21
   

Republicans using Healthcare as a political game.

 
 
Reply Sat 18 Jul, 2009 06:38 pm
Senator Jim DeMint (R) wrote:
If we're able to stop Obama on [reforming Health Care], it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.


If you disagree with Obama's health care proposal, fine. But to see failure to reform health care as part of a general campaign to attack the president...

What jerks.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 21 • Views: 7,514 • Replies: 121

 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 08:20 am
@ebrown p,
That's politics for ya, ebrown. I wonder if you will do me a favor. I can't seem to figure out Obama's Health Care Plan. In a few well chosen words, can you explain it to this dumb blonde in Florida?
ebrown p
 
  2  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 08:36 am
@Letty,
Quote:
President Obama is committed to working with Congress to pass comprehensive health reform this year in order to control rising health care costs, guarantee choice of doctor, and assure high-quality, affordable health care for all Americans. The Administration believes that comprehensive health reform should:

* Reduce long-term growth of health care costs for businesses and government
* Protect families from bankruptcy or debt because of health care costs
* Guarantee choice of doctors and health plans
* Invest in prevention and wellness
* Improve patient safety and quality of care
* Assure affordable, quality health coverage for all Americans
* Maintain coverage when you change or lose your job
* End barriers to coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions


Obama's role is to push the issue and to set broad guidelines as to what constitutes a good solution. However, he is being very careful to let Congress wrestle over the specifics-- as the health care plan will come from Congress.

You should look to the House bill to see what is coming up. We are fighting for a public option (i.e. a public way to get insurance as an alternative to the current private companies) and figuring out how to pay for it.

The specifics will come from Congress.
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 08:50 am
@ebrown p,
Should congress pass Obama's health care plan, who will bear the burden of its cost? Frankly, dear, I am thinking about ME right now as are most Americans, methinks.
dyslexia
 
  4  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 09:09 am
@Letty,
dear ms lettybetty, there is no Obama health care plan, there is whatever the house and senate come up with. the cost will be immense and will be borne by we the people. it really comes down to what our society decides to spend our tax dollars on. the really unfortunate thing (in my mind) is that our current health care system is fatally broken and there should be major discussions going on defining what the current problems are and how best to correct them. this is not happening. all the decisions will be made for political reasons and not the best interest of our society.
ebrown p
 
  3  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 09:12 am
@Letty,
That is a fine question Letty, and one that will have to be answered.

Yes, it is clear that some people will pay more for health care, at least in the short run. Although, there are clear ways to significantly reduce the cost of health care nationally which means on average, health care costs will decline in the long run.

I have no way of answering for your specific situation. Your costs might go up, or they might go down. The Democrats intend to ensure that for people with incomes lower than a certain level, costs will go down (which is a key part of their goal of insuring more people).

The issue is whats best for the country.

Health care costs are rising dramatically each year. The number of working Americans who simply can't afford health care is rising. The number of people who thought they had health care but didn't because of some loophole that private insurance uses to avoid paying for serious illness keeps rising.

We need this.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  2  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 09:22 am
@dyslexia,
And even worse than deciding where to spend our tax dollars is deciding to increase our debt. I'm all in favor of health reform, including providing reasonable/affordable insurance to all Americans but it cannot (and we must not allow our politicians to think it can) come at the cost of increasing the national debt.

ebrown listed "Reduce long-term growth of health care costs for businesses and government" as one of the highlights of the current discussion. Reducing the growth of health care costs isn't enough. The generation of Americans coming up behind the ready-to-retire baby boomers simply isn't big enough to meet the medical needs of those who will no longer be paying into the system. It isn't feasible to think they can pay for current entitlement programs, to say nothing of coping with increasing health care costs for new procedures and interventions. The number one goal of health care reform, imo, must be to reduce the cost of health care for everyone. It isn't politically expedient to tell Americans that they have some tough choices to make so the current focus is being pushed to the more palatable one of insurance coverage for the uninsured.

I've yet to see any plan come out of any committee that tackles the problem of increasing costs.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 09:44 am
@JPB,
JPB wrote:

And even worse than deciding where to spend our tax dollars is deciding to increase our debt. I'm all in favor of health reform, including providing reasonable/affordable insurance to all Americans but it cannot (and we must not allow our politicians to think it can) come at the cost of increasing the national debt.


I couldn't agree more.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 10:13 am
@JPB,
JPB wrote:
I'm all in favor of health reform, including providing reasonable/affordable insurance to all Americans but it cannot (and we must not allow our politicians to think it can) come at the cost of increasing the national debt.


