest tax cutters in history.
Conservatives will respond that some tax cuts are good while others are not. Determining which is which is based on something called supply-side economics. Because I was among those who developed it, I think I can speak authoritatively on the subject. According to the supply-side view, temporary tax cuts and tax credits are economically valueless. Only permanent cuts in marginal tax rates will significantly raise growth.
On this basis, we see that Bush’s tax cuts were pretty much the opposite of what supply-side economics would recommend. The vast bulk of his tax cuts involved tax rebates—which failed in 2001 and again in 2008, because the vast bulk of the money was saved—or tax credits that had no incentive effects. While marginal rates were cut slightly—the top rate fell from 39.6 percent to 35 percent—it was phased in slowly and never made permanent. Neither were Bush’s cuts in capital gains and dividend taxes.
I could go on to discuss other Bush mistakes that had negative economic consequences, such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which imposed a massive regulatory burden on corporations without doing anything to prevent corporate misconduct, and starting unnecessary wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which will burden the economy for decades to come in the form of veterans’ benefits.
But there is yet another dimension to Bush’s failures—the things he didn’t do. In this category I would put a health-care overhaul. Budget experts have known for years that Medicare was on an unsustainable financial path. It is impossible to pay all the benefits that have been promised because spending has been rising faster than GDP.
In 2003, the Bush administration repeatedly lied about the cost of the drug benefit to get it passed, and Bush himself heavily pressured reluctant conservatives to vote for the program.
Because reforming Medicare is an important part of getting health costs under control generally, Bush could have used the opportunity to develop a comprehensive health-reform plan. By not doing so, he left his party with nothing to offer as an alternative to the Obama plan. Instead, Republicans have opposed Obama's initiative while proposing nothing themselves.
In my opinion, conservative activists, who seem to believe that the louder they shout the more correct their beliefs must be, are less angry about Obama’s policies than they are about having lost the White House in 2008. They are primarily Republican Party hacks trying to overturn the election results, not representatives of a true grassroots revolt against liberal policies. If that were the case they would have been out demonstrating against the Medicare drug benefit, the Sarbanes-Oxley bill, and all the pork-barrel spending that Bush refused to veto.
Until conservatives once again hold Republicans to the same standard they hold Democrats, they will have no credibility and deserve no respect. They can start building some by admitting to themselves that Bush caused many of the problems they are protesting.
Bruce Bartlett was one of the original supply-siders, helping draft the Kemp-Roth tax bill in the 1970s. In the 1980s and 1990s, he was a leading Republican economist. He now considers himself to be a political independent. He is the author of Reaganomics: Supply-Side Economics in Action and Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy . His latest book, The New American Economy: The Failure of Reaganomics and a New Way Forward, will be published by Palgrave Macmillan in October.
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Aug 14, 2009 7:11:28 GMT -4
I don't think its misplaced rage. Its where it needs to be. Its just not EVERYWHERE it needs to be.
If you're not angry, you're not watching.
|
|
|
Post by dej on Aug 14, 2009 13:08:48 GMT -4
It's an interesting read, but Bartlett's comments indicate he might need to come down from his academic ivory tower and take a closer look at the real world. The anger displayed at the town halls is not coming from people who are there to discuss recession or Fed policies. They are there to express their feelings on health care reform bills proposed by Obama and the Democratic leadership.
While his comments are interesting and contain some valid points, nowhere in them does he explain how the Bush administration, or even one single Republican has played a role in the proposed health care reforms that have so many people fired up at these meetings.
His remarks indicate he is every bit as detached from the reality of what concerns these people as are the leadership of the House and Senate. He goes into a long discussion of many of the mistakes made by Bush, and Bush appointees, taking care not to point out the role Democrats like Barney Frank & others played by giving Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac free rein to lay the groundwork for the destruction of the real estate market, which was a major contributor to this recession.
