Monday February 13, 2012

Obama assails McCain over health care proposal

World ( 64 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Back to top

Order by Time Order by Popularity

64 Comments

Login to comment

  • 0

    SezWho2

    McCain's figures to the contrary notwithstanding, what Obama says about health care is true. There is coverage and then there is...coverage.

    Providing a tax credit for the purchase of private insurance will cause anti-selection. Younger and healthier workers will have a financial advantage in purchasing private insurance and the resulting anti-selection will drive up employer-paid insurance costs.

    Additionally, as long as underwriting is left in the hands of private insurers, some risks will be excluded for pre-existing conditions, other policies will be rated due to the difficulty in assessing exact risks and some will be denied coverage altogether. Private health insurance is good business only to insurers and to those they choose to insure.

  • 0

    buddha4brains

    Why a nation would hold 10s of millions of its citizens hostage when it comes to health care is beyond me. I understand the basic ideology behind rejecting universal healthcare, but is the cost in human lives worth it?

    America after all has "socialized" security with its military and police, fire protection with its fire departments, transportation with its roads, sanitation with its water & sewage services ... what is so sacrosanct about health care that it cannot be included as a basic service provided by the state?

    The answer, as usual, is money even though ideology is often stated. Too many hands in the till driving up costs and taking a cut. That millions suffer because of inadequate health care is just the cost of doing business.

    There is probably no perfect solution, but surely America with all its money and brains can come up with a better solution.

  • 0

    borscht

    buddha4brains,

    The US has also socialized its banking system. If America could use the Japanese system, whereby doctors and HMOs still get to be rich but the patient only pays about 20-30% of the actual bill, then I'm sure opposition to universal health care will evaporate. (Of course, that means your taxes will go up a small amount.)

  • 0

    buddha4brains

    "The US has also socialized its banking system"

    Now ain't that a mind bender. After years of tuff love capitalism the capitalists run to socialism to save it.

    But then again look at who is being saved: the monied people. With health care it is those without wealth that are left in the cold with the nation debates endlessly. Really pathetic.

  • 0

    Nippon5

    If you actually read the writtings on the wall neither of them are for Universal health care. Obama wants to increase the federal low income health care system while retaining the employeer insurance system that is in place now, problem with this system is it still wont cover any more then is covered now since almost every state already has thiese programs in place and people just are to proud or stupid to use them. McCain doesnt want to privitize health care so everyone has to get their own heathcare. He wants to give the tax break so that people can buy their own plans if they cant get it through the employeer. His plan will not cover everyone either for the same problem. McCains adds money to spend money and Obamas just spends money and has no way of recouping the money. Neither plan is that good and both are lying about what the others plan will or will not do...

    Politics as usual... to many sheep on here........

  • 0

    Alphaape

    The only way McCain's plan would work is if the insurance companies were under better regulation. They will probably wind up doing like the banks in the current crisis, take the money, and then balk at paying out, or when they have to pay out cry bankruptcy and then not pay out. I am not sure what is the best way to go. But I do believe that in any event, three things need to happen: 1)strictly regulate the insurance industry so that they are not screwing the people who purchase policies by not paying or giving them too much red tape 2)limiit the amount that a person can sue a doctor for malpractice. If hospitals have to pay huge amounts for malpractice insurance, they will just stick it to the patient. I do believe in fair compensation for malpractice, but not a huge $100 million dollar type penalties. 3)begin to enforce the rule that if you are not a U.S. citizen or legal resident, you don't get treated in Emergency rooms. The cost borne by hospitals in CA, TX and other states where large numbers of illegals are present is enourmous. U.S. emergency rooms have to treat you no matter what the issue when you come in. Many illegals use that as a way to get basic health care. It costs the hosptials at least $12 billion a year. Many hospitals in some areas have closed because these costs can not be recouped. One hospital in Dallas, even tried to bill the consulate of Mexico since most of the paitents that were using it were illegal immigrants from there (they still did not get paid). Cut down some of those extra costs, and then I think that McCain's plan for health insurance may have a better chance to work. But as it stands right now, I don't think it will work.

