Obama Healthcare Speech

Wonder what people thought about Obama's healthcare speech last night?



Personally I thought it was a very good speech that was expertly delivered by Obama. I think it hit all the necessary points and address a number of concerns.



I am personally for universal healthcare. It's funny to me that people attack such a plan as "socialist". Japan and Taiwan, two of the most capitalistic countries, have universal healthcare. Oh yeah, those socialistic Swiss bankers do too. Health care is right, not a choice.
 
I too thought he did a very good job getting the point across for Nationalized Universal Healthcare

in his speech last night.



But our conservative brothers are deathly afraid of any changes. All the while they collect their

Medicare when they turn 65. But thats different. LOL.



And the Healthcare industry has been spending untold hundreds of millions in spreading its propaganda

that Basic Universal Healthcare is going to make us "Socialists". Personally I see our current

Healthcare companies like Pimps. Getting between Doctors and Patients for only their own obscene profit.



Personally I think this time we will get some changes passed.
 
I personally believe that a government sponsored option (not forced, mind you) is the way to go. I <strong>really</strong> cannot understand why people are so against it. Honestly, do people think that the for-profit insurance companies really care about your health?



People that are anti-government sponsored health care, would you care to enlighten me in a civil way? So far I have not yet heard an argument that sounds logical to me. Mostly people throwing around words like "communism" or "socialism" or "death panels" that have no basis in facts. IHB is definitely a place I wouldn't mind asking this. Try logging on to OCRegister.com and asking that, the comments there are barely above Youtube comments in caliber.



Oh, and I think Obama gave a great speech (as usual, he's a great public speaker), but he did tip toe around a few things...
 
Healthcare is not a right. A right is something that can be exercised freely without the aid of or interference from others. You have a right to pursue happiness, but you don't have a right to take it from someone else. You have the right to liberty, but you don't have the right to take someone else's liberty. You have a right to see the doctor of your choice, but you don't have a right to force someone to become a doctor so they may treat you... and without that treatment, you have no healthcare. You might as well claim donuts are a right.



In fact, let's do that. Let's substitute Universal Healthcare with Universal Donuts. Right now you are free to shop and choose from among many competitors, using whatever criteria you feel will result in a superior donut experience. Price, recipe, preparation, consistency, flavor... you get to pick and choose, as does your neighbor, your children, your parents, and your co-workers. The donut makers also get choices, in the ingredients, store location, prices, number of employees, hours of operation, etc. The competition weeds out the bad donut makers, allows for innovation among new donut makers, and keep the number of choices high and the prices low, balancing the supply of donuts with the demand for donuts.



Now, here come a faction of government that see some people not getting donuts. They think it's unfair that some people are getting donuts while others can't afford them, or can;t afford the best donuts for their family. This faction wants to provide the entire country with donuts so that no one has to go with out quality, affordable donuts. However, they are ignoring a key fact: providing donuts to everyone will actually cost more than the current system because everyone will be getting donuts whenever they want. So, right away, the national cost of producing donuts has increased to meet the increased demand. Further, since lower income folks are not paying the same amount for their donuts as more well-off folks, the deficit is even larger than just the increased cost because revenue is down from the jump. In order to keep costs from skyrocketing even further, the government puts in price ceilings on the amount farmers can charge for the ingredients, on the amount bakers can charge for their labor, and force the wealthy to pay more for their donuts to offset the poorer people getting their donuts for free. further controlling costs, they will only allow the cheapest (as decided by a panel of donut experts) sorts of donuts to be made, and will force you to pay extra for sprinkles, icing, or flavors other than plain. Eventually, they will outlaw private donut makers from making eclairs, maple bars, bear claws, or apple fritters so that everyone is supporting the system by buying the government donuts.



Now, you say "But Nude, health care is far more serious than donuts, this is life and death!" You are correct... specifically my life and my death. It makes health care a very personal decision. I'm not comfortable with anyone telling me what I can and can't have when it comes to my doctors or their procedures. With a population of 310 Million people, I am not comfortable with a systemic change that will affect my access to the care I need to stay alive so that we can cover less than 10% of the population that either refuse to buy it, can't afford it, or are temporarily uncovered.



