Discussion On President Obama

[wa3zrm]

Time to stir the pot...

<embed src="http://www.liveleak.com/e/3db_1251053049" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="450" height="370"></embed>

[VBSnus]

Further stirring it, quoted from another source:

This morning I was awakened by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US department of energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the national weather service of the national oceanographic and atmospheric administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the national aeronautics and space administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US Department of Agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined to be safe by the food and drug administration.

At the appropriate time as regulated by the US congress and kept accurate by the national institute of standards and technology and the US naval observatory, I get into my national highway traffic safety administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads built by the local, state, and federal departments of transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the environmental protection agency, using legal tender issued by the federal reserve bank. On the way out the door I deposit any mail I may have to be sent out via the US postal service and drop the kids off at the public school.

After work I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to a house which has not burned down in my absense because of the state and local building codes and fire marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local police department.

I then log onto the internet which was developed by the defense advanced research projects administration and post on freerepublic.com and fox news forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right.

[tom502]

The problem I see with this "health care reform" is it's just empowering the insurance companies, and that's the main problem we have now. I would favor socialized medicine if it meant getting rid of the insurance companies, the docs and hospitals get a government paycheck, and citizens get "free" healthcare/treatment. The only problem with that, which is what we have now anyway, is non-citizens, and non tax contributing people will get that same care as the people who do pay the taxes that would pay for it. In a perfect world, everyone would be working and contributing and we'd all reap the benefits. But in a capitalist society, that is all based on profit and power and exploitation, it would be hard to implement a fair socialized medicine system.

[VBSnus]

The problem I see with this "health care reform" is it's just empowering the insurance companies, and that's the main problem we have now. I would favor socialized medicine if it meant getting rid of the insurance companies, the docs and hospitals get a government paycheck, and citizens get "free" healthcare/treatment. The only problem with that, which is what we have now anyway, is non-citizens, and non tax contributing people will get that same care as the people who do pay the taxes that would pay for it. In a perfect world, everyone would be working and contributing and we'd all reap the benefits. But in a capitalist society, that is all based on profit and power and exploitation, it would be hard to implement a fair socialized medicine system.

The problem with health insurance (too many people confuse "healthcare" and "health insurance" in this debate), is that it doesn't fit into the capitalist vs. socialist spectrum. They produce no goods, they do not own property, they add nothing at all to the medical market except for overhead. They're like the ticket brokers who buy up all the concert tickets and resell them at 3x the cost and call it a "service".

The current corporate system of health care does not support a free market. People cannot simply leave their job to start a new business or pursue further education and still get quality, guaranteed health insurance. With that kind of barrier to entry, we're guaranteeing that large corporations will stay stocked with people and new businesses cannot flourish.

For example, I'm a self-employed consultant getting paid over $160,000 a year, I pay an obscene amount in taxes, and I can't get health insurance due to a pre-existing condition. I've been outright denied by every single insurance carrier out there.

What about the guy who wants to open a restaurant? The woman who wants to start a consulting company. The artist, the musician, the work-from-home? Corporation based health insurance is a surefire way to stifle small business and entrepreneurship, empower corporations, and keep America monopolized. Only by making this commodity available to all can we truly claim to have a free and open market.

Now, we could say that if you want to start a business, you have to accept certain risks. You'll have to pay more in taxes and accept that if you have pre-existing conditions, you may not get health insurance. Then you accidentally break your ankle, and you pay thousands of dollars to get it fixed. You go to the doc for a physical and pay $200 for the visit and $200 for the follow-up. And if something really catastrophic happens like a heart attack, you go to the ER and go bankrupt, thus putting the burden back on the tax payers anyways.

Tax payers, you're already paying for the burden of healthcare. When those without insurance need help, they go to the ER. They clog up the waiting room, the beds, and they ignore the bills because they can't afford the outrageous fees charged by a medical profession artificially boosted by insurance overhead. Wouldn't it make more sense to provide better health insurance from the beginning so they don't end up in the ER so much using emergency services and costing more due to conditions they could have prevented?

Instead of worrying about smokers, fat people, and other "high risk" individuals being on your tax-funded plan, wouldn't it make more sense to make health care available to all so those conditions can be prevented or kept in check?

Worried about "death panels" or "rationing"? No worries, you've already got these great services through your corporate sponsored or private health insurance. Because when you contract some fatal and expensive disease, I guarantee you they won't be there for you. I've seen it myself. And if you somehow survive this disease, I guarantee you won't get coverage later due to the pre-existing condition. It's extortion, pure and simple.

Millions of Americans can't retire until 65 because they won't get insured without Medicare. Millions of Americans can't start businesses or leave the corporate world because they won't get insured at all. Sure, millions also live off the state and leech tax money from others...but that's the way it is everywhere. Don't you have that guy at work who always leeches credit, barely works, and makes you work harder? It sucks, but it's human. Is it fair to condemn those who don't act that way to the same fate?

