Privately, Barack Obama strongly pushing "public option"

reply to post by uaocteaou

What a joke!

You can’t even steal right, can you? If you’re going to plagiarize, at least do it correctly.

The HONEST way to post this stuff would’ve looked something like this:

“The Impact of Rising Health Care Costs”

Economists have found that rising health care costs correlate with significant drops in health insurance coverage, and national surveys also show that the primary reason people are uninsured is due to the high and escalating cost of health insurance coverage.8
A recent study found that 62 percent of all bankruptcies filed in 2007 were linked to medical expenses. Of those who filed for bankruptcy, nearly 80 percent had health insurance.9
According to another published article, about 1.5 million families lose their homes to foreclosure every year due to unaffordable medical costs.10
Without health care reform, small businesses will pay nearly $2.4 trillion dollars over the next ten years in health care costs for their workers, 178,000 small business jobs will be lost by 2018 as a result of health care costs, $834 billion in small business wages will be lost due to high health care costs over the next ten years, small businesses will lose $52.1 billion in profits to high health care costs and 1.6 million small business workers will suffer “job lock“— roughly one in 16 people currently insured by their employers.11

References
8.The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. The Uninsured: A Primer, Key Facts About Americans without Health Insurance. 2009. April 2009.
9. Himmelstein, D, E., et al, “Medical Bankruptcy in the United States, 2007: Results of a National Study, American Journal of Medicine, May 2009.
10. Robertson, C.T., et al. “Get Sick, Get Out: The Medical Causes of Home Mortgage Foreclosures,” Health Matrix, 2008.
11. The Economic Impact of Healthcare Reform on Small Business, Small Business Majority, June 2009.

Of course, you would’ve credited the people you stole all this work from:

National Coalition on Health Care, www.nchc.com.

I can’t believe you’d publish someone else’s work as your own, then when called on it, post a link to someone else who’d used it, but DID credit it properly.

Oh, wait a minute, yes I can believe it because of your proven past performance.
(Are we to presume that everything else you’ve posted was stolen as well?)

You haven’t read Himmelstein’s study, or you’d know how badly off the mark it is from the truth.
Robertson’s “Get Out” is more OPINION presented as research. Of course, you didn’t bother reading it either, did you?

No, just copy and paste without accreditation
How sad.

But, just for starters, let’s look at Himmelstein. The study is fatally flawed.
Dr. Himmelstein is a co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program, "the only national physician organization in the United States dedicated exclusively to implementing a single-payer national health program," according to its website. The author is a self-declared activist for single-payer health care, and has twisted the data to fit his cause.

Aparna Mathur, another witness at the Congressional hearing where Himmelstein presented his conclusion, stated that, "the Himmelstein surveys overstate the effect of medical debts on bankruptcy. Despite obvious problems with the survey methodology, it was clear to me during the testimony yesterday that the study was being used as a pretext for making the case for universal health insurance."

Himmelstein's study contradicts the economics literature on personal bankruptcies. Most reputable studies are based on the Survey of Consumer Finances, published by the Federal Reserve, which lists different types of consumer debt. Medical debt rose slightly from 5.5% of all debt in 2001 to 5.8% of all debt in 2007, according to the Fed.
A study by the Department of Justice examined more than 5,000 bankruptcy cases between 2000 and 2002. It found that 54% of bankruptcies involve no medical debt, and more than 90% have medical debt of less than $5,000. Even among the minority of bankruptcies that report medical debt, only a few have enough to cause personal bankruptcy.

Dr. Himmelstein gets different results because he uses a smaller sample and a different methodology than other studies. He started with a random sample of 5,251 bankruptcy petitions and wound up through a series of screenings only using 1,032. His survey assumes that when a medical problem is mentioned that associated medical costs are automatically associated with bankruptcy. In addition, anyone is counted as medically bankrupt if they cite a workers’ death, illness or medical bills as a reason for bankruptcy, even if other debts, such as foreclosure and credit card debt, are a primary reason.