We could cover the people who can't afford it for far less than we are projected to spend under the Democrat's plan. We could address the portability and competition issues by making health insurance nationally available rather than state by state, in the process delinking coverage from employment compensation packages. We can mandate that pre-existing conditions carry no more than a 10% premium to normal policies and coverage cannot be denied. We can require that everyone purchase some form of insurance from a national pool offered by the private insurance companies. We can add health insurance payments to unemployment benefits or set up some other system to cope with the unemployed needing coverage. We can establish a baseline for public purchase of private insurance for the small number that want it, but can't get it.



What we seemingly can't do is rid ourselves of entitlement spending once someone's good idea turns out to be not so hot. This is an irreversible decision that will effectively and permanently put government bureaucrats in the loop when it comes to decisions on what procedures are worthwhile and which are a waste of time. It will also require a hike in the rates the middle class pay in taxes, since the lower class will not be contributing anything in the name of "fairness". It's not a knee-jerk reaction to "socialism", it's a recognition that this is NOT what the federal government was intended to do, and that we are dismantling a very good system that needs a few fixes in favor of creating a totally new system that will include an unknown number of as-yet unrealized problems that may take years to fix, if not decades.
 
[quote author="diulei" date=1252649429]I personally believe that a government sponsored option (not forced, mind you) is the way to go. I <strong>really</strong> cannot understand why people are so against it. Honestly, do people think that the for-profit insurance companies really care about your health?</blockquote>


No, I don't. I think they are contractually obligated to pay my medical bills as long as I pay my premiums. They may try not to pay, but I can sue. On the other hand, I don't think the government really cares about my health either. Who do I sue when they won't pay for a new experimental drug, or won't approve a new procedure because it hasn't been means tested for effectiveness? That their are coverage limits inherent in a government plan is obvious, but who makes the decisions and what is their motivation? Who do I appeal to when I want a procedure that isn't on the approved list? The Supreme Court? Will I even have legal standing? Will my doctor?



Specifically, a government option is just an indirect route to single payer, which is de facto Universal health care. Small business will just pay the penalty for not offering a plan as part of doing business, the legislation in H.R. 3200 mandates the kinds of plans private insurers will have to offer, and those mandate will require changes in existing plans or a switch at benefit election season. Eventually, people will end up on the government option by simple attrition and leave the private insurers out-of-business.
 
[quote author="Nude" date=1252651814]Healthcare is not a right. A right is something that can be exercised freely without the aid of or interference from others. You have a right to pursue happiness, but you don't have a right to take it from someone else. You have the right to liberty, but you don't have the right to take someone else's liberty. You have a right to see the doctor of your choice, but you don't have a right to force someone to become a doctor so they may treat you... and without that treatment, you have no healthcare. You might as well claim donuts are a right.



In fact, let's do that. Let's substitute Universal Healthcare with Universal Donuts. Right now you are free to shop and choose from among many competitors, using whatever criteria you feel will result in a superior donut experience. Price, recipe, preparation, consistency, flavor... you get to pick and choose, as does your neighbor, your children, your parents, and your co-workers. The donut makers also get choices, in the ingredients, store location, prices, number of employees, hours of operation, etc. The competition weeds out the bad donut makers, allows for innovation among new donut makers, and keep the number of choices high and the prices low, balancing the supply of donuts with the demand for donuts.



