ObamaHealthcare Reform:Why or why not in 3 sentences or less
orig_long red
Posts: 2,029
let's see how concise we can be ..... aaaaaaaand go!
Jam out with your clam out.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
2) No one should take profits into consideration when it comes to my health care.
3) Simply...seeing a doctor when you are sick is not a privilage...it's a basic and moral human right.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
and cuts in Medicare. Obama says no cuts will be made to care but plans to cut $500 billion from Medicare to help pay for the $900 billion plan. he needs to be much more specific about these "cuts"
I do like the healthcare exchange idea however. just not sure of the specifics on that either.
what I don't understand is why the plan doesn't call for the borders to be dropped and let people shop for healthcare across state lines.
thats about 3 sentences, give or take...
these are all great but not necessarily how the plan is drawn up.
True. I think I gave my own personal opinion as to why I'd like to see it reformed as opposed to what the OP asked. Back to the drawing board.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
thats the problem with this debate. the right and left need to sit down and draw up with what the agree on and then compromise and what they don't. from the rhetoric I'm hearing from both sides, I don't think they are there yet. but maybe, just maybe
thats the problem with this debate. the right and left need to sit down and draw up with what the agree on and then compromise and what they don't. from the rhetoric I'm hearing from both sides, I don't think they are there yet. but maybe, just maybe
if you think the right and left will work on anything, you've lost your noodle.
the last time they did anything together was when they sang God Bless America on the Capitol steps following 9/11. that kneejerk bipartisanship blew away like a fart in the wind.
..................
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Government run health care....er, I mean insurance will be run with the efficiency of the post office and be administered with the compassion of the IRS.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
2) an astounding percentage of foreclosures and bankruptcies are the result of a serious health condition.
3) are we not the richest country in the world?
Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
VIC 07
EV LA1 08
Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
Columbus 10
EV LA 11
Vancouver 11
Missoula 12
Portland 13, Spokane 13
St. Paul 14, Denver 14
the post office is very efficient for what it does. don't even try to tell me it is not. it does what it is supposed to do for very cheep. you drop your bills in the mail and as long as you send them in time your bills get paid on time. and its much more secure than online trnasactions.
the irs is good at what it does too, it makes sure that taxes get paid. if everyone and their mom was not trying to screw the irs out of tax money they could stand to be a little more compassionate.
i do not think obama care will work. we need single payor. in my opinion single payor is the way to go and anything less will not be health care reform.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
its not. its an utter failure. there is a reason why ALL of the post office's competitors turn huge profits while the post office loses billions.
your ignorance know no bounds. do you really have the first fucking clue about what IRS?
thank god you are in the minority. single payer government run HC is the worst thing that can happen to this country. I'm so happy people like you are pretty much ignored.
speaking of the post office/UHC debate, here is a great opinion piece I came across the other day...
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opini ... 14002.html
Why the Post Office will never make money (and a lesson for health insurance)
By: David Freddoso
Commentary Staff Writer
08/23/09 11:48 AM EDT
Consider this letter, sent Friday by Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa. to the Postmaster General.
Dear Postmaster General Potter: I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the recent announcement that the United States Postal Service (USPS) is considering closing 37 post offices in Pennsylvania. I am well aware of the financial challenges that the USPS faces, and I am committed to working with the Postal Service to overcome these challenges while preserving jobs and the services on which thousands of Pennsylvanians depend....
Casey's letter could be viewed as either a kind offer of help or a threat. Either way, it represents a non-market pressure on the business dealings of the USPS. Could Federal Express or UPS survive, let alone make a profit, if they had politicians breathing down their necks regarding essential business decisions? Could any private business survive in a competitive marketplace under these circumstances? The likely answer is no.
This applies in the case of nearly every quasi-governmental venture. Politicians from both parties, beginning with President Clinton and including President Bush, prodded Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to expand the pool of mortgages whose risk they would assume to include the credit-unworthy. We have since reaped the disastrous results of this business decision made for political reasons.
The lesson: hybrid government-business ventures have political aims which inevitably come to cross-purposes with their business goals.
Along the same lines, consider the much-debated government-run "public option" health insurance plan. Assume, generously, that it will not gouge and ultimately destroy its private competition through predatory pricing. How many lawmakers will pen letters like Casey's, in hopes of micromanaging this government-run insurance company's insurance activities? Can anyone take seriously the Obama administration's claim that a government-run insurance company will not begin receiving taxpayer subsidies, the moment its clients begin demanding additional services from their congressmen?
You sure you want to cite it as a reason the government can be trusted to efficiently run your health care?
for the least they could possibly do
2. It will make for a less anxious society, because no one will have to worry about losing coverage.
3. I agree with the doctors...
Most doctors support national health insurance, new study shows
March 31, 2008
Support for National Health Insurance Among U.S. Physicians: 5 Years Later
Reflecting a shift in thinking over the past five years among U.S. physicians, a new study shows a solid majority of doctors — 59 percent — now supports national health insurance.