I also took note of the description of his as "conservative economist Bruce Bartlett". He did work for Reagan. But that does not make his politics conservative, it's just a label many in the media apply to make it look as if there is dissension in conservative ranks. I think the clearest illustration of this is the showing the reverse side. Charles Krauthammer worked in the Carter adminstration, and worked on the Mondale presidential campaign, but you never hear of him described as a liberal.
|
|
|
Post by pete1 on Aug 14, 2009 15:45:45 GMT -4
My Friends............We are a Republic, not a Democracy. A Republic is a nation of law. Why then do our elected leaders condone the illegals taking one penny of our hard earned tax dollars?
|
|
|
Post by misternuke on Aug 14, 2009 21:56:15 GMT -4
My Friends............We are a Republic, not a Democracy. A Republic is a nation of law. Why then do our elected leaders condone the illegals taking one penny of our hard earned tax dollars? Here, Here, Pete! That's why I say we need to just start keeping a tab at the hospital and just start making deductions from whatever international aid, etc we're giving the countries that are exporting patients to the U.S.....recoup some of our expenses. Also, here's an idea....haven't thought it through completely but here goes... In Maryland, if you are for some reason 'less than desirable' as a customer for auto insurance, you can be eligible for insurance under MAIF (Maryland Auto Insurance Fund) which is an insurance pool mandated by the state, that in order to sell car insurance in the state, insurance companies must participate in. All of the companies together, then, share exposure to the highest risk clients. Could an arrangement like this help solve the 'pre-existing condition' set of uninsureds without having to create a separate government entity? My big question about a government option insurance plan is this... Will this plan be required to reimburse providers at the same rate as private insurance companies (which now averages about $1.35 for each $1 of actual expense, or is it going to be allowed to short-change providers the same way MEDICAID (@ $0.78 per $1 of actual cost) and MEDICARE ((@$0.93 per $1 of actual cost). There's no way there can ever be a 'level playing field' between such a subsidised government entity and the private insurance carriers. Do you all realize that the US Government could buy fairly decent health care for every uninsured citizen for under about $10 Billion/year? We could have bought 7 1/2 years of insurance coverage for the uninsured and completely solved the main crux of this problem for less money than we wasted on GM and Chrysler, who ended up going bankrupt anyway? We just spent $787 Billion on 'stimulus'...enough to pick up that insurance tab for the better part of the next century!!! So please don't try to tell us that this is about 'insuring the uninsured'.....this is about getting the government's grubby paws on one more piece of our lives....one that, I may add, there is NO mention of in the Constitution. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the PEOPLE!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by hisea on Aug 15, 2009 8:48:04 GMT -4
I am against any obama care plan which is about control not health care, I say slow down and look at each and every issue/problem within health care. I don't want the U.S. gov't dictating how I/we live our lives! I believe in freedom of the people, not enslavement to uncle sam!
I was lucky enough to receive an e-mail for david axelrod @10:01 AM on the 8/13/09. It starts out Dear Friend, reminds me of a used car dealer. Go to flagwhitehouse.com and report on your fellow Americans that reject obamacare!
|
|
|
Post by funnel101 on Aug 17, 2009 16:17:57 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by moosie on Aug 17, 2009 19:42:51 GMT -4
i have a friend in another state who has no health insurance--can't afford it--and his solution to all this is to not go to the doctor. of course he is concerned that if he actually went, they wold find something. so, when he does develop, if he hasn't already, a chronic illness, an expensive illness, or life-threatening illness, etc., who do you think is going to pay for it? he can't afford to. you and i will be paying for it. i'd prefer to see some preventive care to keep my friend from getting the chronic, expensive, and/or life threatening illness. he may win this one, but the odds are he will not. it may be his "choice," but, in the end, we will be paying for that choice.
|
|
|
Post by hisea on Aug 17, 2009 21:43:56 GMT -4
Why should we pay for others who never put into the system? How can our tax dollars go to people who broke the law to get here? I don't mind helping the needed or people down on their luck but why should my tax dollars go to a inmate who wants a sex change, or removing tattoo's from gang members!
I/We already pay for the auto companies, wall street, acorn, and every other pet project you can think of! What as hard working honest citizen of this great country are we going to do? I do not want total control of my health options run by some civil servant who has to watch his budget or end up losing his job! As a country we already take care of our fair share of the world problems, how can we pay for healthcare for every one thats comes into America? We are already beyond broke! China owns us!! The stimulus package was a big waste of money, the only problem that it took care of was to pay off obama's friends who put him in office.