Now, here come a faction of government that see some people not getting donuts. They think it's unfair that some people are getting donuts while others can't afford them, or can;t afford the best donuts for their family. This faction wants to provide the entire country with donuts so that no one has to go with out quality, affordable donuts. However, they are ignoring a key fact: providing donuts to everyone will actually cost more than the current system because everyone will be getting donuts whenever they want. So, right away, the national cost of producing donuts has increased to meet the increased demand. Further, since lower income folks are not paying the same amount for their donuts as more well-off folks, the deficit is even larger than just the increased cost because revenue is down from the jump. In order to keep costs from skyrocketing even further, the government puts in price ceilings on the amount farmers can charge for the ingredients, on the amount bakers can charge for their labor, and force the wealthy to pay more for their donuts to offset the poorer people getting their donuts for free. further controlling costs, they will only allow the cheapest (as decided by a panel of donut experts) sorts of donuts to be made, and will force you to pay extra for sprinkles, icing, or flavors other than plain. Eventually, they will outlaw private donut makers from making eclairs, maple bars, bear claws, or apple fritters so that everyone is supporting the system by buying the government donuts.



Now, you say "But Nude, health care is far more serious than donuts, this is life and death!" You are correct... specifically my life and my death. It makes health care a very personal decision. I'm not comfortable with anyone telling me what I can and can't have when it comes to my doctors or their procedures. With a population of 310 Million people, I am not comfortable with a systemic change that will affect my access to the care I need to stay alive so that we can cover less than 10% of the population that either refuse to buy it, can't afford it, or are temporarily uncovered.



We could cover the people who can't afford it for far less than we are projected to spend under the Democrat's plan. We could address the portability and competition issues by making health insurance nationally available rather than state by state, in the process delinking coverage from employment compensation packages. We can mandate that pre-existing conditions carry no more than a 10% premium to normal policies and coverage cannot be denied. We can require that everyone purchase some form of insurance from a national pool offered by the private insurance companies. We can add health insurance payments to unemployment benefits or set up some other system to cope with the unemployed needing coverage. We can establish a baseline for public purchase of private insurance for the small number that want it, but can't get it.



What we seemingly can't do is rid ourselves of entitlement spending once someone's good idea turns out to be not so hot. This is an irreversible decision that will effectively and permanently put government bureaucrats in the loop when it comes to decisions on what procedures are worthwhile and which are a waste of time. It will also require a hike in the rates the middle class pay in taxes, since the lower class will not be contributing anything in the name of "fairness". It's not a knee-jerk reaction to "socialism", it's a recognition that this is NOT what the federal government was intended to do, and that we are dismantling a very good system that needs a few fixes in favor of creating a totally new system that will include an unknown number of as-yet unrealized problems that may take years to fix, if not decades.</blockquote>


Ok, you won me over. Forget about the healthcare system. It should be free donuts for everyone!
 
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1252654292]<blockquote>http://slowchurnedicecream.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/simpsons_donuts-l1.jpg</blockquote></blockquote>


FAIL!
 
[quote author="Nude" date=1252654557][quote author="no_vaseline" date=1252654292]<blockquote>http://slowchurnedicecream.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/simpsons_donuts-l1.jpg</blockquote></blockquote>


FAIL!</blockquote>


Don't waste time to see something that is meaningless.
 
The president may make a boring story sound interesting. But it is extremely disappointing to hear his speech. Most of the things he said are repetitions of what we already know. There is nothing that is really new, there is no specifics of how his plan is going to work, improve quality and decrease cost. He emphasized that he will not sign a bill that will add a penny to the deficits and anyone believe in that is childish. There is no way in the world that you can cover more people, improve qualities of care without puting money into the system. He wants doctors to see more patients, on the other hand, he will cut Medicare reimbursements to providers and hospitals, how is that going to work? He said a lot of the money will come from eliminating waste and fraud in the system, so why are we not doing it now? Why do we need to wait for the new plan to implement these measures? For the hard core public option folks, there will be no more cheering. He said the public option is only a means to an end and he is open to ideas. Interestingly, he also said only 5% of the insured will be parrticipants of the public option. So, why is it worth it? How is it not going to cost money to run such a program with so few people enrolled?



Afterall, no government run programs are efficient, they usually cost a lot more money than anticipated. Government employees have no incentives to do anything more for anyone. And when we are talking about life and death, I want the government to stay as far away as possible. If this proposal pass with a public option, there is no question in my mind that it will destroy our healthcare system.
 
