Obama's plan is just to ensure insurance availability for all - not universal healthcare - you na

• Interesting Speech on Healthcare Reform - TechSupport
  • Embed didn't work. Anyway, here's my question: - TechSupport
    • Apples and Oranges - lall
      • Can you demonstrate that this will save people? - TechSupport
        • Reason - lall
          • Neither can be demonstrated. That's my point. - TechSupport
            • Just look at statistics on infant mortality rate for mothers without prenatal care - nm - lall
              • Funny thing about those infant mortality statistics. - TechSupport
                • There's more to it than that... - Kendra
                • Oh please humor me. Have you pieced together some definitions? - lall
                  • Just to clarify - this is for infants who were actually born . - lall
                    • Has nothing to do with "humoring you" or "my" definitions. - TechSupport
                      • Just gotta have the last word, dontcha? - So Predictable.
            • The issues and possible solutions have been on the table for years. - lall
              • Apparently, you're not following this. Never mind. - TechSupport
          • In the US, we turn away no one from an ER with or - without insurance! cant be said everywhere.nm
            • Do you know that emergency rooms are not for regular healthcare? - lall
              • Yep!..and people currently on Govt-funded - healthcare abuse it every day..we pay for it.nm
                • That's exactly right! An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. - nm - lall
                  • Actually, not. - TechSupport
                    • Why this is - lall
                      • My goodness - you'd better write and tell someone - that you have the answer.
                        • How could there be doctor/patient communication issues during a preventative healthcare visit if - - lall
                          • It is simplistic and I have something else simplistic to say - don't knock it until you've tri - lall
                            • OMG...are you serious? - Trigger Happy
                          • Well, let's - think about this.
                  • That's exactly wrong! - Mythbuster
                    • The issue is really about the tax payers who cannot afford healthcare - sm - lall
                      • Then, let's insure them and let it go at that. - TechSupport
                        • Have you studied the healthcare system in France? - lall
                          • Why should I comment on France - or avoid doing so? - TechSupport
                            • That's funny, a refusal to comment is an end to a discussion as far as I know. - lall
                              • Let me try this again. You're demanding that I comment about France for some reason. - Or the conversation is over? Wow.
                        • Obama's plan is just to ensure insurance availability for all - not universal healthcare - you na - Amanda
      • So in other words - A.Nonymous
      • Univ Healthcare has failed every time. Why is our - Govt dumb enough to try it again? nm
        • I thought it was working in France? nm - Curious George
          • Yes that's right - lall
            • No. Latest news is that costs for France rising too - much. Their system will go broke. nm
        • Because there are millions of uninsured? - Just a guess
          • But how many of them are wasting their money? - ctmt
            • $300 for health insurance is a deal. - What do you do when it starts to
          • Does not mean Universal Healthcare is answer. - It does not work. nm
            • What is the answer then? - lall
              • How about people - Trigger Happy
              • It doesnt work. Link explaining some things. - http://www.mccl.org/Page.aspx?pid=372
                • A link for you inside - lall
                  • Link August 2007!. Their system is starting - to bankrupt. -way outdated article.nm
                    • Yes, it is from 2007 and says the same as those from 2008 - where is a link showing bankrupt? - lall
                      • Protests going on all over France like this. - only getting worse. nm
                        • This is about a protest to a proposed change - it happens. - nm - lall
                          • Yes, proposed changes, which citizens cant - control because GOVT controls it.nm
                            • Please do some more research - nm - lall
                              • Did mine. YOUR turn.nm - nm
                                • Yep, you did your research......(sm) - Just the big bad
        • Canadian citizen just on the news stating how its - failed there -wait months just to see Fam. doc.nm
          • Really? What channel? nm - Just the big bad
            • CNN - last night. nm
          • I have a relative living in Canada, yet comes back to - US for healthcare. System in CA is terrible.nm
          • I wait years - anon
            • Yeah I am the same - They Said What

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

I see again that everyone is talking about President Obama's plan for universal health care and I once again feel the need to distinguish between universal health care and what the plan is that President Obama has campaigned for.  I have copied and pasted part of the web page, but also included the link at the bottom of this for you to see the whole plan. 

