Obama '08?

cicerone imposter wrote:

Yeah, have a whole lots of money.

Took the words right out of my mouth! Ask prisoners who were found innocent, using DNA, some spending over 30 years, but thanks to the Innocence Project, started after the OJ trial, by one of the "Dream Team", over 28 prisoners, some in jail for 25 years for crimes they didn't commit, have gone FREE! The bad part is, how do you get your life back? It's a bittersweet victory! Crying or Very sad

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie wrote: Universal health care is a better measurement of your politics than the war I would think. If you oppose federal intervention in education, why would you favor federal intervention of health care? The congressional restaurants are going broke and have to be propped up with millions, so what makes you think that Congress can run health care if they can't even manage their own restaurants profitably?

Really. Our country spends the greatest amount on health care while 47 million Americans live without any coverage. That makes me a liberal?
Wake up and smell the coffee.

Actually, I am also for all people having health insurance, I just don't favor government run universal health care. I think we can improve our system by using the tax system, taking insurance away from being an employer responsibility, injecting more competition, maybe tweaking the Medicaid program somewhat, and getting the states into the act.

I think life spans have alot to do with lifestyle, such as obesity, in this country, and I think insurance premiums could rightly be adjusted by companies per our weight problems, whether we smoke or not, etc. Insurance premiums should not be allowed to be different according to health conditions out of our control, but life style choices within our control should be free game. This would serve to improve our health as much as anything, when it affects our right hip pocket.

In regard to 47 million Americans currently without health insurance, how many are illegals, and how many choose not to have insurance, and how many are part of a revolving door, perhaps had insurance a while back, and will again have it soon, while others enter the category? I do not think it is a static group of people, certainly not all.

I also think states could better manage providing or mandating insurance for those that cannot afford insurance better than the federal government can. I have dealt with too many federal agencies to believe they can do anything efficiently at all. We have deficiencies, but still the best health care system in the world, I believe. Recent family members experience tends to support that belief.

Another subject here, cyclops wants to be a friend to have a friend. I don't particularly think making friends should be the goal of our national security system. Common sense has been thrown out the window, in favor of political correctness. That is why the whole subject is the butt of jokes nowadays.

0 Replies

US women voters head to Obama after Clinton departure: poll link

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Actually, I am also for all people having health insurance, I just don't favor government run universal health care.

Universal government health care would be terrible for this country.
The private sector can make it work if the government get out of the way.

0 Replies

H2O
"The private sector can make it work if the government get out of the way."
How about completely abolishing the Government and allowing the private sector CEO's to rule/ruin the country?

0 Replies

H2O_MAN wrote:

okie wrote:

Actually, I am also for all people having health insurance, I just don't favor government run universal health care.

Universal government health care would be terrible for this country.
The private sector can make it work if the government get out of the way.

I am 100% opposed to the government requiring somebody to buy insurance for solely their own benefit. I have no problem requiring insurance to do certain things: i.e. liability insurance if you are going to drive on public roads; work comp insurance if you hire employees etc. But what Constitutional authority is there to require somebody to insure their property or their persons when they put nobody at risk but themselves?

Having said that I don't have a huge problem with the government providing low cost insurance for our poorest citizens and I think otherwise the law should specify that those who can pay should do so for all their health care needs.

The government could help make health care affordable with tort reform so that hospitals and physicians would not have exhorbitant malpractice/liability insurance costs. They could provide for a family union system where those who for whatever reason do not wish to marry could form themselves into legal family groups allowing for family health plans for those groups. It could allow for small businesses to band together into larger groups so that could offer health care plans to their employees at attractive rates as the big corporations can do.

And, for the most part, the government should get out of the healthcare business as a one-size-fits-all plan is invariably going to be much more expensive with less accountability than are those tailored to the specific needs of the people. Further a free market system with the opportunistic risk removed will most likely inspire the brightest and best to become health care providers and to aspire to excellence in a way that a one-size-fits all system cannot do.

I want a Presidential candidate who looks for the way to make the free enterprise system better, stronger, more affordable. I don't want a President who proposes more and more socialization of anything.

0 Replies

So you DO support Obama! :-)

Read this for details:

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/open_university/archive/2008/06/12/obama-the-university-of-chicago-democrat.aspx

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

So you DO support Obama! :-)

Read this for details:

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/open_university/archive/2008/06/12/obama-the-university-of-chicago-democrat.aspx

I had the exact same thought...

