Obama Care

1. Agree
2. I don't want to "force" them to sign up. But coerce by making them fully responsible for medical bills to the point where their responsibilty would be the same as federal taxes (meaning they can't go bankrupt and avoid the med charges), absolutely.
3. Agree

And now we look at some sort of vouchers/tax credits for the remaining 8.2M and put in limits on malpractice suits to help control costs. Ride that model for 1-2 years and track the effects and revise as necessary.

Our assumption is not a monstrous one:

Is The Number of Uninsured Accurate? - FOXBusiness.com (http://www.foxbusiness.com/search-results/m/22705345/is-the-number-of-uninsured-accurate.htm)

David Hogberg on Health Insurance on National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/hogberg200406150914.asp)

The American Spectator : The Myth of the 46 Million (http://spectator.org/archives/2009/03/20/the-myth-of-the-46-million)

The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care: A Citizen's Guide | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9981)


You know why all states require you to carry liability auto insurance? It's because broke ass people won't have enough money to pay for the damages incurred by the guy driving BMW 7 Series. What do states do? They force you to have liability insurance and fine you if you don't have it. Think of universal heath care in the same manner, only someone else will have to pay for their emergency care. It must be forced.

I don't see any cost numbers nor do I see heath care cost reduction or how it's going to be paid for in any of these links. Where did the analysis go? LOL...American Spectator references BCBS study. LOL...National Review says "over 20 percent of the uninsured in this country are not citizens" so does that mean resident ailens are out? Look ma' I'm the only one watching Fox Business...LOL...Fox Business says "9.7 million are non-citizens" and references BCBSA study too. The whole thing is a joke. Can I at least get an A for effort?


Good job though, at least you're trying which is something I can't say for a lot of folks. I'm curious, how do you intend to pay for all of this voulcher business, the 14 million that are eliganle for goverment asistance, 5.7 million that are short term uninsured?

If you want to play armchair budgeteer that's cool but don't act like the heath care isn't as much of an issue as the budget deficit and national debt. In my view we have a bigger problem at hand than the national debt. Further more I'm not even convinced your comprehend what discretionary spending is. I mean, if we bring our troops home as you suggested we would save all of that 799 billion. The issue of course is you don't think that's practical nor do you think universal health care to be practical. What Obama is doing is no different than what Ronald Reagan did and we turned quite alright. With respect to universal health care Obama is trying to save money in as many places as he and we'll see what comes of it. It's simply too early to declare failure on the whole matter.

As for future generations, if they can manage to bring down their budget deficit or don't create one of their own they'll be alright. in 20 years the GDP is expected to double and so is government revenue. That is to say your concerns are without merit and even more so due to your antipathy towards government funded social services.

p.s. If people really are concerned about the wellbeing of future generations they aught to support reduction of our greenhouse output.

I can see why you don't respond to my budget number questions, because you clearly can't manage simple math. First, I did not suggest bringing the troops home - ever, I suggested reducing the Army to 1/3 it's size, and keeping the AF/Navy. Further you have equipment and Reserves costs that would be included. That does not get rid of 799Billion, in fact reducing it by 50% would be hard, but it could be done (and in my opinion should be).

Second, to suggest that in a nation where upwards of 80% have medical care that healthcare is more important than the national debt gives the appearance of being uninformed as to the consequences of debt on the national economy.

I can accept that Universal Healthcare is a goal we could strive for. I used real math and real thoughts on ways to accomplish it. I think reducing our military drastically is possible, practical, and truly essential to our country's future. I think that reducing the debt, or atleast preventing its growth is as vital to our country's future. I think that healthcare for all, is a noble goal, and maybe can be reached, but it will not determine our country's future nearly as much as the other 2.

How can you put it on future generations to balance their budget and bring down debt that we are aquiring for them, when you won't even acknowledge the need for this generation to bring ours down, or not create one. that is very hypocritical of you.

Can you tell me where Obama is trying to save money? Although I haven't looked at the budget, I would wager you that every government program will see at least a cola adjustment, and many will see much more than that.

I don't have an antipathy towards government funded social services, but I do see them as a safety net, and that the goal should be self suffiency, not government dependency. I think medicare, medicaid, and social security have a function within our government as it is now established.

Finally, I fully expect GDP to double, Revenue to double, etc, but if spending outpaces revenue every year, as it does now, then you can believe government spending will also double. again, simple math which you either don't realize, or choose to ignore, my guess is the latter.