President Obama does not ask for universal health care where the government is in charge - he just wants the government to ensure that everyone has access to medical care and health insurance.  Why is it so difficult to understand that this is not socialized medicine, government run healthcare, or universal coverage plans?

Barack Obama and Joe Biden's Plan

On health care reform, the American people are too often offered two extremes - government-run health care with higher taxes or letting the insurance companies operate without rules. Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe both of these extremes are wrong, and that’s why they’ve proposed a plan that strengthens employer coverage, makes insurance companies accountable and ensures patient choice of doctor and care without government interference.

The Obama-Biden plan provides affordable, accessible health care for all Americans, builds on the existing health care system, and uses existing providers, doctors and plans to implement the plan. Under the Obama-Biden plan, patients will be able to make health care decisions with their doctors, instead of being blocked by insurance company bureaucrats.

Under the plan, if you like your current health insurance, nothing changes, except your costs will go down by as much as $2,500 per year.

If you don’t have health insurance, you will have a choice of new, affordable health insurance options.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

Great post piglet.  I so agree with what you all had to say in support of changing our current system.  Canada probably has the worst universal healthcare system, and yet the average Canadian lives 3 years longer than the average American.  People always point to the flaws in their system and just assume that we will make all the same mistakes.  Of course their system has flaws, just as our system has many fatal flaws.  England and France actually have great universal healthcare systems.  Here is an article I found about France's successful program:

"France's model healthcare system
By Paul V. Dutton | August 11, 2007

MANY advocates of a universal healthcare system in the United States look to Canada for their model. While the Canadian healthcare system has much to recommend it, there's another model that has been too long neglected. That is the healthcare system in France.

Although the French system faces many challenges, the World Health Organization rated it the best in the world in 2001 because of its universal coverage, responsive healthcare providers, patient and provider freedoms, and the health and longevity of the country's population. The United States ranked 37.

The French system is also not inexpensive. At $3,500 per capita it is one of the most costly in Europe, yet that is still far less than the $6,100 per person in the United States.

An understanding of how France came to its healthcare system would be instructive in any renewed debate in the United States.

That's because the French share Americans' distaste for restrictions on patient choice and they insist on autonomous private practitioners rather than a British-style national health service, which the French dismiss as "socialized medicine." Virtually all physicians in France participate in the nation's public health insurance, Sécurité Sociale.

Their freedoms of diagnosis and therapy are protected in ways that would make their managed-care-controlled US counterparts envious. However, the average American physician earns more than five times the average US wage while the average French physician makes only about two times the average earnings of his or her compatriots. But the lower income of French physicians is allayed by two factors. Practice liability is greatly diminished by a tort-averse legal system, and medical schools, although extremely competitive to enter, are tuition-free. Thus, French physicians enter their careers with little if any debt and pay much lower malpractice insurance premiums.

Nor do France's doctors face the high nonmedical personnel payroll expenses that burden American physicians. Sécurité Sociale has created a standardized and speedy system for physician billing and patient reimbursement using electronic funds.

It's not uncommon to visit a French medical office and see no nonmedical personnel. What a concept. No back office army of billing specialists who do daily battle with insurers' arcane and constantly changing rules of payment.

Moreover, in contrast to Canada and Britain, there are no waiting lists for elective procedures and patients need not seek pre-authorizations. In other words, like in the United States, "rationing" is not a word that leaves the lips of hopeful politicians. How might the French case inform the US debate over healthcare reform?

National health insurance in France stands upon two grand historical bargains -- the first with doctors and a second with insurers.

Doctors only agreed to participate in compulsory health insurance if the law protected a patient's choice of practitioner and guaranteed physicians' control over medical decision-making. Given their current frustrations, America's doctors might finally be convinced to throw their support behind universal health insurance if it protected their professional judgment and created a sane system of billing and reimbursement.