Though personally I don't think Obama is right on this. More accurately; I don't think the politics of the matter will allow him to pursue a single payer system.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

So you DO support Obama! :-)

Read this for details:

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/open_university/archive/2008/06/12/obama-the-university-of-chicago-democrat.aspx

If this glowing report is accurate, I could support much or most of it yes. The underpinnings of Obama's philosophy imbedded in his rhetoric that I hear does not support such conservative concepts, however. In other words I do not yet trust the perception of some of his supporters to be accurate in the direction an Obama presidency might take. That has nothing to do with partisanship--I was a Democrat for a lot longer than I have not been a Democrat--but it has to do with his basic philosophy that it is government and not the free enterprise that he talks about that will fix all our problems.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I was a Democrat for a lot longer than I have not been a Democrat

So was Strom Thurmond.

0 Replies

Ramafuchs wrote:

How about completely abolishing the Government and allowing the private sector CEO's to rule/ruin the country?

No thanks.

0 Replies

I thought that Big Business already controlled the government.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
okie wrote: Universal health care is a better measurement of your politics than the war I would think. If you oppose federal intervention in education, why would you favor federal intervention of health care? The congressional restaurants are going broke and have to be propped up with millions, so what makes you think that Congress can run health care if they can't even manage their own restaurants profitably?

Really. Our country spends the greatest amount on health care while 47 million Americans live without any coverage. That makes me a liberal?
Wake up and smell the coffee.

Actually, I am also for all people having health insurance, I just don't favor government run universal health care. I think we can improve our system by using the tax system, taking insurance away from being an employer responsibility, injecting more competition, maybe tweaking the Medicaid program somewhat, and getting the states into the act.

I think life spans have alot to do with lifestyle, such as obesity, in this country, and I think insurance premiums could rightly be adjusted by companies per our weight problems, whether we smoke or not, etc. Insurance premiums should not be allowed to be different according to health conditions out of our control, but life style choices within our control should be free game. This would serve to improve our health as much as anything, when it affects our right hip pocket.

In regard to 47 million Americans currently without health insurance, how many are illegals, and how many choose not to have insurance, and how many are part of a revolving door, perhaps had insurance a while back, and will again have it soon, while others enter the category? I do not think it is a static group of people, certainly not all.

I also think states could better manage providing or mandating insurance for those that cannot afford insurance better than the federal government can. I have dealt with too many federal agencies to believe they can do anything efficiently at all. We have deficiencies, but still the best health care system in the world, I believe. Recent family members experience tends to support that belief.

Another subject here, cyclops wants to be a friend to have a friend. I don't particularly think making friends should be the goal of our national security system. Common sense has been thrown out the window, in favor of political correctness. That is why the whole subject is the butt of jokes nowadays.

Not disagreeing, but you mention "tweaking" Medicaid. Medicaid was the answer to health care for the poor, but many doctors abuse the Medicaid system, just as food stamps and any other programs designed to assist the poor! The poor receive adequate health care provided by the physicians and hospitals, but these systems aren't fraud proofed. The drug companies are also making huge profits off the backs of the middle class and elderly by overcharging for prescriptions that too often get approved by a crooked FDA!

What in heavens name happened to allow the drug companies to make so much money off pills and other drugs that do more harm, than good? If you don't pay off the FDA, we, the consumers LOSE!

The government could care less about the poor, elderly and those barely making it, because they have a "private" system, that they use for LIFE!
How come they don't give US the same access? GREED! That's what!
:wink:

0 Replies

H2O_MAN wrote:

Ramafuchs wrote:

How about completely abolishing the Government and allowing the private sector CEO's to rule/ruin the country?

No thanks.

Easy for YOU to say Rama! You're IN another country, so you take us Americans for fools, anyway! Corporations run in THEIR best interests, not the little guy! Read the history of the Rockefellers and see why antitrust laws were created and why we now have a 40 hour work week. We still have a long way to go in protecting Americas workers, because the corporations have found a way to override this government; ship the jobs overseas to China, layoff union workers, bust the unions and have a "take it or leave it" attitude! Crying or Very sad

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I am 100% opposed to the government requiring somebody to buy insurance for solely their own benefit. I have no problem requiring insurance to do certain things: i.e. liability insurance if you are going to drive on public roads; work comp insurance if you hire employees etc. But what Constitutional authority is there to require somebody to insure their property or their persons when they put nobody at risk but themselves?

