Obama's Healthcare?? Plan

[candyprpl]

I haven't read all 21 pages of posts. I hate talking politics but I got this email from a cousin and I thought I would share it. Sit back and enjoy the story:popcorn:

Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of a desert. Congress said, "Someone may steal from it at night." So, they created a night watchmen position and hired a person for the job.

Then Congress said, "How does the watchman do his job without instruction?" So, they created a planning department and hired tow people, one person to write the instructions, and one person to do time studies.

Then Congress said, "How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly?" So, they created a Quality Control department and hired two people. One to do the studies and one to write the reports.

Then Congress said, "How are these people going to get paid?" So, they created the following positions, a time keeper and a payroll officer.

Then Congress said, "Who will be accoutable for all of these people?" So, they created an administrative section and hired three people, and Adminstrative Officer, Assistant Administrative Officer and a Legal Secretary.

Then Congress said, "We have had this command in operation for one year and we are $18,000 over budget, we must cutback overall cost."

So, they laid off the night watchman.

NOW slowly.

Let it sink in.

Quietly, we go like sheep to slaughter.

Does anybody remember the reason given for the establishment of the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY?

Anybody?

Anthing?

No?

Didn't think so!

Bottom line. We've spent several hundred billion dollars in support of an agency ... the reason for which not one person who reads this (except maybe Elphaba, LOL) can remember!

Ready??

It was very simple ... and at the time, everybody thought it very appropriate.

THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY WAS INSTITUTED ON 8-04-1977. TO LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL. JIMMY CARTER WAS OUR PRESIDENT.

Hey, pretty efficient, huh???

AND NOW, IT'S 2009 -- 32 YEARS LATER -- AND THE BUDGET FOR THIS "NECESSARY" DEPARTMENT IS AT $24.2 BILLION A YEAR. THEY HAVE 16,000 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND APPROXIMATELY 100,000 CONTRACT EMPLOYEES; AND LOOK AT THE JOB THEY HAVE DONE!! THIS IS WHERE YOU SLAP YOUR FOREHEAD AND SAY, "WHAT WAS I THINKING?" Ah, yes -- good ole bureaucracy.

AND, NOW, WE ARE GOING TO TURN THE BANKING SYSTEM, HEALTH CARE AND THE AUTO INDUSTRY OVER TO THE SAME GOVERNMENT?

[Elphaba]

. . . the reason for which not one person who reads this (except maybe Elphaba, LOL) can remember!

HEY!

The first time I read this I thought you were saying I thoroughly read people's posts, which I took as a compliment.

THEN!

I figured out you were making fun of me because I am old!

Sigh . . 'tis true. But just wait, one day someone is going to write: "(except for that old crone Candy, LOL)" about you!

Perhaps I'll even live long enough to see it, which is doubtful, given how ancient I am.

Edited October 22, 2009 by Elphaba

[Moksha]

AND, NOW, WE ARE GOING TO TURN THE BANKING SYSTEM, HEALTH CARE AND THE AUTO INDUSTRY OVER TO THE SAME GOVERNMENT?

Right on! Why let the government (who do they represent, anway?) have a go at it when private industry has done a bang up job in messing things up? When the public is suffering so well, why change horses!!!

[Elphaba]

I never said Medicaid was universal healthcare.

Yes you did. In this post you wrote:

Mind you, we already have a sort of Universal healthcare in that people who can't afford it can get health care from programs funded at the state level. (italics mine)

Universal is applicable to all. Medicaid is not available to all and is thus, not “universal.”

The context of my entire post was obviously in response to what you actually wrote.

It fills a very specific need, and it's not for everybody.

What specific need, and why not for everybody? Why for your family when you needed it, but not for others who need it as well?

Do you know why that is?

Because they don’t meet the current eligibility requirements to qualify for Medicaid.

And?

You qualified for Medicaid in Maryland, but may not have in another state. Thus, people, who need it every bit as much as you did, can be denied. This is not Universal healthcare as you had written in your previous post.

Please show me where I've said I would deny anybody healthcare who needed it. Quote me directly, please

I didn’t say you’d deny healthcare to anyone who needed it. I said, in so many words, that you’d deny government-funded healthcare to those who needed it. This is evidenced by the entirety of your posts regarding the issue.

