Americans set to get standardised/universal healthcare

[taks]

Hang on. I thought the whole point of the New Yorker article was that State health care costs a third less per head than private. _If_ we assume that to be correct then the selfish view accords with the altruist view.

it would only cost a third less because the actual cost is pushed off on the private. once the whole system is nationalized, the true costs will be realized. this is such an extremely weak argument that frankly, i'm surprised anyone would make it.

 

Unless you've got some kind of moral objection to subsidising other people's healthcare.

since when is abrogating one person's rights to favor another through the use of force moral? yeah, there's a moral argument to be made, but the position you've taken here is not moral in any sense that i know of.

 

taks

[Gfted1]

Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent

 

Sep 9, 12:26 PM (ET)

 

By ALAN FRAM

 

WASHINGTON (AP) - Public disapproval of President Barack Obama's handling of health care has jumped to 52 percent, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll released hours before he makes his case for overhaul in a prime-time address to Congress.

 

With his health revamp moving slowly and unemployment edging ever higher, Obama's overall approval rating has also suffered a blow. The survey showed that 49 percent now disapprove of how he is handling his job as president, up from 42 percent who disapproved in July.

 

The grade people give Obama on health care also has worsened since July, when just 43 percent disapproved of his work on the issue.

 

The poll underscores how the president has struggled to win public support to reshape the nation's $2.5 trillion health care system and to put the brakes on a deep recession.

 

Forty-nine percent say they oppose the health overhaul plans being considered by Congress, compared to just 34 percent who favor them.

 

People are about evenly split over what lawmakers should do now on health care: About four in 10 say they should keep trying to pass a bill this year while about the same number say they should start over again.

 

Significantly, though, only about two in 10 say the health care system should be left as is.

 

There is a clear public desire for a bipartisan approach on the issue. Eight in 10 say it's important that any plan that passes Congress should have the support of both parties, while two-thirds want Obama and Democrats to try winning support from Republicans, who with few exceptions have opposed the Democratic drive.

 

Obama's marks are also poor on the economy, with 52 percent saying they disapprove of how he's handled that issue.

 

A similar number disapprove of his handling of taxes, some of which may rise to help finance his health overhaul. And 56 percent dislike his handling of the budget deficit, which has skyrocketed under the costs of the financial bailouts and a recession that has caused sinking federal revenues.

 

The survey of 1,001 adults with cell and landline telephones was conducted from Sept. 3-8. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

 

Down goes Frazier!

 

Hopefully, with his across-the-boards ratings starting to circle the drain, this will be a one term presidency. I can only handle one trillion dollar charity case per term.

Edited September 9, 2009 by Gfted1

[Walsingham]

Hang on. I thought the whole point of the New Yorker article was that State health care costs a third less per head than private. _If_ we assume that to be correct then the selfish view accords with the altruist view.

it would only cost a third less because the actual cost is pushed off on the private. once the whole system is nationalized, the true costs will be realized. this is such an extremely weak argument that frankly, i'm surprised anyone would make it.

 

Unless you've got some kind of moral objection to subsidising other people's healthcare.

since when is abrogating one person's rights to favor another through the use of force moral? yeah, there's a moral argument to be made, but the position you've taken here is not moral in any sense that i know of.

 

taks

 

1. What do you mean by 'pushed off on the private'? It's not clear. Please explain; I like suprises.

2. You mean their right to suffer illness? I say again, because I never get tired of saying so: I've lived almost my whole life under the NHS. I had my life saved three times by NHS doctors when I was a kid and we couldn't possibly have afforded the treatment. I now have enough money to use private and I don't because I choose public, at the same time as enjoying a wide choice of private care and private health insurance.

[Guard Dog]

No kidding Gfted. A plurality of Americans have stood up an said "NO!" to a government run health plan. And the best part is most folks recognized Obamacare was step towards full government control of health care, and that is just a step to nationalization of property, which is just another step to socialisim. Not in my country, no way.

 

Congress may ram it down our throats anyway, we need to keep the pressure on. I read somewhere that there are over 1600 seperate individual health plans being sold in this country but federal law prohibits insurance companies from selling to just anyone any where. If they want to reform healthcare, how about starting there?

[Volourn]

There should be both a public and private option. And, taxes involved should be reasonable. Of course, that's eaiser said than done. I'm not a big fan of government 'stealing' people's ahrd earned money but I'm also not a fan of allowing people to die when they could be saved, either...

[Guard Dog]

 

Nuff said!

[Aristes]

I don't know about anything else, but I went from neutral on Obama to actively hostile. I remember trying to convince my more passionate friends that Obama isn't that bad, but by now I have more animosity for the president than I have had for any other, Democrat or Republican. If the administration had withdrawn the "fishy email" blog and then apologized, all would have been forgiven. As it is, they withdrew the blog and cited "fear mongers." I entered the service of my country at 17 and have voted in elections from local to national since I was 18. I am not a fear monger. I am a responsible citizen and I will never quietly relinquish my rights as an American.

