Obama's Healthcare?? Plan

[dash77]

I have not read through the various posts. However, I will say this: I see national health care as Christ-like giving. I lived in Canada for about six years (I now live back in the United States) and what I learned is that the way Canadian health care is represented in the United State is so off it ridiculous. It’s the same way that Joseph Smith is portrayed my non-members – complete lies. Although there are some problems with slowness in certain areas of Canada, it is an outstanding system that covers everyone. Everyone shares in paying taxes and the poor and needed are taken care off. What a wonderful system.

I know President Obama’s plan is not a single payer system (e.g., taxes) like Canada, but I am in support of it because it really can help the poor and needy.

[bytor2112]

I have not read through the various posts. However, I will say this: I see national health care as Christ-like giving. I lived in Canada for about six years (I now live back in the United States) and what I learned is that the way Canadian health care is represented in the United State is so off it ridiculous. It’s the same way that Joseph Smith is portrayed my non-members – complete lies. Although there are some problems with slowness in certain areas of Canada, it is an outstanding system that covers everyone. Everyone shares in paying taxes and the poor and needed are taken care off. What a wonderful system.

I know President Obama’s plan is not a single payer system (e.g., taxes) like Canada, but I am in support of it because it really can help the poor and needy.

So move back to Canada......

[Charlyc]

The best idea is to reduce taxes and slash government waste and end deficit spending. Cutting marginal rates and slashing waste and ending deficit spending will provide a monstrous increase in revenue.

Goodness bytor, ya still dont get it!!

Monstrous increase?? really. Bush cut top rates, plus he spent more money on one industry ie the military-industrial complex which one could argue was a stimulus plan for them(but understandable while given 9/11) , and then end result?? two years only of increase in tax revenue of 4%!!!! That's two years out of his 8, oh and he also threw cash out to lower income earners which he managed to cunningly avoided calling welfare.

Your economy would have to grow about 10% per year to provide that 'monstrous increase in revenue'. Never happened under either party.

By the way, another thing is today, if they did cut taxes -to stimulate growth- and then cut spending to end the deficit, they are currently looking at cutting about 25% of current expenditure to make the sums add up. Do you seriously think that there will be any growth if the biggest enterprise in the country cuts costs by 25%??? No tax cut could equal that.

Bottom line is that the arithmetic doesn't work now for the US economy today (you also have to service the debt that is already there because of the Bushes and now Obama by the way) so really the only way out is a good ol decent war with China so you wont need to repay them!!

[Charlyc]

So move back to Canada......

Smart money probably will.

Dear brother (honestly and lovingly) you are blinded here by partisan theology, honestly, in thinking the current US system is better or superior or ....well in any way better. It simply isn't and its a shame people don't see it and now this first reform is currently stuck in the mud.

all the best,

[bytor2112]

Monstrous increase?? really. Bush cut top rates, plus he spent more money on one industry ie the military-industrial complex which one could argue was a stimulus plan for them(but understandable while given 9/11) , and then end result?? two years only of increase in tax revenue of 4%!!!! That's two years out of his 8, oh and he also threw cash out to lower income earners which he managed to cunningly avoided calling welfare.

Your economy would have to grow about 10% per year to provide that 'monstrous increase in revenue'. Never happened under either party.

By the way, another thing is today, if they did cut taxes -to stimulate growth- and then cut spending to end the deficit, they are currently looking at cutting about 25% of current expenditure to make the sums add up. Do you seriously think that there will be any growth if the biggest enterprise in the country cuts costs by 25%??? No tax cut could equal that.

Bottom line is that the arithmetic doesn't work now for the US economy today (you also have to service the debt that is already there because of the Bushes and now Obama by the way) so really the only way out is a good ol decent war with China so you wont need to repay them!!

