Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Are you one of the lucky 45 million

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 02:22 PM
link   
I see the dilemma, it would be nice to have both proposals to see the good points and the bad points of each.

This is actually one of the most important issues to be discussed within election issues.

While I still see the importance of a health care that will benefit us all, (I am one of the lucky ones than have health care) I see the need for the growing population that is falling behind on health care.

Presidential Candidate Obama proposal sounds good but it still a lot of loopholes that need to be fill and occurs during campaign is all about promises but we don't have something substantial that can be call it a final promise.

As we know the ones to pay for anything that is government sponsored is nothing else than the tax payer in the nation but then again we are forced to pay still for those that do not have health care when they are in need of medical attention.

So the way I see it we are forced to pay no matter what.




posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by marg6043
 


I think what you said


But I got my hopes low when it comes to him as we know that the present administration that happens to be Republican has not done anything so far in 8 years to alleviate the problem.


could go back and forth all day. This is what the mods are talking about. Keep it between Obama's and McCain's plan and lets leave it at that. Not being mean just don't want other people attacking you for comments like this.


No worry, this is easily countered by Clinton doing nothing in 8 years to alleviate the problem. With Clinton it is worse though, because he ran for his first term promising that every American would have a health care card.
The only thing I know for sure is that Obama wants to force me to put my children through some schooling to recieve a certificate in order for them to not be second class citizens. I wonder if failing to comply with his Mandatory Service program will cut the strings to his health care benefits? Now that is an important question.

[edit on 11-9-2008 by SectionEight]



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by jam321


Obama's plan is also a might.

It might lower cost and premiums.

It might cost more than he anticipates.

It might force other companies to lower their wages and let government pick up the health care.



But the underlying premise of his plan would more that certainly come to fruition which is to make sure that everyone has access to healthcare.

Your worries are well founded, still the rewards of having everyone with access to healthcare trumps them IMO. Universal healthcare is not new, many countries have it, with their kinks and all but the benefits are their to see. Other states have also programs in place, I come from the territory of Puerto Rico and such a tiny island has a comprehensive healthcare program that benefit those who need it.





[edit on 11-9-2008 by Bunch]



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 05:05 PM
link   
I just can't see letting government take care of health care. Kinda like Enron taking care of your finances.

I found this interesting article about government run healthcare.

Here's a quote.


Finally, there is the issue of the uninsured. Obviously, the lack of universal coverage is a serious problem. But let's not confuse a lack of health insurance with a lack of health care. Single payer advocates point to the uninsured and damn the whole system. It would be more appropriate to conclude that the U.S. health care works very well for most Americans - but that reforms are still needed.


source

Hope you take the time to read the whole thing.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


Thats where you are wrong, Sen. Obama doesn't want to NATIONALIZE HEALTHCARE, he just want everyone to have ACCESS to healthcare. There is a big difference from what Canada and the U.K. have to what Obama is proposing.

Where is the difference?


-Obama's Plan to Cover Uninsured Americans: Obama will make available a new NATIONAL HEALTH PLAN to all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress. The Obama plan will have the following features:

-Guaranteed eligibility. No American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions.

-Comprehensive benefits. The benefit package will be similar to that offered through Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the PLAN members of Congress have. The plan will cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity and mental health care.

-Affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles.

-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.

-Simplified paperwork and reined in health costs.

-Easy enrollment. The new public plan will be simple to enroll in and provide ready access to coverage.

-Portability and choice. Participants in the new public plan and the National Health Insurance Exchange (see below) will be able to move from job to job without changing or jeopardizing their health care coverage.

-Quality and efficiency. [B]Participating insurance companies in the new public program will be required to report data to ensure that standards for quality, health information technology and administration are being met.

-National Health Insurance Exchange: The Obama plan will create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals who wish to purchase a PRIVATE INSURANCE PLAN. The Exchange will act as a watchdog group and help reform the private insurance market by creating rules and standards for participating insurance plans to ensure fairness and to make individual coverage more affordable and accessible. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend upon health status. The Exchange will require that all the PLANS offered are at least as generous as the new public PLAN and have the same standards for quality and efficiency. The Exchange would evaluate plans and make the differences among the plans, including cost of services, public.


www.barackobama.com...

So you basically have the option of being part of the national health plan or have your private plan.


[edit on 11-9-2008 by Bunch]

[edit on 11-9-2008 by Bunch]

[edit on 11-9-2008 by Bunch]

[edit on 11-9-2008 by Bunch]

[edit on 11-9-2008 by Bunch]



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunch
 



Originally posted by Bunch
-There is no reason why and elderly person should decide what pills they can afford and what they can't, or worst yet if they have to decide between groceries of meds.

-There is no reason why parents specially single parents should take a chance on their sons and daughters health because they are afraid of the medical bill.

- The is no reason why a person that has been laid off from work and their family should be exposed to outstanding medical bills once they loose their jobs.

With that I agree.


And I agree with you. Maybe because I personally know individuals in each of those scenarios I am more sensitive to the problems.

