Obama on Congress: 'I'll whup 'em' (positive discussion)

Originally posted by poet1b
If all you want to do is personally attack me when you don't like the facts I bring up, then you will never learn anything.

Some would call that "debating". However, I am so used to being attacked myself, and expected the same from you, (considering what you said in the other thread), that I will admit I was slightly overzealous. I have edited my post to clarify and add more info, being that I wrote it very late last night. You may want to reread them and find I removed some of those remarks.

Now I will also be the first to say, I am not an expert in this area, and have not done all the research I would like, especially with McCain's plan, but I will look into it more and will try to see what you are saying. I haven't come across any source that says what you are saying... yet. If you know of one, I would appreciate a link.

The only similarity I have seen between Hillary and McCain's plan is that they include tax credits for purchasing the plan. Obama's plan and Hillary's plan are almost identical, as he said himself in one of the debates.

"Ninety-five percent of our plans are similar. [Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and I] both want to set up a system in which any person is going to be able to get coverage that is as good as we have as members of Congress.

New York Times article: The Issues: Health Care

By saying Hillary and McCain's plan are similar, then that would make Obama and McCain's plan similar. No?

I really don't care which plan is implemented, as long as the uninsured get covered. And yes, Medicare does pay for a lot of the uninsured(not all) when they receive treatment, but UHC will include preventative treatment. Any of these plans will not be intact as it goes through the legislative process anyway, so to debate them is really a mute point. It is really just a way for the candidates to show how they differ from each other. Some will use this as an argument to single out Obama and accuse him of being a socialist or whatever, but all I am just trying to say is that health care reform is needed and should benefit everyone. Would you agree?

I'll claim the same defense. I come on here to discuss the issues, then my opponents choose to get personal because they are losing the debate on the issues, so I reply in kind. Just as they were losing the debate on the issues, they also lose the "Well, your mama is sooo" contest. Then they start crying foul. It is a pattern repeated throughout the forums.

I provided a link to McCains website where he laysout his healthcare plan. That would be the best place to find that information. It is easy to see that McCain plans to give everyone the same break, although I don't think he goes far enough, while Obama structures his plan so that the more money you make, the more you have to pay out of pocket. Personally, I think we should all be allowed to create private medical savings plans that accumulate over time. That way people who take care of themselves will be sitting on a large bank account to provide for medical care in old age. This would create a truly competitive market systems for medical care.

I think Insurance is a big scam, completely socialistic, and works against market principles. The insurance companies wind up controlling the markets and regulating businesses to avoid lawsuits. Instead of representative government regulating commerce, private interests take over, and individual rights are tossed out the window.

I don't have any readily available medicaid sites, but research the issue. It is time to end these government subsidies that reward lack of responsibility like Medicaid.

Originally posted by poet1b
Personally, I think we should all be allowed to create private medical savings plans that accumulate over time. That way people who take care of themselves will be sitting on a large bank account to provide for medical care in old age. This would create a truly competitive market systems for medical care.

Now that is an interesting idea. That is the first time I have seen where someone has ever tried to come up with an alternative. I don't know if it would help reduce the cost of health care, but kudos for at least thinking. The problem I see with this is, what about when you are young and haven't put much into it? And what if your account gets cleaned out by some catastrophic illness?

I will go over the plan on McCain's site, but I was asking for a source that explains what you meant by being penalized in Obama's plan. Later I will compare both and try to see what you mean.

reply to post by Hal9000


Maybe I should hit Iowa three years from now.

Young people don't have to go to the doctor too often, except when they get in accidents. If their parents can't cover, there doesn't seem to be any reason why the gov couldn't loan them some money to pay medical bills in a fix.

Catastrophic insurance is a major problem to this day. I say there should be a catastrophic insurance fund similar to Social Security. Most private insurance companies try to renig on policies where the people come down with catastrophic illness, and often get by with it. Even then insurance companies only pay so much, and the people wind up sacrificing everything they have built up in their life to save a loved one. People die leaving their families broke. It is a terrible situation often. Life insurance does help, when they have it.

Originally posted by poet1b
Young people don't have to go to the doctor too often, except when they get in accidents.

Normally, yes that is true. There are always exceptions, and the last thing a family needs when a child is born less than perfect is to worry about money.

If their parents can't cover, there doesn't seem to be any reason why the gov couldn't loan them some money to pay medical bills in a fix.

Careful now, you are starting to sound like a democrat. We seem to be agreeing more as time goes on.

Catastrophic insurance is a major problem to this day. I say there should be a catastrophic insurance fund similar to Social Security. Most private insurance companies try to renig on policies where the people come down with catastrophic illness, and often get by with it. Even then insurance companies only pay so much, and the people wind up sacrificing everything they have built up in their life to save a loved one. People die leaving their families broke. It is a terrible situation often. Life insurance does help, when they have it.

With that statement, you hit the nail on the head. Well said. You never know when something might happen. I think we both understand the problems. The question is, what to do about it. I think that one answer is mandatory health care coverage. You may see it differently, and thats alright, but lets try to figure out a way to solve this problem with out prejudice.

reply to post by Hal9000


Personally, I don't think health insurance should be a for profit business. Only non-profits should be allowed to operate in the health care industry. Greed is not the best motivator, the desire to prove yourself is.

Ah, you see, I am a democrat, a blue collar, moderate democrat. I think Bill Clinton was a great president, and Hillary could be. Obama is just too liberal for me.

This is the point under Obama's plan where where people who work to get ahead will be punished by seeing a cut in the government assistance for health care.

"Subsidies. Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan."

Obama's plan will provide health care to the poor, and do nothing for the working class.

Originally posted by poet1b
Personally, I don't think health insurance should be a for profit business. Only non-profits should be allowed to operate in the health care industry. Greed is not the best motivator, the desire to prove yourself is.

I'm not sure what you are suggesting. Do you prefer government controlled as in socialized medicine, or keep everything as is, but not for profit?

Ah, you see, I am a democrat, a blue collar, moderate democrat. I think Bill Clinton was a great president, and Hillary could be. Obama is just too liberal for me.

I also liked Bill Clinton, and would have accepted either Hillary or Obama as the nominee. I consider myself a libertarian, for smaller government and individual rights, but I fear it may be outdated. I support Obama, because he will beat McCain. We need to transfer power from the republicans in the white house to correct some mistakes.

This is the point under Obama's plan where where people who work to get ahead will be punished by seeing a cut in the government assistance for health care.

"Subsidies. Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan."

Obama's plan will provide health care to the poor, and do nothing for the working class.

I believe that Hillary's plan does the same thing. Those that can afford UHC will have to pay for it, but it should be much lower than what we are paying now. Otherwise are you suggesting everyone get UHC and pay through taxes? That to would also be a form of socialized medicine.

I'm not criticizing socialized medicine, because it does work well in some countries. I just don't think our country is ready for that.

reply to post by Hal9000


Well, if health care insurance is going to be the form our health care system takes, then there should be a non-profit requirement, or a system set up to encourage non-profit insurance companies.

I don't think McCain will have the same people that run the GW admin, and I also suspect that many people who are in the GW admin aren't happy with their leadership anyway, and would rather take a different approach.

I don't think Obama will be anything like Clinton as a President. Obama seems to hung up on charity to me, and his world charity program will cause more problems then it will solve in my opinion.