Printable View
Rather than a long cut and paste job, here's a link (Sydney, please note)
[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/26/us-healthcare-obama-barack-change[/url]
For all us non-US citizens, despite all the arguments from the Obama haters, we still can't understand why you spend 16-17% of gdp on health care and yet so many still don't have basic health care. Or is the article full of bullshit?
[QUOTE=SteveC]For all us non-US citizens, despite all the arguments from the Obama haters, we still can't understand why you spend 16-17% of gdp on health care and yet so many still don't have basic health care. Or is the article full of bullshit?[/QUOTE]The Obamaites (and that article) throw around the figure "47 million uninsured."
Here's the skinny.
Of those 47 million, about 20 million are illegal immigrants. None of those will be covered under any national health plan.
Of the remaining 27 million, about 7 million are already eligible for employer health care plans, but don't spend the minimal amount of premium money necessary to get coverage.
Of the remaining 20 million, about another 7 million are eligible for Medicaid, the government health insurance program, but they don't bother enrolling in it.
Of the remaining 13 million, an unknown number (let's guess and say 2 million) have the means to purchase their own health insurance (for example, a 20-something adult with no pre-existing conditions, which means the bulk of them, can purchase a comprehensive plan that will cover serious illnesses for about $100 a month)
A final stat: according to the U.S. Census Bureau, something like 8 million people making more than $75,000 a year don't have health insurance. They could buy it, but they choose not to.
Here's the money shot: we're going to raise taxes by $2,000,000,000,000.00 to cover about 5 million people who have no current access to health insurance. That means we'll spend $400,000.00 a person. And Mr. Obama says we're saving money. Right! It's no surprise the support for this proposal is falling faster than Mr. Obama's job approval numbers.
A final observation - nothing has done so much to rehabilitate the Republican Party as letting the Democrats run things for six months. The 2010 elections promise to be an astonishing rout for the Democrats, Republican recapture of the House of Representatives is now a serious possibility.
Hunt,
Thanks. There are a couple key issues here. On the face of it (apolitically--just common sense) it does not make sense to overhaul something that is working (albeit not perfectly in all cases) for 84% of the people in order to address the needs of 16%. That just doesn't make sense. There has never been made a solid reason for doing this (trash the 84% for the 16%) yet there is fervor amongst those who are leading the charge. Why?
Politically: in every case where liberals have tried to level the playing field, it is through bringing down the people on the high-end and never about bring up the people on the low end.
Hunt, the one mistake in your analysis is that the illegals won't be covered by national health care. Yes, the will. They already are. They may face rationing of care, as we all will under these plans but they will still have access by walking into any US hospitals and asking for help.
That said, the Democrats solution for this is to grant blanket amnesty to the 20 million or so illegal immigrants who then as citizens will have access to all public programs through the front door rather than the back door. Any the best part of that is that they will all be able to vote. If 20% of them vote, that's 4 million new Democrat votes in places like Florida, California, Arizona, New York, Illinois and Texas. Add to that Rahm Emanuel controlling the census and look out for some great redistricting.
This is part of a concerted effort to permanently install liberal forces in elected positions. Please don't bother replying that I am a conspiracy theorist or right wing whacko. Respond with a decent argument as to why this isn't true and what altruistic motivations are there for these concerted efforts.
[QUOTE=Hunt99]The Obamaites (and that article) throw around the figure "47 million uninsured."
Here's the skinny.
Of those 47 million, about 20 million are illegal immigrants. None of those will be covered under any national health plan.
Of the remaining 27 million, about 7 million are already eligible for employer health care plans, but don't spend the minimal amount of premium money necessary to get coverage.
Of the remaining 20 million, about another 7 million are eligible for Medicaid, the government health insurance program, but they don't bother enrolling in it.
Of the remaining 13 million, an unknown number (let's guess and say 2 million) have the means to purchase their own health insurance (for example, a 20-something adult with no pre-existing conditions, which means the bulk of them, can purchase a comprehensive plan that will cover serious illnesses for about $100 a month)
A final stat: according to the U. S. Census Bureau, something like 8 million people making more than $75,000 a year don't have health insurance. They could buy it, but they choose not to.