Furthermore, if respondents lost two weeks of work due to illness or injury they were counted as medically bankrupt, even if they had no medical debt. Hypothetically, someone could go into bankruptcy while on Medicare or Medicaid, even if they owed no medical bills at all.

And that’s just for starters. I’ve already been through EXACTLY this with you in another thread you ran away from.

I’m going to do you a favor. I’m going to give you a chance to READ the articles you stole and quoted from, before I show you how wrong you are.

I can understand someone being an advocate for “single payer.” Some people believe that government should take care of everything for them and that they should have no personal responsibility at all.

I cannot understand anyone who would steal others’ work, present it as fact, and NOT EVEN READ IT!

Deny ignorance!

jw

[edit on 8-10-2009 by jdub297]

reply to post by dizzie56

Creating a public option CREATES MORE BUREAUCRACY. The fact that I actually have to point this out to anyone is rediculous. Having too much bureaucracy in the health care system now IS the problem so do yourself a favor (along with everybody else that actually wants reform and not to just swing from Obama's, well, you get it) and help get rid of the bureaucracy instead of adding to it. Start by looking past everything that you are given as a little hot topic issue and actually do some research and above all, use some common sense. Adding something to something doesnt get rid of something, it only makes more of something.

To think you have to explain such simple things here boggles the mind.

I came to this forum looking for new and creative thinking.

Now, I just don't know.
s4u
jw

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by Mak Manto

 

Let me give you a story...

This was given to Obama, and you probably know of it about the Texan woman who had breast cancer. Now, she had insurance, and was going to get a double mastectomy.

Why did she lose her insurance? Because of acne she had in the past and her weight being wrong...

Do you understand where that pre-existing clause is at? It's insane, and it's used by insurance companies to weed out thousands of people...

Did you know that "story" is A LIE! The "woman" went on to get all her benefits and her treatment. She survived another 5 years before she died from a DIFFERENT condition.

Look it up, genius, instead of spouting false propaganda. I'm "calling you out" on this.

You take everything Obama says as the words of the messiah. He lied.
Want the truth?
Robin Lynn Beaton, 59, of Waxahachie, Texas had her insurance suspended because she failed to own up to a previous heart condition and did not list her weight accurately.

In Beaton’s case, the insurance company opened an investigation after her visit to a dermatologist and just before her scheduled breast cancer surgery, forcing postponement of her operation almost on the eve of it. The earlier problems on her enrollment form were discovered and her coverage was canceled.

Rep. Joe Barton, Beaton’s [conservative] Republican congressman in Texas, assisted her in her appeal and the insurer restored her coverage, enabling her to get the surgery 10 weeks after it was postponed. She told The Associated Press she owes Barton and his aides her life.

Get your facts straight, if you want any credibility.

But you don't, and I know why:

"Anonymous Obama Blogger Campaign Attacks Media and Critics
Friday, October 2, 2009

muffledoar.blogspot.com...

YOU are a disinfo agent!

I've got you pegged.

I'll be watching you, Fed.

jw

HA! You listen to Fox News and believe them, because I did check!

I also checked other sources, which said she was telling the truth!

You're such a goofball!

Originally posted by jdub297

To think you have to explain such simple things here boggles the mind.

I came to this forum looking for new and creative thinking.

Now, I just don't know.
s4u
jw

Thank you. Like you I came here for new and creative thinking, i didnt think that by doing so some of the people lost their common sense along the way.

I believe that the health care system truly needs to be reformed. There are many sad cases out there, not only the fact that some people cant afford it. I just dont understand how so many people dont see the reaccuring history that happens when the government gets involved with something...it never turns out good what so ever in the long run.

Common sense will tell you that we have a limited amount of doctors out there as it is and that giving 20 million more people a free pass to go see the docs will make the health care system far worse and not better. They will not be able to see that primary care doctor in time to diagnose a problem that could be detrimental to their health that the left keeps arguing that is so needed. If you have to wait about a month now to see a doc (when you have insurance) as a new patient, then how long do you think that you will have to wait when there is an extra 50k or so people in your area that want the same thing? As it is now, having health insurance myself, im better off going to the walk in clinic and seeing the doc there as mine is overloaded and i do this whenever i get sick actually.

