Obama Policy: Healthcare

2008 Presidential Candidate Platform Discussion

"I...believe that every American has the right to affordable health care. I believe that the millions of Americans who can't take their children to a doctor when they get sick have that right...We now face an opportunity - and an obligation - to turn the page on the failed politics of yesterday's health care debates. It's time to bring together businesses, the medical community, and members of both parties around a comprehensive solution to this crisis, and it's time to let the drug and insurance industries know that while they'll get a seat at the table, they don't get to buy every chair." -Barack Obama, Speech in Iowa City, IA, 5/27/07

www.barackobama.com...


Presented for critical discussion and analysis by ATS members under the spirit of the new guidelines announced in This Thread.

This is a New Study covered by the Washington Post that shows that Obama's plan would cover 34 Million of the already uninsured 47 Million.

McCain's plan would cover only 5 Million.

Barack Obama and John McCain are both proposing more than $100 billion a year in spending for health care, but the candidates' plans have vastly different goals, and vastly different outcomes.

New studies from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center and the policy journal Health Affairs suggest that Obama's proposal would eventually cover more than 34 million of the roughly 47 million Americans currently without insurance, while McCain's would cover at best 5 million uninsured.

Obama's plan relies on a variety of measures to reduce the number of uninsured, such as increasing the number of people in programs such as Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, requiring all children to have insurance and offering subsidies for people who cannot currently afford insurance.

Obama's plan was crafted with the intention of creating universal health insurance, although both studies suggest some people would remain uninsured. McCain, meanwhile, touts his plan as one that will rely more on the consumer market to reform health care.

Why can't we copy our brothers to the north or even the redcoats across the pond...their system works....

In this day and age I'm simply stunned beyond all comprehension at the state of American health care.
How is a country so ahead of the curve with everything else so barbaric in how it deals with the ordinary working folk?

Health care should be free for everyone as provided for by the state through taxes, just like the police, fire department e.t.c Just like in France, England, Canada to name just a few.

If free health care were to be removed from the people of any of these countries there would probably be riots in the streets, it would not be tolerated, yet Americans just seem to sit back and take it. Not enough money for free health care for the average person but billions upon billions spent on national defense. It's a bad joke.

Where does it say in the Constitution of the United States of America that the people get FREE health care?

The Poor people already have Federal and State run health care. Go the the welfare office and sign up.

Go into any hospital , you can not be refused treatment. That's free ain't it?

Roper

I find it funny that Obama wants to create a plan for the uninsured but Pelosi mentions nothing about this for her 2009 agenda. She wants to make insurance available to more workers.

In addition, Obama wants to expand Medicaid for the poor but Pelosi talks about reforming it.

Longer term, Democrats and Republicans are looking at ways to make health insurance available to more workers, as well as how to lower health care costs and reform the government-run Medicare and Medicaid health plans for the elderly and poor.

Pelosi Agenda for 2009

Does her health agenda reflect what Obama is preaching?

The reason for the discrepancy between what Obama says his plan will cover, and what McCain's cover is simple :Obama wants to cover ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS:

DEMOCRATS' single most important domes tic proposal - universal health insurance - may blow up in Barack Obama's face when voters are exposed to the deadly details.

Obama has said, proudly and often, "I am going to give health insurance to 47 million Americans who are now without coverage." But are they "Americans?"

That 47 million statistic includes illegal immigrants - who virtually all lack insurance. In fact, about one in four of those lacking insurance is here illegally. And they are, by far, the group most in need of health insurance.

source:www.nypost.com...


Furthermore, Obama's plan will ENCOURAGE MORE ILLEGAL ALIENS:

About 15 million of the remaining uninsured are eligible for Medicaid but haven't signed up - mainly because they haven't gotten sick. When they do, they enroll in Medicaid and we pick up the full tab for their health care relatively cheaply. (About 80 percent of each Medicaid dollar goes to nursing-home care for the elderly, only about 20 percent for the medical needs of the poor.)

The rest of the uninsured pool? Virtually all the children are eligible for the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Some aren't enrolled because the parents haven't bothered, but most are eligible. That leaves about 20 million uninsured adults who are US citizens or legal immigrants. There are far better ways to handle their needs than to turn our entire health-care system upside down.