I think that we need to be very creative to solve this issue. Possibly forgiving some of the physician's student loans in return for a year or two of lower-pay service.

I have heard Obama's plan, and in that respect he has an edge over McCain at this point. I could not tell you what McCain's plan is if you held a gun to my head. At the same time, Obama's plan has questions to answer in regards to funding.

This is an issue that requires non-partisan efforts if ever there was one.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Another key healthcare issue is the cost of prescription drugs. But there are companies such as Astro-Zeneca that do supply expensive prescriptions such as Crestor free of charge. And Montel Williams also champions the Prescription Assistance Plan. More of this needs to be encouraged, and I would be willing to give tax breaks to pharmcos who help spread the wealth.

Neither candidate has talked about this, to my knowledge.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Here is my reality:

My healthcare plan is provided by my husband's employer. As it stands right now, my monthly prescription isn't covered because it has to do with my female reproductive system health. Oh viagra would be covered, but that is another rant for another day. Anyway, it is because of generic medicine that I am able to afford taking care of myself.

However, because of premiums and co-pays, we still can't readily afford to go to the doctor or hospital if we needed to.

My sister-in-law and her five children have medicaid or medicare or whatever it is for non-seniors. They have WAY better coverage than me and that really irks the hell out of me.

My point is this: I have yet to see a candidate address the issue of tax payers providing excellent coverage for those who can't afford to purchase their own plans, while we pay for ca-ca coverage for ourselves. American health care is so very broken that I don't see any real plan to heal it.

And before anybody asks why we don't upgrade our plan or get different coverage: it is because after shopping around for health insurance I spiraled into a deep depression. The amount these insurance companies want a person to pay is a despicable outrage, and we are more or less forced to take whatever the employer gives us because we can't afford anything else.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


One primary reason why prescription drugs are so expensive here in the U.S. is that we are paying for the prescription drugs of the entire world.

How so?

Countries that have nationalize healthcare or a variation of like Canada, Germany, U.K, France and other thirld world country governments directly negotiate the prices of the drugs with the Big Pharma companies.

How that affect prices here in the U.S.?

These companies have to recoup the money they have spent from R&D and on top of that make money to fund future R&D and give money back to investors. The U.S. been the highest consumer of prescription medication should get a discount, RIGHT? Is actually the opposite, since these companies have these contracts with other countries the only place where they can raid the pockets of citizens is here in the U.S.

Got to love the FREE MARKET!!



As an example of the extremely high U.S. drug prices, consider the cholesterol drug Lipitor, one of the best selling drugs in the world. At CVS.com, a leading U.S. pharmacy, Lipitor (40mg/90 tablets) costs $361.99. At Drugstore.com, another U.S. pharmacy, the same drug costs $335.97. While in Canada at CanadianOnlineRx.com pharmacy, the cost is $215.46, and in India at licensed pharmacy InternationalDrugMart.com, the identical generic drug costs $120.94 (Source: All costs in US$,19 May 2008, from the respective pharmacy websites

en.wikipedia.org...

So why some people in the U.S. are worried about the cost of a national healthcare plan on taxpayers, they don't realize that we already subsidize prescription medication...FOR THE REST OF THE WORLD!!!This is insane!!

With Sen. Obama's national health plan prices of prescription medication would be negotiated and put under controlled and would bring the added benefit that premiums for private plans are going to go down.



[edit on 11-9-2008 by Bunch]

[edit on 11-9-2008 by Bunch]

[edit on 11-9-2008 by Bunch]



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alora
My point is this: I have yet to see a candidate address the issue of tax payers providing excellent coverage for those who can't afford to purchase their own plans, while we pay for ca-ca coverage for ourselves. American health care is so very broken that I don't see any real plan to heal it.


First, Im sorry to hear about your situation, I think that in Sen. Obama's plan he addresses this issue.



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.

www.barackobama.com...



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunch
 


Yes Puerto Rico has a great health care for the elderly I can not deny that, my mother and father benefit from it and so my inlaws.

I actually never thought about that because I am one of those that also have great health care thanks to my husband's military retirement and his full time job still with the government.

You know I could not give three pennies about health care for the rest of the people in this nation as I always had it and I will have it for the rest of my life.

But the same way that I can not imagine been without it I can not see how people can live with none at all.

People should not have to be forced to go to a doctor when they are so ill that treatments will become more expensive at the expenses of tax payer.

Routing medical care is so important for the prevention of long term diseases is just beyond me when I look at people that just can not afford even that.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 07:28 PM
link   
I think I would rather see my tax money helping others have health insurance then funding a war based on?
But that's just my very uninformed opinion



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by SEEWHATUDO
 


And that is my biggest problem also, in a nation that can afford it wars that are not benefiting anybody but a handful few with private agendas and then a government that has not problem bailing out the elites in power so they do not lose their standards of living can not even used the same money that is using to pay for all that the tax payer money to bail out with health insurance the same citizens that they swore to protect when they take office in congress and the white house.



