Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

The Obama health plan

Election 2008 Obama Health Plan 2007

  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#21 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 31 May 2007 - 11:58 PM

QT said:

The dose of fiscal reality isn't what's the cheap shot. The cheap shot is the claim that the US "can't" provide free universal health care. Of course the US "can."
We could raise the revenue necessary to fund Obama's plan for the time being. However, medical costs are rising at a faster rate than our economy is growing, and unless this is changed, I don't see how Obama's plan can be viable in the long run. And we already have ticking time bombs in the budget without adding another one. In the coming years, we will have the baby boomers' Medicare and Social Security to pay for, which will require hefty tax increases of their own unless we slash benefits. America's trade deficit is expected to result in sharply higher interest rates starting in several years and continued devaluation of the dollar so borrowing the money from our foreign creditors is not something I would recommend.


QT said:

And - given some of your other comments, I'm surprised you disagree. We are funding (as you said) innovation in medicine - so health care costs are rising, and the cost of paying for universal access has to be borne some how.
Medical costs are rising. That doesn't mean universal health care or government-funded insurance is a good idea.


Lin said:

American's are told that it would be bad for R&D if we bargained for better prices but I'd like to know who decided that footing the bills for R&D was our damned job in the first place?
U.S. health insurance companies currently bargain for lower drug prices. If the U.S. government bargained for those prices, drug R&D shouldn't suffer too much. However, Obama says that Americans are paying a 67% premium over the prices paid in Canada and Europe. The 40% reduction in U.S. drug prices necessary to achieve price parity would eat into R&D.


RobL said:

My employer already pays for my health insurance. Taking away that and giving me some other crappy government-funded sh*t program which will probably make the VA system look like the pinnacle of the healthcare system is BS in every sense of the word.
Obama's health plan wouldn't intentionally take away your employer-provided health insurance although at least one Democratic candidate's plan would. However, if Obama's "play or pay" plan is implemented, it is possible that employers will use it as an excuse to stop offering health insurance to their employees.

Edited by Solar Wind, 01 June 2007 - 03:10 AM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#22 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,353 posts

Posted 01 June 2007 - 09:38 AM

View PostRobL, on May 31 2007, 10:17 PM, said:

'QT' said:

The dose of fiscal reality isn't what's the cheap shot.  The cheap shot is the claim that the US "can't" provide free universal health care.  Of course the US "can."  We just won't.  And - given some of your other comments, I'm surprised you disagree.  We are funding (as you said) innovation in medicine - so health care costs are rising, and the cost of paying for universal access has to be borne some how.  Obama's plan will certainly raise taxes, as will any other.  But "universal free health care" such as we are being charged with not "providing" will be astronomical in cost - and the majority of Americans don't want to foot the bill.

QT

You say that, but then YOU aren't getting 40% of your paycheck withheld for tax and SSI. At some point, its got to end.

I'm all for paying my fair share. What I'm not for is paying for some welfare queen to live off my tax dollars, and then expect me to pay for everyone else's health care. My employer already pays for my health insurance. Taking away that and giving me some other crappy government-funded sh*t program which will probably make the VA system look like the pinnacle of the healthcare system is BS in every sense of the word.

The liberals need to keep their money grubbing hands off my wallet, and start trimming the fat off their own pork-barrel to pay for their pet projects.  :glare:


Hold on a minute, RobL.  Based upon WHAT precisely, are you determining how much gets withheld from my paycheck?  What information do YOU have that allows you to assert what I am and am not having withheld?

Moreover - what the heck are you talking about?  My assertion was precisely the same as yours - that we don't WANT to give up our existing insurance solutions - so finding a way to cover the uninsured can't involve taking from those who have.  Did you read my comments at all, or did you just show up in the thread to start stuff for no good reason?

QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#23 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,353 posts

Posted 01 June 2007 - 09:40 AM

View PostSolar Wind, on Jun 1 2007, 12:58 AM, said:

QT said:

And - given some of your other comments, I'm surprised you disagree. We are funding (as you said) innovation in medicine - so health care costs are rising, and the cost of paying for universal access has to be borne some how.
Medical costs are rising. That doesn't mean universal health care or government-funded insurance is a good idea.


Show me where I disagreed.

QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#24 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 01 June 2007 - 10:00 AM

^ Maybe I'm misinterpreting your post. What are you surprised I disagree with? How did you get from "health care costs are rising" to "the cost of paying for universal access has to be borne some how"?

Edited by Solar Wind, 01 June 2007 - 10:35 AM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#25 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,353 posts

Posted 01 June 2007 - 11:17 AM

OK - yes, you are misunderstanding.

