Thread: The Obama health care plan

It sounds just like Hillaries health care dream to me. it's basically rob from Peter to pay for Paul's health care costs - If I can see that universal health care via this government especially with Obama or Hillarie in charge would truly be a huge disaster assuming of course if they get it thru Congress then I hope other people will think twice before having the government get involved up to our necks.

The government can't run Amtrak worth a darn what gives people the idea they will run any so called universal health care plan any better, just stay out of it !

If anyone that's elected really wants to try to do something, then see what can be done to make private health insurance of our own choice more affordable and easier to get but let it up to the people to get their own at affordable prices, if they could do something this way then do that but stay out of it otherwise.

...ebony and ivory....

Originally Posted by shadow2008

It sounds just like Hillaries health care dream to me. it's basically rob from Peter to pay for Paul's health care costs - If I can see that universal health care via this government especially with Obama or Hillarie in charge would truly be a huge disaster assuming of course if they get it thru Congress then I hope other people will think twice before having the government get involved up to our necks.

The government can't run Amtrak worth a darn what gives people the idea they will run any so called universal health care plan any better, just stay out of it !

If anyone that's elected really wants to try to do something, then see what can be done to make private health insurance of our own choice more affordable and easier to get but let it up to the people to get their own at affordable prices, if they could do something this way then do that but stay out of it otherwise.

Sorry, Obama is for universal health care? News to me, man. Hillary is for universal health care. Obama is for affordable health insurance. Obama's plan would not cover 100% of the population. He acknowledges this.

Originally Posted by Think for myself

Sorry, Obama is for universal health care? News to me, man. Hillary is for universal health care. Obama is for affordable health insurance. Obama's plan would not cover 100% of the population. He acknowledges this.

your evil tfm

Originally Posted by Six

your evil tfm

So I've been told.

The original post is what happens when you glean all of your "facts" from talk radio.

The following site shows a side by side comparison of the candidates health care proposals...for anyone interested in checking them out.

Analysis - health08.org

Originally Posted by shadow2008

It sounds just like Hillaries health care dream to me. it's basically rob from Peter to pay for Paul's health care costs - If I can see that universal health care via this government especially with Obama or Hillarie in charge would truly be a huge disaster assuming of course if they get it thru Congress then I hope other people will think twice before having the government get involved up to our necks.

The government can't run Amtrak worth a darn what gives people the idea they will run any so called universal health care plan any better, just stay out of it !

If anyone that's elected really wants to try to do something, then see what can be done to make private health insurance of our own choice more affordable and easier to get but let it up to the people to get their own at affordable prices, if they could do something this way then do that but stay out of it otherwise.

Some hope ! The high cost of prescription drugs is the cause of such high premiums on health insurance . Do you think glaxo, eli lilly ,welcome or smith kline beecham will reduce the cost of their drugs to alleviate the problem ?

Also do i detect that you are hinting at intervention by government ? a handout ? state subsidy ? You dissaprove of universiality in healthcare , yet find it acceptable for the government totweak the system in your favor ?

contradictory

No doubt,change will come but the devil is in the details! Something must be done to "limit" profit in medicine. I have nothing against profit but said profit when it comes to health care should be minimal.

I also support the idea that in many cases,we are responsible for our own health. Obama's plan and the plans of all candidates should include personal accountability.When alcoholics require a liver transplant,they should do this by lottery and not by ability to pay! They who abuse substances and refuse to make lifestyle changes that would benefit their future health should be exempt from receiving benefits or said benefits should be minimal until the patient makes the required changes.

Is the government "obligated" to provide health care? Ultimatly,that's the question.The government has a long track record of fighting microbes and rightly so! They are enemies both foreighn and domestic.

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; ...

Sometimes our greatest enemies are the stealthy microbes that violate our borders by the millions on a daily basis.It could be argued that the government has an "obligation" to defend us against these invaders as well. Most civilized nations provide health care for their citizans.In time,we shall join them,the only question is this. Who pays this expense? The very people who today "oppose" national health care will one day "demand" it when they too can no longer afford coverage for their family.Any heath care plan put forth should limit exorbidant profit and demand personal accountability where appropriate.People who are cavalier about their own health should not expect the government to defend them when they refuse to take an interest in their own health. Healthcare with "accountability" should be the base alloy of any proposed heath care plan!