Common sense would tell you that there has never been a real program that has worked out well when our government has gotten involved. Education, social security, unemployment, welfare, the bailouts, the omnibus bill, the stimulus, the airline subsidies, nothing. If people think that get a public option will decrease the amount of fraud out there then they are sorely mistaken. If you think that you will get better treatment by having a public option, then your mistaken. Try and just talk to somebody in government about anything. In florida, you cant even call the unemployment agency as hardly anybody is there and when you do get to talk to somebody they will give you a complete attitude and not care to help you for nothing. I have to talk to them regularly because I help out an elderly hard of hearing friend that used to work with me and its IMPOSSIBLE to get anything done with government workers.

Common sense would tell you that adding beuracracy to beuracracy doesnt get rid of beuracracy, it only makes more of it.

Common sense would tell you that Obama is just trying to sell that hope and change crap still and is allready campaigning for 2012. What other president keeps blaming the situation they are in on the past prez a year into office. Yeah, we get it, its his fault, what are you actually going to do about it?

Common sense would tell you that all Obama does is pass the buck.

Common sense will tell you that the congress is mostly corupt and you shouldnt trust your lives in their hands.

Common sense will tell you that most of congress have not even read whats in the bill as they openly admit it.

Its a sad day that we just go along with something that is handed to us by the gov without question, as this is being done with not only health care but a hole slew of other issues. We have the freedom of the press and speach to question the government, that is why it was set up. That is the real check and the real balance. When we fail to look into what is going on with something and make an educated response then we fail to have our freedom. I just went along with things for a while now and didnt care, but no more. The gov has to answer to us, we are the boss, not the other way around.

reply to post by Mak Manto
Fox news? I know about Beaton's case, personally!

More disinformation from you? Beaton GOT her surgery, it WAS paid by insurance, and SHE Survived.

My response comes straight from Joe Barton's office. Ask them yourself.
"Bloomberg News" even INTERVIEWED her about this.
www.bloomberg.com...

Why must you insist on perpetuating blatant lies?

The Robin Beaton lie was only one of TWO false "stories" Obama told on TV and to Congress. The other anecdote he cited was equally false and has been well established for quite some time.

Tell your "handlers" they need a better rep on ATS, because you've done nothing to help your cause by posting blatant falsehoods and junk science as "fact."

You could've cited the other complete fabrication Obama made of Otto Raddatz. Unlike the Obama "fairy tale," or "horror story," Otto Raddatz got his treatment and fully recovered.

Fox news? NO.

How about the U.S. Congress and the sworn testimony of Ott's sister, Peggy? The planned treatment went ahead as scheduled, according to testimony to a congressional panel in June by Peggy Raddatz.
energycommerce.house.gov...

I really do understand that portion of the population that believes that the government should take care of every aspect of their lives and relieve them of the responsibility of being a thinking, working, contributing member of society.

What I don't understand is why they have to lie to get what they want.

Deny Ignorance!

jw

[edit on 9-10-2009 by jdub297]

reply to post by dizzie56

I believe that the health care system truly needs to be reformed. There are many sad cases out there, not only the fact that some people cant afford it. I just dont understand how so many people dont see the reaccuring history that happens when the government gets involved with something...it never turns out good what so ever in the long run.

I think most Americans agree there's little "common sense" to be found in Washington.

What really surprises me is the lack of same in a lot of the American populace, and especially here, where you'd expect to meet a variety of kooky opinions among the thoughtful contributions and heads-up observations, but not the blind devotion of many in the posts here and around.

Here's what Robert Reich (Clinton's Treasury Secretary) has to say about Obamacare as embodied in the Baucus bill, the heavy favorite to form the heart of the final "plan." (Sounds like a science fiction theme: "The Final Plan"):

Unlike those bills, though, the Senate Finance bill won't have a public insurance option to compete with private insurers. Nor does it allow Medicare to use its bargaining power to negotiate lower drug prices, or adequately subsidize millions of middle-class families who will be required to buy health insurance that will be hard for them to afford. In short, it's a great deal for private insurers and Big Pharma but not such a great deal for middle-class Americans.

www.salon.com...