The charge was that the US "Can't" provide free universal health care. It's a charge leveled at the US all the time.  I pointed out that Americans don't WANT it, and so of course the government won't create something the people don't want.  I then went on to point out that "free universal health care" is expensive - and paying for it means raising taxes above what is reasonable in the minds of most Americans, and so therefore, any plan for universal coverage (as opposed to universal FREE health care) would need to preserve what we have, and then extend coverage to those who don't have - which is what the Obama plan purports to do.  

I understood you as disagreeing that the it's a cheap shot to hurl at the US that we don't provide FREE Universal Health Care, since you'd been talking about the rising cost of medicine the whole time.  I think that you don't disagree, after all, so forgive my earlier misunderstanding.

QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#26 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 01 June 2007 - 11:53 AM

Interesting discussion on Daily Kos from this past January on a proposal that seems to be essentially what Obama is endorsing:

http://www.dailykos....1/12/113827/409
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#27 RobL

RobL

  • Dead account
  • 3,383 posts

Posted 01 June 2007 - 05:50 PM

View PostQueenTiye, on Jun 1 2007, 06:38 AM, said:

View PostRobL, on May 31 2007, 10:17 PM, said:

'QT' said:

The dose of fiscal reality isn't what's the cheap shot.  The cheap shot is the claim that the US "can't" provide free universal health care.  Of course the US "can."  We just won't.  And - given some of your other comments, I'm surprised you disagree.  We are funding (as you said) innovation in medicine - so health care costs are rising, and the cost of paying for universal access has to be borne some how.  Obama's plan will certainly raise taxes, as will any other.  But "universal free health care" such as we are being charged with not "providing" will be astronomical in cost - and the majority of Americans don't want to foot the bill.

QT

You say that, but then YOU aren't getting 40% of your paycheck withheld for tax and SSI. At some point, its got to end.

I'm all for paying my fair share. What I'm not for is paying for some welfare queen to live off my tax dollars, and then expect me to pay for everyone else's health care. My employer already pays for my health insurance. Taking away that and giving me some other crappy government-funded sh*t program which will probably make the VA system look like the pinnacle of the healthcare system is BS in every sense of the word.

The liberals need to keep their money grubbing hands off my wallet, and start trimming the fat off their own pork-barrel to pay for their pet projects.  :glare:


Hold on a minute, RobL.  Based upon WHAT precisely, are you determining how much gets withheld from my paycheck?  What information do YOU have that allows you to assert what I am and am not having withheld?

Because of your kid, you have more deductions than I do. I'm in the max tax bracket, and no matter how you argue it, there is no way you can be paying more than me percentage wise, unless your Donald Trump or some other mega-millionare.

Quote

Moreover - what the heck are you talking about?  My assertion was precisely the same as yours - that we don't WANT to give up our existing insurance solutions - so finding a way to cover the uninsured can't involve taking from those who have.  Did you read my comments at all, or did you just show up in the thread to start stuff for no good reason?

QT

I'm talking about your assertion that we cannot afford to NOT do something. We can very well deal with this problem with the private sector. Its simple: If you can't get a job that has medical insurance, then go out, get an education, and find one that does. I did. And If I could, then so can every single person in this country.

Have you not noticed that every single thing the government does, it does f*ck*d up? From taxes to the war, its all universally f*ck*d up. Health care will be so messed up, that most, if not all, of us will not be able to get the care we need. At least now, I've got my own private insurance so that I don't HAVE to rely on the government. (In fact, I will NEVER trust the federal government to do anything other than take money out of my pocket every April 15th).

And if you don't like my attitude, tough. Two things that I will not stand for are the infringement of the second amendment, and the government taking money from me for their own pork barrel. And if you don't think this "government health care" won't be riddled with pork barrel, then you're nuts.

Bring back Darthsikle!


#28 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,353 posts

Posted 01 June 2007 - 07:27 PM

View PostRobL, on Jun 1 2007, 06:50 PM, said:

QueenTiye said:


Hold on a minute, RobL.  Based upon WHAT precisely, are you determining how much gets withheld from my paycheck?  What information do YOU have that allows you to assert what I am and am not having withheld?

Because of your kid, you have more deductions than I do. I'm in the max tax bracket, and no matter how you argue it, there is no way you can be paying more than me percentage wise, unless your Donald Trump or some other mega-millionare.

