It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Privately, Barack Obama strongly pushing "public option"

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 01:45 AM
link   
He won't say this out loud, but POTUS is pushing hard to get a public option included in the bills about to be put to a vote.


Despite months of seeming ambivalence about creating a government health insurance plan, the Obama White House has launched an intensifying behind-the-scenes campaign to get divided Senate Democrats to take up some version of the idea in the weeks just ahead.

President Barack Obama has long advocated a so-called public option, while at the same time repeatedly expressing openness to other ways to offer consumers a potentially more affordable alternative to health plans sold by private insurers.

But now, senior administration officials are holding private meetings almost daily at the Capitol with senior Democratic staff to discuss ways to include a version of the public plan in the health care bill that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., plans to bring to the Senate floor later this month, according to senior Democratic congressional aides.
...
At the same time, Obama has been reaching out personally to rank-and-file Senate Democrats, telephoning more than a dozen lawmakers in the last week to press the case for action.
...
The White House initiative, unfolding largely out of public view, follows months in which the president appeared to defer to senior lawmakers on Capitol Hill as they labored to put together gargantuan health care bills.

www.chicagotribune.com...

So why, you may ask, is the "public option" such a focus for the strong-arm tactics?
Simple answer: to destroy private health insurance!

Here's 'the rest of the story:'


On Tuesday, the Senate Finance Committee voted-twice-to reject the "public option," a government-run health-insurance plan that would "compete" with private insurance.

This vote may have some symbolic significance as a measure of the public's rejection of government-run health care. But in practical terms, it doesn't much matter. The creation of public health insurance was never the real heart of Obamacare. The real essence of Obama's agenda is the destruction of private health insurance.

Obama has launched a war on private health insurance, and the Baucus bill contains every essential element of that war.

The Baucus bill includes an "individual mandate" that requires everyone to buy health insurance-but not inexpensive, high-deductible catastrophic health insurance. Instead, it imposes a requirement for pricier comprehensive coverage that pays for routine costs like annual checkups. The bill then requires that insurance companies provide coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, and that they charge customers at high risk of medical problems the same rates as those with lower risks-which means that these extra expenses will have to be paid for by raising everyone else's premiums.

And then the Baucus bill delivers the knock-out punch: after forcing us into expensive comprehensive insurance plans and driving up the cost of those plans, the bill would impose a massive 40% tax on "gold-plated" plans-which turn out to include the health-insurance plans of many in the middle class. So that drives up the cost of insurance even higher.

You can see why it doesn't much matter whether or not we have a "public option" in the original bill. Everything else in the bill is designed to make private health insurance unaffordable-so that in a few years, people will clamor for a government-subsidized "public option," and the same politicians who destroyed private health insurance can make a big show of coming to the rescue of their victims.

The irony is that Obama is seeking to wipe out the private option in America just as many people are trying to resurrect a private option where it has been outlawed. In America, elderly patients have launched a lawsuit protesting their forced enrollment in Medicare, while Canadians are suing to demand their right to buy private health insurance, which is currently outlawed in Canada. As one doctor who runs an illegal private clinic put it: "What we have in Canada is access to a government, state-mandated wait list. You cannot force a citizen in a free and democratic society to simply wait for healthcare, and outlaw their ability to extricate themselves from a wait list."

www.realclearpolitics.com...

So, force in the "public option" now, or wait until it's the ONLY option?

Either way, it's just a matter of time. And money. And freedom. And choice.

jw




posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 02:19 AM
link   
What do you call "private?" I've received e-mails that states he still wants the public option.

And if I recall correctly, I don't remember Obama stating he wants privatized health care gone. He said people can keep their health care if they want it.

But he wants a public option for those who are unable to pay for private health care.

And, in my opinion, private health care is a joke.

Whichever idiot thought that leaving health care in the hands of corporations was a good idea should be shot.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 02:37 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


It is only said to be competing with private, and will probably over run private because its 100x better so I don't see what the fuss is all about.

"Oh NOES NOT AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE."

This is just more hater propaganda prepare to see 40 S&F and 3 replies



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 03:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Mak Manto
 
Until the 1940's, health care was provided by INDIVIDUALS to INDIVIDUALS.

Hospitals were largely run by universities, charities and non-profits! Look around the larger cities. Remember places like "Baptist Hospital," "St. Judes," "Methodist Hopsital," et c? The "Mayo Clinic," the "Shriners' Institute?"

What happened?

The U. S. government gave tax deductions to employers who were competing for an exploding work force. They offered employer-paid health insurance.

As health care costs rose, the U.S. government provided subsidies to "managed care" groups to keep them down.


And if I recall correctly, I don't remember Obama stating he wants privatized health care gone. He said people can keep their health care if they want it.


Wrong. You do not "recall correctly."

