Obama says 'now's the time' to pass health care

1. 60

   fishskinfreak2008posted 13 years ago

   Yes, we agree, but unfortunately, it's still stuck in partisan gridlock on Capitol Hill

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Poppa Bluesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Does anyone, even the lefties here believe that what is being proposed will actually make insurance cheaper without compromising access to care, or quality of care? How does this bill save us money? How does it control the rising costs? All it does is eliminate the profits from insurance companies and cut Medicare funding and payments to doctors. If this is really going to save us money, why isn't that savings one of Obama's guarantees?
      
      Why is there no reporting on the skyrocketing, out of control costs of the public insurance care in MA?? What about TN which nearly went bankrupt because of public health care? It's quite possible that if health care passes the costs might be quadruple (like MA) then what? Will Obama repeal the law? I doubt it!!
      
      So is passing this bill really about what's best for America, or is it about Obama showing how tough he is? What happened to listening and debate? What about accountability? If this doesn't work out then what? What's our recourse? How do we get our money back? Our freedom? All we get is to vote him out? Seems like a senseless risk if you ask me!
      
      I don't see Obama cleaning up the mess at all! Wouldn't it make sense to go slowly? What's the rush? He wants to collect the money now, (conveniently in 2010 after the mid term elections) but not provide any benefit until 2013 (coincidentally a year after the election)!
      Why not first make the cuts to Medicare and see if he can realize the 100 billion a year out of there first? Frankly I don't believe that he can, and I am SURE without any doubt I personally will be paying more for less as probably most people will, unless you're union or a government worker which will be exempt!

      replyreport
      1. 58

         C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Well said. I have heard from obvious lefties on this very site that while they believe in universial health care, they don't believe anything proposed thus far is the answer......
         President Obama is pressed for time. If this doesn't get through soon, too many democrats(18) will be in campaign mode.....thats the rush. All from a guy who promised change in Washington.....

         replyreport
      2. 91

         livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Yes, esp that the public option is back on the table. The cost reduction and availability of care expansion won't happen overnight, but they will happen.

         replyreport
      3. 60

         fishskinfreak2008posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         aYES, health care WILL INDEED be cheaper because previously, private health care insurers as a whole had no competition

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Madame Xposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            They had no competition because the dems regulated the free market so there wouldn't be any. Remove that hindrance and you will see costs drop like a stone for everyone.

            replyreport
            1. 91

               livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Yes, they would, because only the young and healthy would be able to be insured.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Madame Xposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  What are you talking about? Free market regulation is different from regulations about who gets covered. They're not the same and you can't just lump it all together.

                  replyreport
                  1. 91

                     livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Of course you can. The ability of private insurers to deny coverage, even retroactively, is exactly one of the reasons the health insurance system is being reformed.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        Poppa Bluesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Medicare denies 6% of their claims! Do you really think that number will go down when it is cut 100 billion a year and you add 20 million more to the roles?

                        replyreport
                        1. 91

                           livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           Read this.

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              Madame Xposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              Yeah, and Barry's reform won't have any corruption in it at all - how silly of me to think it would

                              replyreport
                              1. 91

                                 livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                 Of course plenty of lobbies will be placated. I can only assume you haven't been on the receiving end of a private insurer's "largesse" to maintain your position. I have, and am not a fan of an unregulated health insurance market.

                                 replyreport
                           2. 0

                              Poppa Bluesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              LOL! Yeah and you want the governemnt to run it??? Look even Obama says there's 100 billion a year in waste and inefficiency in Medicare....what do you think it will bee when it's a trillion dollar universal system? Medicare has been arouund since the 60s and the government never bothered to fix the waste and you really believe they're going to do it now??? I got a bridge to sell ya!
                              
                              Look there is no doubt that steps can be taken to improve the system, but oddly this bill doesn't address any of those steps, like mal practice reform or competition between the states for insurance, and less regualtion of the iunsurance companies... but none of that is even being considered...and the back room deal Obama made with big pharma is only for 80 billion over 10 years!!! He could have done much better!

                              replyreport
                     2. 0

                        Madame Xposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        No, you can't. That's why this so-called "reform" they want to push through so fast isn't reform at all. I guess the subtleties escape you.

                        replyreport
2. 67

   Flightkeeperposted 13 years ago

   PoppaB, don't you realize those are not concerns in leftyland. As far as they are concerned the money comes from us, and the only thing they have to worry about is how to spend it.  Besides Barney Frank said "We are trying on every front to increase the role of government".