Which - you don't know anything about, although, in fact, I'm not a mega-millionaire.  Moreover - the fact that I have a kid means that I have more expenses - which means that my paycheck is stretched further. But I'll concede that there is a deduction I have (1 child) that you apparently do not.

Quote

I'm talking about your assertion that we cannot afford to NOT do something.

Find my words saying that.  I'd be interested in what you read that you thought meant that.

Quote

We can very well deal with this problem with the private sector. Its simple: If you can't get a job that has medical insurance, then go out, get an education, and find one that does. I did. And If I could, then so can every single person in this country.

False.  Not much else to say there - but some jobs don't come with medical insurance because they are too small to pay for it.  Some people don't work on jobs - they are self-employed.  We already cover the extremely poor through medicaid - so the people not covered aren't the "welfare queens" etc.  They are working people just like you and me.  Them and sometimes undocumented workers, etc.  I'm not endorsing any particular means of dealing with the problem - I'm just looking at the one offered solution mentioned in this thread - the Obama Health plan.


QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#29 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 01 June 2007 - 07:46 PM

The uninsured aren't all poor folks. And increasingly, workers in large companies are also uninsured.

A problem is that work-provided insurance has become too expensive for some employees and employers alike. Personally, I think it's only a matter of time before the business community devotes significant resources to fighting the insurers and convincing people that for us to remain competitive in a global economy, we need to have universal, single-payer health care. Already, we're losing manufacturing jobs to Canada because companies save a bundle by not having to provide insurance to Canadian workers.



Here's a recent article on the uninsured:

http://www.usatoday....ured-usat_N.htm
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#30 RobL

RobL

  • Dead account
  • 3,383 posts

Posted 01 June 2007 - 07:53 PM

View PostQueenTiye, on Jun 1 2007, 04:27 PM, said:

Which - you don't know anything about, although, in fact, I'm not a mega-millionaire.  Moreover - the fact that I have a kid means that I have more expenses - which means that my paycheck is stretched further. But I'll concede that there is a deduction I have (1 child) that you apparently do not.

I'm not talking about "other expenses". I'm talking about payroll deductions taken out by the government.

Quote

Find my words saying that.  I'd be interested in what you read that you thought meant that.
Its implied by the totality of your posts on this subject.

Quote

False.  Not much else to say there - but some jobs don't come with medical insurance because they are too small to pay for it.  Some people don't work on jobs - they are self-employed.  We already cover the extremely poor through medicaid - so the people not covered aren't the "welfare queens" etc.  They are working people just like you and me.  Them and sometimes undocumented workers, etc.  I'm not endorsing any particular means of dealing with the problem - I'm just looking at the one offered solution mentioned in this thread - the Obama Health plan.


QT

What part of "get an education, get a better job" didn't you understand? No big surprise that the starting cashier at McDonalds doesn't have insurance. That's because thats a starting job for a teenager or recently out of high-schooler, not a career. As for the "self employed", many HMOs have single-person or famliy plans which are very affordable. And if you can't afford it, then, maybe you shouldn't be running your own busness.

As for the "undocumented" worker, don't make me laugh. Deport them, make their own home nations pay for their own healthcare needs.

Obama-rhymes-with-Osama's plan is just more pork barrel. Just like Hillary's plan in the early 90's. Just like any other plans put out there by any other politician.

Bring back Darthsikle!


#31 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 01 June 2007 - 11:32 PM

View PostSpectacles, on Jun 1 2007, 05:46 PM, said:

The uninsured aren't all poor folks. And increasingly, workers in large companies are also uninsured.

A problem is that work-provided insurance has become too expensive for some employees and employers alike. Personally, I think it's only a matter of time before the business community devotes significant resources to fighting the insurers and convincing people that for us to remain competitive in a global economy, we need to have universal, single-payer health care. Already, we're losing manufacturing jobs to Canada because companies save a bundle by not having to provide insurance to Canadian workers.



Here's a recent article on the uninsured:

http://www.usatoday....ured-usat_N.htm
Absolutely. We've been giving up health care benefits right and left for years. When I started my job, we had a $10 copay and our prescription copays were $5/$10/$15. Now we pay a $25 copay and its $15/25/35. Our life insurance has gone down from $50,000 to about $8000!! But it was either that or take a pay cut, given the state of the California school system, which is only just now slightly recovering. Plus, some of the union folks want to take away our choices and only allow us Kaiser, which is slightly cheaper than Health Net. I went to their nursing school and I wouldn't let Kaiser treat a hangnail, much less put my life in their hands.

