Obama: Healthcare reform no 'luxury'

All of a sudden, the Healthcare Corps want to make nice !! What a pathetic joke !! They have killed people with their greed and now, they want us to like them and roll-over for them!! Tell them to get lost, President Obama !! They have denied their fellow citizens the means by which to stay alive and healthy and then, they want to re-adjust their carnivorous capitalistic creeds !! Just in order, to continue their rapacious marauding of our limited amounts of money, the minute they realize that we, the citizens of America, will not accept their dictates, as to our health problems, any longer !! Single payer is the only realistic way to go and the sooner we get there, the more people will stay healthy and live better and healthier lives !! Kill the goose that laid the leaden egg, it has outlived its usefulness, by about a hundred years !! Get rid of the healthcare system, in its present form and that includes a whole new set of guidelines for the Pharmacutical Corps, also !! Due to their Corporate greed, they have put people in their graves and in the poorhouse, for the past 50-75 years. There is a lot of reckoning, that must take place and a lot of changes too !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

SEIU continues to tap its political power to generate more money. Business leaders with union workforces are lining up to unload their excessive healthcare costs on taxpayers. Meanwhile, political whore Arlen Spectre is massaging the Employee-Free Choice Act to provide (mail-in ballots like the ones Oregon AFL-CIO took away from public employees) instead of mere authorization card signatures. All of this is the payoff for campaign support. Do we really want marginal tin generals like John Sweeney and Andy Stern running our healthcare and driving businesses in the ground like they did the complicit auto industry (who should have been allowed to file Chapter 11 six months ago)?

Don Fitz, you realize that Obama is not advocating a single payer system?

Are you seriously suggesting that the best place for a union election, is in that place of business, where the owners and managers control the voting apparatus !!? That is like those morons down south, who controlled the voting apparatus, when African-Americans wished to vote ! They sure had an easy time of it, didn't they !!? You can throw all of those loaded words any where you want, it doesn't change the fact, that owners-managers controlling the voting apparatus, discourage honest and free elections. That is a proven fact. Do your research, if you are sincerely interested in the plight of the worker in America, under the " Republican " onslaught against the unions !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

Hey, " Herbie H ", you obviously didn't pay attention to President Obama's platform !! He calls it change and that includes, his mind. He will see the wisdom in a single payer provider and every one in America, will never be denied the basic healthcare, again, regardless of their social or employment status. If not, America will never be a country " of the people, by the people and for the people ", " with liberty and justice for all " and people will continue to go to early graves because they weren't well-connected, with a a good job that gave them healthcare, or a good paying job, period !! Single payer provider is the only sensible way out of this morass, the Healthcare Corps have created, in order to secure their own " importance " and longevity !! Scream " Socialism " all you want, it is the only system that makes sense and is pragmatic !! Any sensible individual would agree and I hope you are able to agree, " Herbie H " !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

Our healthcare is the most accessible and best in the world. There's a reason for that: government's hand has been fairly limited.
----------------------------------- The ONLY thing government has proven to do is waste BILLIONS of dollars each year in ALL agencies due to waste, fraud, and abuse. Do you all REALLY want the same gov that runs the postal service to have a say in YOUR healthcare? --------------------------------------------------------
True reform would start with TORT REFORM so doctors' insurance rates would drastically decrease and all costs would go down. But Obama is in the pocket of legal special interest groups.

“Scream "Socialism" all you want, it is the only system that makes sense and is pragmatic!! Any sensible individual would agree and I hope you are able to agree . . .”
.
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, America | May 11, 2009 11:06 AM
.
Well, Don, I’m glad you’ve finally admitted to being a socialist. It is about time you came clean. And thanks for also admitting that Obama’s plans are based on socialism. It’s something we’ve known for a long time.
.
And, no, we will not agree that socialism is the only system that makes sense. We will not even agree that it makes any sense at all. Europe’s experience with socialism (both Marxist and Continental) shows that it is an inefficient and has resulted in high unemployment, high taxation, low economic efficiency, curtailment of civil and human rights, and, in some places, economic collapse. Furthermore, it takes a dependent state of mind - a slave mindset if you will - to happily live under such a system. A person has to give up too much personal liberty and autonomy in order for socialism to work at all. That is not the spirit that moved Americans to fight for their independence and to defend it with their lives. Nor is it the spirit that animated the American work ethic, or that motivated Americans to come up with the great innovations and inventions that made ours us one of the world’s leading economies. To the contrary, socialism has been known to dampen motivation and innovation. I, for one, will not follow you in your mad, lemming-like rush off that cliff.
.
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”
.
- Samuel Adams

Looks like the SEIU has already made a Puppet of Obama.