Care for illegals is the biggest unmet medical need in our nation, and Obama's program targets it squarely. But do we really want to give them federally paid coverage equal to what US senators get, as Obama proposes?

Covering illegals adds dramatically to the cost of any program - and would encourage more folks to enter America illicitly.

Obama's plan will likely have a horrific effect on some local health-care systems.

Illegals now get free emergency-room treatment for life-threatening conditions - as any other American who's entered an ER in an area with lots of illegals recently well knows. (Three-quarters of the illegal-immigrant population is concentrated in five states: California, New York, Florida, Texas and Illinois.)

But now they'd be eligible for the entire range of medical services, all free of charge. That would trigger severe rationing: bureaucrats deciding who gets to see an oncologist, who can have an MRI - and even who can have bypass surgery and who'd die for lack of it.

These decisions would be made not on the basis of legal status but on the brutal facts of triage: Treat the 37-year-old illegal with his whole life to live before you spend scarce resources on an overweight, diabetic, 80-year-old citizen with high blood pressure who smokes.

John McCain hasn't raised this issue, perhaps for fear of offending the Latino vote. But polling suggests the case against rationing of health care would be as persuasive to Hispanic-American citizens as it is to the rest of us. Nobody wants to die waiting in line - especially not behind someone who snuck in ahead of us.

McCain needs to hit the Obama plan for treating illegal immigrants to free, federally subsidized health insurance - and hit it hard.

By the way, none of this matters anyway now. Several leading economists today have stated on the cable news networks that with the bailout of AIG and the other Wall Street firms, that universal healthcare is now DEAD. With upwards of 1 trillion dollars for the bailouts, (which is 50% of ALL taxes collected by the IRS the latest year that full figures are available(2006 tax year)), there is no way, according to them, that the economy can afford universal health care.
So, take out your wallets to bail out wall street, people who made bad mortgage loans, speculators, and other assorted crooks, and keep the wallet out to pay more and more for your own health care.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


I'm inclined to think the same way now. BOTH candidates platforms and plans are going to be greatly hindered by this crisis. I think that whoever becomes president would have to deal with the sad realization of the economic situation of this country and their hands would be tied in regards to their plans.

I think this crisis could mark the beggining of a carousel of "4 and out" presidents that could go on for a while.

Don't forget that one month in Iraq pays for 10 years for SCHIP. And Obama wants to end the Iraq War. So there will be Trillions of dollars freed up.

Also, why the hell is MY tax money going to BILLIONAIRES! Why not make them sell their dozen mansions and dozen million dollar cars and Yachts and private jets first?!

I think we finally agree. I've come to the conclusion that the winning candidate won't control events, but that events will control the winner.
I saw the interview by Matt Lauer of Obama, and Lauer asked him whether he would still be able to carry out things like his health care proposals, and he admitted that his programs would have to be "scaled back", or implemented with a longer time frame than he hoped. I'm sure McCain has the same problem.

On another note related to the economy, I was watching Paulson and Bernacke speaking to the Senate Committee today, and Sen. Casey of PA asked Bernacke if Wall Street owed Main Street an apology. Bernacke refused to answer the question. Casey asked several times for an answer, and Bernacke still refused. It may not be much, but it makes we very concerned that he is only watching out for Wall Street and not the American Public.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


I would let them sink to the bottomless pit of that bankruptcy, that what they deserve. Japan try to do this in the 90's and they still ended up in a deep recession, we can bail this guys out and still fall into a recession. I rather go into a recession or worst come out without the astronomical debt that this bail out would imposse, then saving these worthless executives and the companies they manage.

I certainly have a problem bailing them out, without a lot of qualifications, like executive compensation limits, recovering as much money as possible from those crooks that helped tank the firms, and strict prohibitions against the practices that got them there in the first place. The problem with letting them go under, is that the domino effect would reverberate through just about every financial instrument in the country. People's 401K's would be wiped out, as diversified mutual funds were so heavily invested in banking, finance and real estate. The average American would see their retirement savings virtually wiped out.
As much as I don't like it, I'm afraid that they have to go ahead with the bailout.