I saw a slideshow of the town hall protesters rallying against a public option. Over 80% of them were either old enough to be on Medicare or obese. These people would not be able to get insurance if they did not work for a major business. They would drag a small business down with huge premiums. Yet they're rallying against something they either use or could use because of a word: socialism.

Definitions

* Main Entry: so·cial·ism
* Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
* Function: noun
* Date: 1837

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

The insurance companies produce no goods. They distribute no goods. They own no property. They have no production. They do not pay according to work done, they pay according to the plan you buy into or the company you work for.

* Main Entry: cap·i·tal·ism
* Pronunciation: \ˈka-pə-tə-ˌliz-əm, ˈkap-tə-, British also kə-ˈpi-tə-\
* Function: noun
* Date: 1877

: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

Health insurance companies own no goods. They produce nothing. They distribute nothing. The health insurance market today is not "free", it's a monopoly. The only part of capitalism that applies to for-profit health insurance is the word "prices".

Arguments

Q. But I know this woman, she has 8 kids and just sits at home making babies.
A. Sure, this is an issue. But in this equation there is only one person who you're insuring who doesn't "deserve" it...the one woman. Those 8 kids didn't do anything wrong but be born, and you can't condemn them for that. Even the woman is questionable...sure, she's milking the system, but she's still a human being.

Q. Why should I pay for people who lead high-risk lives?
A. You already do, they'll just go to the ER when near-death instead of to a doctor to get their high risk life under control. Insurance companies are designed to make profit off of healthy people who don't need the coverage. You're already paying for people who lead high-risk lives.

Q. I don't want the government deciding when my grandma dies.
A. 1) This is ridiculous. The bill called for "end of life counseling" to discuss living wills and medical needs. It's a service that many people (like adults taking care of their parents) who love, so the burden of their parents' final days can be eased. 2) It wouldn't be the first time. Remember Terri Shiavo?

Q: Illegals will be going to the doctor on my tax money!
A: Is the threat of a few Mexicans getting health care really worth condemning millions of your fellow Americans to a life without it? Give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses longing to be free...but for God's sake, don't give them health insurance!

Q: What about people who don't pay anything, have a problem, and then get insurance even with their pre-existing condition?
A: That's why there's a mandate that everyone must get insured. But we can't mandate that without options for everyone, which we do not currently have.

Q: But if we have a public option, private health insurers will go out of business because they can't compete!
A: There's a few answers to this. 1) Yes, that's why USPS put FedEx and UPS out of business, right? 2) Sure, that's why private schools don't exist. 3) Maybe you shouldn't pay your CEO $8 million dollars a year. I mean, it's the choice of the company to do so (we are a free country), but is that a smart business decision? 4) Which is more important for a free market: the ability of a monopoly to exhort even more from the American people, or the ability of each an every American to be their own boss if they so choose?

Conclusion

I know many people won't agree with me on this, but I'm pretty impassioned about it. I hope I didn't offend anyone with my views...I just think we're better served having an honest, get it all on the table debate instead of shouting matches and word flinging (nazi, socialist, fascist, commie, son of a biscuit eater).

And so you know, I was a Republican up until the end of Bush's second term...I voted for him both times. But once I saw a Republican president bailing out lenders, banks, and corporations I changed my tune a bit. If my tax money is going to be given out anyways, I'd prefer it be for things that benefit the people on the streets, not the people in power.

[tom502]

Well, if I was supreme leader, jobs would not only be a right, but a requirement for citizenry. Job outsourcing would not be allowed.

Now, health care may not provide a product, but they do provide a service. Like public libraries and transportation.

I would end the existence of all insurance companies, they are the Tony Sopranos of the health care racket.

All working citizens would get "free" health care, because they work and contribute. I would do this with education too.

Non citizens, or non participants in society would get treatment, but have to pay. Something. If their bill racks up so much, then legal action can happen.

The way the system is currently failing more and more, with the increasing acceptance of more liberal-type agendas, it really gives no reason to work, or uplift oneself, and creates a mentality of how to get as much free as possible.

Of course it's all a fantasy.

[VBSnus]

Tom, I agree with single payer but I don't know that "work" is a measurable definition of participation in society. How do you measure the participation of the student, artist, freelancer, pastor, entrepreneur, consultant, home daycare providers, etc? Or someone who is laid off/fired? Would a household have an option for a member to stay at home with children? When must children get jobs, and who would provide them? Would people take horrible jobs so they "qualify", thus barring them from pursuing higher goals?

