Obama's health care plan

P

pevodog

1,000+ Posts
Thoughts? I am fundamentally opposed to anymore government involvement in healthcare, but I recognize that his plan falls short of achieving any of the 'so-called' benefits of HRC health care plan. By not making enrollment in a plan mandatory, aren't we still going to fill the ERs with uninsured?

It seems that his plan takes all the logical rationale out and just leaves us with a nanny state program.
 
Pec
the great thing about obama's plna is you can not buy insurance UNTIL you need it and then you only have to " make some back payments"( quote from Obama)

that is sweet. Maybe he will extend it to auto and home. See what " change" can mean? I " Hope" he gets in.
 
I think both plans suck and neither address the biggest problem. The insurers are making a lot more than they pay out in benefits. Inordinately more. And the big boys have reduced the competition to the point where we can't do anything about it via going to their competition.

HRC seems to think that if we stop the insurers from dropping people and making them cover people they otherwise wouldn't, that will somehow make my costs drop. I don't buy it, and believe my costs would rise.

BO seems to just want to give me money so I can spend it on the already ridiculously priced insurance. I don't much like that either.

What can be done to reduce the waste in the system? And by waste I mean the amount of money that is funneled from my pockets to the bottom line.

This isn't me having a fundamental rift with big business. The very few companies in this industry have controlled the market to a point where they have the country's nuts in a vice. That may not be such a big deal in an less important industry, but when it comes to healthcare it's a problem, IMO.

Until we address the problem, none of the plans are worth a buffalo nickel.
 
I would just like to commend pevodog for starting a good thread on a Democratic candidate's policy (rather than just attacking the candidate for being a "lib"). And to commend those for the subsequent discussion on a big ticket issue.

This is a good, informative West Mall thread. I shall give it 5 stars.
 
I also commend Pevo for his measured and serious tone this morning- for a good overview of this topic, I'd recommend that everyone read this link:
A good overview of the pros and cons of Obamacare.

As some of you know from my many and frequent posts on this topic, I believe that the fundamental problem with our system is not access but rather the funding model which drives the affordability problem, which drives the access issue. Thus, I don't think individual mandates really address the systemic issue or how you police it.

Essentially the idea is to do two things: copy much of Romney's Massachusetts reforms and set up a National Insurance exchange (driving better competition) plus create what is essentially a publicly owned competitor to the exchange members.

here's the key issue (and question):
In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
Clener
IIRC that is exactly what the voters of Oregon rejected when a universal plan came up 10? years ago.
Orgeon actually published the list of diseases and maladies the state plan would cover in numerical order. Up to medical number 759 you were covered. medical problem number 760, adios.
People will say insurance compnaies are doing that now. Not sure that is true
 
you're right that's not true. they cut it off at number 40 instead. or for some they cover number 350, but others they don't. there's no perfect answer.

Clever - I realize your point, and it certainly is an issue, but it's a FAR cry from what is happening now with the deny, nonrenew, noncoverage BS that is ONLY attributable to higher profits.

no one is suggesting the insurers pay out more than they bring in...but something a bit closer than what they're doing now would be nice, don't you think?

the problems you see down the line are already happening NOW with the current system, and to a horrible extent. let's fix it.
 
I am pleased that both Democratic candidates are at least talking about this issue instead of shouting hyperbole of “Socialism!!!” and doing nothing.

Our health care system is unraveling, and it is beginning to affect our competitiveness. If a plan expands coverage but does not contain costs, then we are just dumping money into a broken system. Plus, we have huge deficits and the Baby Boomers are beginning to retire and drive up medical expenditures. Insuring everyone is relatively easy – controlling cost is the challenge.

My belief (as shown with the Clinton attempts in 1993) is that a plan advanced from the White House will not work. The new POTUS needs to approach this with the goal of getting 63%+ support in both house – they need a consensus, not just 51% because the Republicans will just fight it and obfuscate and not get anything solved. There are Republicans that will come on board the reform bandwagon.

To approach this issue, it will need to be bi-partisan and transparent, with Sr. leadership from both parties recommending solutions.

If I were Obama or Clinton, I would not put out a set plan – because why open yourself up to attack when you do not have the leverage of an election win behind you. I would state this was a priority, that I wanted to develop a plan that covered the 50 million people without coverage and contain costs and that I planned on utilizing a bi-partisan approach with a recco coming out this bi-partisan commission.

One final note, McCain talks about cost containment and tax-credits without specifics. I imagine is POV will be more fleshed out over time.
 
It should not be acceptable for insurance companies do deny new claims for no other reason than to see if they can get away with it. Everyone knows someone this has happened to. I would bet most have experienced it first hand. The industry is in desperate need of reform.
 
Some fundamental questions about responsibility and redistribution of wealth ought to be answered before trying to select the optimum healthcare funding arrangement. 1) Am I responsible and to be held so for choices I make that have foreseeable impact on my own health? 2) Is Joe Smith responsible for paying for my healthcare, and if so are there any limits to his responsibility to pay for me (e.g., my income, his income, my behavior, the treatments I want, the treatments I need to avoid dying today, the treatments I need to reduce my risk of dying within 10 years by 9%, the price of the treatments I want/need, the price of alternatives to the treatments I want, etc.)?

Some believe that the answer to question 1 is a categorical yes, some no, and some yes with the caveat that my health trumps actually making me face the consequences I deserve. If people are not responsible for the health consequences of their choices, single-payer government-controlled healthcare would appear the only rational solution. If the answer to question 1 is yes, then the US needs dramatically to reduce its involvement in healthcare, allowing market forces to sort out what has become a nightmare chimera of many of private and socialized medicine's worst aspects. "Yes but" is an intellectually weak answer that leads one to try to start out on the path one deep-down knows is philosophically flawed.

If the answer to question 2 is that Joe has no limit to his liability to pay my healthcare tab, we are at odds with reality and economics: demand is infinite, but resources are not. Structuring any plan around this answer is doomed to failure. Regardless of the form socialized medicine takes, then, we are left with the mandate that it deny certain expenses. Not everyone wants to be included in a universal system that will deny perhaps the one thing he may desire. Some are willing to cede to a central decision-maker the resources and power to be used to supply need X (in this case healthcare), while some would rather make the choices and the expenditures personally. An opt-in or opt-out system is unlikely ever to get traction, because how can anyone ever be held to opting out once a "need" arises?

There will always be sacrifice of what is philosophically sound to achieve what is politically expedient.

Our push toward universal healthcare as a right is problematic from the start. Negative rights (such as the right not to be killed or robbed) are easily defined and subtract nothing from one's neighbors. Positive "rights" such as the right to an MRI or to the latest drug are impossible to guarantee without forcibly taking something from a neighbor (and may still be impossible nevertheless).

EDIT: I am reminded of an OW Holmes quotation (which I think paraphrases an earlier 18th c. one): "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."
 
I'm more disappointed in HRC's plan than Obama's. HRC has totally abandoned her former plan in favor of a sellout to the insurance companies.

Insurance companies were diametrically opposed to her last time, and now they are her biggest campaign contributors. I guarantee you wont see any more Harry/Louise ads against her, because her plan is going to funnel TRILLIONS of dollars into their coffers by forcing everybody to sign up as a paying customer.

HRC is an absolute sellout on this issue.
 
CN's Simple Plan: single payor, lifetime cap of $X (maybe $500k?), after that, you're cut off. You can purchase supplemental umbrealla health for more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top