By the way, assuming the cost of the package is 1 trillion dollars, it would raise our national debt to 11.5 trillion dollars, or about 9% increase.

[edit on 23-9-2008 by ProfEmeritus]

Obama Policy: Healthcare (Delayed, or Possibly DOA)

As someone previously mentioned, Senator Obama is saying that if
the Investment/Banking/Insurance company bailout goes through,
he will have to DELAY attempting to get his Healthcare and Alternative
Energy initiatives submitted to Congress.

Senator Obama is one step away from being President of the United
States and isn't fighting against this $700 billion bailout!?! He knows that
the bailout will delay FOR YEARS his "Change We Need" programs. There
is something wrong. I thought he was PASSIONATE about helping the
average Joe/Jane more than anything else. He should be showing more
backbone right about now shouldn't he?
-cwm

Senator Obama is one step away from being President of the United
States and isn't fighting against this $700 billion bailout!?! He knows that
the bailout will delay FOR YEARS his "Change We Need" programs. There
is something wrong. I thought he was PASSIONATE about helping the
average Joe/Jane more than anything else. He should be showing more
backbone right about now shouldn't he?
-cwm

I think what it says is that both candidates take their real orders from Wall Street, the Corporations, and the financial institutions. As someone else said, the only change after November will be in who will be taking their marching orders from the Corporations. The Congressional hearings going on with Bernanke and Paulson are nothing more than a show, where Congress is trying to look like they will talk tough, but in the end, the bailout will go through, and, as usual, we'll be left holding the bag. Of course, since Health Care will never become universal anyway, since it isn't in the Pharmaceutical Companies' and AMA's interest, it's really a moot point.

reply to post by Roper


I don't think the issue is about the poor people getting insurance. Yes, of course they can go to the welfare office. The issue is about the rest of us that work our tails off everyday to barely afford gas to get to work and food to feed our families much less afford the outrageous costs of private helathcare. And it's because of the outrageous costs of healthcare that many employers can not afford to provide health coverage for their employees. So, it's those people with no health insurance that do show up at the emergency rooms demanding non-emergency care and running up thousands of dollars in medical expenses that are left unpaid.

Originally posted by Roper
Where does it say in the Constitution of the United States of America that the people get FREE health care?

Oh boy. Constitution actually doesn't mention a lot of things that seem normal to civilized people, like it doesn't forbid urinating in the streets. The absense of such explicit instruction does not entitle you to this right. Your "argument" is so moot, it's a non-starter.

Go into any hospital, you can not be refused treatment. That's free ain't it?

You try that next time. Actually, think twice. There are many stories of people bankrupted by medical costs.

Go into any hospital , you can not be refused treatment. That's free ain't it?

That is not true. Private hospitals CAN refuse to treat someone, unless their life is in immediate danger. If your life is in danger, the must treat you, but if it is not, and you have no medical insurance, you can legally be refused treatment.

It is sad for me to see those that have health care act so self righteous and heartless for the otherwise less provided.

When we can warrant 700 Billion to bail out lending institutions and such that were making money hand over fist off the consumers, where is the balance?

Is it when you spend and you cant see the good it does, that no good should be done? Have we as a people no compassion?

I for one, as a citizen, have paid a few nickels into our system, and personally, I have no issue at all with health care being provided.

Ive heard it said, by a doctor, that he is only able to collect about 50% of his total owed, and that a public health care system would most likely increase that percentage.

For those Americans, that dont want to help others with their coverage, perhaps putting yourself in the shoes of a less well to do family might be something to ponder.

This is America. The Greatest nation on Earth. Not the greatest bunch of money grubbing capitalists, but a nation with a heart and a sense of right.

Peace

[edit on 25-9-2008 by HIFIGUY]

Originally posted by John Nada
In this day and age I'm simply stunned beyond all comprehension at the state of American health care.
How is a country so ahead of the curve with everything else

How is america ahead of the curve in anything? healthcare is just one of americas many massive failings, why o why isnt it free like anyother supposidly first world country? instead invading other countries and spending money on military needs overpowers the need to allow its citizens access to free health care? Sorry John but america is vastly BEHIND the curve most of america is second or even third world big grotty disgusting cities yay wish i lived there