Obama '08?

Al Gore is endorsing Obama this afternoon.

http://blog.algore.com/2008/06/my_endorsement.html

Quote:

My endorsement
June 16, 2008 : 2:51 PM

A few hours from now I will step on stage in Detroit, Michigan to announce my support for Senator Barack Obama. From now through Election Day, I intend to do whatever I can to make sure he is elected President of the United States.

Over the next four years, we are going to face many difficult challenges -- including bringing our troops home from Iraq, fixing our economy, and solving the climate crisis. Barack Obama is clearly the candidate best able to solve these problems and bring change to America.

I've never asked members of AlGore.com to contribute to a political campaign before, but this moment and this election are too important to let pass without taking action.

That's why I am asking you to join me today in showing your support for Barack Obama by making a contribution to his campaign today:

https://donate.barackobama.com/support

Over the past 18 months, Barack Obama has united a movement. He knows change does not come from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue or Capitol Hill. It begins when people stand up and take action.

With the help of millions of supporters like you, Barack Obama will bring the change we so desperately need in order to solve our country's most pressing problems.

If you've already contributed to Barack Obama's campaign, I ask that you consider making another contribution. If you haven't, please join the movement right now:

https://donate.barackobama.com/support

On the issues that matter most, Barack Obama is clearly the right choice to lead our nation.

We have a lot of work to do in the next few months to elect Barack Obama president and it begins by making a contribution to his campaign today.

0 Replies

The VP slot is not an easy one to fill, depending on how much the president involves him. Some remain VP in name only, while others are active on almost a daily basis. The other issues are the handicaps created by the present occupant of the white house; he's spent the country's treasures in Iraq while cutting taxes for the wealthy - all while the middle-class and the poor continue to lose their homes and cars, fuel costs have tripled, and food costs are doubling at a time when wages have remained stagnant for the past six-seven years - barely keeping up with inflation.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Universal health care in the way you describe it makes it a mandate. I have no problem with universal health care and in fact absolutely support the concept so long as it is voluntary. If Okie has a different point of view, good for him. I simply don't share it in that case (but I bet Okie and I are closer in concepts on this than you and I are.)

Well. What can I say.

You seem to support a health care plan very similar to Obama's, whereas I would favour one that goes even further - makes a basic insurance mandatory, maybe with the option to opt-out if you can show that you have enough money to cover potential costs on your own.

Okay.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Universal health care in the way you describe it makes it a mandate. I have no problem with universal health care and in fact absolutely support the concept so long as it is voluntary. If Okie has a different point of view, good for him. I simply don't share it in that case (but I bet Okie and I are closer in concepts on this than you and I are.)

Well. What can I say.

You seem to support a health care plan very similar to Obama's, whereas I would favour one that goes even further - makes a basic insurance mandatory, maybe with the option to opt-out if you can show that you have enough money to cover potential costs on your own.

Okay.

I just realized that I only answered half your previous post:

You said

Quote:

Got it. So you have government regulation to forcibly bring down health insurance rates, provided by private health insurance companies, to make health insurance affordable to those who otherwise cannot afford it.

Good.

No you don't 'got it' at all. I am in favor of government policies and initiatives providing incentives for insurance companies to lower their costs. I am 100% opposed to government mandates toward that end.

Quote:

Two question here:

- Contrary to all the ideological talk above, you suddenly seem to be in favour of government interference rather than relying on charities and fundraisers to help those who cannot afford health insurance or treatment. Don't you see this as a contradiction?
- What about those who still do not want to pay for very affordable, government regulated health insurance rates? Do you refuse treatment in case of an accident or illness?

I am not at all in favor of 'government inference' in honest free trade and private neterprise and that includes regulating rates. That is not what happens in a free society. I am in favor of providing good informationto people re what is good for them, but it is a dangerous thing for government to be given the power to require people to do what is good for them. And it is an intrusion on freedoms to require people to utilize any product whether they want it or not and that includes insurance of any kind. There is a difference between that and refusing treatment and allowing the person to pay for such treatment himself/herself.

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Quote:
My plan would include no mandates of any kind.

Okay. So again: what do you do with those people who still refuse to pay for health insurance? Refuse treatment?