Now, if a leading Democrat finance whiz and respected author on government reform, eriting in a leading Liberal medium, thinks THIS of the "plan," who can blame the rest of us for being a little incredulous?

jw

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by NorEaster

 

I think insurance and government have a place in healthcare, but only as backstops for catastrophic illness and accident s that would overwhelm averasge people.

For routine care, basic preventive services, maintenance and minor injuries/illnesses, people should be able to selct from competing providers with their own tax-free dollars.

A doctor in New York tried this and was attacked by liberal press, organized health care, and the State of New York for unfairly competing. He offered such services for a small monthly fee, like a subscription, and was CRITICIZED for it!

"NY regulators frown on doctor's flat-fee system"

Dr. John Muney is negotiating with state insurance regulators to maintain the system he arranged with patients who pay $79 a month for unlimited office visits

www.crainsnewyork.com...

THAT'S the problem with American health care.

jw

I see your point, and agree with you concerning the proper role of "healthcare insurance". What we used to call "insurance" was a contract that we'd take out against unforeseen potentials - such as natural disasters, thefts, accidents, and untimely death. We were insuring against these sorts of things, and the premiums accurately reflected the fact that these things don't happen to most people in the course of a normal lifetime in this society.

The issue with "healthcare insurance" is that when we buy it, we're not insuring against the cost of catastrophic illness anymore. We're pooling in for a privately managed socialistic system of healthcare that is actually divided against itself by being profit-driven - which is a base drive that is diametrically opposed to the true nature of what it is as a base function. The entire premise makes no logical sense, and yet, the companies involved have managed a way to make it work through (mostly) government subsidies and government regulations that force the consumer to buy the product, (by eliminating any reasonable alternative) as these regulations protect the companies from losing money on the services demanded by the consumers who have been forced to buy the product.

What it all is, in short, is a government sponsored welfare program for this enormous industry, that is further subsidized by the premiums of people and businesses that have had all other healthcare choices eliminated by government regulation. Socialism, by means of a backdoor channel that feeds huge sums of money to a single business sector, through direct government allocation and societal imperatives forced on the mainstream public by that same government.

It's extremely convoluted, and I don't expect the average person to understand any of it.

[edit on 9-10-2009 by NorEaster]

reply to post by NorEaster
YES! That is exactly the point I've been making for years!

EVERYONE gets sick!
EVERYONE has accidents.

That is not "insuring against risk," it's a better-than-even bet that the carrier is going to pay.

Subsidized GAMBLING.

I wrote and published an article several years ago, during the 1st BUSH administration, about the farce health insurance is.

Here's an excerpt:

"Why Health Insurance Doesn’t Work, and How to Fix It"

Health insurance has failed because it underwrites basic certainties, rather than risks. What risk is there that an average working adult will need medical attention in a 12 month span? Probably 50%; maybe better. Thus, a third party guarantor betting against the attendant expenses must be able to charge an inflated "premium" for his promise to pay the bet if he loses. The amount of his payment does not matter as long as his margin, the difference between the premium and the payment ( and the XX% risk-factor), is carefully maintained.

Since the need for some medical attention by a "fee for service" provider is high, the insured risk is not really a risk at all, but an eventual certainty. Over a 5 year period, the insurer/guarantor/bettor will almost certainly be called upon to pay. And, since the bettor does not barter or receive the services, he is mostly excluded from the base transaction. Attempts to inject himself into the purchase and provision of the services skews the focus of the underlying relationship away from the consumer and toward the guarantor, usually without consideration of the medical necessity or efficacy of the services sought, and more importantly to him, toward the cost/return on investment calculations vital to his success.

I don't support insurance for basic care. But that doesn't mean I think gov't can do it better.

jw

[edit on 9-10-2009 by jdub297]