Let's pay out more money to get us out of hole! Does that make sense? How in the Heck can you get out of a recession by spending more of our tax dollars? Maybe we should all start printing our own dollars to cover our personal debt. Thats what the czars are doing! Do you think its really going to work? It comes down to wants and needs, just like you learned in school. You take care of your needs first, rent, house payment, food, health insurance, clothing. then you go after you wants if you can thats all the extras. Some people are going to have to give up the life that they want and focus only on the essential.
Most young people today have only lived in a time were the country has had a good to great economy and never had to worry about high unemployment, it is our fault for not teaching them to take care of the essentials first. Sometimes learning hurts!! But remember that what does not destroy us will make us stronger!
|
|
|
Post by dej on Aug 18, 2009 1:26:52 GMT -4
While factcheck does point out one item that seems to exlude illegal immigrants, there is still reason for suspicion and concern.
One reason (or maybe about 9 reasons) is the fact that about 9 amendments that would have more clearly ruled out participation by people in this country illegally were voted down by the Democrats.
Another reason is wording like this:
SEC. 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE. (a) IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services.
That wording "without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services." could be (and probaly would be) taken to mean things like citizenship or legal status would be among those "personal characterics" that would not disqualify participation. That wording looks like a loophole big enough to drive truckloads of illegals through.
With wording like that, and the Democrats fighting more specific wording in amendments, there is still reason to be suspicious of their intent.
|
|
|
Post by kl on Aug 18, 2009 6:52:14 GMT -4
Ummmm..we have been paying for as long as you and I have been collecting a paycheck. That little deduction we see right next to Fed and state tax withheld. You know, the medicare one.
What I find quite amusing, is I caught this one on the news, and they were asking this young mother, in a health care clinic, waiting for an appointment, what she thought of the Healthcare reform. She was quoted that she didn't want the government involved. When told that the "free" clinic that she was visiting, was subsidized with 40 million a year from the government..well.. :-)
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Aug 18, 2009 7:13:13 GMT -4
It may be amusing, but it certainly shouldn't be surprising. Reporters are big fans of selecting the most ignorant people to interview among those that oppose the reporter's views.
Its their way of saying "look, you must be dumb if you believe the way this person does", because isn't it a reporters job to pass judgment on a situation, and craft the way they report the story to convince everyone (either openly or deceitfully) to think a certain way?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2009 8:22:12 GMT -4
This latest development of people openly carrying guns to town hall meetings is going to escalate and make a tense situation more volatile. Don't see the need to do it when the issue being discussed is health care, not gun rights. Is this helping?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2009 10:52:51 GMT -4
Commentary: Frightening future if health reform fails
Uwe Reinhardt: Consider what will happen if health reform fails He says health costs have already doubled in a decade Reinhardt says dollars spent on health care come out of wages for middle class
By Uwe Reinhardt Special to CNN Editor's note: Uwe Reinhardt is James Madison professor of political economy at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School. From 1986 to 1995 he served as a commissioner on the Physician Payment Review Committee, established in 1986 by Congress to advise it on issues related to the payment of physicians.
Uwe Reinhardt says health costs are rising at unsustainable pace, gobbling up middle-class incomes.
(CNN) -- Watching the angry outbursts at town hall meetings on health reform and the continuing public ambivalence about current efforts to reform our health system almost makes me wish that the reform effort fails.
Perhaps Americans need to be taught a basic lesson on the economics of employment-based health insurance before they will feel as smugly secure with it as they do now and before they will stop nitpicking health-reform efforts to death over this or that detail.
And America's currently insured middle class will be increasingly desperate if health reform fails. Millions more such families will see their take-home pay shrink. Millions will lose their employment-based insurance, especially in medium and small-sized firms. And millions will find themselves inexorably priced out of health care as we know it.
Milliman Inc., an employee benefits consulting firm, publishes annually its Milliman Medical Index on the total health spending by or for a typical American family of four with private health insurance. The index totals the family's out-of-pocket spending for health care plus the contribution employers and employees make to that family's job-related health insurance coverage.
