Wait - he wants to monitor health care? Like he monitored Wall Street? Pass.

• physicians - obama's plan?
  • No one in my family ever waited on a mile long list - Not so. From a Canadian
    • did your relatives - have
      • Waits for elective surgery yes, urgent surgery no, like anywhere. nm - oldtimer
  • From what I understand Canada's healthcare...sm - oldtimer
    • And he's going to accomplish this how? - sm
      • Don't expect any answers from O lovers on this - board....they don't have them......sm
      • He is going to accomplish this by - - Amanda
        • Pie in the sky talk - no way
        • Lemme get this straight... - equineluvr
          • you have the option of choosing it too - - Amanda
        • The concept is similar to any group plan. - The more who sign up, the lower the cost...sm
          • Those prices are OUTRAGEOUS! Bad plan, Obama! - sm
        • I'm curious about this - ...
          • Like I posted above, this is flat out false - stuff he has told you......sm
          • Full coverage based on income for people whose...sm - oldtimer
            • full coverage for how much - ? n/m
            • And then, that employer who does not - provide his employee
              • Interesting....and I suppose Obama will define - what is a small business?
              • If it is a small business, then it is exempt from this - nm - Amanda
              • With all the incentives, tax credits, encouragement and - support for small businesses...sm
                • his plan for healthcare - see link inside - - Amanda
                  • Wait - he wants to monitor health care? Like he monitored Wall Street? Pass. - nm
                • Encouragement and support???. - Please explain, I know
                  • More on O's plan for - small businesses. sm
      • My state already is using almost the same plan as....sm - oldtimer

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

I know, I know a "liberal rag"!!!!   ha ha ha

World greets Obama:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122592900344403049.html

Obama's Dour Vision:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122592129148302567.html

What an Obama Presidency Means for Your Money:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122591367859702209.html

Pelosi, Automakers to Meet:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122599560485005549.html

Obamas's Real Opposition:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122593259568103473.html

The stages of grief:

Denial - okay that was last year, just read old Paulson reports.

Anger -  that was Lehman Bros.

Bargaining - TARP anyone?

Depression - 

Acceptance -

I think we have a ways to go until they get over it.....

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/finance/wall-street-bonuses-expects-come-season-despite-bailout/

Paying bonuses this year is likely to result in a lot of backlash from the average American. After all, even with bonuses down dramatically, they are still higher than the average American, who is losing his or her home, makes. Not to mention the government bailout of financial firms, which seems to change daily, is coming from taxpayer dollars. Concerns abound—rightly or wrongly--that some of the $700 billion bailout could go to pay bonuses this year.

Some need to pay close attention to this.........  it's called welfare handouts.  "Entitled mentality".  The working class will get NO tax cuts.  You all will be working to put money in the hands of those that do not.  It makes perfectly good sense.  I've been saying there is no way he can do anything he is leading people to believe he can because 1/3 of people in this country pay NO TAXES.   He has led so many to believe he will cut middle class when he can't.  He is blatantly trying to disguise "government handouts" as "tax credits".   You want your hard earned money going to everyone who doesn't bother to work? 

One of Barack Obama’s most potent campaign claims is that he’ll cut taxes for no less than 95% of “working families.” He’s even promising to cut taxes enough that the government’s tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% — which is lower than it is today.

It’s a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he’s also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of “tax cut.”

For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase “tax credit.” Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals[.]

In what appears to be an attempt to call Obama a hypocrite, ABC’s Scott Mayerowitz “reports” today that the President also has a “lavish lifestyle.” Under the title: “Obama’s Perks: Private Jet, Chef Tax-Free,” ABC notes that Obama earns $400,000 dollars a year and even has a private jet:

The president makes $400,000 a year, but hasn’t received a raise from Congress since 2001. He also gets a $50,000 annual entertainment expense account (any unused money at the end of the year must go back to the Treasury.)

Then there is the use of two private jets, Boeing 747s better known as Air Force One. And of course the constant security details, drivers, a private chef, a country vacation estate and the rent-free use of a well-known, 132-room mansion called the White House. The president also used to have a yacht, until Jimmy Carter sold it.

As its evidence that “corporate America” is upset, ABC said that “some Wall Street bloggers” are angry with the compensation cap. But the article cited only one blogger, Dealbreaker.com, who — apparently poking fun at Sen. Claire McCaskill’s statement — remarked, “Some accountability needs to be put in place. We won’t have them kicking sand in the face of taxpayers any longer.” Dealbreaker.com also suggests charging rent for White House tenants.

Comparing the President to Wall Street CEOs is absurd. The “private jet” that Obama uses is Air Force One, which is used as a security precaution and necessary for the dozens of staff and press that accompany the President on every trip. Each use of the jet by the President is regarded as a “classified military operation” in order to ensure the President’s safety.

Furthermore, Obama’s salary is set by Congress (whose members are elected by the public). CEO compensation is decided internally within the company, usually by its board of directors. The problem with recent excessive CEO compensation was that executives receiving federal funds were still rewarded for failure with tens of millions of dollars from their companies.

