Obama New Health Care Plan

Jan 2009
5,841
50
#21
There are a couple of places in this world that don't have governments. Have you considered moving to Somalia or the Congo? I'm sure you'd be much happier there.
Using that logic let me say why don't you move to North Korea, Russia, or Iran? You would be much happier there.

I am not proposing anarachy here. I am simply proposing limited government. What you seem to overlook is that government is made up of people and just like the private sector, people in government also have their own agendas. That is why big government is so susceptible to lobbying and such. Cut that government power and you lose that lobbying power. Markets mean everyone has equal power, whereas government-backing through lobbying and such means a few groups have more power than others and leads to problems such as those that we are currently seeing in the health care market.

@Dirk I am going to go with curious on this one (probably the first time we have agreed on something :p ) and ask how do you see that working. How would the worker's soviet maintain equal power among the workers? That sort of thinking has been tried before and it turned into communism. Just wondering how you see it working out- would there be representation that makes choices for others (which would be government) or would people simply have buying power limits and suppliers have selling power limits (free markets) or something else?...
 
Mar 2009
422
3
Florida, USA
#22
I am against Government control as a whole, completely against central Government control, and against the existence of Government in general.
I have never said I believed in total control of everything by the government, but Dirk has said that he is for the total absence of government. What he wants is much more extreme in his direction than what I want is in the other direction.

What I don't see here are people who are willing to give up the benefits of what they deride. Are any of you willing to live like I do, without health insurance and with a poverty-level income? Or even live without health insurance?
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#23
I have never said I believed in total control of everything by the government, but Dirk has said that he is for the total absence of government. What he wants is much more extreme in his direction than what I want is in the other direction.
Oh, that comment was in response to him. Sorry, I misunderstood whom you were addressing.

What I don't see here are people who are willing to give up the benefits of what they deride. Are any of you willing to live like I do, without health insurance and with a poverty-level income? Or even live without health insurance?
The thing is that I believe in living without those socialized benefits, but at the same time living without the taxes that come along with them. If there were no social security and no income tax, people would have enough money to save for retirement and extra money left over to go towards medical care and such. Also, increased competition would mean lower prices on medical services.
 
Mar 2009
2,187
2
#24
Obama wants to stand out. I think history will prove him to be outstanding at spending money we don't have. This guy wants to control everything. And billions mean nothing to him. He thinks in trillions!:mad:
Totally with you on this one. Especially your last comment is so much on the mark.
 
Mar 2009
422
3
Florida, USA
#25
Well, I'd go for single payer. But we're not going to get that. There are several countries in Europe that have laws like this, but they also comple employers to provide insurance. That means only the self-employed, the retired, and the unemployed will have the government plan option.

It's all moot to me personally, of course, because in 11 months I'll be 65 and I'll have Medicare. It will cost me a big percentage of my income, but I'll do it. I'm hoping they will find a way to keep our monthly Medicare fees from going up by more than the increase in Social Security Payments. I don't like looking forward to a steadily declining income for the rest of my life.
 
Last edited:
Mar 2009
2,751
6
Undisclosed
#26
I'm hoping they will find a way to keep our monthly Medicare fees from going up by more than the increase in Social Security Payments. I don't like looking forward to a steadily declining income for the rest of my life.
All of this will happen. They are already looking for a way to stop the Social Security increases. I doubt any of them are honestly trying to keep Medicare fees down.:(
 
Mar 2009
422
3
Florida, USA
#27
Yes, it will cost a lot. But don't you think it'd be worth keeping those with smaller incomes that can't afford insurance, are unemployed, or whose insurance is not included in employment healthy? It's poorer people who need medical care, after all, not the generally more healthy wealthy people. If it costs a lot, does that not signify it is meeting a need?
No, Dirk, they don't. They only care about themselves. Anything the government provides that they use and that benefits them, they appove of. But if it had no direct benefit to them, then it is a waste, socialist, and sure to destroy the country. So it's OK to provide educations, but not OK to treat a child for lukemia on the public dollar. Unless, of course, they lose their health insurance and their child gets sick.
 