Tax revenues in 2006 were 18.4 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), which is actually above the 20-year, 40-year, and 60-year historical aver*ages.[1] The inflation-adjusted 20 percent tax revenue increase between 2004 and 2006 represents the largest two-year revenue surge since 1965–1967.[2] Claims that Americans are undertaxed by historical standards are patently false.

Some critics of President George W. Bush's tax policies concede that tax revenues exceed the his*torical average yet assert that revenues are histori*cally low for economies in the fourth year of an expansion. Setting aside that some of these tax pol*icies are partly responsible for that economic expan*sion, the numbers simply do not support this claim. Comparing tax revenues in the fourth fiscal year after the end of each of the past three recessions shows nearly equal tax revenues of:

* 18.4 percent of GDP in 1987,

* 18.5 percent of GDP in 1995, and

* 18.4 percent of GDP in 2006.[3]

While revenues as a percentage of GDP have not fully returned to pre-recession levels (20.9 percent in 2000), it is now clear that the pre-recession level was a major historical anomaly caused by a tempo*rary stock market bubble. -Heritage

[bytor2112]

Smart money probably will.

Dear brother (honestly and lovingly) you are blinded here by partisan theology, honestly, in thinking the current US system is better or superior or ....well in any way better. It simply isn't and its a shame people don't see it and now this first reform is currently stuck in the mud.

all the best,

The current deficit is 1.4 trillion dollars.....we can't afford it. I am not opposed to health care reform, but, i would seriously like to see waste slashed in order to compensate for the additional spending. AND....frankly, the US government, regardless of which party is in control rarely does anything well....except blowing things up. I hope I can be forgiven for being skeptical at their ability to take over 1/6th of the economy and not ultimately do more harm than good and end up with yet another mismanaged and soon to be broke entitlement like medicare and social security.

[Guest]

I have not read through the various posts. However, I will say this: I see national health care as Christ-like giving. I lived in Canada for about six years (I now live back in the United States) and what I learned is that the way Canadian health care is represented in the United State is so off it ridiculous. It’s the same way that Joseph Smith is portrayed my non-members – complete lies. Although there are some problems with slowness in certain areas of Canada, it is an outstanding system that covers everyone. Everyone shares in paying taxes and the poor and needed are taken care off. What a wonderful system.

I know President Obama’s plan is not a single payer system (e.g., taxes) like Canada, but I am in support of it because it really can help the poor and needy.

I beg to differ. Christ never said to have a governing body/religious order/pharisees/whoever else take money from somebody to give to the poor let alone decide who deserves to pay and who deserves a hand-out. Christ's motto has always been free agency.

[rameumptom]

I have not read through the various posts. However, I will say this: I see national health care as Christ-like giving. I lived in Canada for about six years (I now live back in the United States) and what I learned is that the way Canadian health care is represented in the United State is so off it ridiculous. It’s the same way that Joseph Smith is portrayed my non-members – complete lies. Although there are some problems with slowness in certain areas of Canada, it is an outstanding system that covers everyone. Everyone shares in paying taxes and the poor and needed are taken care off. What a wonderful system.

I know President Obama’s plan is not a single payer system (e.g., taxes) like Canada, but I am in support of it because it really can help the poor and needy.

The problem for most of us isn't in having a health care program. The problem is in how it is being implemented. Canada's program is a seamless program that the people are satisfied with. The Democratic program is not. It is 2000 pages of bribes to pile up on top of the already bloated health programs currently running (Medicare and Medicaid). Medicare and Medicaid are set to go bankrupt within 10 years, to the tune of tens of trillions of dollars. Instead of trying to actually fix this, the Democrats are going to take $400 billion out of Medicare to help pay for the new program. So a bankrupted system is going to be robbed to pay for a new system that also isn't fully funded: you see the problem?

I'd like to have the feds just give everyone a voucher for basic health care that they can take to any insurance company they'd like. Add in a patient's bill of rights for both health insurance and health care, buying insurance across state lines to create real competition, and stop tort law abuse; then we'd have an affordable program that benefits everyone, and fits in about 25-50 pages.