Here's the money shot: we're going to raise taxes by $2,000,000,000,000.00 to cover about 5 million people who have no current access to health insurance. That means we'll spend $400,000.00 a person. And Mr. Obama says we're saving money. Right! It's no surprise the support for this proposal is falling faster than Mr. Obama's job approval numbers.
A final observation - nothing has done so much to rehabilitate the Republican Party as letting the Democrats run things for six months. The 2010 elections promise to be an astonishing rout for the Democrats, Republican recapture of the House of Representatives is now a serious possibility.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the measured comments. I've spoken to some on the other side of fence on this issue, and I'm not sure where (if?) you're going to find any common ground. I'm British, but a sucker for American politics, you fight dirty. Great stuff!
The CIGNA whistle blower has no reason to lie. Saturday's wall street journal discusses a lobbying campaign by health ins and drug industry for just under us$500,000. To keep out the private option--I wonder why?
If the former director of CIGNA's corp public relations says that Michael Moore's Sicko contains a lot of truth, you can likely bet on it. 20% of the movie is slamming cigna for denying legitimate health benefits to policy holders and telling their stories and comparing health care in canada and western europe.
CIGNA let die and backrupted middleclass policy holders. There should be some remedy or basic fairness in making the policy decision rather than maximizing corp profits.
Hunt look at the ERISA regulation re group health care policies. Health insurance lobbyists wrote these regs's. The supreme court has described them as permitting the wolf to guard the henhouse. There is no effective protection for a policy holders under the law.
Show me a way to regulate the health and drug companies and change the corruption associated with congress and lobbyists, and I'll change my mind about the public option.
I've heard that the day a new senator or congressman takes office, he / she spends half their time raising money for the next campaign. Not sure how true that is, but the influence of lobbyists has to be corrupting. Medical insurance companies and medical providers spend a huge sum on buying influence. Are the legislators immune from this and vote according to their conscience / true beliefs, or for their paymasters?
Maybe I'm naive but I tend to trust the word of a whistleblower who risks his career over a lobbyist or legislator paid by them.
But You call yourself a moderate and me a left wing extremist. I am a moderate Democrat who sometimes votes Rebublican. I liked bill clinton's accomplishments[ not necessarily his personal weaknesses] and consider nancy pelosi as not reality based.
Your world view economically and politically might be simular to dick chaney's views--hard right rebublican, some libertarian beliefs on social issues and keep the federal government out of everything that is possible. Ie no regulation of anything that can possibly be avoided; and it is the usa's right and duty to protect the american frame of influence at all costs in the world. REmeber that dick differed from bush on abortion and gay rights--those types of regulation should be left to the states and different state may make different choices. That's the libertarian twist.
I accept your right to have your point of view and vigorously communicate and explain your form of analysis. Your postings have made me actually change my mind on one issue--thanks for taking the time to post the way you do.
BUT---within the frame of reference of the entire usa--I would not likely call you a moderate. The blue dogs are moderates--the block of moderate senators trying to broker a compromise on the pending health care legislation.
If you spend your time talking to investment bankers, hedge fund guys corporate ceo's and high level fortune 500 executives--you are definately a very moderate guy. Any I would be labeled a far left wacko. This likely does not include too much contact with the 47million people without health insurance who hunt dismisses without value as human beings. When I knew hunt he was a goverment atty and not in the top 10% economically in the usa. HUNT check your numbers, please.
In florida I would be considered left wing, but not likely an extremists because I believe in quality public education; don't want religion in the public schools;
Believe in regulation of the insurance industry and other forms of regulation to protect average folks from the raw power of great sums of money; and am saddened by the republicans in florida generally competing as to who can pander more to the highly political evangical christians--praise the lord--I know evangical christians who feal used and manipulated by bush and chaney and rowe--but they don't organize and shoot their mouths off.
Bob
The Audacity of Power written by the president when he was first elected to the senate. The entire systew is corrupt. This is why John McCain and Teddy Kennedy jointly worked together to try to change the influence of lobbyists. They failed.
Another reason why I wouldn't trust any legislator who accepts money from a lobbyist.