Obviously I'm speaking of the millions of Americans who have medical expenses, but no, or inadequate health insurance, who do not qualify for current government-assisted healthcare programs.

As I said in a subsequent post, healthcare in this country is far more expensive than it needs to be. THAT is the problem that needs to be addressed. Socializing healthcare isn't the solution.

Yet you received, and accepted, a form of socialized healthcare when your family needed it. If you're so opposed government-assisted healthcare, why didn't you refuse the Medicaid? After all, we all had to pay for it for you.

(Note: I only said that to make a point. I do not begrudge you your accepting/using Medicaid at all. I am glad to have had my tax dollars go to helping you when you needed it. I've been helped by you as well via Medicaid and Medicare, and I am extremely grateful for that.)

[Palerider]

They are going to be getting desperate here before much longer....the mid term elections are around the corner.....I don't think its gonna be pretty...I could be wrong...:)

[unixknight]

Oh boy, quote mining.

Yes you did. In this post you wrote: Universal is applicable to all. Medicaid is not available to all and is thus, not “universal.”

I said it was a "sort of" universal. What's the difference? The difference is that a truly "Universal" healthcare system would be exactly the same for everybody, and you pointed out yourself that it isn't consistent across state lines. Also, a "Universal" system would be used by EVERYBODY, and not everybody used Medicaid.

What specific need, and why not for everybody? Why for your family when you needed it, but not for others who need it as well?

Because they don’t meet the current eligibility requirements to qualify for Medicaid.

The specific need is people who apply for it and meet the eligibility requirements of their state. It is a temporary measure deigned to keep people covered until they can afford their own. If there are gaps in that system, the solution is to fix those gaps, not toss out the entire system in favor of one that will screw everybody.

You qualified for Medicaid in Maryland, but may not have in another state. Thus, people, who need it every bit as much as you did, can be denied.

Different regions have different costs of living. A $20,000 a year income would probably support somebody living in a rural area out in the Midwest, but won't last more than a few months in a place like New York City. Each state has its own tax codes, its own minimum wages, etc. Hence, the eligibility requirements will naturally be different. If there are places where people can't afford to buy their own AND can't qualify for the state program, then that's where the problem needs to be addressed.

Further, suppose I didn't have any insurance and I get ill or injured. By law I can still go to the hospital and be treated.

This, by the way, is another example of why a true universal system isn't going to fill the needs of every person. When you nationalize something it becomes a "one size fits all" proposition. Bad medicine.

I didn’t say you’d deny healthcare to anyone who needed it. I said, in so many words, that you’d deny government-funded healthcare to those who needed it. This is evidenced by the entirety of your posts regarding the issue.

First of all, that's pretty much what you DID say.

Second, "In so many words?" C'mon.

Third, "evidenced?" That is a matter of your opinion, not a point of evidence.

I am against a national socialized healthcare system. I believe in, and have used, state level temporary measures for people who require it. They're *not* the same thing.

Obviously I'm speaking of the millions of Americans who have medical expenses, but no, or inadequate health insurance, who do not qualify for current government-assisted healthcare programs.

I don't think you're being as obvious as you might think.

As I said, if there are gaps in that coverage, the solution is not to turn over the entire thing to an entity like the Government, which couldn't find its backside with both hands and a road map.

This, by the way, is another good example of how healthcare costs too much in the first place.

Yet you received, and accepted, a form of socialized healthcare when your family needed it. If you're so opposed government-assisted healthcare, why didn't you refuse the Medicaid? After all, we all had to pay for it for you.

First of all, a Government subsidized private HMO isn't socialism. That's like saying purchasing F-16s from General Dynamics is socialism. In fact it's quite the opposite. It's the Government buying services from private industry.

Second, again, I oppose Nationally Socialized Healthcare.

Third, I paid back into the system when I got a job (as you note later on.) That's how it works. (Or at least, how it's supposed to.) A National Universal system does *NOT* work that way. Such a system would tax everybody all the time at a vastly higher rate than we pay now.

Which, as a side note, I have no idea how anybody can possibly believe the politicians who say we'd get national socialized healthcare for everybody and it won't raise taxes. They really *DO* think we're stupid.