Obama wrote:
"Let me repeat: Health insurance reform cannot add to our deficit over the next decade and I mean it,"
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 10:25 am
@JPB,
Quote:

I've yet to see any plan come out of any committee that tackles the problem of increasing costs.


A single payer system tackles the problem of increasing cost by providing a way to make decisions that aren't motivated by profit. You can't make sound health care decisions in a profit-based system.

The single payer system was introduced this week with the Kucinich amendment which would allow individual states to chose single payer.

The "public option" currently being discussed is a step in the right direction.

The argument against the public option is funny; As a government program it will be bloated, wasteful and inefficient... and private insurance companies will be unable to compete with it.

hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 10:58 am
@Letty,
the plan is to hide the costs, work that out latter. If you expect Washington to pay as they go, or to be honest with the American people about the costs of what it is they want, then you must be the last American with so much faith in Washington...

Quote:
Last week, governors revolted against a plan under consideration in the Senate Finance Committee. That proposal, according to an analysis prepared by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and shared by Rendell's office, would have called on the states to issue 30-year bonds and pay the cost of the Medicaid expansion from the proceeds. This would have been augmented by some share of promised Medicaid drug rebates.

The proposal smelled of an effort to offload some costs of the health-care package during the years that would be included under the Congressional Budget Office's period for "scoring" the budgetary implications of the plan. States were promised relief after 2019. Asking the states to issue bonds for the Medicaid expansion would have taken $180 billion off the budget, according to an estimate by an NGA official.

One congressional source described the measure as "subject to gimmick charge." A state official called it "creative financing." Rendell said it was "absolutely" an attempt by the Finance Committee to make the package look less costly during the years included in the CBO scoring window.

The proposal drew a swift rebuke from the governors

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/18/AR2009071801786_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009071802308
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 11:30 am
Quote:
As the Senate's smartest health care wonk, Ron Wyden of Oregon, says: "A big part of the reform challenge is to look at how the culture of the American workforce has changed since the basic structure of American health care was put in place. Today's culture is all about flexibility."

The premise of Wyden's bipartisan bill is that we should move away from job-based insurance. It would do this by converting the tax deduction for employer-provided health insurance into a tax credit and requiring that individuals use it to buy insurance. Wyden's bill would achieve universal coverage, apply meaningful cost controls, and, according to the Congressional Budget Office, pay for itself within a few years. It's going nowhere. Instead, Democrats are poised to pass legislation that spends an additional $1 trillion, fails to restrain spending, and shores up an anachronistic employer-based system. I guess you could call it a uniquely American solution.

http://www.slate.com/id/2223037/
0 Replies
 
hamburgboy
 
  2  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 12:20 pm
@dyslexia,
dys wrote :

Quote:
dear ms lettybetty, there is no Obama health care plan, there is whatever the house and senate come up with. the cost will be immense and will be borne by we the people.


in the end , i can't see anyone but the taxpayer/user pay for health-insurance .
question is : will you allow health-insurance companies make a (good-sized) profit by it ?

canada's fight about "government" health insurance goes back decades .
it came out of one of the western (farm) prairie provinces - that's also where canada's farm co-ops started .
it was a "firebrand" premier and PREACHER (!) who started the fight :

TOMMY DOUGLAS - a child of the depression and voted ONE OF THE TOP TEN CANADIANS !

http://www.cbc.ca/greatest/top_ten/nominee/douglas-tommy.html

Quote:
"My friends, watch out for the little fellow with an idea." - Tommy Douglas 1961.

For more than 50 years, his staunch devotion to social causes, rousing powers of speech and pugnacious charm made Tommy C. Douglas an unstoppable political force. From his first foray into public office politics in 1934 to his post-retirement years in the 1970s, Canada's 'father of Medicare' stayed true to his socialist beliefs -- often at the cost of his own political fortune -- and earned himself the respect of millions of Canadians in the process .
......
Tommy Douglas's legacy as a social policy innovator lives on. Social welfare, universal Medicare, old age pensions and mothers' allowances -- Douglas helped keep these ideas, and many more, watching as more established political parties eventually came to accept these once-radical ideas as their own.


of course , the time was right ... many people were hurting ... and a politician and preacher was not afraid to take on THE BIG GUYS (the insurance companies) .

it's interesting to note that once the conservatives and liberals realized that that was what canadians wanted , they didn't hesitate to climb aboard - and even claimed credit for it !

0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 12:25 pm
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:

Senator Jim DeMint (R) wrote:
If we're able to stop Obama on [reforming Health Care], it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.


If you disagree with Obama's health care proposal, fine. But to see failure to reform health care as part of a general campaign to attack the president...