At first, POTUS said that, UNTIL people pointed out that private care could not compete with government-run care.

Go back and read the text of his latest speeches. He doesn't say THAT anymore!

He says: "You will not be forced to give up your insurance or your doctors."

But, if there is no insurance, or if your boss can't afford it for you, then you won't have it anymore!

No one will force you, you just won't have any CHOICE!

An attorney's choice of words is important. All words have meaning.

You just don't get it.

jw



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
He won't say this out loud, but POTUS is pushing hard to get a public option included in the bills about to be put to a vote.


He won't say it out loud LIKE THIS? He has said it many times since this speech, and perhaps even before it. There is no surprise that the Baucus mark contains no public option as he has flat-out said he would not be including one in his Bill. As a matter of fact, you haven't revealed anything that hasn't been in the public domain for months. Of course there's discussion within the Senate to include a public option...there have been failed amendments on the mark to include it. Of course the Administration will try to talk to the Senate to include a public option - Obama has called for it and knows the Senate is not 100% for it. Sensationalism aside, what "news" are we supposed to see here?



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWake
reply to post by jdub297
 


It is only said to be competing with private, and will probably over run private because its 100x better so I don't see what the fuss is all about.

"Oh NOES NOT AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE."

This is just more hater propaganda prepare to see 40 S&F and 3 replies


The Chicago Tribune and Real Clear Politics cannot by any stretch be slandered as Hater" or "propaganda."

Every reasoned analysis of U. S. government-run health care generally, and Obama's "plan" specifically, leads to one inevitable conclusion: economic disaster.

Even the "liberal" West Coast press is calling the kettle "black:"


The House reform proposal, for instance, would require many insurers to alter the plans they sell dramatically in order to meet government-defined standards of “acceptable health coverage.” Americans who refused to move over to a plan deemed “acceptable” by the feds would lose their insurance policies and have to pay a hefty fine.

Plus, if congressional Democrats follow through on the president's desire to create a new government-run insurance plan, millions of Americans could be jettisoned from their private coverage and onto this “public option.”
...
The Lewin Group, a respected health care consulting firm, estimates that 119 million Americans would lose their employer-based coverage if Congress created such a federal alternative to private insurance.

www3.signonsandiego.com...

If you're happy with the way the government runs Social Security disability (average claim denied 2X, ultimate payment after appeal 17+ months), tax-collection, railroads and mail service (continuous operating deficits, reduced service), veterans' care and elder care ($500 billion benefit cuts over 10 years), you'll LOVE the "public option."

Good luck to you.

jw



[edit on 5-10-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by quetzelcoatl

He won't say it out loud LIKE THIS?


Uh, no. He DIDN'T say it in his speech. That's just an outright falsehood.

Here's the text:
www.reuters.com...

Here's what he described:

The plan I'm announcing tonight would meet three basic goals:

It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance. It will provide insurance to those who don't. And it will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government. It's a plan that asks everyone to take responsibility for meeting this challenge not just government and insurance companies, but employers and individuals.


Read ALL of it. No "public option" anywhere in there!

Did you intentionally misstate that? What is your motive for posting a false statement/link?

You didn't think I had the text, did you?

Oh, my! Hey, I didn't write these stories. But his hometown paper thought it was newsworthy.

So did that right-wing rag, the L. A. Times:


Despite months of outward ambivalence about creating a government health insurance plan, the Obama White House. . . strategically expressed openness to health cooperatives and other ways to offer consumers potentially more affordable alternatives to private health plans.

www.latimes.com...

Perhaps you didn't notice, but Obama will say one thing to his "safe" audiences, and another to the gullible public and snake-gods.


Sensationalism aside, what "news" are we supposed to see here?

You'd have to ask the Chi-town and L.A. papers about that. It certainly doesn't come from you. Does it?

jw



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   
I'm glad to hear this. A bill without a public option is no reform at all. Let the insurance companies go out of business. If they're not willing to stop ripping off the public, they don't deserve to stay in business. If they can't compete with the public option, maybe they need to consider their executive's bonuses again...

And I have heard all along that Obama wants the public option. I don't know how anyone could see his views as a "private push". He's right up front about it.

Sept 7


Obama said, "I continue to believe that a public option within the basket of insurance choices would help improve quality and bring down costs."


Sept 29


They say they’ll take their chance with Obama at the helm because he’s declined every public opportunity to remove the government option from the table.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


If they're not willing to stop ripping off the public, they don't deserve to stay in business.


This is exactly what the majority of Americans are saying today about the government


And I have heard all along that Obama wants the public option. I don't know how anyone could see his views as a "private push". He's right up front about it.


No he's not "up front" about it. The L.A.T., ChiTrib and others "see his views as a 'private push.'" THEIR stories, not mine. You have "heard" he wants public helath care, but what none of his supporters will see (or say, just like him) is that it won't be an "option."

