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: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by David9176
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???




i would take myself to the hospital. they have no choice but to treat you. its the law that they cant turn you away. deal with how you pay it later, since you will now be still alive after receiving treatment from the hospital. if you dont have health insurance, they cant deny treating you. you can also get on medicare or medicaid, depending on the circumstances. you can also still go to a normal doc, if you have cash. they still do take that and im willing to bet if you talk to them, the price would be cheaper than what you think. In fact, a girl i know decided to forgo a couple of years ago insurance from our group plan that was offered cause of the premiums being to high. i dont blame her, and she chose to do so even tho she could afford to pay for it at the time. it is actually cheaper for her to forgo it and pay the doc visits as she goes rather than pay for insurance all year. do you think that the premiums and copays will go away with the public option? thats def not gonna happen. you get taxed for it, right along with everybody else. and just like the private insurance you will have to pay copays. no if ands or buts about it.

health insurance is only needed for the big things, like my kidney stone that i had recently. but, even tho i have health insurance, i still had to pay a pretty penny for that procedure. that will not go away with the public option what so ever. you could find ways to go and just get a check up once or twice a year if you saved up for it or found a free clinic. there are plenty of them out there, ive been to them before when i didnt have insurance. even if you have no money, there are still government plans out there that you can get on, and if you dont like those, i doubt that you will like the one that you will be getting.




posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by uaocteaou
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.




i did a simple google search to find out that the united health ceo is making far less than what you say he is. do you just look at headlines or do you actually read the articles? according to the usnews.com, we have over 305million people in the united states. at 45,000 people a year, that is less than a tenth of a percent that is dieing a year due to lack of health care (0.014754%...). More people die a year due to cancer than lack of health insurance. not to sound cold, but given the numbers, that aint so bad if you actually think about it. granted, i dont wanna see anybody die, but if people are dieing at a rate of less than a tenth of a percent a year than i think that speaks wonders about our system that we have now.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by dizzie56
 





we have over 305million people in the united states. at 45,000 people a year, that is less than a tenth of a percent that is dieing a year due to lack of health care (0.014754%...). More people die a year due to cancer than lack of health insurance. not to sound cold, but given the numbers, that aint so bad if you actually think about it.


Really......... REALLY??!!

I just don't know what to say about that, you've stumped me for sure.


I will say that there is a lot of work going on in cancer research, hopefully they'll someday have a cure.

BUT...... They CAN cure the 45,000 yearly deaths in the US from a lack of health insurance.

-I guess I'm just not as cold as you bro- I can't justify the deaths of 45,000 people because something else kills more people yearly.

-good for you though



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by dizzie56
at 45,000 people a year, that is less than a tenth of a percent that is dieing a year due to lack of health care


So, making it a percentage changes something? That's 45,000 people dying unnecessarily. I don't care if it's .000001%. Those 123 people dying every day are REAL people, not just numbers. They have families.



More people die a year due to cancer than lack of health insurance.


Do you suggest we do nothing about cancer, too? I'm not sure I understand the connection... You do know those are PEOPLE, like you. Right?


given the numbers, that aint so bad if you actually think about it.


Oh, for Christ's Sake! "Given the numbers, that ain't so bad"??? :shk: I give up.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

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


Not Anymore! Is it?

The administration can try to hide the truth, but even the liberal press is "calling you out," just as Obama promised but CAN'T do.

Because he's getting "called out" for hiding his agenda behind closed doors, and his intent to exert government control over an ADDITIONAL 1/6 of the GDP, and create a redistribution of wealth and destroy private health care and insurance.



He's not declining to say in public what he is pushing behind closed doors.


Yes, he is. And many people know why.


Comprehension 101


Try it, you'll like it.

jw



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by dizzie56
 
those aren't facts.Octodude posts them because he thinks if they're repeated often enough, someone else will take them as true and repeat them.

they're the rants of a people/orgs. pissed off at life, society, and insurance because they feel left out.

They've been posted and disproven all over the internet and ATS.

Every single "statisitc" is either flawed or just plain false.

He knows it, too.

How sad.

jw



[edit on 5-10-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by David9176

He was an advocate for single payer in his past....public option is the next best thing for those who want single payer.


Actually, it's the FIRST STEP to single payer. Takes about 4 years. Ask him.

jw



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by uaocteaou
 



They CAN cure the 45,000 yearly deaths in the US from a lack of health insurance.

-I guess I'm just not as cold as you bro- I can't justify the deaths of 45,000 people because something else kills more people yearly.

NOPE!

First, the Harvard study is flawed in its sampling.

Second, it only makes a connection, it doesn't say CAUSED BY no insurance. (any pea-brain knows that correlation DOES NOT equal causation)
Example: 80% of EVERYONE who reaches their 40th birthday wiull die before they reach 85. Causal?