  • 0

    buddha4brains

    Nippon5 The irony of calling others who differ from you "sheep" is that you sound like one yourself.

    Anyway, I really do not care what the US health care system is called - and I do agree with you that neither offer a serious change - if "universal" and "socialized" are too much to handle then find different language. Nothing is going to change until the leaders on both sides believe it to be a national shame that 10s of millions are without adequate health care. As borscht said, the Japanese system might be a way to go.

  • 0

    Badsey

    People need health savings account IRAs, unlike the current HSAs that must be used before the end of the year or else you lose it.

  • 0

    Nippon5

    budda4brains Nippon5 The irony of calling others who differ from you "sheep" is that you sound like one yourself.

    Only those who know they are sheep would assume that Im talking to them... I never said those who differ from me, I said those who follow others without looking into the facts. Those who post statements based on proven lies from a political source are sheep. Sorry truth bothers some and irony would be if I followed a group and I dont...

  • 0

    Sarge

    Hey, we may have socialized our security and our banking system, but we're drawing the line at socializing our health care!

    "the Japanese system might be a way to go"

    The Japanese system is far from perfect.

    What's Obama gettin' riled up about, anyway? The election's over! McCain is toast!

  • 0

    chibaman

    The election's over! McCain is toast!

    Thank god. Time to move forward, not backward as it would be under the rabble of a team the Repubs have put together. May they never set foot in the White House again. Ever. What a disgrace. I wonder if Palin read about these health care proposals in her new morning papers, or was too busy pouring over her subscription invoices.

    Polls show Obama has taken a lead in the national race, fueled by voters' increasing confidence that he would be better equipped to handle the struggling economy

    Zing.

  • 0

    Sarge

    "Obama has taken a lead in the national race, fled by voters' increasing confidence that he would be better equipped to handle the struggling economy"

    Yes! Barack Obama, who has never had a real job, you know, one in which he would have to make a profit either for himself or for his company, who, his entire life, has received his income either from non-profit organizations or the government, is definitely, in his infinite wisdom, better equipped to handle the economy.

    Zing.

    Hey, chibaman, I thought you were going out for awhile...

  • 0

    onewrldoneppl

    obama's proposin' universal healthcare for american children. damned him! not on my watch, will he ever be allowed to implement that. american children should be as free from Social-Ism as their adult counterparts. vote McKKKain!

  • 0

    Sarge

    I agree with this comment by Rush Limbaugh:

    Barack Obama arrogantly insists that, despite his lack of success anywhere in the private sector, or even as a state senator or a U.S. senator, he possesses all the wisdom necessary to manage the entire economy.

  • 0

    buddha4brains

    Nippon5 "Only those who know they are sheep would assume that Im talking to them... "

    I only commented I did not make that assumption.

    "I never said those who differ from me, I said those who follow others without looking into the facts."

    Actually you never said any of that, you may have inferred but you never said. I just took a stab at what you might of meant.

    "Those who post statements based on proven lies from a political source are sheep. Sorry truth bothers some and irony would be if I followed a group and I dont..."

    Agreed. Next time try reading all of what I wrote.

    Sarge Why draw the line at health care? The kind of seems arbitrary.

  • 0

    MrDickMorris

    Obama will make healthcare free as a ereward for idleness from those who cannot be bothered to work hard enough to pay for decent healthcare.

    Why should i subsidise the lazy and ignorant with my hard work.

    If the poorer folks had my work ethic, they would be fine financially. Obama wants to punish us successfull folk to look after the deadbeats.

    Obama's ideas are totally whacko, and would destroy our great nation.

  • 0

    coulrophobic

    Video of 'Obama Youth'.

