gator
07-01-2009, 08:23 PM
Obama's speech today has me feeling uneasy. I think he may actually get his healthcare plan passed. First, I think most of us, if not all, can agree that heathcare cost is an important issue. I also think that most of us would like to see the greatest quality of healthcare provided to as many people as possible at the lowest cost as possible. That being the starting point, there isn't much difference between Obama, liberals, conservatives, and myself. The way he plans on going about it, however, has me concerned....to say the least. I agree something needs to be done, but we've already seen how haste and misjudgement can turn out, e.g., closing Gitmo with out a plan for moving prisoners and a stimulus plan which, to date, has been a complete failure. Some say they see signs of the economy turning around (debatable since unemployment contiues to rise) and credit the stimulus bill. However, almost nothing in the stimulus bill has yet to be spent (less than 10%). Do you think we over did it? Where are those jobs Obama was promising?
He's now pushing this public plan option, which has been criticized by some in his own party in favor of a single-payer option. In fact, the first question after his comments today was in regards to this issue. Why not go for the single-payer option? My personal feeling is that concervatives would have a heyday with him saying that this is undeniable proof that he has us on the road to socialism/nationalization. Combined with the takeovers in banking, automotive industry, and insurance companies, it makes a pretty strong case. The way I see it, this plan accomplishes the same thing, but does so under the guise of something else. As soon as employers see this option out there, they are going to drop private plans like crazy. Let's face it, what company wants to a) have to pay for healtcare benefits and b) have to worry about it. Private plans will fade away and the government will be in the driver's seat in terms of providing healthcare. IMO, this will lead to the inevitiable swith to the single-payer option, all without this administration ever having to specifically support it.
What's up with Medicare (single payer) recently being held up as the ideal model of healthcare. I've recently heard from several liberals that Medicare is the most efficient model available for healthcare (so it's probably some talking point somewhere). Maybe it is more "efficient" in terms of overhead but can we pay for it? Isn't Medicare facing insolvency by 2020 (just like Medicade and Social Security)? When Obama mentioned how this public plan would be payed for, didn't he mention reallocating funds from Medicare Advantage (some $188 billion dollars) that, in his opinion, were not being used wisely. That's efficiency?
As far as paying for this plan, why is the option of taxing healthcare benefits still out on the table? Futher, why is there an exemption for union workers in this plan? He keeps talking about simply reallocating funds already included in the healthcare budget but are not being used adequately. See how that works? It's not our (the taxpayers') money; it's already in the budget, so it must be the governments. That's exactly the kind of inefficiency and wreckless spending that has so many people in this country frustrated. It's not a new tax, but we're still paying for it. The other revenue options are removing deductions , which other Americans can claim, from the top 2% of wage earners. People in this country are so frustrated by how politicians just spend, spend, spend, but those that support this plan aren't any different, IMO. This plan is all well and good.....as long as someone else is paying for it, right? Please note that the largest supporters of this bill want to get their cake and eat it too. Union workers? Oh, you won't have to pay any taxes on your HC benefits, so I take it that you are for the plan? The uninsured? How many of them are in the top 2% of wage earners? They won't have a problem with taxing the rich. This is how the whole liberal plan works: find a benefit that a majority of people want and get it for them without them having to pay for it. Newsflash!!!!! Someone always pays for it! NOTHING IS FREE. Notice how unions, some of the biggest advocates for socialism and nationalization, started pulling their support when they realized they might have to pay for it themselves. I also noticed that zilla here was a little concerned about the same thing (possibly the first time he's ever questioned anything Obama has ever said). My point is this: if you aren't willing to spend your own money on it, but are all too willing to spend someone else's money for it, you are no different than the scumbag politicians that we all love to hate. You want nationalized healthcare? Then you better put your money where you mouth is. You should be willing to pay YOUR share for the benefits YOU receive or for the benefits that you are so concerned that others receive. Also, don't be surprised when you actually end up paying for it because that's what always happens anyway. The cost will be higher and the revenues will be less than projected, and the taxbase will be expanded to make up the difference. It's a terrible sign that they are already talking about taxing the average joe's HC benefits; they must be expecting enormous costs, which you and I won't truly hear about until it's too late.
We all have to wonder about the true effectiveness of this plan. Just tell me what the government does that is efficient and done without massive corruption? Why all the importance on digitizing medical records? Obama said it would save lives because clinicians wouldn't have to decipher, perhaps wrongly, the chickenscratch of doctors. Is that the primary reason? Wouldn't there still be errors when someone enters in all this data into the computer? I would think a better arguement is that they could track treatment methods for particular illnesses and analyze success rates. I would at least find that worthwhile, but I didn't hear that as a reason. No, I think the real reason for pushing this digital medical records thing is that GE, who in all likelihood will win the billions of dollars contract for this effort, was one of the largest supporters of Obama's campaign. Beyond that, we will see the American medical system, which is the most advanced in the world, slip into the mediocraty that has become our school system.
Finally, I think there are some other steps that should be tried before we go all out on this "experiment" with healthcare. 1) Let's put some caps on malpractice judgements (tort reform) so that doctors don't have to pay such extreme insurance costs. 2) Let's start allowing people to claim deductions for any personal health insurance plans they cover. Heck, your employer gets to claim a tax benefit for supplying you with health insurance, why can't we? It's not currently allowed because the government wants us to be dependent on others (be it the government or our employer) for our health insurance. 3) Talk about the need for restrictions - Obama's been all over Wall Street with this - let's look into why health insurance company profits are growing at a rate of 15-80% per year. I'm all for the free-market, but something tells me that we're getting screwed. The government can regulate business practices without actually taking the industry over. 4) Regulation (not control) of drug and medical equipment manufacturers could also pay real dividends.
