Obama puts forward $1 trillion health care plan

IMO, the passing of healthcare would be a lot easier and cheaper if they were to pass the most popular parts first. They could easily cover the 47 million Americans by placing them on Medicare, Chips, Medicaid, or Congresses plan and charge people based on a sliding scale.

This would take care of the issue that brought up the need for healthcare in the first place.

The rest of the stuff can come once they get the economy rolling. This thing about not increasing the debt is just bull. Our government has never given an estimate that was right at or below the real price. Things are bound to go wrong, and the final price tag will be higher.

Furthermore, the bill they are offering won't take effect until 4 or 5 years later but tax collection will start immediately. Do you really think our government will put this money aside for the sole purpose of paying for the future healthcare?

Ask yourself, do the uninsured need healthcare now or in 4-5 years?

[edit on 22-2-2010 by jam321]

I think the guy wants to help people, but I think he is blinded by his own passions. In reality, the country cannot afford his grand plan for healthcare at this time. More and more, I have been seeing the dreaded "T," word being thrown around like it is nothing. That is a phenomenal amount of money to burden the taxpayers with. We just haven't seen the taxes kick in to pay for the other trillion dollar expenditures, like the Stimulus and the TARP fund. As some have said, where is this money going to come from to bankroll this new revised version of Obamacare? That is the million dollar question, or trillion dollar question since that number is popular among the current Administration.

Does he want to bankroll the country and go down in history as the only President to do so? He needs to start thinking realistic and put his passions on hold, because they are not doable at this time. People are getting the axe left and right, wages are stagnant, America is a shell of its former self in manufacturing, and their is chaos in the financial system. If that is not reason enough to step back and reassess healthcare reform, then I don't know what is? Is this problem even solvable, because as the article points out, this debate has been going on for about 60 years. It is fraught with a maze of red tape, and an entrenched bureaucracy.

Maybe we are just stuck with an inefficient, and sometimes unfair healthcare system? I guess it boils down to, if you get sick you die. However callous that might sound, it is the truth. There are two things in this world the have's and the have nots. There is nothing the President or his Democrat friends in the legislature can do about it. This thing is turning into another nightmare we are faced with that often never gets mentioned, and that is Social Security.


[edit on 22-2-2010 by Jakes51]

More unconstitutional garbage coming out of DC.

This coming from a President, who like many others, never ran their own business, or even a lemonade stand.

Pay no attention to these retards, they sure as hell dont pay attention to us.

[edit on 22-2-2010 by brainwrek]

Sooner or later everyone is GONNA need to go to the hospital!

reply to post by Redwookieaz


Ok But I have two considerations.

1) What happens to those not covered by Job-based healthcare.

And


2) What happens when the enemployemtn rate goes up to 10%.

T

reply to post by David9176


I don't think Anybody should kill babies *period*
Since there was actual debate on this issue in the orthr so called reform
I was wondering if it had been removed.

reply to post by jam321


Could this not be a Keynesian solution that will boost the economy by creating more jobs in healthcare and insurance?

I am not an American citizen and do not understand the debates. I am a Brit and we are very proud of our healthcare and really fight for it.

T

I have a few questions:

Question
Out of the some odd 30+ million people that are uninsured, how many are people too lazy to already take advantage of readily available public assistance programs such as ChIP, Medicare, etc?

Question
Why should people be forced into buying something they may not want to purchase? Don't give the car-insurance example because that one is just utter B.S. because one is not forced, it is a choice brought on by owning an automobile.

Question
How come, when I was unemployed I was able to obtain private insurance for myself and my two children at a highly reasonable price of $225 a month and still be able to purchase groceries, pay for rent and look for a job?

Actually that one right there I will answer:
It is because I obtained catastrophic medical insurance which would cover myself and/or children in the event of a major medical emergency. It came in handy when my child required stitches. My insurance didn't cover the numerous fluff that is being required to be placed into most insurance plans by government mandate, thus was fairly cheap considering. That and when I was out of work, I prioritized; I gave up the cell phone, we didn't eat out, we made due with what we had.

Also I do not go to the doctor or emergency room for every bump, scratch or cough. That is a major factor in the increasingly costs of insurance. Along with mandated coverages for cosmetics, etc.