Don, I'm not going to scream socialism, but there are some real problems with government run health care. At some point in the chain, there will be a government bureaucrat deciding what is cost feasible treatment for a given malady. Not the best treatment, but what they determine is cost efficient treatment. They will say you can have a higher level of care, but you have to pay for it yourself. Of course no one would be able to afford it, so they would need private insurance - on top of the tax bill they are already paying for universal care. This is a problem they are seeing in Britain. My feeling is that Obama is trying to create some kind of hybrid between socialized and private insurance health care. Try to capture the best of both. My fear is capturing the worst of both, but I will reserve judgment until I see an actual plan with concrete proposals. I hope Obama will stick to his word in that when there is an actual plan on the table, it be readily available for the public to review/debate before it gets rammed through Congress.

Oh, and Don, when Obama ran on a platform of "change", I don't think he was referring to his own mind.

- "Samuel Adams"
Posted by: John W.

Good beer, John W.
We need universal health care, John W. Use whatever term you want for it. I don't care. If the insurance companies stay in business, I dont' see how you call it socialism, but then I don't care. We need people covered.

"At some point in the chain, there will be a government bureaucrat deciding what is cost feasible treatment for a given malady. Not the best treatment, but what they determine is cost efficient treatment. "

Yes, it's clearly better to have a corporate bureaucrat deciding what treatment will boost the insurance companies profits the most, like we have now. Who cares about good treatment options? Corporate profits are what really matter in healthcare! I love it when my doctor has to get permission from my insurance company to treat me. It make me feel this suurge of capitalist pride, especially when the company says no. Then I know I'm doing my part to make America a capitalist paradise!

John W and his ilk believe strongly that death is preferable to socialism, as long as the death involved is that of a poor uninsured person. They are bravely willing to sacrifice the lives and health of those other people to maintain their principles.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22332573/

http://mitsloan.mit.edu/newsroom/2003-doyle.php

* * * * *
Posted by: rupert | May 11, 2009 4:09 PM
.
I was responding directly to Don’s comments about socialism. He wrote that socialism is a good thing and would be good for us. I couldn’t let that one go by.
.
Furthermore, Don wrote that Obama would change his mind and eventually opt for a “single payer system.” A single payer system would be a single government run organization to collect all health care fees and pay out all health care costs. In such an arrangement, it is unlikely in the extreme that insurance companies and HMO’s would have any further role in the health care system. To make it a universal single payer system, the government would also have to raise and redistribute health care benefits to those who are too indigent to pay their share of their own health care costs. To each according to his needs; from him according to his abilities. And that, my friend, is socialism.
.
I won’t comment extensively on your perceived need to have everyone covered. I humbly suggest that, if such is your look at eliminating, rather than increasing governmental intervention in the health care market. Government intervention is the reason that too many people have been priced out of the health care market. It is also the pretext many insurance companies use to keep rates so high. Your alternatives, either socialized medicine or increased governmental involvement in the private sector, are bound to be far more expensive and inefficient.

* * * * *
Posted by: rupert | May 11, 2009 4:09 PM

ERRATUM

The first sentence of the last paragraph should read: “I won’t comment extensively on your perceived need to have everyone covered. I humbly suggest that, if such is your goal look at eliminating, rather than increasing governmental intervention in the health care market.”
.
Sorry.

"To make it a universal single payer system, the government would also have to raise and redistribute health care benefits to those who are too indigent to pay their share of their own health care costs. To each according to his needs; from him according to his abilities. And that, my friend, is socialism"

So John w, do you believe that people who can't afford it should be tuirned away from the health care system?

Should a sick child of unemployed parents be left to die at the door of the emergency room? Should the disabled, unable to work be left without the care they need? How far are you willing to go to make sure that those with needs but no means don't get anything? Should wealth be the sole determination of access to health care? Should need not play into the equation at all? Are you willing to be the one to look a child with cancer in the face and tell them, " So sorry, your parents are poor, so you have to die. We could save you, but your parents can't pay for it. Too bad, so sad, now go away, wothless scum." Does your hatred of socialism go that far? We're not talking about abstractions. We are talking about flesh and blood people and whether or not they live or die.

Surely even you know the only thing that makes hospitals serve the indigent at all is government regulations. If, as you suggest, we removed those reguulation, what do you think is going to happen John? Think private charity is going to pick up all the slack? Dream on. It never has. Those very regulations came about as a result of the indigent being turned away and having no place willing to serve them in enough capacity. Perhaps that's how you intend to save costs. Let the poor die. Is that your healthcare reform plan John?