"The CCA (Corrections Corporation of America, on the New York stock exchange and owns prisons) and similar corporations actually lobby Congress for stiffer sentencing laws so they can lock more people up and make more money. That's why America has the world's largest prison population -- because actually rehabilitating people would have a negative impact on the bottom line". (A quote from the Huffington Post, so maybe has no credibility whatsover!)
Has everything got to make a profit? Does it make me a communist if I think the government can do some things better than the private sector?
Thanks for the recommendation. I'll check it out. I really do believe that the activities of lobbyists distort the whole political system. They've truly fucked up British politics over the last couple of decades.
We're going to need to spend some time over many drinks to work through this!
[QUOTE=Miami Bob]But You call yourself a moderate and me a left wing extremist.[/QUOTE]I tend to occasionally deploy sarcasm when describing myself. For example: "I am a middle of the road moderate with a 14" schlong"
[quote=miami bob]Your world view economically and politically might be simular to dick chaney's views--hard right rebublican, some libertarian beliefs on social issues and keep the federal government out of everything that is possible. Ie no regulation of anything that can possibly be avoided; and it is the usa's right and duty to protect the american frame of influence at all costs in the world.[/QUOTE]I am not the boogieman (well...). I am pretty straight forward not falling in to any one person's camp. I am a Conservative. I am for smaller government, less regulation (not the absence of all regulation) less government intrusion in private matters (straight, gay, whatever) That idyllic, smaller government would require fewer federal employees and a lot less money. Let's get to a flat tax at 10% or a VAT tax and eliminate the income tax completely (watch out by the way for a proposed VAT tax and no reduction in income taxes) I believe in the Constitution (as written and amended) and I believe that all men are created equal and that all Americans must be free to pursue happiness.
I do not believe that the government should endorse or condone any forms of discrimination, which is what the Constitution says. I do not believe in government provided entitlements, free lunches, hand outs or what have you (I do however believe that individuals should practice compassion) That said, we are a moral and just society, as such, we have a moral responsibility to take care of those who are not able to take care of themselves. This segment of society is populated by individuals both on both temporary and permanent bases.
I believe in freedom of religion.
[quote=miami bob] BUT---within the frame of reference of the entire usa--I would not likely call you a moderate.[/QUOTE]You are correct and I would be insulted if called a moderate. Moderates are prone to compromising their principals for personal financial and political advantages. They are spineless, useful idiots.
[quote=miami bob]The blue dogs are moderates--the block of moderate senators trying to broker a compromise on the pending health care legislation.[/QUOTE]If we are negotiating a business deal and I want to sell you my company for $10 and you want to buy it for $9 and we end up settling on a price of $9.5, that is a compromise.
If you believe in individual liberty, private enterprise, capitalism, smaller more efficient government and agree to Obama's health care plan (because you get money and resources for reelection or more federal spending in your district, whatever) you are not compromising. You are selling out your constituents, the American people and the foundation of our society.
If you believe that you are right (as in correct) on any subject, how can you agree to something that you know is incompatible with what you believe?
I believe that less-regulated private industry produces better results and more choices for the American people, across the board in any industry (excluding national defense)
[quote=miami bob]If you spend your time talking to investment bankers, hedge fund guys corporate ceo's and high level fortune 500 executives--you are definately a very moderate guy. Any I would be labeled a far left wacko. This likely does not include too much contact with the 47million people without health insurance who hunt dismisses without value as human beings. [/QUOTE]I know lots of these types. From my experience, most are liberals. In fact of all the really rich people I know, only a couple are conservatives. In my experience, many wealthy people tend to practice "it's the thought that counts." So if they are to busy to really do something with a social benefit, they consciously or subconsciously move to the left because they think that is where there is more compassion. Therefore, while they haven't really done anything, at least the intent was there to do something good so their conscience feels better.
[quote=miami bob]In florida I would be considered left wing, but not likely an extremists because I believe in quality public education; don't want religion in the public schools;
Believe in regulation of the insurance industry and other forms of regulation to protect average folks from the raw power of great sums of money; and am saddened by the republicans in florida generally competing as to who can pander more to the highly political evangical christians--praise the lord--I know evangical christians who feal used and manipulated by bush and chaney and rowe--but they don't organize and shoot their mouths off.[/QUOTE]The government should do what it can demonstrably do better than the private sector. That said, it is so far entrenched in somethings that it will never get out so we have to work with what we have (education, etc)
Intelligent regulation can foster an environment that protects the individual, the corporation and the public at large. Neither regulation nor the lack of regulation can legalize criminal behavior. Criminal activities at the corporate level need to be prosecuted just as harshly as any other type of crime.