So given that answer above,
Question
Why should a responsible person such as I be punished or forced to take an insurance plan I do not wish to carry?

Question
Let us say I have 10 out 20 children in daycare. I provide that day care to them. If I wish to force the other 10 children into daycare, will that not raise my overall costs?

So how is it that we can forcefully add 30+ million people into an already stretched out system without adding deficits? Taxes? On who? The rich? The middle class? Employee-sponsored insurance plans?

Question
How will moving control and regulation of health care insurance from the States to a 7-member panel be more effective? While I normally don't throw around the Constitutionality angle, that is direct violation of the 9th and 10th Amendments.

Question
There are already competitive markets out there for insurance that are stifled by interstate restrictions. Instead of 'Under the Obama plan, regulators would create a competitive marketplace for small businesses and people buying their own coverage.', why not lift the restrictions that are in place that prohibit insurance companies the ability to sell their plans across state lines?

By the way, that is the type of Federal intervention that is good. That is helping to facilitate interstate commerce.

Question
"If your insurance company spends too much of your premium dollars on overhead, such as big salaries, administrative costs and marketing, they will be required to give you a rebate. " - Whitehouse.gov

So now the government is furthering its reach into private industry and dictating business operations?

[edit on 22-2-2010 by ownbestenemy]

reply to post by Tiger5


Could it boost the economy by providing more jobs?

That possibility exists. But we also know that with new laws comes new mandates. Mandates that are often unfunded.

Second, when will the jobs come? From what I understand, uninsured won't get that coverage until 4 or 5 years down the line.

Where would the incentive come to start hiring people now?

Nonetheless, excellent question.

Originally posted by Tiger5
Could this not be a Keynesian solution that will boost the economy by creating more jobs in healthcare and insurance?

In theory, yes, but the problem is that we already have a major shortage of medical professionals in the United States. In most cases, jobs aren't an issue in that particular field.

reply to post by Tiger5


And you are a country of what........60 million people? We have almost that many uninsured. You also live on an island. We border a third world country where millions of illegals sneak through our country on a yearly basis. Do not compare UK to America........they are very different. Plus you can love your healthcare system all you want............your standard of living still sucks............how much does it cost to own and drive a car? To buy a house? Living in the UK is dreadful. You guys can't even own guns. Pathetic.

Originally posted by jam321
IMO, the passing of healthcare would be a lot easier and cheaper if they were to pass the most popular parts first. They could easily cover the 47 million Americans by placing them on Medicare, Chips, Medicaid, or Congresses plan and charge people based on a sliding scale.

This would take care of the issue that brought up the need for healthcare in the first place.

The rest of the stuff can come once they get the economy rolling. This thing about not increasing the debt is just bull. Our government has never given an estimate that was right at or below the real price. Things are bound to go wrong, and the final price tag will be higher.

Furthermore, the bill they are offering won't take effect until 4 or 5 years later but tax collection will start immediately. Do you really think our government will put this money aside for the sole purpose of paying for the future healthcare?

Ask yourself, do the uninsured need healthcare now or in 4-5 years?

[edit on 22-2-2010 by jam321]

Excellent points. But Obama won't back down. His ego is far too big to admit that health care reform needs to be done in stages, passing little pieces of legislation at a time. No, he wants to pass one massive, pork-filled bill that professes to take care of the problem and at the same time let's Reid and Pelosi give money to their favorite "people of interest".

Here's an idea - he should ban all earmarks from the legislation like he damn-well promised. OH WAIT! That was only a campaign promise. You can break those and not be considered a liar.

Originally posted by burdman30ott6

Originally posted by David9176


But nah...it's ok if business kills babies but the government can't.

Hypocrite.

Bullcrap! Those businesses aren't (or at least shouldn't be...God bless us things were sure easier to take a pointed stance on before all this bailout horsecrap started) using my tax dollars to fund themselves. I am 100% opposed to abortion. That money which is stolen from every paycheck I earn is still mine dammit. I have every right to protest it funding what I consider to be a form of infanticide.

Insurance companies... little bit different there, my friend. I actually get back out of the insurance company about what I put into them (probabaly more). My wife and I have had 2 kids, that alone was a good $30-$40 K the insurance company paid out to the hospitals. I have yet to see any personal return on my tax dollars, however. I'm not on the government dole.