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Poppa Bluesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Yes "increase the role of government"... that is the sole interest of government to perpetuate itself, to grow itself, and to steal power from the people and enrich themselves in the process! When will we learn? Government is the cancer, not the answer!

      replyreport
   2. 79

      manlypoetrymanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      HHMMM...That sounds very familiar...Didn't they say that right before the last "Revolution"...Yeah...that's we're I heard that before...

      replyreport
3. 0

   Poppa Bluesposted 13 years ago

   The private insurers won't be able to compete with the government. Their profit margin is only 3-5% now! And government has NO intention of competing with insurers, the government wants to control it al, and under this plan they will!

   replyreport
   1. 57

      prettydarkhorseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      agree with this and as we can see in other european countries, as government take more hand in health of the people (welfare state), health care system becomes a fluke and there is poor delivery of health services.

      replyreport
      1. 91

         livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Yes, France, Switzerland, and the Netherlands have *lousy* healthcare systems, and they pay so, so much more per capita on health care than the United States.

         replyreport
   2. 91

      livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      If you can only afford to pay your CEO $200 million, then it really must be a rough market. Maybe the insurance companies should get into something more profitable, like "news" channels. Think of it as creative destruction.

      replyreport
4. 67

   Flightkeeperposted 13 years ago

   If they could eliminate the waste, why didn't they try to do that first?

   replyreport
   1. 91

      livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Good question. He was in office for a good month or so before kicking off health insurance reform as he promised.
      Instead, he's tried to rush this reform over the past 6 months.

      replyreport
      1. 72

         Jeffrey Nealposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I love that the progressives keep trying to call this health insurance "reform" while completely ignoring that the public option is a foot-in-the-door attempt at an eventual takeover of the system.  Nobody cares really about reducing costs.  In fact that is counter to their goal.  Once the system fails to get better, and gets horribly worse, they are counting on a push for single payer making it all the way.  Viola! Mission Accomplished!

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Madame Xposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            It's really all about control. After all, why won't they publish it on the web and why do even they claim they don't have to read it?
            
            Simple. So when we're all screaming later about how our rights are all gone they can then claim "they didn't know" - like Pelosi is doing now. And then, does anyone here actually think they will repeal it?

            replyreport
5. 91

   livelongerposted 13 years ago

   The CBO says the reform will pay for itself and then some. I guess that's overrun with liberal idealists these days, too?

   replyreport
   1. 72

      Jeffrey Nealposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Got a recent link?

      replyreport
      1. 91

         livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=387

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Poppa Bluesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Yes only in government can you devise a program that is estimated to cost a trillion dollars and claim that you will make money from it! I will bet you here and now any amount, that whatever bill gets passed, the cost will be no less than 50% more of the estimate! I will bet you right now that they will not realize the saving from Medicare that they claim can be achieved!

            replyreport
            1. 91

               livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               These are not the Obama administration's figures. They're from the non-partisan CBO who actually crunch numbers and who enjoy the respect of both sides of the political aisle in Washington.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Poppa Bluesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes I know. They are made under certain assumptions, anayizing a bill that is esentially a moving target. Remember only a week or so ago the bill was estimated to caost 829 billion, now it's back up to a trillion! Name one government program that EVER came in on budget, besides the Hoover Dam, (that's the last time it ever happened!)

                  replyreport
                  1. 91

                     livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     I think those are different versions (House vs Senate, different features) being circulated in Congress.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        Poppa Bluesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        No that was just differing versions of the Senate Baucus bill while the other committee bills are being merged into it. This bill may emerge from the senate with 3500 pages!!!

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           Madame Xposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           Which they still won't read (or let us read)

                           replyreport
            2. 0

               Madame Xposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Yeah, the other day Harry Reid said that if they included tort reform in the bill it would "only" save $54 billion, so why bother? So I guess $81 billion is no different

               replyreport
            3. 58

               C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               I would agree with that. I would bet that once this is approved...and I believe it will.  Four years later they will come back and say we "under estimated" It's only going to cost you $XXXX.XX per year more.....and it goes on and on and on and on....then when we are tired of paying more, they will ration...its a nightmare.

               replyreport
6. 72

   Jeffrey Nealposted 13 years ago

   From http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc106 … letter.pdf
   
   
   
   emphasis mine
   Sounds like significant potential for costing more to the people this is supposed to help in order to keep it "budget neutral" as well as a convenient CYA, but I'm no economist.
   
   
   
   again emphasis mine
   Does that mean that significant costs are passed on to the states in order to keep things "budget neutral"?

   replyreport
   1. 58

      C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Yep, thats exactly what it means. Another unfunded/partially unfunded mandate. By the time its all said and done your taxes will be going up from every possible direction.

      replyreport