(Note: I only said that to make a point. I do not begrudge you your accepting/using Medicaid at all. I am glad to have had my tax dollars go to helping you when you needed it. I've been helped by you as well via Medicaid and Medicare, and I am extremely grateful for that.)

I understand, and I know what you meant, but I appreciate you making the effort to be clear on that.

[talisyn]

I agree. I have no problem with the Electoral system, but I do with there were safeguards to prevent this sort of manipulation.

I have a huge huge huge problem with the electoral college. If the electorate can send senators and reps up to capitol hill then we can dang well send a duly elected (by the people) president. 2000 presidential election was a shining example of how the electoral college works. Al Gore won the popular vote, no one is disputing that. Yet George Bush became president because of the electoral college. Note, I would be angry if Bush II got the pop vote and Gore got the win. It's patronizing, parochial, and not fitting for a country where almost all of the citizens completed high school. Our founding fathers purposefully made it this way. It is time to tell them we're all grown up now and don't need them to pick our president.

Back to topic. Sorry to pick on you, Unixknight, but $20,000 a year really isn't a lot even in the hinterlands of Idaho. That's about $1,666.66/month (assuming after taxes). Take out rent/mortgage, auto (if making payments), insurance for auto, utilities (basic. My electric bill averaged $250/month last year), phone (which is necessary if you want a job), gas to get to work, school lunches for the month ($1.40/day over here), work lunches (usually cup of noodle soup and an orange juice for me), food for the house (lots of beans and rice and cream of mushroom soup), trash bags, laundry soap, dish soap, a pair of pants for the kidlings every 3 months or so (when they grow out of old ones), pair of shoes for kids 2/year (they grow so fast), not to mention tithing...where does the money ($318/month for my family, employee subsidized) for health insurance come from?

BTW I fully expect taxes to go up with universal health care. One of the points opponents make is the large taxes paid by Canadians and Europeans.

Edited October 23, 2009 by talisyn
getting back to topic

[unixknight]

I have a huge huge huge problem with the electoral college. If the electorate can send senators and reps up to capitol hill then we can dang well send a duly elected (by the people) president. 2000 presidential election was a shining example of how the electoral college works. Al Gore won the popular vote, no one is disputing that. Yet George Bush became president because of the electoral college. Note, I would be angry if Bush II got the pop vote and Gore got the win. It's patronizing, parochial, and not fitting for a country where almost all of the citizens completed high school. Our founding fathers purposefully made it this way. It is time to tell them we're all grown up now and don't need them to pick our president.

I see what you're saying, but the value of having the Electoral College is the same as the reason we have a Senate as well as the House. If it were really only about the strict majority of the population, we wouldn't need a Senate at all. The Senate and the Electoral College are both ways in which the states as entities can be represented in some way.

Back to topic. Sorry to pick on you, Unixknight, but $20,000 a year really isn't a lot even in the hinterlands of Idaho. That's about $1,666.66/month (assuming after taxes). Take out rent/mortgage, auto (if making payments), insurance for auto, utilities (basic. My electric bill averaged $250/month last year), phone (which is necessary if you want a job), gas to get to work, school lunches for the month ($1.40/day over here), work lunches (usually cup of noodle soup and an orange juice for me), food for the house (lots of beans and rice and cream of mushroom soup), trash bags, laundry soap, dish soap, a pair of pants for the kidlings every 3 months or so (when they grow out of old ones), pair of shoes for kids 2/year (they grow so fast), not to mention tithing...where does the money ($318/month for my family, employee subsidized) for health insurance come from?

Thanks, but I didn't feel picked on.

I don't know the exact figures of cost of living vs. average income but I think everybody would agree that those factors vary widely from region to region. What constitutes "need" in one area may not represent a true "need" in another.

Again, I do agree that there are problems and gaps in the system as it is. I just think universal healthcare is the wrong solution.

BTW I fully expect taxes to go up with universal health care. One of the points opponents make is the large taxes paid by Canadians and Europeans.

Opponents do indeed use that as a point. What do YOU think? Are you satisfied with your taxes going up? Do you believe it will be a small increase or a large one? If you're one of the people whose income and expense amounts are such that you can't afford private care, how will you afford the higher taxes? If you can afford it, are you secure with the idea that somehow a Government program will be superior to your private insurance?