French legislators also overcame insurance industry resistance by permitting the nation's already existing insurers to administer its new healthcare funds. Private health insurers are also central to the system as supplemental insurers who cover patient expenses that are not paid for by Sécurité Sociale. Indeed, nearly 90 percent of the French population possesses such coverage, making France home to a booming private health insurance market.

The French system strongly discourages the kind of experience rating that occurs in the United States, making it more difficult for insurers to deny coverage for preexisting conditions or to those who are not in good health. In fact, in France, the sicker you are, the more coverage, care, and treatment you get. Would American insurance companies cut a comparable deal?

Like all healthcare systems, the French confront ongoing problems. Today French reformers' number one priority is to move health insurance financing away from payroll and wage levies because they hamper employers' willingness to hire. Instead, France is turning toward broad taxes on earned and unearned income alike to pay for healthcare.

American advocates of mandates on employers to provide health insurance should take note. The link between employment and health security is a historical artifact whose disadvantages now far outweigh its advantages. Economists estimate that between 25 and 45 percent of the US labor force is now job-locked. That is, employees make career decisions based on their need to maintain affordable health coverage or avoid exclusion based on a preexisting condition.

Perhaps it's time for us to take a closer look at French ideas about healthcare reform. They could become an import far less "foreign" and "unfriendly" than many here might initially imagine."

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...lthcare_system/

1. There isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care?
   
2. "Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc.
   
3. Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness.
   
4. Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility.
   
5. Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now.
   
6. Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care; nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance.
   
7. Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care.
   
8. Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc.
   
9. A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation.
   
10. Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession.
    
11. Malpractice lawsuit costs, which are already sky-high, could further explode since universal care may expose the government to legal liability, and the possibility to sue someone with deep pockets usually invites more lawsuits.
    
12. Government is more likely to pass additional restrictions or increase taxes on smoking, fast food, etc., leading to a further loss of personal freedoms.
    
13. Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a "right" by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control.

NOT VOTING FOR OBAMA!  His plans will fail and they will up the cost of everything.  Stop the government spending!  Don't vote for someone wanting to add more programs that will INCREASE government spending.  That is why our economy is in deep crap right now.

Their plan for healthcare "reform" basically consists of changing nothing, and maybe tweaking medicaid and child care.  Cost of this plan?  We have no idea.  No numbers were given.  The total plan was only 4 pages. 

In other words, they are just fine with the idea that tons of people in this country have NO healthcare, and obviously don't see anything wrong with HMOs.  Yeah, they're working for the people alright......NOT.

I assume you watched both conventions?????  I watched the Dems and now I'm watching the Pubs.  I am an INDEPENDENT.  I would support Obama were it not for my research of the church he has been associated with for 20 years.  This church, in my humble opinion, belongs to an extreme, radical, racist group.  We don't need that in the White House. With the exception of illegal immigration, he pretty much addressed all the things that I feel are important to the future of my children and grandchildren and were it not for his affiliation with his chosen church, I would probably vote for him.  .  At least he had the good sense to select a person as his running mate who actually might be "ready on day one" to lead this country.

Secondly, again in my humble opinion, McCain has a few screws loose rattling around upstairs.  He answers every question, even about how many houses he owns, with something like, "well, the longest time I spent anywhere was when I was a POW."  Other than that it has been all about bashing Obama and his not having "experience."  Then look what he did.  Picked a little-known female who has been abroad exactly once and tries to pass her off as "experienced." Truth:  She is a female and her state is the second largest producer of oil.  Bush governed the biggest oil producing state.  Enjoying those prices at the pumps?   To this point all the pub speakers have pushed McCain's war record.  What?????  Do we need more war?  I think a peacemaker would be better.