No Rushpublican, I think its better to have the government in its proper role of regulating industry to prevent the abuses you speak of, than running them.

* * * * *
Posted by: Cal | May 11, 2009 10:43 PM
.
I wonder how people like you can write posts with rivers of passion and not a drop of truth. It would consider it insulting for someone to have to tell me that poor people and their children can’t be turned away from emergency treatment now. Federal law prohibits it. It would also be an insult to the average adult’s intelligence to have to mention that poor people, and poor children in particular, are eligible for low cost health care coverage through Medicaid and SCHIP. So, since I can only assume you know all this stuff, I can only conclude that you are attempting to lie to belittle my points. You are an unworthy opponent in any debate.
.
You have entirely twisted my words regarding socialism. It is not the case, as you make it sound, that I believe a single payer system would constitute a socialist edifice within the government simply because it included coverage for poor people. It is an unfortunate fact that we must sometimes use more than one sentence to describe a particular phenomenon; and that is what I did. If you look carefully at the totality of my comments, you will see that I view such a system as socialism because it requires that we all be collectivized, ear-tagged, numbered and milked - just so we can provide for the poor. That is where I depart from those who advocate a single payer system. We don’t need to inflict the slavery that is socialism on everyone just to cover the poor - for the same reason we don’t currently hand out welfare checks to everyone.
.
We need to insure access to health care only to those who need coverage because they can’t afford it. We can best accomplish this by making the system less subject to the anti-competitive and wasteful intervention of the government. That will pave the way for more affordable private access to health care services for those who should be able to afford it on their own. Abuses can be handled by negative mandate and consumer protection laws. Then we can focus our efforts on those who want health care access, but can’t afford it. This approach has the virtue of efficiency and respect for individual freedom and autonomy.
.
But that doesn’t seem to be something in which you have any interest. You wish to entirely forego any market based strategy (even though they haven’t been really tried), and go straight for the brass ring of a single payer system. Fortunately, there are some of us who can’t agree with you because we don’t have the same desperately dependent, slave mentality from which you appear to suffer.

So John w, you are in favor of SCHIP and Medicaid then? Are they not amongst the socialist Federal healthcare programs you want to eliminate? Is the Federal requirement that a sick child who cannot pay be cared for one of the Federal regulations you wish to see eliminated to drive down health care costs? Does giving even more control of your healh care to Insurance companies an large healthcare providers make you less of a slave John? That's what your deregulation initiative would do. If you think that removing regulations is going to make these large healthcare corporations suddenly care more about the health of their patients than the corporate bottom line, you are terrible naive. They exist to make money, nothing more, and every cent they save from deregulation will go to profits, not the patient. You don't mind being a slave John. You just want to be a slave to a large corporation rather than the government.

John W, you can have socialized roads, social security, and a national health system, and still have a capitalist economy; this constant throwing around of the word "socialism" is getting old and not productive.

* * * * *
Posted by: rupert | May 12, 2009 8:32 AM
.
You don’t know what socialism is if you can write what you did. Socialism involves two aspects: (1) a collectivization of the population; and (2) the use of a central government as a point of collection and (re-)distribution of wealth. Socialism always seeks to distribute or redistribute material wealth in order to achieve some ideal of social justice. In most forms of non-Marxist socialism, there is no requirement that the state own the means of production, although there is no particular aversion to state ownership of utilities and key resource producing industries.
.
Thus, using this yardstick, one can definitely say that we don’t have socialized roads. One does not need to bundle, collate or ear-tag the population in order to have these things; and neither building nor the maintenance of roads function as a means of wealth redistribution.
.
The same is not true of social security or a national health care system. In these things, we (would) get bundled together by mandatory enrollment, and we (would) then have to specifically pay for the benefit of ourselves and other people. The rate at which people receive benefits in such programs is not commensurate with their contributions.
.
Moreover, we do not have a purely capitalist system. We have a mixed economy, where the market is subject to numerous interventions by the federal and state governments. In some places we have industries that are so tightly regulated (especially utilities) that they tend to function as government entities.

The point, John W, was that we will still have a mixed economy regardless of whether the health care system is totally govt. run or not. The real point is to cover the people are stop obstructing with petty academic arguments. Single payer would be fine with me, but I know it's politically not feasible at this time.