[bytor2112]

When the monster we have allowed to be created turns and bites us.....what then?

[bytor2112]

But millions of American voters are just as politically savvy as you, and they completely disagree with you.

That's rather optimistic.........

[bytor2112]

I see what you're saying, but the value of having the Electoral College is the same as the reason we have a Senate as well as the House. If it were really only about the strict majority of the population, we wouldn't need a Senate at all. The Senate and the Electoral College are both ways in which the states as entities can be represented in some way.

Exactly. We would be ruled by California, New York, Texas and Florida. Talisyn is advocating mob rule. Gore could have won the popular vote in Manhattan or LA......and some cemetery in Chicago.

Side note: I notice that the alleged voter fraud that supposedly plagued the 2000 and the 2004 elections must have solved since the outcome was to the liking of the Democrats.

Edited October 23, 2009 by bytor2112

[Guest]

I never said you weren't politically savvy. But millions of American voters are just as politically savvy as you, and they completely disagree with you. Exactly my point.

You have stereotyped me, those who share my opinions, and those who disagree with you, as being uninformed, lazy and selfish.

You have the right to do so, but it doesn't mean you are correct. You're not.

The bolded part is what I'm having a problem with. Please find in my post where it says that anybody who disagrees with me is uninformed, lazy, and selfish, or are not qualified to vote.

In my opinion, you provided a knee-jerk reaction without understanding what I'm trying to say, but, in any case, let's play this discussion out even if it's a bit off topic. There's a lesson to be learned here, which I can tie back to my reasoning on why government shouldn't run 1/6 of the American economy.

[rameumptom]

This is extremely offensive. You imply that people who voted as you did studied the issues, but people who voted otherwise did not. Or that people who voted for Obama did so because they believed the government would give them something they were too lazy to get for themselves.

That is a trite stereotype and it is hogwash.

I don't doubt that some people did as you say, but many millions did not--enough that your stereotype is not warranted.

I think there are idiots on both sides of the aisle who voted for their side, simply because their parents and grandparents were Democrats or Republicans. And there are many more who do so, because a political party promises to benefit their personal groups more (unions on one side, military on the other/trial lawyers vs doctors/etc). So I think that the original comment is very true and applicable - however it applies to both parties. Most of the independent thinkers tend to be just that: Independents.

[rameumptom]

My personal problem with the "Obama healthcare plan" is the following:

1. It isn't HIS plan, as he hasn't lifted a finger, but left it to Congress to work on.

2. It doesn't really fix anything.

a. It doesn't fix the upcoming bankruptcy in Medicare (in fact, it speeds up the impending crash).

b. It doesn't fix tort reform. It doesn't offer real competition (2 insurance companies and a government entity does not equal competition).

c. It doesn't give anyone health insurance help for 5 years, during which we are paying taxes towards it. But when it does kick in, it will quickly run out of money, or taxes will have to be doubled to pay for it in real time.

d. It doesn't reduce the costs of insurance or medical costs.

I'm sure I could come up with several other issues, but that should suffice. What would work?

How about this:

1. Give all American families a voucher for basic health care to use at any insurance company.

2. Allow people to buy insurance across state lines, to ensure real competition.

3. A Health Care Bill of Rights, requiring a minimum amount of health care to each person provided by the insurance company in exchange for the voucher. They cannot be dropped, and they must be accepted by the insurance company.

4. Individuals wishing to have a Cadillac insurance can pay an extra premium to their insurance company above the basic voucher.

5. Federal government pays for the R&D for new drugs, etc. The drug company gets a 5 year patent on it, then it goes generic. This will encourage more real innovation and allow for drugs to be sold at a cheaper price. The federal government gets part of the profits for these drugs during those 5 years as a partial return on its R&D investment. Other countries will have to pay a fair market price for drugs we develop, so Americans are not subsidizing the world.