The President, on the other hand, does not get a bonus for his performance, good or bad. Indeed, Presidents Bush and Obama earn the same salary. County Fair at Media Matters has more.

nm

I figure either one of two things will happen. Either the US will go to a single payer system, i.e., national health care covering all through federal taxes and cost control by the government, or therre will be an implosion of the private system in x number of years with something different emerging from the ashes.

With the exhorbitant cost of health insurance, mandating coverage is not an answer. Anything can be mandated. The question is how does one pay for it?Massachusetts mandated individual coverage, and already has had to exclude 20% due to the cost of a policy, anywhere from $1,200 to $1,400 a month for family coverage.  Employers cannot afford to cover employees either due to the cost of health insurance.  The current system? Well, insurance companies can charge $3,000 a month for a health insurance policy, health care providers can charge $800,000 for a 3-day hospital stay, etc.  In the end no one, businesses or otherwise, will be able to keep "feeding the beast" and the current system will implode.

I think the proposal of being able to buy into Medicare is a noble one, but president Clinton pushed that years ago, and with much opposition and to no avail at that time.

I don't mean to sound so pessiimistic. Actually I'm not. There are 300 million people in this country, they have the ability to change anything, and hopefully they will take the initial steps to do that in November.

What do I think about H. Clinton's mandatory health insurance proposal?

Here's my situation....I'm in my mid 50's, have a few pre-existing conditions, and am an IC doing medical transcription for years. I have health insurance which will cover the pre-existing conditions, however I rarely use the policy and have not been in a hospital for over 10 years. In 1999 my premium for coverage was about $250.00 per month. That same policy now costs me $1,097.00 per month, and that is coverage for one person.

I don't know about Hillary's proposals, or that much about anyone else's for all that goes. I do know however, that health care reform is being discussed again, and from where I am sitting I am a very strong supporter of health care reform, be it mandatory coverage or any other proposals. I frankly cannot afford monthly health insurance premiums that are running over one thousand dollars a month, and if you ask me, monthly health insurance premiums as high as this are criminal, to say the least.

...of those folks you mention.  Who did you think pays for all the uninsured health care in this country?  Santa Claus?  Folks without insurance often wait until the last minute and then utilize ER services which in the end cost more than if they'd been followed in a clinic. 

It also sounds like you believe that kids of welfare abusers should be punished because their parents can't/don't/won't provide for them.  I don't agree.  All children deserve basic care regardless of who their parents are.  We are a wealthy country, after all. 

Personally, I'd be happy to pitch in on my taxes to help provide a health care program for the uninsured.  Better that than funding a war in Iraq.

Consider this post educational. This is a post, from someone who lives with a single-payer health care system in a social democracy, explaining why I believe that this is a good way to make sure that everyone can receive health care.

Health care stateside costs more than 2.8 trillion USD per year. More than HALF of that money is spent on clerical help, at the doctor's office, at the lab, at the hospital, at the insurer, by the insurer to deny coverage for whatever they can deny. The reason that 62% of bankruptcies every year are due to catastrophic medical emergencies and 78% of those emergencies are insured, including 60% who had private insurance, not medicaid.., is the profit motive and the incentive it provides to deny coverage (stats from recent Harvard study). The same study found that most of these bankruptcies were solidly middle-class people hit by an unexpected medical emergency. These are not the powerless of the world; these are the people that keep the economy running.

The US spends more per capita on health care than any other developed nation, for a lower standard of care and a poorer result.

For instance, Canada's lifetime risk of maternal death is 1 in 11,000; not as good as Austria and Norway, but in the top 11. The US risk is 1 in 4,800 about twice Canada's rate and close to Mauritius. (Stats from Unicef) If you look closer at rates by race, you find that white women have about the same risk as women in Canada; blacks and Hispanics make up the difference, and that was shocking to me. Another shock to me was to find that more than one woman had been denied maternity care, as it was a pre-existing condition. Oh yes, and that Viagra is covered, but birth control often is not.

As it stands now, the US government covers the elderly, infirm, disabled and the poor. The private insurers get their pick of those that remain, and insurance is tied to your employment, which means that you are liable to find yourself without insurance at the very point that you need it most. Insurance often covers a portion of prescriptions, vision care and dental, but only a portion and not always. The portion of coverage declines the more common the need is. There are no drug price caps; the US is practically the only nation in the world not to have them.

IF the government were to cover everyone via a single-payer system, the cost of insuring everyone would cost less, much less than that 2.8 trillion every year.

Single-payer is not socialized medicine. It is exactly what it says it is. The government acts as the main insurer. Doctors are mostly in private practice, although there are a few clinics, usually attached to hospitals. Hospitals tend to be run either by the province or as charitable or private entities, or a combination of both. The choice of doctor is left to the patient; truthfully, patients in Canada have a larger choice of doctors than patients in the US. One's insurer doesn't dictate one's health care provider. It is true that we do not, currently, have dental or prescription care provided by medicare. That is, as it is stateside, covered by a private insurer, if at all. On the other hand, medications here are 1/3 of the price, generally, that they are stateside.