First off, you must've missed the J/K (just kidding) in one of my responses and the other that said the comments about hippies and such were "tongue-in-cheek".

I know -- it's just the same old stuff. Some people are kidding, others are not. I take it with a grain of salt. Also, you came off as quite condescending.

Second, in the post above and your response to S10 you seem to be making a good deal of judgements and using sterotypes about me and others.

I can see why you would think that.

Third, "looking like an ass" and "buttplug" references are unnecessary.

True. The "looking like an ass" comment was founded in the sense of that saying about assuming. Either way, that stuff was pretty juvenile. What can I say? It's tough when it everyone is ganging up on you, and basically saying you're a nut for trying to be positive, and that you have no idea about "real" life and live in a fantasy world. They're basically saying the foundation for my life is worthless, and hence, so is my life. Harsh.

Anyway, all that aside, I don't for a second think that you and people like you are the problem with this country. One of the reasons I served in the armed forces was to make sure that everyone in this country keeps the right to his/her own beliefs and has the ability to express them. Whether I believe they are misguided or not is simply my opinon and is certainly no point of frustration for me. If I was so frustrated with differing points of view I certainly wouldn't banter back and forth with saden and others all the time.

You remind me of my Dad.

I completely understand your point and as I've stated before, and other have as well, in theory there is some sense to it, in reality not so much.

See what I mean?

I haven't studied or researched Buddhism so I can't effectively comment. As far as Tolle's take on Jesus, I have as much credibility, if not more credibility, than he does on commenting on the Gospels and their meaning. My comments are influenced by men who have devoted their lives to the study of Jesus' teachings, not someone who has pulled his philosophy from several different and completely disparate sources and who has no formal theological training.

Tolle has devoted his life to the study of Jesus' teachings, as well as other prophets. But, I'm not sure why that makes any difference.

You know why all states require you to carry liability auto insurance? It's because broke ass people won't have enough money to pay for the damages incurred by the guy driving BMW 7 Series. What do states do? They force you to have liability insurance and fine you if you don't have it. Think of universal heath care in the same manner, only someone else will have to pay for their emergency care. It must be forced.

I don't see any cost numbers nor do I see heath care cost reduction or how it's going to be paid for in any of these links. Where did the analysis go? LOL...American Spectator references BCBS study. LOL...National Review says "over 20 percent of the uninsured in this country are not citizens" so does that mean resident ailens are out? Look ma' I'm the only one watching Fox Business...LOL...Fox Business says "9.7 million are non-citizens" and references BCBSA study too. The whole thing is a joke. Can I at least get an A for effort?


Good job though, at least you're trying which is something I can't say for a lot of folks. I'm curious, how do you intend to pay for all of this voulcher business, the 14 million that are eliganle for goverment asistance, 5.7 million that are short term uninsured?

Now Saden asking someone how they intend to pay for something truly seems laughable, since obviously we will just add to our deficit/debt. Gotta admit that one made me laugh out loud!

I can see why you don't respond to my budget number questions, because you clearly can't manage simple math. First, I did not suggest bringing the troops home - ever, I suggested reducing the Army to 1/3 it's size, and keeping the AF/Navy. Further you have equipment and Reserves costs that would be included. That does not get rid of 799Billion, in fact reducing it by 50% would be hard, but it could be done (and in my opinion should be).

Second, to suggest that in a nation where upwards of 80% have medical care that healthcare is more important than the national debt gives the appearance of being uninformed as to the consequences of debt on the national economy.

I can accept that Universal Healthcare is a goal we could strive for. I used real math and real thoughts on ways to accomplish it. I think reducing our military drastically is possible, practical, and truly essential to our country's future. I think that reducing the debt, or atleast preventing its growth is as vital to our country's future. I think that healthcare for all, is a noble goal, and maybe can be reached, but it will not determine our country's future nearly as much as the other 2.

How can you put it on future generations to balance their budget and bring down debt that we are aquiring for them, when you won't even acknowledge the need for this generation to bring ours down, or not create one. that is very hypocritical of you.

Can you tell me where Obama is trying to save money? Although I haven't looked at the budget, I would wager you that every government program will see at least a cola adjustment, and many will see much more than that.

I don't have an antipathy towards government funded social services, but I do see them as a safety net, and that the goal should be self suffiency, not government dependency. I think medicare, medicaid, and social security have a function within our government as it is now established.