Third, and very important, it makes no claims whatsoever that ANY of the deaths would have been prevented by government-run healthcare, or ANY health care.

Some people die because they can't be saved.

Sort of like your arguments, huh?

jw



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
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

So, let me get this straight. If you lose or get rid of your health care, you'll get government health care?

How is that bad?

You're so afraid of government-run health care as if it's the enemy.

I don't see government-run health care allowing tens of thousands of people to die each year because they're unable to pay for private health care.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Obama privately asking for the public option ...

Proof Obama = oxymoron.




posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   
It's been perfectly clear to me all along that while Obama has ALWAYS preferred a public option, he was willing to listen to possible alternatives. Not having heard an acceptable alternative, and probably also because he has received additional pressure from the public, he is again pressing for a public option. This has been all over the news since the process began. There was never, to me, any mystery or confusion about it.

It's also clear to me that many people on ATS are completely ignorant about Washington politics. EVERY president we've ever had has advocated for legislation they favored. Yes, this means they "met" key players in rooms that had doors, and it's possible those doors were sometimes closed. And yes, presidents do use their influence to try to get bills they like passed. It's perfectly legal and it has ever been thus.

Generally speaking, when legislation is passed that a given person likes, he or she is pleased with it and that's that.

When legislation is being hammered out that is not pleasing to a given person then they accuse the president of all sorts of lying and chicanery and ulterior motives.

It seems to me the OP's whole purpose in this thread is to say he or she doesn't like the public option. If the president doesn't agree with him then the president is, presumably, evil.

That's politics.

[edit on 5-10-2009 by Sestias]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Obama is just too damn nice and diplomatic. I don't know if it's genuine
caring for getting a balanced approach, or if he's just afraid to put down
his foot and demand what he wants. In fact, I don't recall Obama ever
demanding anything over the past 9 months...do any of you? He's
suggested courses of action somewhat forcefully, but I've never seen
him physically show the emotion of determination. I was really hoping
that all the "rah-rah" during the campaign would translate into forceful
action for CHANGE that would be good for all the "little" guys/gals.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Sestias
 

It seems to me the OP's whole purpose in this thread is to say he or she doesn't like the public option. If the president doesn't agree with him then the president is, presumably, evil.


What things "seem" is not what they are.

Obama doesn't just want a "public option." He has done his best to distance himself from it as the bills gel and get closer to a vote.

Obama wants to use a "public option" as a first step to complete government control of health care.

This has been part of his agenda since he first became involved in politics.

I've said this many times, and the truth is here: Read his books!

Obama wants a different America than anyone has ever known or wanted.

Barack Obama wants the Federal government to control all the States - - and all the things that States once were able to manage within their borders and across state lines: banking, food production, education, welfare, energy, health care.

All of these basic necessities were met with little Federal intervention not so long ago. Kids graduated. People didn't die by thousands from eating salmonella in restaurants. We could afford reliable health care.
When was the last time you went to a "STATE BANK" or knew your bank's staff? (What has the Fed done with the "too big too fail" banks?)

We are giving up our sovereignty to demagogues in Washington who couldn't care less about you, personally.

He can't say it in public. He can't advocate for the "public option" he really wants.

He's got two versions of "state insurance exchanges" already part of the legislative mix.

Those aren't "good enough" for him. They would PASS!


He has to lobby as inconspicuously as possible to get what he really wants.

In 4 years, you will be poorer than you already are. You will DEPEND on the government for your basic needs.

Things AREN'T always what they SEEM. Neither am I, nor the OP.

You will be a slave to the Federal government, and so will your children.

deny ignorance

jw

[edit on 5-10-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by uaocteaou
 



They CAN cure the 45,000 yearly deaths in the US from a lack of health insurance.

-I guess I'm just not as cold as you bro- I can't justify the deaths of 45,000 people because something else kills more people yearly.

NOPE!

First, the Harvard study is flawed in its sampling.

Second, it only makes a connection, it doesn't say CAUSED BY no insurance. (any pea-brain knows that correlation DOES NOT equal causation)
Example: 80% of EVERYONE who reaches their 40th birthday wiull die before they reach 85. Causal?

Third, and very important, it makes no claims whatsoever that ANY of the deaths would have been prevented by government-run healthcare, or ANY health care.

Some people die because they can't be saved.