Sorry, this went way long. I guess I could have put this under the "Rants" section. Anyway, I'm just pissed about the government taking over so much, so fast. It's scary! Our freedoms and free-market are being wisked away under the guise of goodwill and economic security. I barely recognize this country any longer. I've invested so much in my education and now that I am about to finally enjoy the benefits, it looks like I'll be sharing them with everyone else, while my family gets the leftovers. Can I say F' this guy? Obama just pisses me off. He is quickly becoming the worst president we have ever had.
He's now pushing this public plan option, which has been criticized by some in his own party in favor of a single-payer option. In fact, the first question after his comments today was in regards to this issue. Why not go for the single-payer option? My personal feeling is that concervatives would have a heyday with him saying that this is undeniable proof that he has us on the road to socialism/nationalization. Combined with the takeovers in banking, automotive industry, and insurance companies, it makes a pretty strong case. The way I see it, this plan accomplishes the same thing, but does so under the guise of something else. As soon as employers see this option out there, they are going to drop private plans like crazy. Let's face it, what company wants to a) have to pay for healtcare benefits and b) have to worry about it. Private plans will fade away and the government will be in the driver's seat in terms of providing healthcare. IMO, this will lead to the inevitiable swith to the single-payer option, all without this administration ever having to specifically support it.
What's up with Medicare (single payer) recently being held up as the ideal model of healthcare. I've recently heard from several liberals that Medicare is the most efficient model available for healthcare (so it's probably some talking point somewhere). Maybe it is more "efficient" in terms of overhead but can we pay for it? Isn't Medicare facing insolvency by 2020 (just like Medicade and Social Security)? When Obama mentioned how this public plan would be payed for, didn't he mention reallocating funds from Medicare Advantage (some $188 billion dollars) that, in his opinion, were not being used wisely. That's efficiency?
As far as paying for this plan, why is the option of taxing healthcare benefits still out on the table? Futher, why is there an exemption for union workers in this plan? He keeps talking about simply reallocating funds already included in the healthcare budget but are not being used adequately. See how that works? It's not our (the taxpayers') money; it's already in the budget, so it must be the governments. That's exactly the kind of inefficiency and wreckless spending that has so many people in this country frustrated. It's not a new tax, but we're still paying for it. The other revenue options are removing deductions , which other Americans can claim, from the top 2% of wage earners. People in this country are so frustrated by how politicians just spend, spend, spend, but those that support this plan aren't any different, IMO. This plan is all well and good.....as long as someone else is paying for it, right? Please note that the largest supporters of this bill want to get their cake and eat it too. Union workers? Oh, you won't have to pay any taxes on your HC benefits, so I take it that you are for the plan? The uninsured? How many of them are in the top 2% of wage earners? They won't have a problem with taxing the rich. This is how the whole liberal plan works: find a benefit that a majority of people want and get it for them without them having to pay for it. Newsflash!!!!! Someone always pays for it! NOTHING IS FREE. Notice how unions, some of the biggest advocates for socialism and nationalization, started pulling their support when they realized they might have to pay for it themselves. I also noticed that zilla here was a little concerned about the same thing (possibly the first time he's ever questioned anything Obama has ever said). My point is this: if you aren't willing to spend your own money on it, but are all too willing to spend someone else's money for it, you are no different than the scumbag politicians that we all love to hate. You want nationalized healthcare? Then you better put your money where you mouth is. You should be willing to pay YOUR share for the benefits YOU receive or for the benefits that you are so concerned that others receive. Also, don't be surprised when you actually end up paying for it because that's what always happens anyway. The cost will be higher and the revenues will be less than projected, and the taxbase will be expanded to make up the difference. It's a terrible sign that they are already talking about taxing the average joe's HC benefits; they must be expecting enormous costs, which you and I won't truly hear about until it's too late.
We all have to wonder about the true effectiveness of this plan. Just tell me what the government does that is efficient and done without massive corruption? Why all the importance on digitizing medical records? Obama said it would save lives because clinicians wouldn't have to decipher, perhaps wrongly, the chickenscratch of doctors. Is that the primary reason? Wouldn't there still be errors when someone enters in all this data into the computer? I would think a better arguement is that they could track treatment methods for particular illnesses and analyze success rates. I would at least find that worthwhile, but I didn't hear that as a reason. No, I think the real reason for pushing this digital medical records thing is that GE, who in all likelihood will win the billions of dollars contract for this effort, was one of the largest supporters of Obama's campaign. Beyond that, we will see the American medical system, which is the most advanced in the world, slip into the mediocraty that has become our school system.
Finally, I think there are some other steps that should be tried before we go all out on this "experiment" with healthcare. 1) Let's put some caps on malpractice judgements (tort reform) so that doctors don't have to pay such extreme insurance costs. 2) Let's start allowing people to claim deductions for any personal health insurance plans they cover. Heck, your employer gets to claim a tax benefit for supplying you with health insurance, why can't we? It's not currently allowed because the government wants us to be dependent on others (be it the government or our employer) for our health insurance. 3) Talk about the need for restrictions - Obama's been all over Wall Street with this - let's look into why health insurance company profits are growing at a rate of 15-80% per year. I'm all for the free-market, but something tells me that we're getting screwed. The government can regulate business practices without actually taking the industry over. 4) Regulation (not control) of drug and medical equipment manufacturers could also pay real dividends.
Sorry, this went way long. I guess I could have put this under the "Rants" section. Anyway, I'm just pissed about the government taking over so much, so fast. It's scary! Our freedoms and free-market are being wisked away under the guise of goodwill and economic security. I barely recognize this country any longer. I've invested so much in my education and now that I am about to finally enjoy the benefits, it looks like I'll be sharing them with everyone else, while my family gets the leftovers. Can I say F' this guy? Obama just pisses me off. He is quickly becoming the worst president we have ever had.