Even Canadians are suing for the right to private health care insurance.


Sept 29

They say they’ll take their chance with Obama at the helm because he’s declined every public opportunity to remove the government option from the table.


He can't afford to speak publicly about his real "plan."

"Declin[ing]" to say in public what he is pushing behind closed doors is not being very up-front or outspoken for an up-front," "outspoken" guy, is it?

jw



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297

Originally posted by quetzelcoatl

He won't say it out loud LIKE THIS?


Uh, no. He DIDN'T say it in his speech. That's just an outright falsehood.

Here's the text:
www.reuters.com...

Uh, YES, he DID say it in his speech. Did you even listen to it, or are you simply taking the text as the entire speech? Do you even realize that this text is only HALF (almost precisely) of the actual speech given? That text you proselytize isn't even the entire content. Since you like things being spoon-fed to you, I will tell you that the content you are reading stops at 24:35, but the speech is 45:00 long.


Read ALL of it. No "public option" anywhere in there!

I like a doctor that writes their own prescription.


Did you intentionally misstate that?

I think you did as your follow-up is even more misinformed and benign than your initial post.


What is your motive for posting a false statement/link?

Did you even click it and listen for yourself? False statement/link how? CSPAN coverage being falsified by me? Do you think or do anything for yourself?


You didn't think I had the text, did you?

No, I didn't because you were parroting half of the speech like you were informed. You want the actual text? Here you go and you're welcome.

Oh, my! Indeed. Please inform yourself fully as I doubt anybody really wants to look half-informed or like a parrot, right friend?



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by quetzelcoatl
 
You've confused Obama's insurance exchange proposal for "the uninsured and small musinesses" with the government-funded public option he intends to use to end private insurance entirely.

He's not pushing for "exchanges" behind closed doors. Or even a limited option for uninsured and small businesses.

There are at least TWO "exchange" proposals ON THE TABLE already! Why the "push" (according to the L.A.T and Trib), if that's what he wants?

Barack Obama and his aides are pushing, with "dozens of calls" last week alone, for an option to kill off employer-funded insurance.

Why do you think he changed his words from "you can keep" your plan/provider to "we won't force you" to give them up?

In 2 years or less, you will know the truth and everyone else will regret it.

jw



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'm glad to hear this. A bill without a public option is no reform at all. Let the insurance companies go out of business. If they're not willing to stop ripping off the public, they don't deserve to stay in business. If they can't compete with the public option, maybe they need to consider their executive's bonuses again...


If you would consider their executives bonuses as enough money to lower the cost of their premiums you are sadly mistaken. The bonuses themselves would probably equal just enough to payoff a couple big malpractice lawsuits. And as far as the "without a public option is no reform at all" comment, I ask you these two questions.

1) Why should we create more government to handle something that can be handled without doing so?
2) Have you ever known a government plan that hasnt been bungled/corrupted in some sense or another? Im willing to bet that even if you could, i could name way more that were messed up.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And I have heard all along that Obama wants the public option. I don't know how anyone could see his views as a "private push". He's right up front about it.


He has been saying he wants a public option for along time now. Since before he got in the oval office him and his cronies have been wanting to use the public option to become a single payer option (as in no choice, either you have it or you dont). I believe that a single payer option would DESTROY the health care system of this country in the long run and it will. The wording of this bill is only set out to do one thing, remove choice of using private insurance because private insurance will be on the outs cause they cant keep up with a company that has unlimited funds.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   
I've posted these FACTS, not "theory", or "what might happen", or "what could happen" or "what it may lead to" but FACTS, on every thread regarding a public option being made available as a CHOICE for American citizens, and I will continue to do so, because I believe these things need to be remembered.

14,000 people lose health insurance benefits Daily.
45,000 people die because of lack of health insurance in the US Yearly.
W.H.O. ranks the US 37th. in health care
The US is ranked 29th. in infant mortality
65% of Americans are in Favor of a public option. (CBS/Newsweek)
75% of all Physicians are in favor of a public option. (N.E.J.M.)

With all benefits and incentives, the CEO of united health care is being paid approximately 100,000.00 per hour..... why?
United health cares profits are up 155% from last year
United health care posted approximately 800 MILLION profit, for the 2nd. quarter of this year ALONE.

Personally, I hope, and Millions of other American citizens hope that a Public OPTION is being pushed.

Americans need a Public OPTION, and we need it NOW.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by dizzie56
I believe that a single payer option would DESTROY the health care system of this country in the long run and it will.


In case you haven't noticed, the health care system in our country is doing a pretty good job of destroying itself and Obama can't possibly make the situation worse.