Mar 2009
2,187
2
#28
I'm hoping they will find a way to keep our monthly Medicare fees from going up by more than the increase in Social Security Payments. I don't like looking forward to a steadily declining income for the rest of my life.
I have a feeling this is exactly what is going to happen. The fees will be going up in a big way. We've already seen it happening in the UAE where for the first time they started with compulsory health insurance for everyone. First consequence was that everyone who got coverage decided to go to the Hospital, all the waiting rooms are full, long line-ups, as now they have something that should be used. Then next thing the Hospitals are cashing in on all the tests that are prescribed, not to mention the drugs. Subconsciously it becomes something of money. Cost of Medical Insurance has already increased.

If I were you I would get additional Medical Insurance from other sources, like investing in a basket of Medical Insurance schemes to hedge yourself against increase in cost.
 
Mar 2009
422
3
Florida, USA
#29
I have a feeling this is exactly what is going to happen. The fees will be going up in a big way. We've already seen it happening in the UAE where for the first time they started with compulsory health insurance for everyone. First consequence was that everyone who got coverage decided to go to the Hospital, all the waiting rooms are full, long line-ups, as now they have something that should be used. Then next thing the Hospitals are cashing in on all the tests that are prescribed, not to mention the drugs. Subconsciously it becomes something of money. Cost of Medical Insurance has already increased.

If I were you I would get additional Medical Insurance from other sources, like investing in a basket of Medical Insurance schemes to hedge yourself against increase in cost.
I'm not talking about what is going to happen. I'm hoping they will fix a current problem. Medicare already goes up more than the cost of living adjustment for social security every year.

If I could afford and qualify for additional medical insurance I wouldn't be among the 47 uninsured Americans, now will I. When I do get medicare, I will have to pay about one sixth of my monthly income to have adequate coverage. It costs about the same as Cobra from my company cost me in 2003. It is not free. And there are copays.
 
Mar 2009
2,187
2
#30
I'm not talking about what is going to happen. I'm hoping they will fix a current problem. Medicare already goes up more than the cost of living adjustment for social security every year.

If I could afford and qualify for additional medical insurance I wouldn't be among the 47 uninsured Americans, now will I. When I do get medicare, I will have to pay about one sixth of my monthly income to have adequate coverage. It costs about the same as Cobra from my company cost me in 2003. It is not free. And there are copays.
Not sure I understand what you are saying. Are you saying that you are against the Obama New Health Care Plan as in the end it may cost much more than what you have already been doing? If you are saying that, then I am in complete agreement with you, including that if Obama's plan comes into effect, that there will be a burden on the private sector as well as Government employing Government employees, to come up with money for covering insurance and paying for the infrastructure of managing contributions and disbursements of it. There will be two huge consequences. Quite a whack will come out of salaries, as well as Government will have to take it from other programmes, or employ less people for the cost of funding medical care for Government employees. Ditto private companies.
 
Mar 2009
2,751
6
Undisclosed
#31
Mar 2009
422
3
Florida, USA
#32
Not sure I understand what you are saying. Are you saying that you are against the Obama New Health Care Plan as in the end it may cost much more than what you have already been doing? If you are saying that, then I am in complete agreement with you, including that if Obama's plan comes into effect, that there will be a burden on the private sector as well as Government employing Government employees, to come up with money for covering insurance and paying for the infrastructure of managing contributions and disbursements of it. There will be two huge consequences. Quite a whack will come out of salaries, as well as Government will have to take it from other programmes, or employ less people for the cost of funding medical care for Government employees. Ditto private companies.
Sorry, I thought I was clear. It will cost more than what I am doing because I HAVE NO MEDICAL INSURANCE WHATSOEVER. As in, if I had a heart attack tomorrow, a hospital would get me through the crises and stabilize me, but I would not get a bypass because I can't pay for it and I would be sent home to await the next attack, and the next until I die.