What jerks.



Hardball politics is, apparently, OK only when it serves ideology one supports.

In all other cases, those who practice it are jerks.

Let's see if I understand ebrown theory of political science:

1) When the people you voted for are in power, the opposition should stop "playing politics," discard ideological principles, and get behind the solutions the the people in power intend to cram down their throats.

2) When the people you didn't vote for are in power, the opposition should take advantage of every political trick in the book to prevent the people in power from legislating the solutions they believe in, spread whatever misinformation is necessary to disrupt them, and if they can't stand the heat of personal attacks on themselves and their families, they should get out of the kitchen.

If Republicans want to see keep 40 million people in America without health insurance just to score political points against Obama they're jerks.

If the Democrats want to see America lose the war in Iraq just to score political points against Bush, they're the true patriots.






hamburgboy
 
  4  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 12:33 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
If Republicans want to see keep 40 million people in America without health insurance just to score political points against Obama they're jerks.

If the Democrats want to see America lose the war in Iraq just to score political points against Bush, they're the true patriots.



i know i'm a "simpleton" , but still :

healthinsurance = keep people healthy

war = killing and maiming people - including many americans .

of course , there is more to it than what i picked out ... but i would have trouble discussing the two items in one subject .
hbg
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 12:33 pm
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:

JPB wrote:
I'm all in favor of health reform, including providing reasonable/affordable insurance to all Americans but it cannot (and we must not allow our politicians to think it can) come at the cost of increasing the national debt.


Obama wrote:
"Let me repeat: Health insurance reform cannot add to our deficit over the next decade and I mean it,"



Obama: If my stimulus package is enacted immediately, unemployment will not rise above 8.5%
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 12:44 pm
@ebrown p,
Quote:
The argument against the public option is funny; As a government program it will be bloated, wasteful and inefficient... and private insurance companies will be unable to compete with it.


What is funny is how supporters of a government healthcare program are either too ignorant to understand the opposition's argument, or so hellbent on socializing medicine that they keep making this ridiculous counter-argument.

The government program will be bloated, wasteful and inefficient. It will also be allowed to operate in the red.

For-profit companies cannot compete with a governmental entity that can endlessly lose money, but will never be without capital.

It will also be quite difficult to compete when the government adds a tax to the cost of their product.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 12:49 pm
@JPB,
Quote:
And even worse than deciding where to spend our tax dollars is deciding to increase our debt. I'm all in favor of health reform, including providing reasonable/affordable insurance to all Americans but it cannot (and we must not allow our politicians to think it can) come at the cost of increasing the national debt.


Unfortunately, this isn't really going to be a possibility. Pretty much every action we take as a government 'adds to the debt,' depending on how we do our accounting. But that doesn't mean it isn't important or shouldn't be done.

And in this case, Health Care is already greatly adding to the national debt - just one family at a time. There exists a great ability for us to save money by beginning to choke to death private insurers, a parasitic group who serve no purpose other than to increase the cost of health care and deny people treatment.

Republicans know, from examples in other countries, that if the Dems can pass health care reform, they are fucked. Well and truly fucked. They will get creamed in the next few elections, until they have no choice other than to support the program to nearly the same extent the Dems do. That is why they use such dramatic speech to talk about this issue; it is do or die for them, so you will see the worst sort of demagoguery and lies being thrown out there.

Fortunately, the American public has very little trust in the Republican party at the moment, and they are unlikely to be able to stop their defeat this year.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  2  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 01:02 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Ahhh... Finn.

The problem with your argument is that it smacks up against reality. We have a private, for-profit, health care system now that the great majority of us can see is a disaster. Costs are rising at a far greater rate than incomes, outcomes are not that good compared to other countries with much lower costs, and it is far to easy for good, working Americans to fall through the cracks.

(Ironically this is not that different than the for-profit war in Iraq that the great majority of us now see was a disaster. But you made this connection and I will let you decide if you want to continue down this path).

Republicans are arguing for the status-quo, in spite of the fact that it is clearly failing, and in spite of the fact that many other countries have socialized health care systems that-- under any objective measurement-- provide better results at a lower cost.

The status quo is unacceptable (and economically unsustainable).
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 05:59 am


If you’re like most asinine leftists, you’ve probably been a long time advocate of “Universal Healthcare”
without ever having had the opportunity to experience the crappy, decrepit system first-hand…
Well here’s your chance… And you better hold on tight, Buttercup, because it’s going to be a bumpy ride.

YouTube VIDEO
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Republicans using Healthcare as a political game.
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/27/2021 at 06:47:41