All over the country, innovative ideas are being implemented in the workplace to improve the health of workers and reduce the rising rate of health care spending. Skyrocketing health care costs are crushing families and companies, impeding businesses’ ability to expand and compete, and stunting the country’s economic growth. Some employers and unions – spanning industries, firm size, and workforce demographics – are using creative approaches to reverse that trend in their workplaces. Here is what the Obama administration just released. http://pfx.me/Bt

* * * * *
Posted by: Cal | May 12, 2009 7:32 AM
.
You ask too many questions, and don’t answer any. As for the rest, you make snarky and snide accusations that carry no water. However, I will answer you as follows:
.
1. I would prefer all measures involving health, welfare and education to remain in local control. In which case, I would prefer that the federal government not be involved in programs like Medicaid and SCHIP. However, until it is feasible for more local government to assume the responsibility for these programs, I would hold my tongue while the federal government handles them. As far as their “socialist” aspects go, they are less so that some. Some state governments used to provide for the basic needs of their citizens in a manner not inconsistent with these programs, and no one found them too inconsistent with the citizens’ rights to liberty or property.
.
2. Elimination of coverage for sick children isn’t what I had in mind in terms of deregulation. Elimination of regulations that eliminate cost-versus-risk calculations for setting insurance premiums is something I would like to see go away. Elimination of any mandate or regulations that prompt insurance companies to raise everyone’s insurance premiums to spread the risk would be good.
.
3. Your third question poses a false dilemma. Acquiring private medical insurance doesn’t necessarily require buying into the services of a large corporation. There are many small insurance companies that will do the trick. There are also a number of smaller medical institutions that handle their own insurance and billing.
.
And, in any event, becoming voluntarily involved in a medical insurance program doesn’t involve slavery at all. I get to choose my provider, and I get to control the amount of money I wish to spend on such services. If I don’t like the services, I can fire my provider and chose a different one or none at all. I have complete freedom of action.
.
That would not be the case if and when the government orders me to participate in a particular health care program (or any health care program at all), and either commands the payment for participation or extracts the money from me in taxes. Under the latter circumstances all discretion and freedom of action would be lost.
.
4. Deregulation may not make these health care providers care more about their patients, but it will require them to be competitive. Being competitive is something they can’t afford right now because of existing mandates and regulations. If deregulated in the manner I suggest, they would be able to offer lower prices for those who pose no special risks. That would then allow insurance companies to underbid others to compete for business. This competition would drive down the price in a manner that would benefit the vast majority of people. At some point, quality of service will also be a selling point and a basis for competition - in which case they very well could become more concerned about their patients in order to maintain their market share.
.
5. Again, your comments regarding my willingness to be a slave to a large corporation are nonsense. Not all health providers are large corporations, and I still have the choice of providers. I also retain the choice of self-insurance - which doesn’t require me to sign up for any provider. All of those are choices I would lose if the government occupied the field.
.
6. I am answering no more questions until answer all the questions I have posed on this thread or elsewhere. You have yet to tell me why you are so enthralled with the idea of being a slave of the state.

* * * * *
Posted by: rupert | May 12, 2009 2:02 PM
.
These are not petty arguments, rupert. The manner and means of a government are just as important as its ends. A market based, competitive system of health care delivery is something that respects liberty and property rights, whereas the same cannot be said for a government run, universal health care system. Private organizations also tend to be better organized and more efficient than equivalent government programs. Worded differently, government programs tend to be more wasteful, less efficient and less accountable than their private sector counterparts. People are opposed to waste and inefficiency regardless of their politics. At least, they ought to be. Countries with universal or socialized medicine have, in fact, suffered from inefficiency and waste. Take a good, hard look at the socialized medical program in England, for instance. The horror stories are astounding. This is something to which you should pay attention in your headlong rush to support socialize medicine.

"If deregulated in the manner I suggest, they would be able to offer lower prices for those who pose no special risks. That would then allow insurance companies to underbid others to compete for business."

Ahh, so you support the McCain plan, which would make costs for patients with pre-existing medical conditions skyrocket. Cancer in your history? Too bad. Unless you are Bill Gates, you are never going to be able to afford health insurance. Access to healthcare for the healthy only. Those with long term health problems, well, you are on your own. Good luck. I see and understand. It's not the poor you want to sacrifice, but the sick. Got it.

I'm not enthralled with being a slave to the state, any more than I am enthralled to being the slave of an insiurance company, large or small, like you are.