You treat them and hand them a bill. What do you do with somebody who wracks up his car without collision insurance? He is still allowed to get his car fixed but he pays for it instead of the insurance company. Why would you want to deny people the freedom to do that if they want?
I do have health insurance but I have not used it for anything in more than 25 years. What few medical costs I've had, I've paid out of pocket. I do not carry collision insurance on my automobile and I am perfectly prepared to pay for fixing my car if I should run into something, but I haven't needed collision insurance since I have been driving which has been for a very long time.

When did the idea of somebody paying their own way become a foreign concept?

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Quote:
Nope, because if you have no income or sufficiently little income, you owe no taxes and you can choose that. Mandatory taxes should be collected for mutually agreeable and mutually beneficial infrastructure such as roads, sewer, police and fire protection, etc. and for Constitutionally mandated government functions. In my view taxes collected for any other purposes are not a legitimate function of government. There is no Constitutional provision for the property to be confiscated from Citizen A who earned it and give it to Citizen B who didn't for any reason including health care.

That may the case. However, the argument was not for taxes.

The argument made was for a mandatory insurance, payable to a private insurance company - much like liability insurance.

Maybe you can argue against that instead of arguing against something that was not proposed.

The principle though is whether something shall be voluntary or whether the government shall take control of it. The principle is whether the government should have the power to demand that I buy a specific product that they mandate. Shall the government also have the power to mandate that I buy healthy foods at the grocery store? Shall I be required to purchase a life preserver in case I go boating? Must I have a motorcycle or bicycle helmet in case I go cycling? Must I buy a bus pass in case I might need to ride the bus?

I am 100% in favor of health insurance. I am 100% opposed to the government mandating it.

Foxfyre wrote:

Quote:

If it is inappropriate for the government to dictate to me what I must eat in order to be healthy and/or how much I must exercise or what risky behavior I may not participate in that could be anything from mountain climbing to water skiing or roller blading, then it is not appropriate for the goverment to tell me what kind of insurance and how much of it I must purchase.

If it is inappropriate for the government to dictate to you to buy health insurance as a member of society, then it is inappropriate for the government to dictate to you to buy liability insurance for using public roads.

Wrong. I risk nobody but myself by not having health insurance. I increase your risk, however, when I drive on the public roads and you should not be left holding the bag if I damage you or your property and don't have the fund available to cover your loss.

Foxfyre wrote:

Quote:

Quote:
Wrong again. As I previously posted, there are several things government can do to help make health care affordable for everybody. But I am opposed to government making it either mandatory or a one-size-fits-all deal.

You have brought up exactly one thing: government guaranteed health insurance rates.

That's not necessarily a bad idea, but still doesn't answer the question what to do with people who refuse to buy health insurance at even to low rates, and how you would solve the problem of having others pay for their treatment.

[/QUOTE]

I have mentioned several things including making it easier and providing incentives for private insurance companies to enlarge groups, by effectiving meaningful tort reform, by phasing out one-size-fits-all entitlement programs that have removed accountability from the system and therefore raised costs, and also I have mentioned providing some financial back up for those providing unexpected emergency medical services just to name a few. Did you miss all that?

I oppose government mandating that people have to buy anything whether they need it or not, and I oppose govenrment setting the rates any private business charges for anything except for certain userous interest rates and in cases where, for practical reasons, a business is allowed a monopoly in a specified area.

And that is why I oppose Senator Obama's healthcare plan.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I oppose government mandating that people have to buy anything whether they need it or not, and I oppose govenrment setting the rates any privatebusiness charges for anything except for certain userous interest rates and in cases where, for practical reasons, a business is allowed a monopoly in a specified area.

And that is why I oppose Senator Obama's healthcare plan.

That's really funny, Foxfyre! You do know that Obama's plan for a comprehensive health care system was criticized because it featured no mandates?

Hillary's plan would have required that everyone buys insurance, whereas Obama argues that people will buy insurance if it becomes affordable enough, and advocates bringing down insurance costs. His plan, essentially, envisions a voluntary universal health care system!

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

His plan, essentially, envisions a voluntary universal health care system!

A voluntary universal health care system Rolling Eyes

that will never happen.