6. Tort Reform. An individual can sue for $1 million for the wrongful death of a family member, and lesser amounts for various issues. The trial lawyers can only receive expenses plus 20%. The lawyer can request a government review. If a government review committee agrees that major abuse is occurring by a doctor or hospital, they will launch a criminal investigation. If found guilty in criminal court, the harmed individuals are eligible to receive an additional $10 million in damages with the lawyer receiving 20%. This will cut down on many of the frivolous lawsuits out there and the incredulous damages being given by juries.

7. Eliminate Medicare and Medicaid, as they will roll into the new voucher program.

Without having to write up a 1000 page document, we can easily fix health care and make it affordable, while keeping it in the free market.

[awillowfairey]

Exactly. We would be ruled by California, New York, Texas and Florida. Talisyn is advocating mob rule. Gore could have won the popular vote in Manhattan or LA......and some cemetery in Chicago.

Side note: I notice that the alleged voter fraud that supposedly plagued the 2000 and the 2004 elections must have solved since the outcome was to the liking of the Democrats.

What I advocate is a president elected by the people of the United States of America. Calling that 'mob rule' says more about you than me

Other alleged voter frauds for those keeping score: 2002 New Hampshire Senate election phone jamming scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Voters Outreach of America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Controversies of the United States Senate election in Virginia, 2006 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And a definition of what we're talking about

Electoral fraud - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edited October 23, 2009 by awillowfairey
>< sorry I (Talisyn) thought this was my account. AWF is my sister lol.

[Elphaba]

When the monster we have allowed to be created turns and bites us.....what then?

We go to the emergency room?

[Moksha]

When the monster we have allowed to be created turns and bites us.....what then?

We give it a bailout and resist proper regulations that will prevent future bites.

[candyprpl]

Rameumpton -- you get my vote:patriot:

[bytor2112]

What I advocate is a president elected by the people of the United States of America. Calling that 'mob rule' says more about you than me

Something I said was not factual? Personally, I would like to do away with the winner-take-all system and split electoral votes based on percentage of votes received in each state. If there were not an electoral college we would be ruled by a few densely populated states......mob rule.

As for the issue of voter fraud...it exists and neither Party is guilt free. But the cry has become very muted since those crying loudest have seen their candidates win.

Not sure what you think that says about me.....perhaps you could elaborate? You forgot ACORN.

Edited October 24, 2009 by bytor2112

[cleanvisit]

Well, I am not too knowledgeable about this issue, but why can't both sides come together. That is what I despise about politics. It seems like no matter who says what the other side always says how completely wrong the other side is! This is ludicrous, really. This is not like "good vs. evil" I think both sides may have valid points. The key issue, especially with health care reform, is to meet the other side half way.

Am I just crazy or does it seem this way to you guys too?

[Elphaba]

The difference is that a truly "Universal" healthcare system would be exactly the same for everybody, and you pointed out yourself that it isn't consistent across state lines. Also, a "Universal" system would be used by EVERYBODY, and not everybody used Medicaid.

You’re right, though I’m not sure why you explained this, given it was the point of my last two posts.

The specific need is people who apply for it and meet the eligibility requirements of their state. It is a temporary measure deigned to keep people covered until they can afford their own.

That is a good explanation.

Different regions have different costs of living.>snip< Hence, the eligibility requirements will naturally be different.

This is so obvious I’m sure the states adjust for this.

Further, suppose I didn't have any insurance and I get ill or injured. By law I can still go to the hospital and be treated.

If you dislocate your shoulder, get the flu, or shoot yourself in the eye, the ER will meet your medical needs.

However, if you have, for example, a debilitating chronic illness that needs a doctor’s consistent, ongoing care, the emergency room will never meet that need.

I have an online-friend who is an ER nurse. She is full of stories of people with no insurance who use her ER for all of their medical needs. One story is of a man who came in with severe pain with a red and swollen foot.

It turns out a small cut had become infected with gangrene due to diabetes, which the man didn‘t even realize he had. There was nothing they could do for him at that point, and he had to have his foot amputated.

If this man had had insurance he could have afforded to see his doctor regularly, and there is a good chance his diabetes would have been diagnosed and treated. Instead, he did what so many other uninsured people do-waited until his condition was so severe he knew it needed medical treatment, instead of going to the doctor before it became an emergency.

Another problem is that people, who are not eligible for Medicaid or financial assistance, cannot afford to go to the ER and not pay for it, because it could ruin their credit.