Such plans typically involve a single, federally administered social insurance fund that that guarantees health care coverage for everyone, much like Medicare currently does for seniors. The plans typically eliminate or substantially reduce the role of private insurance companies in the health care financing system, but still allow patients to go the doctors of their choice.
A study published in today’s Annals of Internal Medicine, a leading medical journal, reports that a survey conducted last year of 2,193 physicians across the United States showed 59 percent of them “support government legislation to establish national health insurance,” while 32 percent oppose it and 9 percent are neutral.
The findings reflect a leap of 10 percentage points in physician support for national health insurance (NHI) since 2002, when a similar survey was conducted. At that time, 49 percent of all physician respondents said they supported NHI and 40 percent opposed it.
Support among doctors for NHI has increased across almost all medical specialties, said Dr. Ronald T. Ackermann, associate director of the Center for Health Policy and Professionalism Research at Indiana University’s School of Medicine and co-author of the study.
“Across the board, more physicians feel that our fragmented and for-profit insurance system is obstructing good patient care, and a majority now support national insurance as the remedy,” he said.
Support for NHI is particularly strong among psychiatrists (83 percent), pediatric sub-specialists (71 percent), emergency medicine physicians (69 percent), general pediatricians (65 percent), general internists (64 percent) and family physicians (60 percent). Fifty-five percent of general surgeons support NHI, roughly doubling their level of support since 2002.
Doctors have often expressed concern about lack of patient access to care due to rising costs and patients’ insufficient levels of insurance. An estimated 47 million Americans currently lack health insurance coverage and another 50 million are believed to be underinsured. At the same time, health care costs in the United States are rising at the rate of about 7 percent a year, twice the rate of inflation.
The health care issue continues to rank high among voter concerns in the 2008 elections, placing third in a recent poll after the economy and Iraq.
The current study by the Indiana University researchers is the largest survey ever conducted among doctors on the issue of health care financing reform. It is based on a random sampling of names obtained from the American Medical Association’s master list of physicians throughout the country.
In addition to measuring attitudes toward NHI, the survey also asked doctors about their views about “more incremental reform,” often interpreted as state- or federal-based programs requiring or “mandating” that consumers buy health insurance from private insurance companies, legislative measures providing tax incentives to businesses to provide coverage for their employees, or similar steps.
Fewer physicians (55%) were in support of “incremental” reform. Moreover, virtually all those opposed to national health insurance also opposed incremental reform to improve access to care. In fact, only 14% of physicians overall oppose national health insurance but support more incremental reforms. Ironically, many medical organizations and most politicians have endorsed only incremental changes.
Dr. Aaron E. Carroll, director of Indiana University’s Center for Health Policy and Professionalism Research and lead author of the study, commented: “Many claim to speak for physicians and reflect their views. We asked doctors directly and found that, contrary to conventional wisdom, most doctors support the government creating national health insurance.”
Other signs indicate that attitudes among doctors are changing. The nation’s largest medical specialty group, the 124,000-member American College of Physicians, endorsed a single-payer national health insurance program for the first time in December.
****
2. Doctors do not seem to mind taking government health care insurance. They actually prefer it because its easier to deal with than for profit insurance.
3. It is badly needed. Too many Americans have no health care at all and are not seeing doctors, even wehen badly needed.
2. It would be nice if I could just keep the same dentists and doctors if I switch jobs.
3. Most Americans are one accident or serious illness away from being broke.
the u.s. postal service lost $2.8 million last year because the u.s. postal service is out of date and useless.
and thats what you would like our health care industry to become?
I owned my own home, (completely paid off), and had no debts.
I ended up having to sell my home, just to live off the equity, until other benefits that I could get kicked in.
I got sick in 2000. I am now living so poor. I am not well enough to work, even though I am no longer bedridden or homebound, I am still very ill. I just recently became able to go outside more.
I will say it was the government who took so long to kick my benefits in. The benefits are good. but just took so long. However, my long term disability from work, that I paid into with every check, completely denied me. I fought them and still loss, even though my illness is quite obvious. The same thing happened to my niece. When she died they paid, but fought her until after her death.
I never did get my private pay insurance to pay up!
Many people THINK they will be okay in case of such a catastophic event, but I doubt they would be. They tell me they have insurance to cover blah, blah, blah. They do not factor in how much of a loss they really will end up be taking. They aren't factoring in if the illness lasts a very long time. Things like that.
It completely changed my quality of living. The illness changed the quality, and the lack of funds increased that loss tremendously.