Interesting questions about "ObamaCare"

Status
Not open for further replies.
I submit that the elimination of private insurance is the ultimate goal of this plan.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/25779.html?n

OR... Just for kicks, we could try the truth.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/08/06/healthcare/

Myth: Obama will ban all private health insurance. Allegedly, the House proposal for healthcare reform bans private insurance. This rumor comes complete with a citation: "Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal," the unflaggingly pro-business paper Investors Business Daily wrote in an editorial last month. Other right-wing blogs and news outlets picked up on the idea, as well. It fits in with a broader message Republicans have been using: The reform will lead to a total government takeover of healthcare.

The IBD line is literally true -- Section 102 of the House bill says insurance companies can't independently issue any new individual policies after the legislation takes effect (though existing policies are grandfathered in). But it misses the point. Private plans aren't banned, but rather shifted into the new health insurance exchange the legislation would set up. You can still get a private policy, but the way in which you buy it changes. If you wanted to buy your own insurance, you have to do it through the government-run insurance exchange. Your policy becomes part of broader risk pools, which makes the premiums cheaper and keeps insurance companies from dumping them once they get sick. PolitiFact looked into the claim and rated the IBD editorial "pants on fire," its lowest rating -- as in, "Liar, liar, pants on fire."
 
OR... Just for kicks, we could try the truth.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/08/06/healthcare/

Myth: Obama will ban all private health insurance. Allegedly, the House proposal for healthcare reform bans private insurance. This rumor comes complete with a citation: "Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal," the unflaggingly pro-business paper Investors Business Daily wrote in an editorial last month. Other right-wing blogs and news outlets picked up on the idea, as well. It fits in with a broader message Republicans have been using: The reform will lead to a total government takeover of healthcare.

The IBD line is literally true -- Section 102 of the House bill says insurance companies can't independently issue any new individual policies after the legislation takes effect (though existing policies are grandfathered in). But it misses the point. Private plans aren't banned, but rather shifted into the new health insurance exchange the legislation would set up. You can still get a private policy, but the way in which you buy it changes. If you wanted to buy your own insurance, you have to do it through the government-run insurance exchange. Your policy becomes part of broader risk pools, which makes the premiums cheaper and keeps insurance companies from dumping them once they get sick. PolitiFact looked into the claim and rated the IBD editorial "pants on fire," its lowest rating -- as in, "Liar, liar, pants on fire."

The truth is that he made the comments...
The clip is labeled, “SEIU Health Care Forum 3/24/07,” and shows Obama saying: “I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be, potentially, some transition process: I can envision a decade out, or 15 years out, or 20 years out.”

So he has said he wants to eliminate private insurance, and he has said he does not want to eliminate private insurance. Even your quoted article states that this plan would ban any NEW private insurance policies, thereby forcing everyone to go through the public option unless they maintain their current policy.

The question is now, which one do you believe?
 
The truth is that he made the comments...

So he has said he wants to eliminate private insurance, and he has said he does not want to eliminate private insurance. Even your quoted article states that this plan would ban any NEW private insurance policies, thereby forcing everyone to go through the public option unless they maintain their current policy.

The question is now, which one do you believe?

That was the original goal, to be like EVERY OTHER SYSTEM in the world. However, he was a realist, and knew that it would never fly with those invested in the status quo.

He goaded the House into creating an incredibly stupid hybrid system that is being proposed now, that let's these predatory insurance companies live to suck on the lifeblood of the sick and infirm another day.

Having an initial goal, and then changing your mind, doesn't make you a liar. We already had a numb skull in office for eight years that held steadfast to every belief he ever had, never altering it in the least, and never admitting he was wrong. It didn't work out so well. How about we accept that changing one's mind, or lowering your goals to fit reality (no matter how corrupt reality is) is not a sign of weakness but is instead a sign of a rational, thinking person?
 

Wait, did you just reference Glenn Beck as a source of your opinions against a national health care service? I think I see the problem here...

It seems that you are a... Well, I can't really tell you what I think you are, as it will likely get me banned. But seriously, you REALLY shouldn't listen to that raging loon. He blatantly makes stuff up without any regard for the truth or any semblance of reality, and has more than a couple times called for the violent overthrow of the democratically elected government.

Do yourself a favor, avoid Glenn Beck. At the very least, don't reference Beck in your arguments, because it pretty much destroys any credibility you may have had outside of other nut jobs like him.
 
actually sir or ma'am, i listen to every point of view. since im in afghanistan fighting for freedom, (something id like to have when i return) we have only one news channel. this channel plays one hours of cnn, msnbc, fox news and the pentagon channel on a loop. plus i get on the internet any chance i get to research what people have said on their shows. say what you must, call me what you want, but i do listen to each side equally.
 
actually sir or ma'am, i listen to every point of view. since im in afghanistan fighting for freedom, (something id like to have when i return) we have only one news channel. this channel plays one hours of cnn, msnbc, fox news and the pentagon channel on a loop. plus i get on the internet any chance i get to research what people have said on their shows. say what you must, call me what you want, but i do listen to each side equally.