The tax payer should have a say in how their money is used. Otherwise, it is theft, pure and simple. Not hypocritical, probabaly extremist fanatical (according to our lovely government), and certainly pipe dreaming on my part that the day will ever get here when the imbeciles running this nation actually hold any level of accountabillity towards the tax payers.

Your tax dollars are paying for medicaid. Ever wonder if a woman who is on medicaid gets an abortion? You may not want to intentionally pay for an abortion, but you will, one way or the other. We all will, and probably already are. Personally, I have no issue with it.

Interesting....maybe I should have slanted my questions and skewed them and then people would attempt to answer them. Since they are generally common sense and mostly objective ATS avoids like the plague

reply to post by Zosynspiracy

Fair comment about the differences between the USA and the UK. The rest of your it is just shoddy rhetoric. I own a rifle and my Dad bought a 410/22 over and under from a gunshop in Aldershot so your comment is fallacious.

I could point out considerable shortcomings about the US education system, your foreign policy, etc but will leave you to figure that out for yourself.

Even increasing the border guards could boost the economy in a Keynsian manner. Do you know who Keynes was?

Behind the healthcare debate (or what passes for debate here in lalal land) is the age old question of the deserving versus the underserving poor.

T


[edit on 23-2-2010 by Tiger5]

[edit on 23-2-2010 by Tiger5]

Just sharing a thought.

1. Medical costs had soared through the roofs recently, even though the medical industrial complex had outsource and used cheap labour and material to produce medical products. Where did the expenses go?

2. The medical industrial complex claimed they need to recover prohibitve research costs. But thing is, researched had been funded by govts and charity organisations. They had not and will not be asking for funds back. So what 'recovery of research costs' are they claiming?

3. Every human, regardless of employed or unemployed will fall sick or grow old. It is a fact they will require medical care at some point in life. Without insurance, they will have to pay full costs upfront. If they have no money, who will pay? Or do we, whom claim civilise society status, leave them to rot and die?

(If we were to care, and chose to pay upfront, it will cost tens of thousands to cure them. If we pay through insurance - a pooled fund whereby no one will fall ill at the same time to deplete every dollar there, it will cost each one only a few dollars per month today.)

4. Corporations and selfish bastards often claim the unemployed, the homeless are lazy retards and prefer to live off social welfare. Some or perhaps a small percentage exists.

During this crisis, many had been retrenched or made homeless, not of their making. Why not ask these people, whom are fellow citizens once upon a time employed, are they retards, refused to find a job, and expect handouts?

Have we lost the will, compassion, time and the moral courage to rehabilitate less priviledge people, in our selfish pursuit of wealth, that we would rather label them a bad name, blame them for our ills, shirk off our responsibility, castigate others who care and then hang them or let them rot?

The only logical explanation is the big brothers are emptying their greedy pockets and supplying 31 Americans with health care.... duuh

I think that all conservatives and republicans should watch the most resent Saw, I think it's Saw VI. I think it will help you understand what its like for the average person in America. Pay your insurance and then when you need it, they say no we won't pay, or try to get coverage and they say nope.

It's ridiculous that people's lives are ruined because of medical debt. I think the economy would recover if people didn't have to constantly pay medical bills. They could spend their money elsewhere.

Healthcare is a right, it's not something that you should have to give your left arm for in order to recieve it. People avoid healthcare because they are afraid of what it will cost. That's ridiculous!!!!

reply to post by Tiger5




Being well versed in and an ardent follower of Austrian economics I'm well aware of Keynesian economic theory.

This makes me so angry, I don't even know what to say. I'm tired of hearing about the "health care plans", and all the verbal diarrhea that comes with it.

I'm also quite sick of people referring to it as "Universal Health Care", or even having the balls to compare it to a European system, like France. Makes me want to puke!

Where do these people get off, telling us that it's "Universal"? It's not Universal Health Care if EVERY person is FORCED to pay for it! It's a tax on being born! This will be the first time ever, that a tax is forced on us for simply being alive.

Makes me want to spit out the bad taste in my mouth. What a damn farce.