    The personality cult is starting to get creepy.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrgfGTEf9eI

  • 0

    buddha4brains

    MrDickMorris seems to me that the more "successful" a person is in America the more they are apt to rely on cronyism, backroom deals and other shinanigans in order to stay ahead. I other words, those who claim to be successful are socialists in denial - that is, in need of others to give a helping hand. Why not drop the pretense and accept the fact the humans are social beings whose nature is to help each other out.

    As for destroying America your GOP friends have already most of the damage.

  • 0

    SezWho2

    Sarge,

    I think you'll find that you are agreeing with Rush's lie.

    Obama has never arrogantly insisted that he has all the wisdom necessary to manage the economy. On the contrary, he has aggressively asserted that he will do a better job of managing the economy. McCain, to his own discredit, has not been able to effectively refute that claim.

  • 0

    FandB

    MrDickMorris; Well done, you've hit the nail on the head.

    Obama will steal from all us decent hardworking folk, and give handouts and free health care to the lowlifes who cannot care for themselves or their own families.

    These folk should get off their lazy, useless backsides and learn to work for the good things in life.

    Why should i work hard for the benefit of selfish "people" looking for state handouts?

  • 0

    SezWho2

    MrDickMorris,

    You say that Obama will make health care free as a reward for idleness and you suggest that those who cannot afford decent health care are to lazy to work hard. Neither are true. People work quite hard at jobs which neither provide health care nor pay enough to purchase it. To the extent that anyone gets free health care, it will not be as a reward for laziness. It will be in recognition that a sick society does not serve us.

    You ask why you should subsidize the lazy and the ignorant with your hard work. You might as well ask why you should subsidize the Department of Defense's avaracious budget, the war on terror, the bailout of the financial industry or anything else that anyone takes exception to with regard to the use of tax dollars.

    If poorer folks had your work ethic--assuming it's a good one and we only have your suggestion for it that it is--they might be fine financially. But that doesn't mean they could afford health care. Two parents working hard, each at $20,000/yr. jobs might be able to provide for a family of 4, but neither are likely to get health care from their employers and their combined income is unlikely to allow them to procure coverage that will protect them for anything other than basic services.

    Obama's ideas are hardly wacko. If anything, they do not go far enough in providing what we really need. The are, however, more thoughtful than McCain's insouciant trust of private insurers. Far from destroying this nation, Obama's ideas will take a positive step toward addressing a grievous social ill that makes our nation poor in comparison to other industrialized countries.

  • 0

    coulrophobic

    "Obama's ideas are hardly wacko. If anything, they do not go far enough in providing what we really need."

    Which is what, exactly?

    "The[y] are, however, more thoughtful than McCain's insouciant trust of private insurers. Far from destroying this nation, Obama's ideas will take a positive step toward addressing a grievous social ill that makes our nation poor in comparison to other industrialized countries."

    1 - What is this grievous social ill?

    2 - What industrialized countries are you comparing the United States to?

  • 0

    Sarge

    Sez - "Obama... has aggressively asserted that he will do a better job of managing the economy."

    Except that it's not the president's job to manage the economy! That's the job of private businesses and hard-working Americans. They're what's made America great and Obama would have the government managing the economy. ( Sarge's words )

  • 0

    SezWho2

    Sarge,

    I think you are equivocating. When we speak about a President managing an economy we are speaking about a President exercising leadership in fiscal and tax matters. We are not talking about some kind of state socialism where the President makes the economic decisions which affect us all.

    The private businesses and the hard-working Americans that you talk about do not in any sense manage the economy. In fact it is exactly otherwise. What they do is to endeavor to maximize their own individual economic positions and the result of that is that things do not always work smoothly.

    In calling for an infusion of $700B, Bush and Paulson were managing the economy. In adding another $150B of tax breaks Congress is managing the economy. Management is the exercise of available oversight and available control.

  • 0

    SezWho2

    coulrophobic,

    The grievous social ill is that 1/6 of the American population should be without health care benefits and that for a nation that spends more on health care per capita our health care system works so poorly. In addition to those without health care benefits, you can add those with inadequate benefits and factor in that the trend is worsening and not improving. For those who believe in "a culture of life"--and even for those who do not--you can factor in neo-natal death rates which are very nearly the worst in the world.