I have a pretty nice insurance package through my employer (with co-pays, of course), and even in our case we have to struggle with insurance company and hospitals over various bills (one nurse in attendance somehow is not part of the "network", or this specialist out of team of 6 just quit this program etc. etc). There is a whole industry of billing, regulating what procedure codes are allowed to a patient etc. This is pretty freaking insane. Combine this with ASTRONOMICAL rates of cost increase and you see that something drastic needs to be done.

Insurance companies don't provide the medical service. They are the proverbial middle-man.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   
How appropriate of you to choose a Pink Floyd avatar as you are certainly exhibiting the signs of being a wall of ignorance. You've been given two sources, the entire video speech and the entire transcript and still can't admit you were wrong on your initial post. Then you try misdirection by throwing out new buzzwords "insurance exchange" and mentioning his necessary change of terminology in describing the public option. Of course he had to change that because he can in no way guarantee that people will be able to avoid signing up for the public option. That's not what you started with, but "ZOMG he won't say this in public, it's a conspiracy!!"

For the last time, since you don't warrant anymore responses, all you did was try to sensationalize information already out there (not breaking political news), took half of the information available to you, and then try to misdirect attention from your fallacious initial point that this hasn't been discussed months ago by derailing your own topic into a discussion of the insurance exchange and terminology changes. I don't need to wait 2 years to know the truth, I know it now and so would you if you weren't waiting for the next cracker.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by uaocteaou
I've posted these FACTS, not "theory", or "what might happen", or "what could happen" or "what it may lead to" but FACTS, on every thread regarding a public option being made available as a CHOICE for American citizens, and I will continue to do so, because I believe these things need to be remembered.

14,000 people lose health insurance benefits Daily.
45,000 people die because of lack of health insurance in the US Yearly.
W.H.O. ranks the US 37th. in health care
The US is ranked 29th. in infant mortality
65% of Americans are in Favor of a public option. (CBS/Newsweek)
75% of all Physicians are in favor of a public option. (N.E.J.M.)

With all benefits and incentives, the CEO of united health care is being paid approximately 100,000.00 per hour..... why?
United health cares profits are up 155% from last year
United health care posted approximately 800 MILLION profit, for the 2nd. quarter of this year ALONE.

Personally, I hope, and Millions of other American citizens hope that a Public OPTION is being pushed.

Americans need a Public OPTION, and we need it NOW.



where do you get these facts? how does the study prove that 45,000 people die each year just due to not having health insurance? Are these people not able to afford health insurance or do they choose not to get it? why do you use the w.h.o.? There are plenty of countries out there that dont even report their numbers to the who as far as infant mortality rates go, we are actually one of the few that keep track.

how do you figure that the ceo of united health care makes $100,000/hr.? According to this, the man only made $3,241,042 last year. If he made $100,000/hr with a 40 hr week he would make $208,000,000. He makes $1558.19 +/- $.01.
www.fiercehealthcare.com...

and as far as the polls are concerned, you and i both know that they can be easily scewed. according to this poll, 47% want the public option. so who is right? honestly, where do you get this stuff?
firstread.msnbc.msn.com...

EDIT: I forgot to put the site with the poll up.

[edit on 5-10-2009 by dizzie56]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
No he's not "up front" about it. The L.A.T., ChiTrib and others "see his views as a 'private push.'"


Well, it's not very private if it's all over the papers!




"Declin[ing]" to say in public what he is pushing behind closed doors is not being very up-front or outspoken for an up-front," "outspoken" guy, is it?


Reading and Comprehension 101

He's not declining to say in public what he is pushing behind closed doors.
He is declining every opportunity to remove the government option from the table. Read what I wrote.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Well...seeing how Liberals are demanding a public option....he's gonna have to privately want it or nothing worthwhile is going to pass because many dems won't vote for anything NOT INCLUDING a public option. They will either have to rely on Republican votes or Reconciliation.

I didn't know this was a secret in the first place. He was an advocate for single payer in his past....public option is the next best thing for those who want single payer.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by dizzie56
 


Dude, you're kidding right..?
just google whatever FACT you have a problem with, it took me all of 10 seconds to answer your first question...LOL





WASHINGTON (Reuters) Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:11pm EDT- Nearly 45,000 people die in the United States each year -- one every 12 minutes -- in large part because they lack health insurance and can not get good care, Harvard Medical School researchers found in an analysis released on Thursday.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   
The last post is right...I have heard these numbers as well.

Something to think about....

17 percent unemployment rate right now..

How many of those can afford insurance? COBRA is insanely expensive and most people who are on unemployment can't afford it. I went uninsured for awhile myself for the same reason.

What if you lost your job and suddenly got very ill or somehow obtained a life threatening disease?

Would you say? "Nope...it's against my ideals!!!!!???"

What if it was a family member....father, mother, son, or daughter???



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join