Instead, the Democrats are going to bankrupt the United States of America. Health care for us will be as building up the USSR's military to compete with the USA 25 years ago. They went bankrupt as a nation, and split into a bunch of smaller nations. We could easily do the same if we go bankrupt. And if the nation goes bankrupt, NO ONE will have health care, except a few rich people and Congress.

[dash77]

Anatess:

Two thick thoughts.

First, it is a choice by Canadians, In fact, most Canadians believe it’s part of Canadian identity – it’s the American media that sends a type of propaganda that Canadians are opposed to national health care and its some type of old soviet run system where people do not get treated well. In fact, there are numerous research studies that underscore that Canadian and American health care if almost the same, except that 46 million Americans are not insured and every Canadian is insured. And if you examine the history of how the Canada Health Act was created, you will learn it was a choice – it was created by a minority government with huge public support – it is democracy and freedom/free agency in action.

This is probable shocking to most Americans because (1) very few Americans actually see American media as a propaganda machine, (2) very few Americans actually spend a good amount of time outside the United States, and (3) it is hard to think that some people actually see paying taxes as a system of giving or following the principle of self-sacrifice. Your reply that it opposes free agency is quite simply minded.

Second, are you suggesting that all government acts are an act of opposition toward free agency? How do you explain a government act that creates speed limits? Is that an act against free agency?

Rameunptom:

I agree that President Obama’s health care plan is not like Canadians single payer plan and there are areas to concern. However, it will cause national medical coverage. By global standards, the average American is filthy rich, is it really asking too much to pay more taxes in order to help the poor and needy gain basic health care coverage.

I think Mosiah 4: 17-18 sums up my feeling about paying more taxes to help the poor and needy (succor the poor and needy, which is explained in Mosiah 16):

“Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself this misery: therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just – But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God.”

[Guest]

Anatess:

Two thick thoughts.

First, it is a choice by Canadians, In fact, most Canadians believe it’s part of Canadian identity – it’s the American media that sends a type of propaganda that Canadians are opposed to national health care and its some type of old soviet run system where people do not get treated well. In fact, there are numerous research studies that underscore that Canadian and American health care if almost the same, except that 46 million Americans are not insured and every Canadian is insured. And if you examine the history of how the Canada Health Act was created, you will learn it was a choice – it was created by a minority government with huge public support – it is democracy and freedom/free agency in action.

This is probable shocking to most Americans because (1) very few Americans actually see American media as a propaganda machine, (2) very few Americans actually spend a good amount of time outside the United States, and (3) it is hard to think that some people actually see paying taxes as a system of giving or following the principle of self-sacrifice. Your reply that it opposes free agency is quite simply minded.

Second, are you suggesting that all government acts are an act of opposition toward free agency? How do you explain a government act that creates speed limits? Is that an act against free agency?

Rameunptom:

I agree that President Obama’s health care plan is not like Canadians single payer plan and there are areas to concern. However, it will cause national medical coverage. By global standards, the average American is filthy rich, is it really asking too much to pay more taxes in order to help the poor and needy gain basic health care coverage.

I think Mosiah 4: 17-18 sums up my feeling about paying more taxes to help the poor and needy (succor the poor and needy, which is explained in Mosiah 16):

“Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself this misery: therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just – But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God.”

I'm not talking about Canada. In America, single-payer healthcare is not what the majority want. That is why they've been having a hard time "FORCING IT" through Congress - even in the time of Clinton when the democratic Congress had a higher approval rating.

I'm not American. I live in America now but I'm not American.

I did not say that a government is anti free-agency. I'm saying that just because you don't support Universal Healthcare you are not-Christ-like. I am sorry but that is an ignorant statement. I got news for you. I do not approve of universal healthcare but I am not against providing succor to the needy. I just gave $6,000 to my uncle who had brain surgery 2 days ago. By the way, he didn't make it. He died last night.