People who don't want to work to uplift themselves have no ambition; that is not a product of the rights granted them by their government, but their upbringing and overall mentality. If someone wants to be a bum, they'll be a bum, health insurance or no. Other 1st world nations who subscribe to single payer healthcare for all, university for all, and other social benefits for all (not just workers) would have fallen apart by now if all it took was government social programs to remove man's desire to grow and prosper. Of course, it could be that I am too optimistic in my views of society...or at least in American society.

The only type of society I can think of where everyone is guaranteed a job in the interest of contribution is communism or totalitarianism. You either have a job in order to support the government structure or to support the military. I'm not a sociologist though, so I'm sure someone may know of more.

I still heartily support you in your quest to become Supreme Leader Tom502. ALL HAIL TOM502.

[sgreger1]

Here's the main problem, we cannot afford it. Better to just reform our current system than start a brand new government based one.

Bush deficit after 8 years, 2 wars and a major terrorist attack = $1.3 trillion

White House: Obama after 6 months= $9 TRILLION deficit over next 10 years (and thats if we dont spend anymore, which you know we will)


Bush spent to much, Obama turned runnaway spending into an art form.

Now he wants almost 2 trillion more to pay for crappy healthcare.

NO THANK YOU

[sgreger1]

Well, if I was supreme leader, jobs would not only be a right, but a requirement for citizenry. Job outsourcing would not be allowed.


The way the system is currently failing more and more, with the increasing acceptance of more liberal-type agendas, it really gives no reason to work, or uplift oneself, and creates a mentality of how to get as much free as possible.

Of course it's all a fantasy.

Exactly, GOV is trying to make this healthcare plan sound like a free lunch. It is ran by the government, so it will not be free. It will pay for illegals and people not inclined to work by subsidizing at the tax payers expense.


I agree though, every able bodies person should be working, and we should all contribute into a system which can then give us some things back. But when things are free, liberals decide to quit their job and let the gov pay for it.

That is not American. We are a hard working republic of likeminded individuals. Act like it

[VBSnus]

White House: Obama after 6 months= $9 TRILLION deficit over next 10 years (and thats if we dont spend anymore, which you know we will)

Deficits aren't that simple, and as it turns out Republicans don't care about the deficits all that much...they wouldn't vote on a deficit neutral bill without a public option either. They see this as Obama's waterloo and won't vote for any of it, pure and simple.

Also, let's not look at deficit post Bush, but total money spent. The figure you gave is misleading, since he decimated a good economy.

Exactly, GOV is trying to make this healthcare plan sound like a free lunch. It is ran by the government, so it will not be free. It will pay for illegals and people not inclined to work by subsidizing at the tax payers expense.

The illegals thing is ridiculous, and there are millions of American tax payers without health insurance. Also, the government is not trying to make this sound like a free lunch, they've specifically said that premiums will be charged for the public option just like any other.

I agree though, every able bodies person should be working, and we should all contribute into a system which can then give us some things back. But when things are free, liberals decide to quit their job and let the gov pay for it.

1) Forcing "able bodied persons" to work is more communist than any healthcare plan on the table. A free country and free market is one where people are free to make money any way they choose, and to participate or not participate in the market. Saying every person should be working is forced labor under corporate rule.
2) So you think that if this bill passes, every liberal out there will quit their job, get on welfare, and get free health insurance? This is an extremely foolish statement and is based upon nothing but prejudice (not racism, prejudice).
3) If that's the way "liberals" acted, they could do it now. Quit, get on welfare, and go to the ER for all their needs then not pay the bill. You are already paying for this whether you know it or not.

That is not American. We are a hard working republic of likeminded individuals. Act like it

Yep. I pay $40k a year in taxes and can not get health insurance. I'm obviously not part of your hard working republic. And no, we're not like minded.

Which one is more American?

* Giving every American life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and the ability to achieve regardless of pre-existing conditions, the job they saddle themselves to for life, or their retirement age
* Forcing people to work for corporations which buy into a plan run by a company which gains profits by denying coverage to those who need it most and add nothing to the healthcare industry except for overhead

[sgreger1]

@ VB SNUS



I see where you are coming from, because I agree we need reform. But what we do not need is the government coming in and running the place.

I pay 93$ a paycheck for health insurance via blue shield, and it covers me, my wife, and my 6 month old daughter. I consider it an excelent deal. However, I know there are some who do not get this because they don't have employer provided healthcare.

Something does need to be done, but I am thinking more along the lines of TORT reform, put a cap on ambulance chaser lawsuits, making sure illegals are not utilizing our ER rooms for minor problems etc.


The problem I also have with Obama's push for healthcare is that it seems that he is being dishonest, he says there will not be illegals but on page 170 is sounds like there will be, he says it will not add even $1 to the deficit, and yet is asking for over $1 trillion as a downpayment for it.
When asked if people could keep their current insurance, he said he is not familiar with what the bill says in regards to that issue, and yet he is all over TV saying "in my proposal this, and in my proposal that", so he either needs to take ownership of it, or not.