Finally, I fully expect GDP to double, Revenue to double, etc, but if spending outpaces revenue every year, as it does now, then you can believe government spending will also double. again, simple math which you either don't realize, or choose to ignore, my guess is the latter.

I don't ignore you, I'm just not that into you and your rants. Enjoy this chart (http://zfacts.com/p/318.html) and I hope you learn something (Note: anything above the Obama line is all on Obama):

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP.gif

If I'm correct under Obama's plan it would include illegals, but I'm not 100% sure about that. This artical says it will.
Illegals to kill Obama health plan? (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102514)

I cannot remember what it is called but its health coverage for children who's parent cannot afford coverage. Obama expanded that plan a month or so back and he also expanded the coverage to cover children of illegals.

It's called the Children's Health Insurance Program (aka, the "CHIP" program). And, unless I am mistaken, the reauthorization of the program did not extend coverage to children of illegal aliens.

Now Saden asking someone how they intend to pay for something truly seems laughable, since obviously we will just add to our deficit/debt. Gotta admit that one made me laugh out loud!
I say just increase the taxes on the people who think this is a good idea.

Now Saden asking someone how they intend to pay for something truly seems laughable, since obviously we will just add to our deficit/debt. Gotta admit that one made me laugh out loud!


That was a rhetorical question genius. You know, to highlight the cost of what he is suggesting and to see how it compares to actually providing a universal heal care plan with a public option. And you wonder why I ignore you.

Before I go though, I wanted to address something that has been bandied about by both sides of this debate - the accusation that alternatives aren't being offered just nay saying. In light of that, and in part based on much of the information I have garnered here and in Schneed's Health Care thread, I actually have been trying to formulate an alternative to the latest, greatest massive pending entitlement but just haven't the time. But I did want to suggest some things, that might actually lead to discussing constructive creative alternatives in the health care field.

I am not sure whether this or Schneed's Health Care thread is the appropriate place for what I have in mind but I'll post it here in hopes that we can get a little brainstorming going on.

First rule of brainstorming - YOU CANNOT, NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU HATE IT, CRITICIZE SOMEONE'S ELSE'S IDEA. If you don't like, ignore it. It either falls flat on its own or you (or someone else) find a way to make it work with your idea/scheme - but at this stage ALL ideas are valid. I don't know if we can make it work, some here have a more difficult time questioning/reexamining their basic philosophic stances/principles than others, but if we strive to find what is right with each others ideas maybe we can find something that incorporates the best of both sides of the equation (i.e government action, through wealth transferance alone, can solve the problem v. government action, through wealth transferance alone, cannot solve the problem) (or, if you prefer, CRedskinsRule & Slinging Sammy33's belief in a minimalist government because government is inherently unable to resolve almost any (if not all) social ills v. Saden's belief that an expansive progressive government is capable of resolving almost any (if not all) social ills)(P.S. - anyone notice saden's leap of faith? Notice how he still hasn't owned up to it?).

I made the first rule and now I am going to break it - but only to set the premise for the brainstorming. As to health care, what we need is not more of the same which is, essentially, what the current legislation creates. Same players, same system just enforced payments and the creation of a new public insurer (who plays by the same rules as existing insurers). I think this is doomed to fail b/c it is the healthcare infrastructure that is skewed and pouring money into it does not substantively alter the system in any progressive manner but, to my mind, furthers an ultimately broken and economically "regressive" health care system. Thus, rather debate the rectitude of the current legislation, I suggest we begin from the premise that it is not a true re-imagination of the Health Care System and, as such, should be put on the shelf for now.

Any actual constructive analysis seems to me to require something very basic that we have not done -- A listing of the pros and cons of the current system. Actually, I think the cons have been pretty well fleshed out. Why don't we devote some energy to analyzing just what exactly works about our system. Clearly, something must. Once we have identified the actual positives perhaps we can see ways to enhance those and close some of the gaps. Again, I am trying for a true and practical reinvention of the health care system with concrete thoughts as to how to decrease cost, expand coverage and maintain quality. Given our current national debt status, the premise being that cost to the public is an extremely important point.