You can quote scripture all you want. You will be very wrong if you think that people who do not support universal healthcare are not Christ-like. I will not be surprised if President Monson is not in support of it. Although, I wouldn't be surprised if he supports it as well. I'm not simple-minded enough to think that just because one is opposed to anything a government puts on the table that it makes him/her un-Christian. You can be Pro-Choice and I still wouldn't think you're un-Christ-like! After all, Christ may be Pro-Life, but he is just as Pro-Choice!

After all, the law of consecration that Joseph Smith tried to install on the earth was lifted - the people are not ready. And that was a prophet putting it into action. You trust the US Congress to do better than Joseph Smith?

So, please before you call us un-Christian, kindly understand why we don't support that stupid 2,000 page piece of monstrously dumb legislation. It would even be better if YOU WOULD UNDERSTAND what is written in that 2,000 page piece of legislation instead of spouting out what Canada has... because what the Congress is about to sign is nothing at all like whatever Canada got. And even then, America is not Canada. It is like comparing Apples to Oranges.

By the way, I will never be as presumptuous as to call you un-Christian, even if you will not give me some money to help me with my uncle's medical expenses.

[rameumptom]

Anatess:

Rameunptom:

I agree that President Obama’s health care plan is not like Canadians single payer plan and there are areas to concern. However, it will cause national medical coverage. By global standards, the average American is filthy rich, is it really asking too much to pay more taxes in order to help the poor and needy gain basic health care coverage.

I think Mosiah 4: 17-18 sums up my feeling about paying more taxes to help the poor and needy (succor the poor and needy, which is explained in Mosiah 16):

First, Mosiah wasn't talking about government helping the poor and needy, but individuals doing so. As King, he could have collected taxes and helped the poor, instead he sought for individuals to do the work. It isn't charity if the government takes it by force and redistributes it. It is charity when people give from their hearts.

Second, doing something isn't necessarily the same thing as doing the right thing. Lyndon Johnson tried his Great Society for a war on poverty. It was based on government doing all the work. It hasn't worked. Its implementation has destroyed poor families. Poor families used to have a father in the home. Now they don't, because they don't get as much in benefits if there is. It discourages people from getting ahead. Bill Clinton actually tried to fix it 15 years ago, but it still has major problems. Also, As I mentioned before, Medicare and Medicaid are on life support. If they go belly up, no one will have medical coverage. And Congress' current plan does not fix it.

The concept of: if $1 trillion is good, then $100 trillion thrown into the pot should be superior, does not make good sense. You have to have a decent design if you wish to have a decent implementation.

[Just_A_Guy]

Apparently (and I may be misunderstanding things, so please feel free to correct me), the basic-level public option would cost around $5,300 per year ($441/month) for a single individual or $15,000 ($1250/month) for a family policy.

Now, I could get mid-level coverage through IHC for myself only for under $200 per month and for my entire family for under $500 per month.

What was the advantage to ObamaCare again?

[talisyn]

First, Mosiah wasn't talking about government helping the poor and needy, but individuals doing so. As King, he could have collected taxes and helped the poor, instead he sought for individuals to do the work. It isn't charity if the government takes it by force and redistributes it. It is charity when people give from their hearts.

Second, doing something isn't necessarily the same thing as doing the right thing. Lyndon Johnson tried his Great Society for a war on poverty. It was based on government doing all the work. It hasn't worked. Its implementation has destroyed poor families. Poor families used to have a father in the home. Now they don't, because they don't get as much in benefits if there is. It discourages people from getting ahead. Bill Clinton actually tried to fix it 15 years ago, but it still has major problems. Also, As I mentioned before, Medicare and Medicaid are on life support. If they go belly up, no one will have medical coverage. And Congress' current plan does not fix it.

The concept of: if $1 trillion is good, then $100 trillion thrown into the pot should be superior, does not make good sense. You have to have a decent design if you wish to have a decent implementation.