The new plan will not affect me since I will have Medicare when it comes in. The thing I'm complaining about is that the fees I will pay for Medicare when I get it will go up faster than the cost-of-living increases I will get in subsequent years.

I'm not sure how you concluded that I was against the health care plan after my rants on the subject for months. I couldn't find anything in your profile. Perhaps you are not an American and are not familiar with our complicated system.
 
Mar 2009
2,187
2
#33
Sorry, I thought I was clear. It will cost more than what I am doing because I HAVE NO MEDICAL INSURANCE WHATSOEVER. As in, if I had a heart attack tomorrow, a hospital would get me through the crises and stabilize me, but I would not get a bypass because I can't pay for it and I would be sent home to await the next attack, and the next until I die.

The new plan will not affect me since I will have Medicare when it comes in. The thing I'm complaining about is that the fees I will pay for Medicare when I get it will go up faster than the cost-of-living increases I will get in subsequent years.

I'm not sure how you concluded that I was against the health care plan after my rants on the subject for months. I couldn't find anything in your profile. Perhaps you are not an American and are not familiar with our complicated system.
You're right and my apologies, I now remember the "rants" :) And I agree with you that the cost of Medicare fees will go up faster than cost-of-living increases. But still, it would be better than having nothing at all and a relatively small price to pay for having the opportunity of that bypass if it should prove to be necessary.
 
Apr 2009
1,943
5
Disunited Queendom
#34
No, Dirk, they don't. They only care about themselves. Anything the government provides that they use and that benefits them, they appove of. But if it had no direct benefit to them, then it is a waste, socialist, and sure to destroy the country. So it's OK to provide educations, but not OK to treat a child for lukemia on the public dollar. Unless, of course, they lose their health insurance and their child gets sick.
This is a major issue i understand. All these social welfare programmes are seen as "socialist" when they really only act as a pure minimum safety net of the victims of the system and is controlled by the state.

People should take this as an opportunity to bring such programmes under democratic control. Take power away from capitalist control, take power away from the state. Both care about one thing. The personal wealth of the group members. Socialism is about democracy, about the power of the People.

This is just what we need. Problem solved.:rolleyes:

Government to decide best treatments for ailments

WASHINGTON (AP) ? The government is about to start a huge research effort to prove which are the best treatments for scores of ailments. Irregular heartbeat, prostate cancer, back pain and hearing loss lead the list of medical problems to be studied.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-06-30-treatments-government-study_N.htm?csp=34
It should be the people that decide.
 
Mar 2009
2,187
2
#35
Where ever there is Government, there is always a huge slowdown completely buried in paperwork and bureacracy, so for them to find the right treatments for all the ailments, especially the chronic ones, will take ages, and when there are updates in treatments, ages to recommend those. Why can't they keep Government out of research like this and give it to private enterprise to manage on a contract basis?
 
Apr 2009
1,943
5
Disunited Queendom
#36
Where ever there is Government, there is always a huge slowdown completely buried in paperwork and bureacracy, so for them to find the right treatments for all the ailments, especially the chronic ones, will take ages, and when there are updates in treatments, ages to recommend those. Why can't they keep Government out of research like this and give it to private enterprise to manage on a contract basis?
Because private businesses will minimise their spending to get a net gain. Which means it taking longer to get results if they're only putting in a token effort.

However, this is not a responsibility the state should take on. I wouldn't trust them with anything, let alone my life. Have the state keep their big noses out of it and let universities make these sort of decisions. That's where most scientific advances are made anyway.
 
Mar 2009
2,187
2
#37
Because private businesses will minimise their spending to get a net gain. Which means it taking longer to get results if they're only putting in a token effort.

However, this is not a responsibility the state should take on. I wouldn't trust them with anything, let alone my life. Have the state keep their big noses out of it and let universities make these sort of decisions. That's where most scientific advances are made anyway.
I would say a combination of University and private research institutions as Universities need funding, but also people from the outside in private industry who keep them on their toes.