As I have previously indicated - To address cost of care, I think one key is to create a Workers Comp type compensation system for injuries occuring as a result of treatment. As part of this, damages would be capped or scheduled much as is done in the WC field (lost a leg on the job - you get x). I recognize that creating such a schedule in the health care is difficult but it is something that can be tweaked along the way. The effect of this system is to remove liability from the litigation equation. The question is not "Did the doctor negligently do something to injure you" to, after the treatment, "Were you injured?". In this system, punitive damages would be excluded and "pain and suffering" be considered as part of the schedule. If a doctor's patients rack up x amount in claims or x amounts of awards to patients of teh doctor, the doctor license is revoked. period. From a societal point of view, it is a statement by the society that (a) We accept that injuries happen in medical treatment even when no one is negligent; and (b) As a society, we are willing to forego the possibility of full compensation (economic damages, pain & suffering damages, and punitive damages) in order to insure that anyone injured due to the provision of medical services will receive some form of compensation even if they would not normally be entitled to compensation because they assumed the risks inherent in to medical treatement. (Think of it - Never having to sign another medical waiver form). This was the justification for WC (employers would invoke assumption of the risk defenses when sued for workplace injuries). I think it's time has come in the medical field.

Also to address costs, in the health care thread, Schneed indicated that competition for patients sometimes drives doctors/hospitals to buy the most cutting edge technology and this, in turn, ends up driving up costs both b/c of the capital outlay and the need to use the technology to justify the outlay. To me this screams for government intervention b/c it is a situation where the free market actually drives up costs. If anyone has any bright ideas on how to correct the market flaw here, I suggest that would be useful (see Schneed's post in the HC thread on this).

Another area of costs is pharmacuticals. Better living through chemicals is the dirty little secret of modern life, R&D in this area have led to phenomenal break throughs that enhance the quality of life for many many americans. It is this very R&D, however, that is used to justify the sometimes exhorbitant costs of the resultant drugs. Perhaps we could limit profits on actual producton runs of drugs in a manner that directly relates to cost of production and find a way to publicly fund the R&D profit incentive. Here's a thought, initial R&D costs can either born by company or granted through a Federal application process. For those borne by the company, if a particular drug eventually comes to the approval phase, the R&D costs could be reimbursed from the public fund. Further, if a particular drug is approved the costs incurred by the company in seeking that approval would be reimbursed from the public fund. If a drug is particular popular and sells en masse, production bonuses from the fund could be paid. (i.e. build in a profit incentive into both the R&D phase and the production phase).

In terms of coverage and levels of coverage, again, to keep the profit motive alive and well, guarranteed coverage cannot be much more than minimums. Anything more and it creates a disencentive to seek better coverage and w/out this incentive, IMO, the drive to improve quality to compete for insureds will cause the quality of care to suffer.

Further, coverage at these minimal levels would be offered to anyone with an income less than twice (or one and half, or some other multiple) times the poverty rate. Over that income, if you incur medical costs and fail to pay them, the hospitals are reimbursed by the public fund BUT the Feds, rather than the hospitals, can collect the debt and do so in the same manner as they pursue unpaid taxes.

Payment for the services of uninsured would operate similar to the existing medicaid system but would be reimbursed at a higher (but not full) percentage rate than under the current system to (a) more adequately reflect costs while (b) keeping a downward public pressure on costs. (Schneed, I don't recall, is the reimbursement for medicaid payment greater or less than the best negotiated rates of insurers?).

In terms funding, I see no other way then a surtax much as we have for SS. Funding would pay for the minimal coverage costs of care of the uninsureds, a beauracracy (ohhh dirty word) would need to be created for the malpractice substitute, for the administration of the pharmaceutical administration, and for managing the access to technology. This, I think, would transfer much of the cost of health care onto the Federal government but, hopefully, still leave room for innovative health technologies to develop.

Those are some of my ideas on rough structures.

In addition to alternatives and other ideas, I really am interested in what people think is right with our system and how we can preserve that while, as saden said at one point, "taking more people into the system."





I REALLY need to get to work.

What can I say? It's tough when it everyone is ganging up on you, and basically saying you're a nut for trying to be positive, and that you have no idea about "real" life and live in a fantasy world. They're basically saying the foundation for my life is worthless, and hence, so is my life. Harsh.
The foundation for your life is much more than your religion or philosophy. That being said, I can't speak for everyone else but I'm pretty confident they would say the same, but because you believe the things you do and others disagree certainly doesn't mean I think you, your belief system or life are worthless. Don't take it to that extreme.

You remind me of my Dad.Thank you.