Who is going to volunteer and pay for Obama's pipe dream?

0 Replies

H2O_MAN wrote:

old europe wrote:
His plan, essentially, envisions a voluntary universal health care system!

A voluntary universal health care system that will never happen.

Who is going to volunteer and pay for Obama's pipe dream?

You will, in about 2 years once it's passed.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I oppose government mandating that people have to buy anything whether they need it or not, and I oppose govenrment setting the rates any privatebusiness charges for anything except for certain userous interest rates and in cases where, for practical reasons, a business is allowed a monopoly in a specified area.

And that is why I oppose Senator Obama's healthcare plan.

That's really funny, Foxfyre! You do know that Obama's plan for a comprehensive health care system was criticized because it featured no mandates?

Hillary's plan would have required that everyone buys insurance, whereas Obama argues that people will buy insurance if it becomes affordable enough, and advocates bringing down insurance costs. His plan, essentially, envisions a voluntary universal health care system!

Maybe it has been criticized because there aren't enough mandates but the mandates are sure the hell there:

1. Mandated coverage for children.
2. Mandated acceptance by insurance companies.
3. Mandated company healthcare plans or the employers will be required to pay the cost of one anyway.

Here's the summary:

Quality, Affordable and Portable Coverage for All

Obama's Plan to Cover Uninsured Americans: Obama will make available a new national health plan to all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress. The Obama plan will have the following features:

Guaranteed eligibility. No American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions.

Comprehensive benefits. The benefit package will be similar to that offered through Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the plan members of Congress have. The plan will cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity and mental health care.
Affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles.

Subsidies. Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan.

Simplified paperwork and reined in health costs.

Easy enrollment. The new public plan will be simple to enroll in and provide ready access to coverage.

Portability and choice. Participants in the new public plan and the National Health Insurance Exchange (see below) will be able to move from job to job without changing or jeopardizing their health care coverage.

Quality and efficiency. Participating insurance companies in the new public program will be required to report data to ensure that standards for quality, health information technology and administration are being met.

National Health Insurance Exchange: The Obama plan will create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals who wish to purchase a private insurance plan. The Exchange will act as a watchdog group and help reform the private insurance market by creating rules and standards for participating insurance plans to ensure fairness and to make individual coverage more affordable and accessible. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend upon health status. The Exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan and have the same standards for quality and efficiency. The Exchange would evaluate plans and make the differences among the plans, including cost of services, public.

Employer Contribution: Employers that do not offer or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan. Small employers that meet certain revenue thresholds will be exempt.

Mandatory Coverage of Children: Obama will require that all children have health care coverage. Obama will expand the number of options for young adults to get coverage, including allowing young people up to age 25 to continue coverage through their parents' plans.

Expansion Of Medicaid and SCHIP: Obama will expand eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs and ensure that these programs continue to serve their critical safety net function.

Flexibility for State Plans: Due to federal inaction, some states have taken the lead in health care reform. The Obama plan builds on these efforts and does not replace what states are doing. States can continue to experiment, provided they meet the minimum standards of the national plan.
LINK

0 Replies

You have a problem with -

Quote:

2. Mandated acceptance by insurance companies.

?

You might as well say that you're perfectly okay with people who are sick being refused health insurance, which they need to survive. Real classy position.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Yup. Any business should be allowed to accept whatever business it wants; otherwise there is less incentive for any of us to take less risk and/or be more smart.

In the business world, companies with poor employee safety records and/or who have lots of liability claims are punished with higher premiums and, if they have a poor enough record, they are refused coverage. This allows insurance companies to keep rates down for companies who do much better.

Those who are then uninsurable go into an assigned risk pool that is backed by the state and are assigned either to a special mutal company or are assigned to other insurance companies who will take them but at much higher rates.

This is where there is room for some kind of government backing for the high risk people so that they won't be denied health care outright or perhaps mutual companies who will accept the higher risk for a fee. But the guy who actually does try to stay fit and healthy should not be penalized by those who subsist on french fries and twinkies or who drink themselves to death or whatever either.

0 Replies

I've just figured out, that your positions really do make sense Fox, when one keeps in mind that you happen to value corporate profits over human life.