Nude.



Why has the entire civilized world provided Universal Healthcare for its citizens except our country ?

I am all for companies making a profit. Mine included. But the Insurance companies have behaved very poorly.

They deserve to be punished. I would wager they will be extinct in the next 5 years. They played the game and lost.

Before Nixon enabled Kaiser and the companies that followed. We survived just fine without them.



Dont use donuts as an example. Lets use a commodity we all need to have to survive. Try your analogy with Water.

How would you feel if a few companies controlled the water supply and charged some insane amount for it ?

You could get it cheaper in Canada or Mexico. But they lie and tell you that water is not as clean.



You need to pay extra for our special water. Research, Development, the right to choose your own faucet.



Healthcare is a simple necessary commodity to life. Same as water, electricity, food, and fuel.

Nobody should be able to control that right from the people and manipulate it for billions in profit.



This is the 21st century after all. What makes us human is our compassion for our fellow man.

And withholding basic healthcare is like letting a man die of thirst.
 
[quote author="bltserv" date=1252666976]Nude.



Why has the entire civilized world provided Universal Healthcare for its citizens except our country ?

I am all for companies making a profit. Mine included. But the Insurance companies have behaved very poorly.

They deserve to be punished. I would wager they will be extinct in the next 5 years. They played the game and lost.

Before Nixon enabled Kaiser and the companies that followed. We survived just fine without them.



Dont use donuts as an example. Lets use a commodity we all need to have to survive. Try your analogy with Water.

How would you feel if a few companies controlled the water supply and charged some insane amount for it ?

You could get it cheaper in Canada or Mexico. But they lie and tell you that water is not as clean.



You need to pay extra for our special water. Research, Development, the right to choose your own faucet.



Healthcare is a simple necessary commodity to life. Same as water, electricity, food, and fuel.

Nobody should be able to control that right from the people and manipulate it for billions in profit.



This is the 21st century after all. What makes us human is our compassion for our fellow man.

And withholding basic healthcare is like letting a man die of thirst.</blockquote>


everyone has electricity, food, and fuel, right? But we don't have a delivery system similar to "single payer"?



I do agree insurance shouldn't be linked to one's employment. Everything the gov. involves are so inefficient, why would you think this will be different?? If you think the insurance companies have been behaving poorly intentionally, I think you will get the same bad treatment by the gov. run insurance program due to stupidity, incompetence, laziness, and lack of accountability. I guess you can choose your own evil.
 
[quote author="irvine123" date=1252667555][quote author="bltserv" date=1252666976]Nude.



Why has the entire civilized world provided Universal Healthcare for its citizens except our country ?

I am all for companies making a profit. Mine included. But the Insurance companies have behaved very poorly.

They deserve to be punished. I would wager they will be extinct in the next 5 years. They played the game and lost.

Before Nixon enabled Kaiser and the companies that followed. We survived just fine without them.



Dont use donuts as an example. Lets use a commodity we all need to have to survive. Try your analogy with Water.

How would you feel if a few companies controlled the water supply and charged some insane amount for it ?

You could get it cheaper in Canada or Mexico. But they lie and tell you that water is not as clean.



You need to pay extra for our special water. Research, Development, the right to choose your own faucet.



Healthcare is a simple necessary commodity to life. Same as water, electricity, food, and fuel.

Nobody should be able to control that right from the people and manipulate it for billions in profit.



This is the 21st century after all. What makes us human is our compassion for our fellow man.

And withholding basic healthcare is like letting a man die of thirst.</blockquote>


everyone has electricity, food, and fuel, right? But we don't have a delivery system similar to "single payer"?



I do agree insurance shouldn't be linked to one's employment. Everything the gov. involves are so inefficient, why would you think this will be different??</blockquote>


What makes the Government the focus ? It has almost nothing to do with the government. Thats just the propaganda.

You accept other services we co-op Police, Fire, Car Insurance, Credit Unions. Farm Co_ops.