My friend wrote of two famlies who waited too long to bring their child in to the ER to treat an asthma attack because they knew they wouldn't be able to pay the bill. By the time they were there, the children needed more care than they would have had they brought the child in sooner.

If both/either of these families could not pay the ER bill, their credit could be ruined, which obviously would hobble them financially from that point on. The result can be disastrous, because their ability to buy a house, a car, etc. will be marred.

(Having said that, I have another friend on the same board who checks people's credit records in his line of business. He said he does not give equal weight to delinquent healthcare bills as he does to other delinquent bills. Perhaps this is more common than I am aware.)

Finally, an ER visit can never meet the needs of those who are mentally ill. These people need proper, and often immediate, treatment every bit as much as does someone with a physical emergency, but an ER is not equipped to handle psychiatric patients. They are usually transferred to a psychiatric unit, which ends up costing thousands more than just the initial ER visit.

When you nationalize something it becomes a "one size fits all" proposition. Bad medicine.

One size fits all just fine for those on Medicare, including me.

According to Meeting Enrollees' Needs: How Do Medicare And Employer Coverage Stack Up? -- Davis et al., 10.1377/hlthaff.28.4.w521 -- Health Affairs:

One key issue in health reform concerns the relative roles of coverage offered through private insurance and public programs. This paper compares the experiences of aged Medicare beneficiaries with those of people under age sixty-five who have private employer coverage. Compared with the employer-coverage group, people in the Medicare group report fewer problems obtaining medical care, less financial hardship due to medical bills, and higher overall satisfaction with their coverage. Although access and bill payment problems increased across the board from 2001 to 2007, the gap between Medicare and private employer coverage widened. [Health Affairs 28, no. 4 (2009): w521-w532 (published online 12 May 2009; 10.1377/hlthaff.28.4.w521)

Medicare is not "bad medicine." It might not be managed effectively, but the medicine itself is very good.

First of all, a Government subsidized private HMO isn't socialism. That's like saying purchasing F-16s from General Dynamics is socialism. In fact it's quite the opposite. It's the Government buying services from private industry.

That is a good point.

Which, as a side note, I have no idea how anybody can possibly believe the politicians who say we'd get national socialized healthcare for everybody and it won't raise taxes.

Yeah, I don’t buy that either. I just don’t think they will raise taxes as much as you do.

[rameumptom]

Well, I am not too knowledgeable about this issue, but why can't both sides come together. That is what I despise about politics. It seems like no matter who says what the other side always says how completely wrong the other side is! This is ludicrous, really. This is not like "good vs. evil" I think both sides may have valid points. The key issue, especially with health care reform, is to meet the other side half way.

Am I just crazy or does it seem this way to you guys too?

The two cannot come together, because the two edges of liberalism and conservatism are too far apart. Extreme liberals are basically socialist in nature, and want government to run a nanny state. Extreme conservatives, seek to limit government (especially the federal government), and ensure greater freedom and opportunity to individuals.

Economically, there are pros and cons to both points. But there is no easy way to get the two together. Besides, where is the "middle"? Nancy Pelosi would claim she's in the middle, and when it comes to her San Francisco constituents, she's right.

[Charlyc]

Whoops!

The [uK] National Health Service has spent £1.5m paying for hundreds of its staff to have private health treatment so they can leapfrog their own waiting lists.

So??? nothing wrong with that. Those who can pay, those who can't have a safety net to rely on...........oh, but americans don't believe in safety nets right? just swim with the sharks! ...or is it the GOP that doesn't believe........hmmmm

[Charlyc]

..... Extreme conservatives, seek to limit government (especially the federal government), and ensure greater freedom and opportunity to individuals.

Really? why is it that whenever they get voted in, government spending actually increases and the actual size of the federal government increases, especially its military wing. Or don't you count the military as a federal government expense? -plus they invade other countries, from Bermuda to Iraq so there isn't much freedom there.

That "small government greater freedom" bit is today just a myth imo -or maybe just a campaign slogan.

[Moksha]

Extreme conservatives, seek to limit government (especially the federal government), and ensure greater freedom and opportunity to individuals.

Are you sure they just don't get a late night craving to conquer the Sudetenland?