For to me, it is not a question of profitability, in the slightest. I don't really believe that health insurance should be a for-profit business.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Then fine. You should be happy with socialized medicine. I just happen to think private enterprise produces incentive for new and improved services, innovative treatments, incentive for excellence and building a better mousetrap than socialization can ever produce and which I prefer in the automobile I drive, my washing machine, my television set, and in the health care I receive.

0 Replies

It's a good thing that Obama's plan does not get rid of the things you mention in the slightest, then.

You'll be quite happy under it; and don't worry, we'll still allow you Conservatives to complain all ya want, it's a free country and all.

I must say, however, that requiring insurance companies to be non-profit is not the same thing as socialized medicine; at all.

It's sad to me that you not only place profits, but worship of the 'free-market' (as if there is such a thing) above others lives.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

okie wrote:

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.

That's what I'm talking about! Those in government, could care less, what happens to us, sadly. Sad

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

...I just happen to think private enterprise produces incentive for new and improved services, innovative treatments, incentive for excellence and building a better mousetrap than socialization can ever produce...

It hasn't.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It's a good thing that Obama's plan does not get rid of the things you mention in the slightest, then.

You'll be quite happy under it; and don't worry, we'll still allow you Conservatives to complain all ya want, it's a free country and all.

I must say, however, that requiring insurance companies to be non-profit is not the same thing as socialized medicine; at all.

It's sad to me that you not only place profits, but worship of the 'free-market' (as if there is such a thing) above others lives.

Cycloptichorn

Obama's plan would require insurance companies to accept all applicants at the same rates no matter how irresponsible the patient and/or at the time the patient NEEDS the healthcare because he or she became ill or is injured. So how many are going to pay for insurance premiums until they need it? And that means the insurance companies are guaranteed to lose money--which seems to be just fine with you anyway--meaning they go out of business and the government can do it all. Or perhaps you think it is fine that a private business be forced to operate at a loss?

You see I don't think it is compassionate at all to take away profits so that nobody can afford to provide products or services and the government can then assume more and more power. You might think that is a really neat thing. I don't.

Obama's plan would require all parents to insure their children. And while there is a 'feel good' and 'how righteous we are' and even a reasonable rationale for this, it takes away a freedom. I have less problem with this because the law also requires kids to be properly restrained in automobiles, to be vaccinated, etc. etc. and as I am a 100% advocate re the welfare of children and opposed to irresponsible parents, I don't fault this so much.....EXCEPT in cases where the parent is able to pay for his own child's healthcare and does; then the government should not require him to buy insurance that he does not want.

0 Replies

Quote:

And that means the insurance companies are guaranteed to lose money

I've highlighted the error in your piece. Insurance companies are not guaranteed to lose money under Obama's plan.

Perhaps you are unaware of the meaning of the word 'guarantee.' You don't know what will happen to them under his plan. And if they lose some of the record profits they've been making in the last decade or so, I highly doubt it will force them under.

A re-adjustment in the market will not have the disastrous consequences that you foretell; and I have no idea why you think it would. Actually, I do have an idea why you think it would: profits for insurance companies are more important to you then saving people's lives. Period. So when you look at the equation, you just don't consider saving people's lives to be worth cutting into profits.

I don't think parents should have the freedom to not insure their kids. It's certainly not an enumerated right. Even a parent who can 'afford it' cannot possibly foresee all circumstances; financial ruin has hit more then one family who thought they could 'afford it.'

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I must say, however, that requiring insurance companies to be non-profit is not the same thing as socialized medicine; at all.

Is Obama's plan requiring insurance companies to be non-profit? I must have overlooked something.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I must say, however, that requiring insurance companies to be non-profit is not the same thing as socialized medicine; at all.

Is Obama's plan requiring insurance companies to be non-profit? I must have overlooked something.

Not in so many words, but if the government requires the insurance companies to take all applicants no questions asked, it will have the same effect.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I must say, however, that requiring insurance companies to be non-profit is not the same thing as socialized medicine; at all.

Is Obama's plan requiring insurance companies to be non-profit? I must have overlooked something.

No, I was just throwing a thought out there.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know