There is one problem with what you say there, Foxfyre. I almost always agree with your opinions, but I would like to point out that hospitals or emergency rooms are obligated by law to treat anyone that comes through the door I think. So in effect if you use your driving analogy, in regard to health care, everyone is driving on the public road, so everyone needs to show or demonstrate that they either A: have insurance, or B: have the personal ability to pay for their health care in the event of an accident or health event, this being the case regardless of their good or bad health, it makes no difference. We all know that if someone thinks they are healthy and does not need insurance, but has no money, if they get sick, they will expect treatment and the rest of us to essentially pay for it. We also know that many hospitals do not collect very high percentages of what they bill out, thus the price of services is elevated significantly above what they would otherwise be if everyone paid for the services received. Sort of like stores raising prices to cover shoplifting losses.

If hospitals or emergencey rooms could turn away anyone that came there with an illness or accident or something, then I would say you would be correct, however we are not that kind of society.

So I think I favor some kind of mandatory insurance system, whether it is self insured or insured through a third party. I also think that only catastrophic health insurance should be required for most of us, because if we all paid for smaller office visit costs, which I do, I think medical costs would drop dramatically because of more self discipline and accountability. That would eliminate much going to the doctor for a runny nose, which only serves to clog waiting rooms with minor stuff, while bigger problems are overlooked.

There is one thought I have in regard to this issue though. I am not sure you are not correct about not making insurance mandatory, because it could well be the case that the cost of a bureaucracy to oversee mandatory insurance would cost the rest of us more than what we are currently paying for increased medical costs due to non-payers. That being in regard to hospital and emergency room treatment.

0 Replies

teenyboone wrote:

Not disagreeing, but you mention "tweaking" Medicaid. Medicaid was the answer to health care for the poor, but many doctors abuse the Medicaid system, just as food stamps and any other programs designed to assist the poor! The poor receive adequate health care provided by the physicians and hospitals, but these systems aren't fraud proofed. The drug companies are also making huge profits off the backs of the middle class and elderly by overcharging for prescriptions that too often get approved by a crooked FDA!

What you are observing is a huge reason to keep the lid on the scope of Medicaid morphing into universal government health care, because the amount of fraud would only increase exponentially. That is why so many of us oppose universal governemnt health care. To hope we can clean up government fraud is more or less a false hope. We can only hope to minimize it.

Quote:

What in heavens name happened to allow the drug companies to make so much money off pills and other drugs that do more harm, than good? If you don't pay off the FDA, we, the consumers LOSE!

The government could care less about the poor, elderly and those barely making it, because they have a "private" system, that they use for LIFE!
How come they don't give US the same access? GREED! That's what!
:wink:

Agreed. The solution is a private system for everybody.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Agreed. The solution is a private system for everybody.

So we do away with Medicare?

0 Replies

okie wrote: There is one problem with what you say there, Foxfyre. I almost always agree with your opinions, but I would like to point out that hospitals or emergency rooms are obligated by law to treat anyone that comes through the door I think.

This is true; hospitals cannot turn away patients who appear in their hospital emergecy room; there is a minimum amount of treatment that must be provided to all irregardless of ability to pay.

There is presently "no perfect universal health care system" provided in this world, but to expect perfection is a straw man argument. As citizens, we benefit by our government providing many protections and services such as the Department of Health and Human Services, our educational system, USDA, FFA, FEMA, the Department of Defense, and many others that provide us protections as a nation. Universal health care protects all of us, but especially our children, because if there are outbreaks of small pox, measles, or other contagious disease, our children will get some protection from government sources. Polio is a good example; all children were provided with sugar pills that contained drugs to eliminate polio. That's all part and parcel of universal health care. I'm a moderate politcally, but I believe in universal health care's benefits for all citizens.

When we as a nation can spend 12-billion dollars every month in Iraq, and billions in other cash awards to several countries every year, why not benefit our own citizens with some of that money?

It's called "common sense" allocation of our tax money.

0 Replies

Okie, are you willing to mandate that all must be accepted for insurance without regard to preconditions?

For if not, I am afraid that your notion of 'greater choice' in the marketplace is a rather limited and ineffective one that will not adequately serve the needs of millions of our citizens.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I think preconditions beyond our control should be accepted. However, I do think insurance companies could reward people that do not smoke or are not overweight better rates. Those are essentially lifestyle choices. I realize I am entering troubled waters here, and perhaps I would need to get into that deeper to see all the ramifications of making it practical, but I do think we need to retain as much personal choice and competition in the market as possible, and lower rates for healthier choices of lifestyle seems reasonable at first glance. It would serve also as a huge motivator to better health and lifestyle among people throughout the country, and would improve our health as a country. I think the lifestyle choice issue would have to be limited to only the very obvious and provable however, the only two I mention now as obvious is smoking and obesity.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know