Destroyed families? CFR por favor Especially the implications that all families were hale and hearty before the War on Poverty.

[talisyn]

Here's something for everyone who thinks politicians never listen to their constituents CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time - Blogs from CNN.com

"A lot of my constituents are uninsured, a lot of them are poor," Cao said. "It was the right decision for the people of my district."

[dorave]

Healthcare reform passes, I live in NZ where we have Govt run FREE-for all healthcare and I feel sorry for America.

[rameumptom]

I feel sorry for America, also. Because we are putting together a 2000 page monstrosity that will sit on top of the bloated and wasteful Medicare program.

Better plans could be easily put together, but not with the Congress we currently have.

[rameumptom]

Destroyed families? CFR por favor Especially the implications that all families were hale and hearty before the War on Poverty.

Being you are in the wilds of Idaho, you cannot appreciate the struggles in the inner cities. I spent over 16 years working with inner city people and the poor in Alabama. Being crammed into housing projects and with rules that do not support the family, but rather just single moms, has destroyed the African American community in many cities. It is one of the biggest tragedies of the last 50 years.

Were there problems before? Of course. But we've highly amplified them. While African Americans make up about 15-20% of our population, they now make up about 1/2 of the inmates in our prisoners. It is directly tied to the break down of the family, much of it caused by our welfare system as it is currently designed. Young men are growing up without fathers, or with fathers who are spending time in jail. We are now on the third generation of people (and in some cases the 4th or 5th generation) of people living in the welfare state. It has robbed them of their dignity, of their responsible fathers and mothers, and of their faith that they can overcome.

They no longer look to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr as a hero, but look to Tupac Shakur and gangsta rappers for their guides. And it is all directly tied to the break down of the family structure, which is directly tied to the design of the Welfare state under LBJ.

[Guest]

interesting... i put a comment for a different thread, press Ctlrl-Z to undo something I deleted... and it ends up in this thread. Gotta report to Pam.

[Maxel]

Apparently (and I may be misunderstanding things, so please feel free to correct me), the basic-level public option would cost around $5,300 per year ($441/month) for a single individual or $15,000 ($1250/month) for a family policy.

Now, I could get mid-level coverage through IHC for myself only for under $200 per month and for my entire family for under $500 per month.

What was the advantage to ObamaCare again?

The warm fuzzy feeling we get for "helping" the poor.

[Elphaba]

Apparently (and I may be misunderstanding things, so please feel free to correct me), the basic-level public option would cost around $5,300 per year ($441/month) for a single individual or $15,000 ($1250/month) for a family policy.

JAG, this link goes to a story about Warren Jeffs. Would you please link the correct story for us?

Elphaba

[Just_A_Guy]

JAG, this link goes to a story about Warren Jeffs. Would you please link the correct story for us?

Elphaba

Ye saints, how embarassing!

It should be this one.

[Charlyc]

This simply doesn't happen in other rich or reasonably wealthy nations:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705343922/Medical-debts-harming-families.html;

Its unbelievable at best and appalling at worst.

You guys really need to wake up and change your system. You've also been paying for the most expensive overcharged care in the world according to the OECD.

So wake up and go with some changes. The GOP's healthcare policies are simply archaic.

[Just_A_Guy]

The anonymous kidney patient in the story is still getting care. What are you upset about? That other (insured) people, and the hospitals themselves, are being forced to spring for the cost? That's what universal health care would do anyways.

The primary issue I see in this article is the people who use up their life savings to pay off monumental health care debts. Frankly, this is due to a lack of information--they could (generally speaking) have kept their savings if they'd just declared bankruptcy. Would they have lost their house? Very possibly. But frankly, I'm just not up for doubling or tripling my monthly health care premiums just so that someone can own their dwelling instead of rent it.

[talisyn]

It's my birthday today so as a present I'm taking a break from this discussion. Enjoy!

[Just_A_Guy]

Happy birthday, talisyn!