[edit on 11-9-2008 by marg6043]



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunch
 


Thank you for the reply. I do appreciate the effort.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


Yeah! Im in the military too so I have coverage also, but after realizing that the Federal Government no matter who is in charge spend billions and billions of dollars on things that do not benefit anyone, like billion of dollars in subsidies for Big Oil, billion of dollars for Bear Stearns, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, the war industry, the war itself, the earmarks. It just kills me to see how many families and elderly struggle with this issue.

Like the other poster said I rather have my tax money going to this than anything else.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 08:03 PM
link   
I have to say it. I know it is slightly off-topic, but I have to say it.

Point A: Candidate A has NO health care plan. HIS PARTY HAS A PLAN. Candidate B has NO health care plan. HIS PARTY HAS A PLAN.

For either to claim 'authorship' of a plan, they had to have been the expert who thought it up. Do you REALLY believe that either Candidate A or B actually 'thought' theirs up? Personally, I hate that part of the politcal game, "my plan is...," but no one ever asks, "Excuse me Mr. Candidate, at what point in time did you become the socio-economic expert you are tacitly claiming to be?"

The political parties are such that no plan is "my plan" it's OUR (whichever party's) plan. They should be clearer on that to begin with. It speaks to the ideology of the party.

Point B: The health care system to which BOTH candidates refer is utter broken, corrupted, and quite potentially malignant to our economy. They are quibbling over how they can offer you this piece of crap we call the medical industry's health 'care' for less cost.

I would MUCH rather they address the broken system. Perhaps the truth is that the problem runs as deep as MEDICAL CARE FOR PROFIT.
I'm no expert, but when an industry legally kills a quarter of a million people a year through negligence, incompetence, or error, we should not be fighting at how we are going to increase their customer base. We should be examining how and why we have come to accept that profit has ANY BEARING on the improvement, care. and nurturing of the human condition.

Just my two cents people, apolitical, because politics is theater. It makes an audience of us all, when we should be part of the play.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunch
 


Wait until you get out of the military and have your first visit to a VA facility. You will never wish to see one again, I promise you.

If the government extends the essence of the VA system into the rest of the healthcare system, it would not be a good thing.

Quite simpley every American should be part of a healthcare system where we get the same treatment as any Congressman. They are our servants, not our overlords. If the Congressmen need to get a lesser benefit, then so be it. But it must be equal. Since the government thinks nothing of flipping a Billion note to Soviet Georgia, they should have no problem making a truly universal health coverage plan.

It's simple, the medical establishment bills the govt for all services, at fixed prices. The public gets to choose who is providing the best services. So the private sector medical establishment competes with quality of service for the pool of customers. The hospital has issues with billing, see the GAO and the Inspector General with your lawyers, not granny who is flat on her back.

It's about time the American People got something for their tax dollars.
Then the politicians can have something to really debate, the standard of living and healthcare which applys to them.
The notion of "private" healthcare needs to be altered forever, and the notion of being able to pay for better service demolished. Only then will the rest of us be treated like human beings. This is not socialism. This is civilization and equality.

As members of a civilization, a civilized community, we cannot claim equality while some are left to die from easily treated conditions.

We are asked to surrender much to modern civilization. It is past due that with the price of membership, comes an equal level of personal security.
To surrender much and receive little is not Democracy, it is Servitude.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 08:26 PM
link   
I'd rather have my tax money spent on healing Americans then sending them off to die. What's the big deal?

You'd rather TRILLIONS spent on killing US Men and Women in uniform then save American lives?

And note, I have health insurance through my job. So this plan doesn't help me. But the 45million that it does help? Good job.

And for the arguement of costing us tax payers more, guess what? The Oil Companies get more in Corporate Welfare a year then every poor person gets in welfare for the entire existence of the welfare program. What costs us more money again?



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Well my husband and me enjoy the health care from the government that is not bound to military facilities but we get to chose what doctors in the private sector we get to see.

But I have read Presidential candidate McCain health care and all I see is him making better the system for Veterans as it should be we are having an incredible need for that with the middle eastern wars.

But for the rest of the population is really nothing new, at least when it comes to equal health care for all.

See the medical insurance and pharmaceutical empires are too big and they fund enough money to congress and the white House that is not easy for any of our politicians and also Presidential candidates to step aside in favor of the regular citizen.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cyberbian
reply to post by Bunch
 

Wait until you get out of the military and have your first visit to a VA facility. You will never wish to see one again, I promise you.


If thats your situation Im sorry to hear that. I'm not a stranger to the VA system, my father-in-law is a retired guardsmen from Puerto Rico and I had to bring him here to were I'm station in Colorado to live with us because the VA medical service in PR was atrocious. Here in Co. the VA service is top notch, we active duty here always joke that we should be allowed to be treated in the VA facilities here. My point is that VA medical service varies from location, why? I have no clue or maybe Co. is the exception who knows. All I know is that Im retiring here.






top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join


Help ATS Recover with your Donation.
read more: Help ATS Recover With Your Contribution