Originally Posted by Spencer Collins

No doubt,change will come but the devil is in the details! Something must be done to "limit" profit in medicine. I have nothing against profit but said profit when it comes to health care should be minimal.

I also support the idea that in many cases,we are responsible for our own health. Obama's plan and the plans of all candidates should include personal accountability.When alcoholics require a liver transplant,they should do this by lottery and not by ability to pay! They who abuse substances and refuse to make lifestyle changes that would benefit their future health should be exempt from receiving benefits or said benefits should be minimal until the patient makes the required changes.

Is the government "obligated" to provide health care? Ultimatly,that's the question.The government has a long track record of fighting microbes and rightly so! They are enemies both foreighn and domestic.

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; ...

Sometimes our greatest enemies are the stealthy microbes that violate our borders by the millions on a daily basis.It could be argued that the government has an "obligation" to defend us against these invaders as well. Most civilized nations provide health care for their citizans.In time,we shall join them,the only question is this. Who pays this expense? The very people who today "oppose" national health care will one day "demand" it when they too can no longer afford coverage for their family.Any heath care plan put forth should limit exorbidant profit and demand personal accountability where appropriate.People who are cavalier about their own health should not expect the government to defend them when they refuse to take an interest in their own health. Healthcare with "accountability" should be the base alloy of any proposed heath care plan!

Two essential myths need to be addressed within this post

Firstly the concept of denying care to those who "abuse" themselves - unfortunately it is not as simple as that. An example is obesity - would you believe we STILL do not know the full cause of long term weight issues - an example is the recent research showing that sugar substitutes can actually cause a trigger to unconscious overeating - therefor causing weight gain.

It is a very short step from denying care to those who abuse themselves to using any suboptimal self care as an indicator for withholding health care. Yes there are indications for withholding treatment to some who self abuse - i.e. the smoker who will not give up smoking should not have stents implanted for cardiovascular disease - but NOT because they do not "deserve" it but because smoking causes the stents to block.

How far do you take things - would you deny expensive intensive care treatment (look it up it can be around 10,000 per day) to a heroin addict who has overdosed? Yes? Now that addict is a 16 year old girl who has been abused and forced into prostitution by her parents - still wanting to withhold care?

As for paying for health care - don't fool yourself - you are ALREADY paying. Not having a universal system simply is cost shifting but you are still paying.

Originally Posted by Bowerbird

Two essential myths need to be addressed within this post

Perhaps where you live,myths are indeed "essential".

Originally Posted by Bowerbird

Firstly the concept of denying care to those who "abuse" themselves - unfortunately it is not as simple as that. An example is obesity - would you believe we STILL do not know the full cause of long term weight issues - an example is the recent research showing that sugar substitutes can actually cause a trigger to unconscious overeating - therefor causing weight gain.

Who ever said it was simple? I'm sure it would be difficult but learning that one is often responsible for their own health condition is essential to taking responsibility for their actions. Many cases of poor health can be attributed to unwise "choices" and addictions. I see no problem with asking people who receive universal health care to show signs of progress in changing their unhealthy ways and habits. You prefer to cite the exception to the rule not the norm. I know many people who have lost weight and kept most of it off.
I have no problem financing help for people who have a documented legitimate eating disorder.

Originally Posted by Bowerbird

t is a very short step from denying care to those who abuse themselves to using any suboptimal self care as an indicator for withholding health care. Yes there are indications for withholding treatment to some who self abuse - i.e. the smoker who will not give up smoking should not have stents implanted for cardiovascular disease - but NOT because they do not "deserve" it but because smoking causes the stents to block.

What about the people who have mild emphysema and continue to smoke? Do we pay for therapy and smoking cessation plans even though they often refuse to participate in these plans? How about the smoker who has lung cancer? I suppose you would argue that the lung cancer "may" have been caused by something else so all treatment should proceed even while he or she continues to smoke!

The tax burden in some nations who cover irresponsibility may be minimal but in the US,the tax burden would be rejected outright. The American taxpayer would require some "minimal" accountability before a national single payer plan would have any hope of being enacted.