<a href="http://www.lawattstimes.com/component/content/article/52-featured/992-thousands-fill-the-forum-for-free-medical-care.html">http://www.lawattstimes.com/component/content/article/52-featured/992-thousands-fill-the-forum-for-free-medical-care.html</a>



How does it feel for a service like RAM that supports medical care for the 3rd world to have to come to Inglewood.

And our Bullshit laws kept doctors from other states from giving free care away and volunteering service.



At the same time you could get free heath-care in Afghanistan or Irag paid by the US Taxpayer.
 
</blockquote> Why has the entire civilized world provided Universal Healthcare for its citizens except our country ?</blockquote>


Better question, why do those in the "entire civilized world" who have money come to America to receive healthcare?



</blockquote> At the same time you could get free heath-care in Afghanistan or Irag paid by the US Taxpayer.</blockquote>


Really? You sure about that? I'm calling Old Spice... 1-800-Prove-It. I suspect you're just making that up. Prove me wrong ... please.
 
[quote author="IrvineCommuter" date=1252646128]Wonder what people thought about Obama's healthcare speech last night?



Personally I thought it was a very good speech that was expertly delivered by Obama. I think it hit all the necessary points and address a number of concerns.



I am personally for universal healthcare. It's funny to me that people attack such a plan as "socialist". Japan and Taiwan, two of the most capitalistic countries, have universal healthcare. Oh yeah, those socialistic Swiss bankers do too. Health care is right, not a choice.</blockquote>


Life, Liberty and Freedom are rights. Healthcare is not. Sorry.



It is socialist. If you disagree, it is because you don't know what the word socialist is or what socialism means. Taiwan is a great model -- have you ever seem their legislative sessions? very civilized.



"universal" healthcare sounds great. I suspect the well-off Canadians, Brits and Swedes, not to mention Saudis, Jordanians, etc.. who flock here in droves for surgeries and check-ups also think universal healthcare is a great idea -- so great that they prefer non-universal healthcare.



Regardless, to some extent, we already have it. medicare and medicaid care for the elderly and poor. Is it great care? No. Should we expect "universal" healthcare to be superior to those programs already in place? I think not. Perhaps you think differently.
 
[quote author="TR_Esq" date=1252673768]medicare and medicaid care for the elderly and poor. Is it great care? No. </blockquote>


Yeah, bullshit buddy. If I could buy into Medicare I'd do so in a heartbeat. It kicks the snot out of what private insurance pays for right before you become eligilble if you have to pay for it yourself.



ASSuming you can get somebody to cover you at all.
 
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1252674466][quote author="TR_Esq" date=1252673768]medicare and medicaid care for the elderly and poor. Is it great care? No. </blockquote>


Yeah, bullshit buddy. If I could buy into Medicare I'd do so in a heartbeat. It kicks the snot out of what private insurance pays for right before you become eligilble if you have to pay for it yourself.



ASSuming you can get somebody to cover you at all.</blockquote>


How does Medicare have better coverage than private insurances? You have specifics to share? I would love to hear and broaden my knowledge. Otherwise, I hate to say, your argument is BS. If you don't know much about Medicare, there is a 20% copay for all outpatient visits with no out-of-pocket maximum. Most major private insurances, if not all has a maximum yearly out-of-pocket maximum.
 
[quote author="Look4house" date=1252676021][quote author="no_vaseline" date=1252674466][quote author="TR_Esq" date=1252673768]medicare and medicaid care for the elderly and poor. Is it great care? No. </blockquote>


Yeah, bullshit buddy. If I could buy into Medicare I'd do so in a heartbeat. It kicks the snot out of what private insurance pays for right before you become eligilble if you have to pay for it yourself.