Now, before anyone pounces on me, I support NEITHER of these candidates and NEITHER will receive my vote.  Either way, the middle class Americans, to which I expect most MTs belong, lose. Our government will change when and if the majority of Americans quit using their heads as a hatrack for the Democrat and Republican parties, kick them out and bring back government "of the people, by the people and for the people."  Won't  happen this time but maybe next time won't be too late.

First of all, let me say I was undecided on this election until yesterday.  Obama's tax plan scares me to death.  I heard him on an interview yesterday, and he said that the top 5% of the country could *afford to help out those less fortunate to us*, meaning those that make above $200,000.  He also said that someone making under $45,000 would *probably* not have to pay income taxes, because all the tax revenue would be generated from the top 5% of the country, again, who could *afford* to help out his fellow man.

So, here's my question.  If I work my BUTT off making a great living for my family, who the heck is he to say I have to share it?  My husband and I put ourselves through school to get a good education for ourselves, searched for good jobs, worked more than one sometimes, and enjoy or standard of living, because we worked hard for it and EARNED it.  How dare he suggest that I have to share that with ANYONE, just because they dont' have as much.  We give to quite a few neighborhood organizations and national charities, we do not keep every penny for ourselves. 

If he does get elected and puts this new plan in place, why would people work hard to make a good living if quite a bit chunk of it is going to be taken away?  Why not just sit back, work as little as you want, stay under that $40,000 radar, not pay income taxes, and have the government give you some other *rich* guy's money because you don't have as much?

This really made my mind up for me.  It's time this county taught some personal responsibility and accountability, and I do not think he is the one for the job!

I haven't been here for a while, and if this has already been posted below somewhere, I apologize for duplicating it.

The following link will take you to a site that will show you how much money Barack Obama will save you on taxes, compared to John McCain.  (Remember, McCain will be taxing your health insurance benefits for the first time in American history.)  Depending on your income, there is quite a difference between the two plans.

http://alchemytoday.com/obamataxcut/

McCain may be taxing us, but he is anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage

Mrs. Palin proudly boasted that she had put her state's "checkbook" on line so the fine Alaskan citizens could actually see where their money was being spent.  Bless her heart.  She said under the Palin/McCain (yep, in that order) administration, she would do the same with the federal "checkbook." 

Come to find out that Obama had already done that 2 to 3 years ago.  He should be ashamed of stealing her idea.

What he hasn't bothered to tell all his lame followers is if he allows the Bush tax cuts to expire in a few years, this is equal to a tax increase on the middle class. Obama knows most of his followers don't even know what the real Bush tax cuts mean nor what it will mean for them when and if they are allowed to expire. 

He hopes no one looks too closely at this.  Not only does he want that to expire, which he has already said he will not vote to continue, back in March he actually tried to shorten that so taxes could begin for those making 31k-63K.   He knows most of you don't understand any of this for obvious reasons but for those of us who do pay attention, wake up!  You will not be getting off the hook paying taxes no matter how much that sounds wonderful.  If it sounds too good to be true, it will be. 

Obama's plan very clearly states that taxes will be raised on those making over 250,000 and tax cuts for those under that.  Meanwhile I've seen post after post complaining about him rasing taxes in general, which is in direct conflict with what he has said.

So, if he's planning on raising taxes on the higher tax brackets what's the problem?  Aren't these the same people you guys have been bashing?  For example, the auto CEOs who went to Washington in a private jet? 

He only signed off on it after it had been planned and then vouched for by a whole lot of other people.  The CEO of a car company does not design a car or put together a sales campaign.  He only gives the go-ahead after others have figured out what to do, then takes credit for it.

The only thing this guy has ever made in his life is reservations. 

So Obama believes we should spread the wealth around. Here are his charitable contributions:

Too bad he wasn't spreading his wealth around these past years. Oh well he did give 800,000.00 to ACORN. You know them don't you? Do you suppose this is his idea of spreading the wealth?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/17/eveningnews/realitycheck/main4530306.shtml

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/17/obama.foreclosures/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

Hope this helps those of you that need help.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123617623602129441.html