I agree we all need care, but I think it can be done much cheaper, and without the gov selling helath insurance. The prepublicans have good plans for this in my opinion, but the democrats are silencing them in the same way republicans shut out democrats for much of the last 8 years.

The country is in recession, and effectively nationalizing the healthcare industry via excessive regulation and the gov selling health insurance is surely not giong to cut costs. Event he democrats think it is going to be too expensive. And when it gets expensive, it will lead to rationed care and we will be like Canada and the UK who have headlines daily about millions not getting the care they need.

[VBSnus]

sgreger, all well spoken points and views. I have a hard time disagreeing on a lot of it because I have always been a capitalist myself...I just think corporate America has gone too far.

I pay 93$ a paycheck for health insurance via blue shield, and it covers me, my wife, and my 6 month old daughter. I consider it an excelent deal. However, I know there are some who do not get this because they don't have employer provided healthcare.

That's definitely a good deal, and if I weren't contractually bound to being self employed I'd probably be on it too, even though I'd have to sacrifice half my pay if I got a 'regular' job. Congratulations on your daughter, I have two kids myself!

Tort reform, ambulance chaser suits, etc would be great, but as long as the corporations are deciding who gets care, we'll never all have the care we need. I honestly wouldn't mind a not-for-profit co-op solution which covers the nation. It doesn't NEED to be public option/obamacare/teddycare/whatever, just something, and it DOES need to be now. By 2010 the political will will be gone and it won't get done.

I know the page you're talking about with the illegal alien clause, but it is also in flux. There are currently four versions of the bill being considered (that's a hell of a lot of pages). I'll wait and see on that one, I guess.

You can keep your current insurance if your company opts to keep it. I don't believe for a second that the public option will drive private carriers out of business, and even in Canada, the UK, and other places with single payer options you can get private health insurance to give you extra coverage. That's awesome, as they're really providing a service; extra cash gets you extra treatment. Here, you need insurance nowadays to get a physical or you're screwed on costs! And I don't know what the heck is up with the new fad of making one visit into three visits...one to discuss, one to do tests, one to discuss the results. It's extortion!

Unfortunately I haven't seen much on the republican plans. I didn't mind the way John McCain's original idea was going...require insurance companies to accept all Americans, then give a $5k tax credit to Americans to use to buy the insurance you want, even over state lines. It was a well thought out plan and definitely deserved some consideration.

And when it gets expensive, it will lead to rationed care and we will be like Canada and the UK who have headlines daily about millions not getting the care they need.

This is the only point I truly disagree with you on. We're already rationing care, it's just not the governments that do it. You're saying if the government has to cut costs, we might not get the care we need...insurance companies don't just cut costs, they want to make exorbitant profits. They answer to their shareholders, who want to see the stock value go up up up. Trying to make a profit by denying care is much more of a threat than cutting costs by denying care.

I've known tons of people who have been denied the care they needed, and they thought they had outstanding coverage. Unfortunately you can't tell for sure until the worst happens, which is very sad. At least with a government option, you can take it up with the court system, rally against a candidate for re-election, etc. When your insurance company denies you, you're straight up screwed.

Of course, it all brings us to one indisputable fact...maybe we just need to be a healthier nation. Why does an 1100 calorie bag of chips cost as much as 100 calories worth of broccoli? Because of taxes on the farmers and subsidies to the corn industry. Why can't we all quit smoking and use imported snus instead? Because the American tobacco industry has the government's ear. Why do we need health insurance? Because we're a nation of consumers and need to be on all the drugs to cure our woes.

My utopia: Preventative and routine healthcare for all, availability of harm reducing and healthy options without subsidy or lobbyist interest, and affordable catastrophic insurance available to all at reasonable prices.

[Premium Parrots]

I pay $1100 a MONTH for health insurance [with a high deductable] for myself and my wife. It goes up generally $200 plus a year. I can't wait for medicare.........or to simply die. That must be the "light at the end of the tunnel" everyone keeps referring to.

[dupee419]

this has got to be one of the most beautiful things I've ever seen. such a shock these days that people of differing opinion can actually have a conversation and not break out the low blows

[paulwall9]

Parrots is always Funny LOL!!! But yeah healthcare is expensive!!!
The way we deal with healthcare should be based on how we percieve it!!
If healthcare is a privilage than only people who can afford to pay for it should have it! But, if you view it as a right than the government needs to ensure that it does what it is supposed to to ensure the citizens recieve there healthcare!!
Me personally i don't know weather i consider health care a right or not so I can not comment!!

[Roo]

this has got to be one of the most beautiful things I've ever seen. such a shock these days that people of differing opinion can actually have a conversation and not break out the low blows

Seriously, I thought I was unintentionally drawing a blood bath with the original post (it had a different title ) but everyone has been super cool, and I really appreciate that. Nice work people.