[Meshugger]

So, since the very idea of govermental single-payer is out of the window, how about the Swiss model?

 

1) Healthcare insurance companies exists, there's no public option.

2) The swiss can freely choose which insurance company that they like.

3) Healthcare insurance companies are by law, forbidden to deny to pay for their client's treatment (certain exceptions may exists for plastic surgury)

4) Every swiss over the age of 18 have to, by law, have a healthcare insurance.

5) Monthly payments are regulated by law, not to exceed a certain procent of the client's income.

 

Practically universal healthcare for every citizen. Sounds bad or good?

Edited September 9, 2009 by Meshugger

[Guard Dog]

So, since the very idea of govermental single-payer is out of the window, how about the Swiss model?

 

1) Healthcare insurance companies exists, there's no public option.

2) The swiss can freely choose which insurance company that they like.

3) Healthcare insurance companies are by law, forbidden to deny to pay for their client's treatment (certain exceptions may exists for plastic surgury)

4) Every swiss over the age of 18 have to, by law, have a healthcare insurance.

5) Monthly payments are regulated by law, not to exceed a certain procent of the client's income.

 

Practically universal healthcare for every citizen. Sounds bad or good?

I love 1-3, no thanks on 4, 5 needs a little work but is good in principle.

[Wrath of Dagon]

None of the solutions proposed will do anything to control cost increases the way I understand it.

[Walsingham]

No kidding Gfted. A plurality of Americans have stood up an said "NO!" to a government run health plan. And the best part is most folks recognized Obamacare was step towards full government control of health care, and that is just a step to nationalization of property, which is just another step to socialisim. Not in my country, no way.

 

Just because I walk to my door doesn't mean I'm on the road to Damascus, mate. Seriously, you talk as if national healthcare means you have to learn the internationale and wear a boiler suit. It clearly doesn't.

[Guard Dog]

No kidding Gfted. A plurality of Americans have stood up an said "NO!" to a government run health plan. And the best part is most folks recognized Obamacare was step towards full government control of health care, and that is just a step to nationalization of property, which is just another step to socialisim. Not in my country, no way.

 

Just because I walk to my door doesn't mean I'm on the road to Damascus, mate. Seriously, you talk as if national healthcare means you have to learn the internationale and wear a boiler suit. It clearly doesn't.

Suppose you liked Damascus. Suppose you always wanted to not just go to Damascus you wanted to take everyone else with you. Suppose you always told eveyone Damascus was where it was at and if we just took a few steps we'd be on our way there. Then suppose you kidnapped me and threw me in the car should I not be worried we were going to Damascus? Obama has surrounded himself with socialists and in the case of Van Jones an outright self proclaimed communist. He has always been a vocal supporter of single payer health care which is de facto socialisim at least as far as health care goes. He has also publicly stated that the transition to single payer will involve a public option to compete with private and then begin moving everyone over to it until there is no private option. He has flat out said these things and you know it. I am a big believer in the domino theory and I don't want him or any of his despicable ilk knocking that first domino that leads to socialsism. That does not mean the federal government does not have some role to play in healthcare but by God they will NOT be allowed to run it. We will not have it. If they vote it in, we'll vote them out. What one congress does another can undo.

 

You should watch that video I linked a few posts back.

[Trenitay]

If the domino effect was so bad would already be one big socialist nation because of things like Medicare?

[Aristes]

I cannot believe that folks scoff at the slippery sloap idea when there are clear cases where the concept has led to wide sweeping policy decisions. The sloap need not be slippery, but don't go "hur hur hur the slippery sloap idea is so stoopid."

 

Obama is on record, several times, saying that he advocates a single payer government health care system and that he knows he cannot get it right away. He has, on record, said that he would gradually move policy towards a government run universal system.

 

I don't really care about UHC. I'm against it on principle, but I don't think it spells the end of democracy. It is clearly not capitalistic or free market, but the majority can call for it.

 

My problem is that folks call myth and lie what is clearly at the very least quite possible. Obama, within the past few years, has spoken at length about using the exact same strategies he's using now. Only now we must assume that he really does want to pursue the end goal any longer? That is a myth.

[Trenitay]

The "slippery slope" idea is not stupid but I honestly can't see America sitting there and accepting a completely socialist government. If anything too extreme happened most people would be up in arms (although many already are). I just think that giving it a chance before screaming "He's turning us into Socialists!" is a good idea.

[Guard Dog]

The "slippery slope" idea is not stupid but I honestly can't see America sitting there and accepting a completely socialist government. If anything too extreme happened most people would be up in arms (although many already are). I just think that giving it a chance before screaming "He's turning us into Socialists!" is a good idea.