The Milliman Medical Index stood at $8,414 in 2001. It had risen to $16,700 by 2009. It is likely to rise to $18,000 by next year. That is more than a doubling of costs in the span of a decade!
Since 2005, the index has grown at an average annual compound rate of 8.4 percent. Suppose we make it 8 percent for the coming decade. Then today's $16,700 will have grown to slightly over $36,000 by 2019.
Economists are convinced that this $36,000 would come virtually all out of the financial hides of employees, even if the employer pretended to be paying, say, 80 percent of the employment-based health insurance premiums. In the succinct words of the late United Automobile Worker Union leader Douglas Fraser:
"Before you start weeping for the auto companies and all they pay for medical insurance, let me tell you how the system works. All company bargainers worth their salt keep their eye on the total labor unit cost, and when they pay an admittedly horrendous amount for health care, that's money that can't be spent for higher [cash] wages or higher pensions or other fringe benefits. So we directly, the union and its members, feel the costs of the health care system." ("A National Health Policy Debate," Dartmouth Medical School Alumni Magazine, Summer 1989: 30)
Unfortunately, very few rank-and-file workers appreciate this fact. Aside from their still modest out-of-pocket payments and contributions to employment-based insurance premiums, most employees seem sincerely to believe that the bulk of their family's health care is basically paid for by "the company," which is why so few members of the middle class have ever been much interested in controlling health spending in this country.
The price for that indifference will be high. If efforts at better cost containment fail once again, and health care costs rise to $36,000 on average for a typical American family of four under age 65 -- as almost surely it would -- that $36,000 will be borne entirely by the family. That family's disposable income would be much higher if the growth of future health spending was better controlled. And, as noted, many smaller firms will stop altogether providing job-based health insurance.
It would be a major problem for families with an income of less than $100,000 a year. In 2007, only about 25 percent of American families had a money income of $100,000 or more. Close to 60 percent had family incomes of less than $75,000.
Here it must be remembered that the wages and salaries of the solid American middle class have been relatively stagnant in recent years and are likely to remain so for the next decade. Unemployment is not likely to fall significantly soon, regardless of what stock prices do on Wall Street. Indeed, often stock prices rise as firms lay off workers to drive up profits through leaner payrolls.
This prospect -- relatively stagnant family incomes combined with family health-care costs that double every decade -- is what America's middle class should contemplate as it thinks about the imperative of health reform.
It is a pity that this central issue seems to have been shoved aside by mendacious distortions from extremist commentators seeking to frighten Americans with their prattle about "death panels" and "pulling plugs on granny" that no bill before Congress even remotely envisions.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Uwe Reinhardt.
|
|
|
Post by kl on Aug 18, 2009 11:36:46 GMT -4
It may be amusing, but it certainly shouldn't be surprising. Reporters are big fans of selecting the most ignorant people to interview among those that oppose the reporter's views. Its their way of saying "look, you must be dumb if you believe the way this person does", because isn't it a reporters job to pass judgment on a situation, and craft the way they report the story to convince everyone (either openly or deceitfully) to think a certain way? The doctor that was performing her procedure asked that question.
|
|
|
Post by moosie on Aug 18, 2009 13:59:03 GMT -4
It may be amusing, but it certainly shouldn't be surprising. Reporters are big fans of selecting the most ignorant people to interview among those that oppose the reporter's views. Its their way of saying "look, you must be dumb if you believe the way this person does", because isn't it a reporters job to pass judgment on a situation, and craft the way they report the story to convince everyone (either openly or deceitfully) to think a certain way? well, actually, a reporter's job is simply to report--to tell the facts in an unbiased way--to NOT have an opinion. the commentators, editors columnists, all the others, can write opinions, but a reporter may not. whether this happens any more in the real world may or may not be true, but that is what it should be. i think tv reporters may talk to a number of people; it may not be up to them which interview is aired.
|
|
|
Post by dej on Aug 19, 2009 1:38:06 GMT -4
Uwe Reinhardt does a pretty good job of staying on the Democratic talking points. With all his talk of rising health care cost, and the need for reform, again the words "tort reform" are nowhere to be found. The Democrats seem to have added those two words to George Carlin's list of words you can't say on TV.
|
|