It's not just small businesses and self-employed folks who are having trouble staying insured.  And perhaps if we had universal health care, so many hospitals in California wouldn't have closed due to immigrants, legal and illegal, using the emergency room as a free f*ck*ng clinic (and what's really ironic is how many free and close to free clinics there ARE in California).
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#32 offworlder

offworlder

    pls don't kick offworlders, we can find a place too

  • Islander
  • 5,363 posts

Posted 02 June 2007 - 01:00 PM

I'm really, actually, considering (yeah I know unAmerican) not voting (again)
my last prez vote was 2000 when we were gjipped(?)

but I just think Obama's not the guy, and Hillary might be somewhat dangerous, depending on who she listens to for advice, like toward more a welfare state (and I'm a democrat!!) ; and now Thompson might come in but he is not the guy, his background is all wrong, and here they say he's like Reagan??!
I'm more, and Bush has sure taught me the reality on this!, afraid of who they bring into the WH than he/she himself!

why do the right people ..... never run?
"(Do you read what they say online?) I check out all these scandalous rumours about me and Elijah Wood having beautiful sex with each other ... (are they true?) About Elijah and me being boyfriend and boyfriend? Absolutely true. We've been together for about nine years. I wooed him. No I just like a lot of stuff - I like that someone says one thing and it becomes fact. It's kind of fun." --Dominic Monaghan in a phone interview with Newsweek while buying DVDs at the store. :D

#33 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 04 June 2007 - 10:35 AM

Canada's national health system means companies there can pay their workers less in total wages and benefits than their American counterparts. Instead of the companies paying for health insurance as they do in the US, the Canadian workers pay for their health care system through their higher tax rates. There's a tradeoff between attracting more jobs and the amount those jobs pay in wages and benefits.

Also, as clarification, the reason I singled out Obama's health plan is that the other Democratic frontrunner (Hillary Clinton) has not yet proposed a plan for covering the uninsured (unless you count HillaryCare, but that was almost 14 years ago).

Back to Obama's plan, I'm somewhat dubious of his proposal to cover the cost by not extending the Bush tax cuts when they expire. If you go by the Laffer curve argument (which I don't), the tax cuts are paying for themselves by stimulating the economy. Personally, while I think the tax cuts did stimulate the economy, I doubt it was by nearly enough for the tax cuts to result in increased revenue for the government. If you reject the Laffer curve argument, then repealing the Bush tax cuts is necessary to bring the federal budget deficit under control (unless the politicians can come to an agreement on which programs to slash). Either way, it's questionable that ending the Bush tax cuts would be able to fund Obama's health insurance plan while reducing the budget deficit to a semi-comfortable level. Also, as the number of uninsured grows, the cost of Obama's plan will grow since it will have to cover more people. Add in the rising costs of medical care per person, and as I've said, I think that funding Obama's plan would become a significant challenge. Perhaps the money would initially be raised by taxing the "rich," but the money necessary to fund the program would grow. I suspect that many middle-income families would be unable to afford higher taxes, and I think it's fiscally dangerous to borrow the money since the budget deficit is uncomfortably large as it is even with the low-interest rates we're getting now. The low-interest rates won't last.

Edited by Solar Wind, 04 June 2007 - 11:09 AM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#34 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 04 June 2007 - 10:44 AM

View PostQueenTiye, on Jun 1 2007, 10:17 AM, said:

I understood you as disagreeing that the it's a cheap shot to hurl at the US that we don't provide FREE Universal Health Care, since you'd been talking about the rising cost of medicine the whole time.  I think that you don't disagree, after all, so forgive my earlier misunderstanding.

I thought the "cheap shot" comment was in reference to something I wrote although on rereading the thread, I think it may have been made in response to someone else.

Hopefully, the last paragraph in my previous post clarifies my position because that's about as clear as I can make it.

Edited by Solar Wind, 04 June 2007 - 11:09 AM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#35 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 04 June 2007 - 04:42 PM

View PostSolar Wind, on Jun 4 2007, 08:35 AM, said:

Canada's national health system means companies there can pay their workers less in total wages and benefits than their  Personally, while I think the tax cuts did stimulate the economy, I doubt it was by nearly enough for the tax cuts to result in increased revenue for the government. If you reject the Laffer curve argument, then repealing the Bush tax cuts is necessary to bring the federal budget deficit under control (unless the politicians can come to an agreement on which programs to slash).

I agree absolutely. As an accountant I am always appalled at the idea that you can cut taxes and dramatically increase spending without going to rack and ruin. :eek2: It doesn't make common or any other kind of sense.
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Election 2008, Obama, Health Plan, 2007

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users