Some points of view deserve no attention. Mr. Beck is one of them. He is the equivalent of a guy standing on a street corner yelling at the pigeons that the Jews run the water treatment facility and are secretly sneaking us kosher water to make us all gay.

The only real difference is that he has a TV show. You know, right along with this guy:

ap_oliver_north_070521_ssh.jpg


Who regularly interviews this guy:
202385.2.jpg


Who helped this guy cover up illegal activities:
richardnixonpicture.jpg


These are all the sorts of people I wouldn't want to associate my cause with, friend. They are a cancer on the political system.

And please, while I respect that you are serving, or at least claim to be serving, in the US military, it doesn't make you smarter, more virtuous, or more of an expert on "freedom" or anything else by default. I have been married to a Naval officer for over a decade now, which has more than proven to me that just because someone wears a uniform doesn't shield them from being a moron. I have met more than a couple folks that couldn't rub two braincells together if you lent them one.

Besides, someone in the military arguing against universal health care is a bit of a hypocritical thing to do. You realize that you, my wife, myself, my two children, and every other active member and dependent of the US Military is covered by a universal system, right?

The other week, I had a pain in my left testicle. Didn't know what it was, but it came in pulses, like a cramp, a couple times a day, and figured it had something to do with my vasectomy last December (Merry Christmas, you're sterile!) I called up Tricare, got an appointment with my PCM at Portsmouth Naval Hospital five days later. I went in for my appointment, doctor poked and prodded a bit and told me to turn my head and cough, and wrote me up a referral to the urologist.

Appointment two days later, an ultrasound was done (how awkward that was) and it was determined that it was nothing more than the scar tissue forming and causing my nerves to fire weird. They wrote me a prescription for Motrin 800mg for when the pain held on for a while (the military Docs love the ol' "vitamin M") and sent me on my way.

I got down to the pharmacy, and waited in line. It was a long wait, about twenty minutes. I showed them my ID at the window after my number was called, and they retrieved my Rx, instructed me to take it with food and all that, and sent me on my way with no payment or anything.

It's a great system, quite frankly, and don't see why it needs to be restricted to those who as a government employee. Why shouldn't it be this simple for everyone? How was it that this entire problem with a worrisome pain in my testicles being checked out and alleviated in a timely and cost effective manner infringed on my freedom again?

Personally, I view a universal health care system as NECESSARY to ensure freedom. Your definition of freedom seems to stem from freedom from the government, which is supposed to work for us because it is by definition run by us. What we have now is tyranny not from Washington, but by predatory corporations that want to take your money and give you nothing in return were ever they are able. We have people afraid to leave low paying jobs they hate and living in poverty because they can't afford to lose health benefits. People that can't go to school to better themselves or their place in society because they have a sick family member eating up all available income. We have 60% of all bankruptcies in this country resulting from medical bills, and most of those folks thought they had insurance.

Our system is broken. There is nothing wrong, or unpatriotic, about saying that other countries have a better system than us or that they might be better at something than us. What is unpatriotic is saying that we CAN'T be better, that we CAN'T fix it. And even worse than that, we have people that are not even willing to try.

We are America, damn it. We may not be the best at everything, and we make plenty of mistakes and even commit vast atrocities at times. But the thing that made us great is that we never stop TRYING to be the best, and never stopped trying to not repeat the mistakes of the past. This current social conservative movement, though, is at the wrong side of history. They are the one's dragging this country into decay, greed, and and abject apathy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'll use the same argument I used on JEMS Life. Saying that the system needs reform and that because ObamaCare is reform, it is good is like saying Hitler was good for Germany because he reformed the broken Weimar Republic.

As far as the military system, it's essentially the same as any other employer provided health care system. Now do you really think that the nation has enough money to actually make that system universal? You can't just solve everything by taxing the rich, after all the rich already pay the vast majority of federal income tax in this country.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You could be right there. I want Canada's system, UK's system, Germany's system. This idiotic system being proposed, with no public option and a mandate to have insurance without it makes no sense.


US under a Canada system. Anything that isn't a life saving (basically, if you don't get this, you will die within a week) is optional and be prepared to wait years. Sick and tired of hobbling around on a bad hip? Too bad, hip replacements aren't necessary for life so we'll only pay for X amount a year. No private insurance since that would make some more equal than others. As a result, many Americans will flee to Mexico for procedures so that they actually get them in a reasonable period of time.


UK system: Once physicians and dentists meet their quota of government patients, they'll stop seeing people and taking new patients. After all, no physician is going to take people off of a 60,000 person wait list if they won't get paid for it.
 
is like saying Hitler was good for Germany because he reformed the broken Weimar Republic.

Thread closed due to invocation of Godwin's Law
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top