 

Awsomeness, please do me a favor and watch this video with an open mind. Remember, a law that seems innocouos or even benevolent today can be used to strangle you somewhere down the road.

 

[Trenitay]

Alright, I tried to watch that video with a pretty open mind, and my conclusion is this: the fall down the slope could very easily happen if one lets it happen. But I try to have more faith in the American people then believing they will just let it happen. I also have more faith in Obama, but that's a different disscusion. I can see how one might draw that conclusion, but, in trying to be an optimist, I try to draw the best possible conclusion. I believe most of us are smarter than accepting full socialism, but I will be paying attention to the government's actions just in case.

 

P.S. A law that seems innocuous or benevolent could also be just that.

[Humodour]

Wow. Reading American reactions to universal healthcare is truly bizarre at times. Alien almost.

Edited September 10, 2009 by Krezack

[Trenitay]

We are a silly bunch aren't we.

[taks]

Wow. Reading American reactions to universal healthcare is truly bizarre at times. Alien almost.

because you wear nice shoes. really.

 

taks

[Killian Kalthorne]

I don't have faith in any politician. While I agree with Obama on many issues, placing "faith" in anything or anyone can be detrimental to one's sanity.

[Walsingham]

I don't have faith in any politician. While I agree with Obama on many issues, placing "faith" in anything or anyone can be detrimental to one's sanity.

 

Says the man most likely to be locked up... if he ever left the comforting embrace of his armoured duvet fortress.

 

@GD:

 

Just because Obama wants something to be more extreme than you do doesn't mean you have to go that far. Take the system as far as you want and then exert the checks and balances. You're setting up your own straw man*!

 

Case in point. In the UK a regular police force was opposed because it was suggested that the Crown wanted to use the police to establish a dictatorship. Opponents argued that such a force would naturally appeal to a dictatorial monarch. Logic FAIL.

 

 

 

 

*I think that's what it's called. I learned the term on these fora.

[Humodour]

*I think that's what it's called. I learned the term on these fora.

 

I hope you learnt about just the term from these forums, and gained your instruction on how to use it elsewhere.

[Guard Dog]

@GD:

 

Just because Obama wants something to be more extreme than you do doesn't mean you have to go that far. Take the system as far as you want and then exert the checks and balances. You're setting up your own straw man*!

 

Not only does he want it he outlined exactly how to get it and is following his plan to the letter. For this example only, suppose he gets what he wants, a public plan to "compete" with private companies. This public plan is ostensibly not-for-profit and has no fiduciary responsibilities since if it runs short on cash the government simply gives it an infusion of cash by raising taxes, or worse simply printing the money as Obama has been wont to do this past year. Private companies cannot simply invent funds so they are already operating against an unfair advantage. Included in his plan is a law FORCING everyone to have insurance. There are a myriad of federal laws regulating insurance companies and what they can sell to whom and where. For example, if I wanted to buy my own plan there are over 1600 individual plans out there, I am only allowed to by 2-3 of them. So if the ones available are cost prohibitive I am forced onto the "public" plan. And you had better believe the big government hacks are savvy enough to ensure most people will be forced into that option by all means fair or foul. So once again, anyone can be placed on the public plan but the government who owns the public plan gets final say who the insurance companies can and cannot sell to. Once again, a very unfair advantage. Finally, because it has no fiduciary responsibility the public plan can undercut the private companies which will entice employers to drop private coverage and the coup is complete. Private companies go under, the government takes over and now by God they own you. Health care is the ultimate back stage pass into everyones lives. Want to outlaw smoking, drinking, scuba diving? They now have "vested financial interest" in your health and they will extrapolate that into the power to dictate how you live your life. I am not saying Obama wants to or will do all of these things but somewhere down the road someone will and all the groundwork needed will have been laid. No thank you. Not in my country.

 

A very wise man once told me that the most intelligent way to look at government is to examine all of the factions and imagine what would happen if each of them got everything they wanted. Once you've done that you support the one that scares you the least. Obama and his ilk scare the hell out of me.

 

Big Daddy Don Garlits told me that when I worked for him on his 1994 congressional campaign.

[Guard Dog]

Just one more thought on this and I'll let it go. The Democrats have a super-majority in congress. They own it. The Republicans are absolutely irrelevant. They cannot filibuster or outright defeat anything. They could no more stop the Dems from passing this than they can stop the sun from rising tomorrow. There are three bills in the House and one in the Senate that do everything Obama wants including a government run public option. If this was such a god damned good thing then why have they not passed one yet? Heck they will not even allow a vote on it yet. Why? Becase they cannot even get all of the Democrats to go along with it. You don't need a singe Repub vote but when 1/3 of your own god damned party knows it stinks maybe you need to take another look at it before ramming it down everyones throats.