    There are a wide range of countries that you could compare the US to. But for starters, since this is Japan Today, we could compare it to Japan. We could also compare it to our neighbor Canada or to "mother" England. And then there are always countries like Norway, Sweden, Finland and so on.

    There is not much question that the US has the best medical technology. There is also not much question that most Americans have difficulty getting access to the very best and an increasing number have difficulty accessing anything but charitable service.

  • 0

    sailwind

    Both plans pretty much avoid the real issue why our health care system is so out of whack.

    One word can sum it up....... Lawyers

    Sez, mentioned neo-natal rates. They are atrocious because oby/gyn's just can't afford the malpractice insurance and they quit in droves. Average cost for that an Oby / Gyn forks out to cover his or her malpractice insurance in a single year, 80,000 dollars. It isn't a real shocker that people would rather not hang their shingle on neo-natal care. The insurance rates plus the fact that your going to sued anyway by the vultures we call lawyers is enough to deter anyone from the field.

    We need to get the darn lawyers out of our healthcare system, I mean totally out and set up system that if you become a patient of a Doctor of your choosing you sign a paper promising you won't sue him down the road. Then and only then will the bloated fat and backwards approach to our healthcare system will start to right itself. Until that happens both plans are just dealing with the symptoms not the actual disease.

  • 0

    coulrophobic

    "The grievous social ill is that 1/6 of the American population should be without health care benefits"

    Assuming the usual 47 million figure is even correct you can subtract 15 million right off the bat - no sane American could argue taxpayers should provide health care for illegal aliens.

    There are millions in their late teens and twenties who have no insurance by choice.

    I was one.

    As I recall most of my friends were. Thirty was a lifetime away...

    "We could also compare it to our neighbor Canada or to "mother" England. And then there are always countries like Norway, Sweden, Finland and so on."

    And when we do compare survival rates for cancer the US is still tops.

    Yes, the costs are higher.

    Keeping your life is a whole different statistic.

    The US government couldn't provide oversight on housing. What makes Democrats think it can do so with our health care system?

  • 0

    Sarge

    Barack Obama would raise taxes on pensioners by raising the capital gains tax when they sell their equities. He would increase taxes on everyone who makes $42,000 or more a year. He would increase taxes on every business that makes more than $200,000 a year. He has authored a bill that would require U.S. taxpayers to pay $85 billion a year for other countries to fight poverty through the incompetent U.N.

    Our enemies tremble at the thought of a McCain-Palin victory. Our enemies will celebrate an Obama-Biden win.
    Vladimir Putin is wetting his pants at the prospect of an Obama presidency.

    It's bad enough that a major political party has nominated Barack Obama for president - we don't need to compound the error by actually electing him president.

    We don't need

  • 0

    yabits

    Sarge writes: "Except that it's not the president's job to manage the economy! That's the job of private businesses and hard-working Americans. They're what's made America great and Obama would have the government managing the economy."

    A fine example of a complete ignorance of macroeconomics and a government's role in managing an economy. Readers don't have to look any farther than US agriculture in the 20th century to understand how government played a key role in stabilizing prices and increasing productivity. Left to themselves, farmers had suffered centuries of boom and bust cycles, while consumers suffered along with shortages and unpredictable prices.

    This is not to claim that US agricultural policies have been perfect. Far from it. But agriculture in the US is vastly better off because of policies than if government keep its hands completely off. The same could easily be true for health care, properly managed.

    As for the claim that Senator Obama never held a job in the private sector, so what? The same could be said of W. Edwards Deming.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W.EdwardsDeming

  • 0

    MrDickMorris

    Sarge- True words buddy.

    My business is doing ok, but if i am hit by Obama's socialist tax hikes, i may have to cut staff, or make some part time.

    How can this help the economy, when the workers of businesse suffer.

    Obama will allow layabouts free healthcare. Hey, Obama, how about something free for the hardworking guy?