Sort of like your arguments, huh?

jw


Couldnt agree more. There are many causes of death and not all can be prevented with health insurance, private or public. EVERYBODY dies regardless of having health care or not.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by carewemust
Obama is just too damn nice and diplomatic. I don't know if it's genuine
caring for getting a balanced approach, or if he's just afraid to put down
his foot and demand what he wants. In fact, I don't recall Obama ever
demanding anything over the past 9 months...do any of you? He's
suggested courses of action somewhat forcefully, but I've never seen
him physically show the emotion of determination. I was really hoping
that all the "rah-rah" during the campaign would translate into forceful
action for CHANGE that would be good for all the "little" guys/gals.



And now the kool-aid wears off for another one.


Remember when previous presidents acted like tough guys demanding this or that? A lot of people hated them for it. And now as "change", you hoped obama would be like that, too?

Oh, and from U.S. government 101, a president can "demand" all he wants, but it is congress that actually passes the laws.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Why the private insurance companies are so afraid of a little competition from the government? All they have to do is provide a better service at a reasonable cost to compete. I am pretty sure they will be able to do so.

Of course, I think their resistance to have real competition is the tendency of a competitive market to drive prices and profit down if they can't provide a quality product. Currently under in the oligopoly market, they are pretty much guaranteed high profits. Over the last decade they had a 400% increase in profits while dramatically raising premiums causing millions to go without insurance. Why would they want anything to change.

Those dying due to lack of care or being denied care by their private insurance due to some unrelated pre-existing condition seem to be nothing but collateral damage in the fight for continuing profits.

Personally, I can't understand why the nation was outraged over several thousands deaths on 9/11, but could care less if a greater number dies quietly out of sight. I am not saying we shouldn't have been outraged by 9/11, just that the current health care system in this country is a greater tragedy than 9/11. It's killing more people that the terrorists ever could.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
1) So, making it a percentage changes something? That's 45,000 people dying unnecessarily. I don't care if it's .000001%. Those 123 people dying every day are REAL people, not just numbers. They have families.

2) Do you suggest we do nothing about cancer, too? I'm not sure I understand the connection... You do know those are PEOPLE, like you. Right?


given the numbers, that aint so bad if you actually think about it.


3) Oh, for Christ's Sake! "Given the numbers, that ain't so bad"??? :shk: I give up.


1) No, making them numbers doesnt make it any better. I said I dont want to see anybody die and I do know that they are real people. But you see a large stat like "45,000 people die a year due to lack of health insurance" and completely take that out of context. The truth is, that is actually only 2.25% of the deaths each year. Are you suddenly not caring about the other 97.75% of the deaths each year? Do you think that everybody having health insurance is going to stop people from dieing?

2) Again, taking something out of context. Try and find where I said that I didnt want to do anything for cancer...oh wait, you cant because I never did. Put your emotions in check before you post a reply please. I actually happen to have had alot of family members die from cancer and each year I try and donate as much as I can afford to cancer centers, mainly st. jude childrens hospital.

3) Dont give up. Health care reform needs to be done. But instead of making more government (which im willing to bet that probably 90% of the people on this board would not like to have a bigger government in any case), we could try and do some reform that would actually mean less government first. I mean, why not?

To everybody that wants this health care bill i say to you, go and become a doctor. Instead of having me and the people like me pay for something that you want and we dont, why dont you go and work your butt off to become a doctor? When you get out of med school, open up an office and give your services away for free to people that dont have health care and charge a crap load to the people that do. You will probably break even that way. This is what you are asking me to do...work my butt off to pay for somebody else. If you are okay with that, than by all rights go and do that. I donate to charity, i shouldnt have to work for them as well. But of course, that would be to hard and instead you are trying to make me pay for something that you want instead of just doing it yourselves.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 09:12 AM
link   
I care for everyone's death, but 45,000 people DIE UNNECESSARILY.

We can change health care around, but there are people on this site who have been blinded by the corporations.

They've been made into scared puppets to keep a system that has failed us for decades now.

It's time to change it, once and for all. To save lives that companies don't want to!



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kaploink
Why the private insurance companies are so afraid of a little competition from the government? All they have to do is provide a better service at a reasonable cost to compete. I am pretty sure they will be able to do so.



Please explain to me how a private health care company can compete with a government that has unlimited funds? The government can, theoretically, tax all of us and give it away for free with no copays and no added premiums. A private company cant do that so how can they actually compete? Now, i wouldnt mind a public option if it had only the people that wanted to be in the public option pay for it...but the gov cant afford it if that were the case so they have to tax all of us to pay for it, whether we want it or not.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kaploink
Why the private insurance companies are so afraid of a little competition from the government? All they have to do is provide a better service at a reasonable cost to compete. I am pretty sure they will be able to do so.


Sorry to say, but this is one of the more naive posts I've seen here, and I've been here a long time.

A "little competition from the government"?

The same government that makes all the laws and sets all the rules and regulations on how the health care industry operates?

Just how do you compete with that?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join