Doctors are paid by the government, yes, but they are billed in the same way an insurer would be. They are paid for provision of services. The main difference is that the insurer is the government; that means that between 10 and 30% of the cost of providing the service is cut. The government doesn't take a profit, doesn't deny services, gives no bonuses for denying services, and has, in fact, no interest in denying services. This means that everyone, regardless of pre-existing conditions, is covered.

Malpractice suits are not as onerous here as there. There is a cost, of course, associated with lost wages, pain and suffering, punitive damages, lost companionship or a lost parent, but there is no cost associated with lifetime medical care, which is the biggest portion of the US awards. Since health care is taken care of by the government, there is no extra cost for this; the government won't deny coverage, which a private insurer will. It has nothing to do with the government restricting awards; it has everything to do with future health care being taken care of.

How is it paid for? At the beginning, it was paid for through a payment collected by your employer. If I recall correctly, it was $33.00 per person at the beginning. It worked, and well, but it became obvious that the cheapest way to provide healthcare was to charge everyone through taxes, which were progressive, as a flat charge was not. Taxes were charged on tobacco and alcohol to offset the social and medical costs of their use, and that's a fair way to deal with it. Are taxes higher here? Actually, not much.

That is, in part, due to a different set of priorities.

However, If you can find a trillion dollars in three or four days to keep a bloated and corrupt Wall Street afloat, and a couple of trillion dollars for the occupation of Iraq, shouldn't it be as easy to find cash to institute single payer health care in order to keep the population healthy and relieve the burden of increasing health care costs on business?

reality rears its ugly head....

French healthcare is 'badly run'

Plans for spending cuts have drawn protests from health workers France must make big changes to its health system in order to cut waste and increase efficiency, a government-commissioned report is warning. The report says citizens must pay more and doctors must alter their behaviour. Failure to do so could add 66 billion euros a year to France's public budget deficit by 2020, it adds. The warning comes after thousands of health workers protested on Thursday over staff shortages and the "creeping privatisation" of the health system. 'Badly regulated' The report was written by the High Council for the Future of Health Insurance, an advisory body set up by the government as it prepares to introduce healthcare reform legislation in June. PRESCRIPTION BILL Average French GP prescribes drugs worth 260,000 euros a year The French use three times as many antibiotics as Germans They use twice as many anti-cholestorol drugs as Britons A fifth of health spending goes on pharmaceuticals It includes representatives from the health insurance industry, trade unions and medical professionals. The report was given to the Health Ministry on Friday, but details were leaked by the Reuters news agency which saw a copy. The standard of care provided by French doctors is ranked among the best in the world, but the report says the system is "badly regulated and badly governed". "The High Council believes that general confusion over who is in charge of what partly explains the excesses," it says. "Everyone - institutions, healthcare professionals and social security contributors - will have to change their behaviour." Higher insurance payments? The report says French general practitioners prescribe on average 260,000 euros' worth of drugs a year. BUDGET STRAINS Health spending nearing 9% of GDP Projected healthcare deficit this year - 10.9 billion euros Deficit in 2010 if nothing is done - 29 billion euros Healthcare deficit to account for 20% of total public deficit this year It says the French consume three times as many antibiotics as the Germans, and more than twice as many anti-cholesterol drugs as the British. The council also highlights the CSG welfare levy - a charge paid by workers, the unemployed and pensioners - as an area for possible reform. "The High Council is unanimous in its refusal to turn to massive indebtedness to cover the growth in health insurance expenditure," the report said. "The CSG, with its large base and the principle of proportionality that underpins it, could seem like a possible answer," it said. The council said even a structural shake-up of the system would not necessarily rule out the need to raise further revenues. Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin, which set up the council last October to advise the government on healthcare reform, said last week the government had not been planning a rise in the CSG as part of the healthcare reforms. Growing deficit The report says an ageing population and the high cost of advanced treatments will help push health spending past 9% of gross domestic product - one of the highest levels in the world. Number of doctors per 1,000 people Italy - 4.1 France - 3.3 Germany - 3.3 UK - 2.0 Japan - 1.9 Source: British Medical Association. Figures for 2000 Experts have already warned that a projected healthcare deficit of 10.9 billion euros this year could rise to 29 billion euros by 2010, unless action is taken. Looking further ahead, the report says the deficit could rise to 66 billion euros by 2020. Health Minister Jean-Francois Mattei has already put forward a plan known as "Hospital 2007" proposing management reforms and a new emphasis on cost assessment. Problems in the French health system were exposed last year, when a heat wave killed around 15,000 mostly elderly people. There was also a bed shortage in hospitals in December, when a nationwide flu and bronchitis epidemic broke out.

US among worst in world for infant death