ASSuming you can get somebody to cover you at all.</blockquote>


How does Medicare have better coverage than private insurances? You have specifics to share? I would love to hear and broaden my knowledge. Otherwise, I hate to say, your argument is BS. If you don't know much about Medicare, there is a 20% copay for all outpatient visits with no out-of-pocket maximum. Most major private insurances, if not all has a maximum yearly out-of-pocket maximum.</blockquote>


My wife lost her job in December, and I had to retain COBRA for six months because my wife's asthma (she found another job in a couple of months, but the insurance didn't kick in for 90 days past the start date). The first three were on my nickel before the Obama bailout subsidy kicked in. All told I wrote $4000 in checks there, plus prescription co pays at another $600 a month. That didn't include my insurance (which I could bind) that cost another $1200 over the same period. Now that we are on her companies insurance, it still costs $300 a month ($3600 a year) plus we have a $3000 cap in out of pocket expenses/co pays. We hit that last week because this insurance isn't as generous as the last plan. Lucky for me since I'm self employed, and we haven't been to the hospital yet. And I know damn well the $300 a month we are paying is a pittance compared to what the company is paying. All told I will spend <strong>$13,600 </strong>this year alone and <em>I haven't seen the doctor yet</em>.



My dad has had cancer twice in the past three years. His supplemental Medicare insurance is $200 a month. Combining his Medicare and supplemental insurance his out of pocket is less than a hundred bucks a month. When he got cancer the first time, his out of pocket was $20,000 over two months before Medicare kicked in.



I don't know if this is the specifics you were looking for, and I don't mean to speak for anyone else. All I know is what has happened in my immediate family, and in my experience, Medicare has been a far superior provider.



If you don't want socialized health care, great. Send yours over here. I'll take it. I?ll trade you that for what I lack in portability and denial of coverage with the employer based system.
 
Here is an arguement against the government running our healthcare.



<blockquote>Already we've estimated that two-thirds of the cost of reform can be paid for by reallocating money <strong>that is simply being wasted in federal health-care programs.</strong> This includes over $100 billion of unwarranted subsidies that go to insurance companies as part of Medicare -- subsidies that do nothing to improve care for our seniors.

</blockquote>


The above quote from Obama is readily available.



This administration has been saying the same thing since before Obama took office. Why has nobody done anything about this wasteful spending yet?
 
[quote author="TR_Esq" date=1252673344]Why has the entire civilized world provided Universal Healthcare for its citizens except our country ?



Better question, why do those in the "entire civilized world" who have money come to America to receive healthcare? </blockquote>


[quote author="TR_Esq" date=1252673768]"universal" healthcare sounds great. I suspect the well-off Canadians, Brits and Swedes, not to mention Saudis, Jordanians, etc.. who flock here in droves for surgeries and check-ups also think universal healthcare is a great idea -- so great that they prefer non-universal healthcare. </blockquote>


There is no dispute that the U.S. has the best health care providers (doctors/hospitals/medicine) but that means nothing unless you can afford it! Italians make the best sport cars but most people in Italy don't drive them.



[quote author="TR_Esq" date=1252673768]Life, Liberty and Freedom are rights. Healthcare is not. Sorry. </blockquote>


What makes healthcare different than the police, fire department, freeways, or schools? If one has money, one is welcome to hire extra security, to take toll roads, or go to private schools/colleges. However, there should a public alternative for the rest of us.



BTW: Preamble-U.S. Constitution:



?We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, <strong>promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity</strong>, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.



[quote author="TR_Esq" date=1252673768]It is socialist. If you disagree, it is because you don't know what the word socialist is or what socialism means. Taiwan is a great model -- have you ever seem their legislative sessions? very civilized.</blockquote>


I?m not quite sure what the legislative sessions in Taiwan have to do with universal healthcare? Even conceding your point, a less ?civilized? country figured out that taking care of its citizens? health is a fundamental right.



[quote author="TR_Esq" date=1252673768]Regardless, to some extent, we already have it. medicare and medicaid care for the elderly and poor. Is it great care? No. Should we expect ?universal? healthcare to be superior to those programs already in place? I think not. Perhaps you think differently</blockquote>


Actually, most people on government-run medical plans (medicare, VA, etc?) are very happy with them. Medicare overhead is significant lower than that of private health insurance.
 
Back
Top