Do you really believe most people have ANY choice of their insurance? They get what their company provides, if they are lucky. The company selects a provider based on the lowest cost to the company, not what is best for the employee. The selected inusrance company then makes healthcare decisions based on what's best for the insurance company, not what's best for the patient. If you aren't getting insurance through and employer group plan, you get to pay vastly higher premiums, which most can't afford. Your solution is to free the insurance companies to pay even less attention to what's best for the patient. If you are costing the insurance company too much, because you actually get a serious illness? Well then prepare for bankruptcy or death. Your free will choice. Absent the regulations you say you want abolished, 99% of insurance companies won't even offer to sell you insurance, and the 1% that will will charge you enormous sums for coverage. Do you really believe that insurance companies will compete to insure a 50 year old woman with a history of breast cancer? Do you really believe, absent the regulations you want to eliminate, that she will have any chance to get health coverage at anything approaching an affordable price? You can't possibly be that deluded. So what becomes of her in your deregulated dream world, John? Is she to be sacrificed for your money, oops, I mean your "freedom"?

* * * * *
Posted by: Cal | May 12, 2009 3:53 PM
.
No, again, it’s stupid is that stupid does. I didn’t say anything about sacrificing the sick. I simply said that the sick or the “at risk” crowd shouldn’t be thrown into the same pool as those who are not at risk for purposes of determining insurance rates. Allow insurance companies to charge different rates for smokers and obese people. Gee, that might actually make some people responsible for their own behavior. Allow insurance companies and HMOs to make adjustments for those who have pre-existing conditions - much the same way states handle assigned risk auto policies. If need be, allow for some government subsidies to those with pre-existing conditions so they can afford the insurance, or enroll them in a Medicaid-like program. The point of the exercise is to drop the overall price of health insurance coverage, and that’s not going to happen as long as the “at risk” crowd gets thrown into the same pool as those who don’t pose risks.
.
You always have to throw in a negative twist, rather than trying to see how this could work in the absence of a total government takeover. That’s foolishness at work.
.
You still don’t get that one is not a slave unless another person owns you or your labor. As long as I have a choice among all available alternatives, including self-insurance and not getting stuck in any insurance plan, I am not a slave. It is when those choices are eliminated, and/or I am stuck with rigid government solutions that I begin to lose my freedom and property (e.g. the fruit of my labor). I suppose that’s not a problem for you since you don’t believe property ownership is a right. Either that, or you don’t believe money is property.
.
You are totally ignorant of the way market forces work. If companies are competing for health care dollars from average Joe on the street, the natural inclination is to reduce cost and provide a better product. Price and quality are the two main features of what people look for in any product or service. If insurance companies aren’t providing the best bang for buck, their competitors will take away their market share. Thus, it is in their own selfish interests to provide better quality services for the lowest price if they want to make money at all. If, on the other hand, they act the way you predict, they will go out of business. No one makes money doing that. However, just to get to this point of competition (which is non-existent right now), one must first remove the government’s impediments to open competition.
.
PS - I’m still waiting for an explanation of why you are wedded to the foolish philosophy of the progressives, and/or why you choose to elect state sanctioned slavery over the chance to be free.

Beware the Bursting of the Health Care Bubble. Health Care in the USA uses /consumes some 17% of the Domestic National Product, something like $ 2.6 Trillion per year. Its growth has been at 2-5 X the rate of inflation almost every year for 30 years. Many high-income executives in health care, say, “So what”? “We earned our income”. The problem is that much of the $2.6 Trillion does not provide the medical value needed by our people. At least $400 000 000 000 annually is spent on unnecessary administration, competitive marketing and advertising, lobbying, large incomes, including bonuses, for CEOs and executive staff who run for-profit organizations (and many not-for-profits ) plus profits for shareholders. http://pfx.me/B4

Hmmm... Health Care for All Uninsured Americans is Simple!

1) Merge Medicare with Medicade into a single "Income Based" system.

2) Allow insurance companies to offer "Medigap" coverage to all participants.

As for Funding...

1) Changing from an "Emergency Treatment" to a "Preventative Care" system will save local communities billions, maybe even trillions of taypayer dollars!

2) Small business will be able to compete globally and hire additional taxpaying employees!

3) Wealthy seniors will pay their fair share!

4) The tremendous burden on future generations will be greatly reduced!

Isnt it natural for us to believe we are healthy and not suffering from any disease ? I had a similar thought process until my physician asked me to get a heart scan done after he found that my basic cardiograms were not perfect. I discovered that there were calcium deposits in my coronary arteries and I was at a serious risk of a heart attack. I was shocked and went ahead with the Cardiologist's suggestion of an advanced iagnostic scan. Though its always tough to undergo such experiences,I was not at any kind of discomfort at the Elitehealth.com advanced heart scan facility. I am not an expert in medical appliance and machines but could feel that the equipment was world-class and I was in safe hands. That feeling is really very important for me and thats how it actually went on. The facilities for Full Body Scan were as good as they can get.

http://www.elitehealth.com/heart_scans.php