I am not an evangelical (TV or otherwise) I believe in God. I believe that everyone else is entitle to believe in the religion of their choice or to live devoid of religion ('freedom of religion'). I do however also believe that without the strong religious faith of our founding fathers, this great nation would not have been established nor would it have prospered for so many years. I do not believe that we as a society should try to erase all traces of our religious foundation ('freedom from religion'), we should celebrate it whilst continuing to practice freedom of religion.
Mongers,
What hardcore right wingers such as Wild Walleye (who granted is a fine and thoughtful writer) refuse to either accept or understand is that affordable healthcare is viewed as and actually is a basic human right in all civilized countries EXCEPT the United States. Even some semi-civilized countries such as Argentina, Brasil, and Colombia have guaranteed affordable healthcare for every one of its citizens. Men like Wild Walleye are of the ilk that Karl Marx proclaimed would destroy the world; greed-blinded capitalists who see no value in any pursuit that does not lead to the advancement of wealth. How about this Wild Wallyeye: imagine you are an independent middle age plumber with asthma and diabetes who cannot obtain health insurance at a reasonable rate and that you have three children and a wife to support. One day you are walking down the street and you fall and break your leg and have to go to the hospital. Upon release from the hospital you are handed a bill for $35,000, which is about 90% of your yearly income (pre-tax) Naturally, you cannot possibly pay this, so you lose your house as a result of the hospital's measures at collecting the debt. Is this fair Wild Walleye? Is this hardworking plumber who cannot obtain reasonably priced health insurance subhuman and undeserving of reasonably priced care?
Healthcare in the United States needs to be reformed; this is the bottom line. A public system should be in put in place that involves free medical school for qualified MD candidates in exchange for 10 years of mandatory service in a public hospital earning a public sector wage with immunity from malpractice litigation. This would function very similar to the US military academies albeit on a much grander scale. After 10 years of mandatory service, MD's could then choose to move on to a more lucrative private practice. I imagine that the Wild Walleyes of the world would claim that they doctors would be incompetent because they were trained by the government. Tell me this Wild Walleye: are the US Air Force and Naval Fighter Pilots incompetent? Or are they the best in the world? The time spent training the MD's would be something similar to what it takes to develop a highly trained fighter pilot. This proposal is not complicated and I am not a genius for suggesting it; the reason it has not happened yet is that the Wild Walleyes and Hunt99's of the world see no value in anything that does not generate profits.
Those who know me know that I am a capitalist and that I make my living doing the most capitalistic of things; buying something for $1 and selling it for $10. I am also extremely anti-bureaucracy and anti- overbearing unnecessary federal government. However, access to affordable health care should be a human right in the USA just as it is in other civilized countries; the profit motive needs to be removed from the health care process as much as possible and this can only be achieved through a comprehensive public healthcare system.
Suerte,
Rock Harders
Rock Harder,
Your plan makes alot of sense. However the Tort Lawyers would hate it. One of the reasons for high medical costs are high malpractice insurance. Also the unneeded and redundant medical tests ordered by doctors to CYA. Talking about the military, Military Doctors are exempt from malpractice claims. Instead of completely tearing apart the US system start small and surgically repair the system. Still if I'am really sick I would rather be treated at the Mayo Clinic or Johns Hopkins than anywhere in the world.
Military Doctors are exempt from malpractice claims.
I can guarantee you that, in the United States, military doctors, or doctors working in Veterans Administration Hospitals, are not only not exempt from malpractice claims, they are targets of malpractice claims.
[QUOTE]Health-care firms and their lobbyists spent money at the rate of $1.4 million a day.[/QUOTE][url]http://voices.washingtonpost.com/health-care-reform/2009/07/health_care_continues_its_inte.html?hpid=topnews?hpid=topnews[/url]