    Why rob me and give to the poor and lazy?

  • 0

    yabits

    Sarge writes: "He (Obama) would increase taxes on everyone who makes $42,000 or more a year."

    Readers can refer to the following link for the facts on the continuous stream of Republican lies and distortions regarding Senator Obama's tax proposals.

    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/moretaxdeceptions.html

  • 0

    zurcronium

    coulrophobic,

    Different government can manage healthcare, not one designed to fail as with the republicans over the last 8 years. Republicans can win elections by cheating but they cannot use the same technique to run the government.

    Two examples for you to look up, the veterans administration and medicare. Both are government run programs for specific groups that are by ever measure a great success.

    US healthcare today is designed to fail but at the same time line the pockets of specific groups in that industry. That is why Cuba has better healthcare than the US.

  • 0

    McC72

    Sarge, I appoint you a McCain surrogate in Japan. You are now telling us why McCain doesn't know any economic.

    By the way, stop making numbers for the Dems. The figure is $250 not $42

  • 0

    coulrophobic

    Certain posters here scare me:

    "US healthcare today is designed to fail but at the same time line the pockets of specific groups in that industry."

    Care to name these specific groups?

    "That is why Cuba has better healthcare than the US."

    So why are you not living there? Your posts show complete disgust for those who rule Japan...

  • 0

    jeancolmar

    Ho hum. The American arguments over health care seen soooo primitive from over here in Japan. We have universal health care--"socialized medicine" if you will--and whatever the shortcomings of the system is here, we are light years better off than the Americans. In fact every major industrialized country has universal health care, except for the US.

    What the US does have in its place is the crooked HMO health care industry and the crooked insurance industry and the crooked American Medical Association.

    While we who are not Americans get sick with relative financial comfort the Americans will continue to go bankrupt paying for inflated medical bills.

    In place of universal health care the US will get buckets of God and patriotism. And more war.

    And it does not matter who becomes president. The Americans will never have as good as we who have "socialized medicine" have.

  • 0

    WilliB

    jeancolmar:

    The US does have universal free health care... it is called emergency room. And bad as it is, it is arguable better than the universal free health care offered in some major industrial countries. By the way, when was the last time you want to a Japanese hospital for a major procedure under kokumin kenko hoken? You might want to try before judging.

  • 0

    Nippon5

    yabits at 08:27 PM JST - 5th October

    Sarge writes: "He (Obama) would increase taxes on everyone who makes $42,000 or more a year."

    Readers can refer to the following link for the facts on the continuous stream of Republican lies and distortions regarding Senator Obama's tax proposals.

    To make it fair why dont you point out the Obama lies on heathcare??

    Here you go http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/outofcontextonhealth_care.html

    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamassocialsecurity_whopper.html

    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/stretchingwithbiden.html

    And on and on for both sides....

    They are lying more then they are taking pisses at this point, worse thing is all the people who believe them, or even worse is they might believe their own lies themselves now...

  • 0

    coulrophobic

    www.factcheck.org is funded by The Annenberg Foundation.

    They are pro-Obama.

  • 0

    coulrophobic

    "And it does not matter who becomes president. The Americans will never have as good as we who have "socialized medicine" have."

    Is that from "Nurse Oppai and Dr. Kinchin-botchan" ?

    Yes, a search of the old Japan Today site has poster Jean Colmar singing a somewhat different tune...

  • 0

    Everton2

    Americans love to brag about their medical technology. How it is better that everyone else and that they lead the world in this area and all that apple pie nose drip. The reality is that you have nothing; What is the point in having the best health care if 50 million can't afford or have access to it. Please give us all a break! I had surgery in Australia on my appendix and it cost me nothing, yes diddly squat. My brother on the other had who lives in America had to fork out 40k. GO FIGURE

  • 0

    Nessie

    www.factcheck.org is funded by The Annenberg Foundation. They are pro-Obama.

    Prove it.

  • 0

    Sarge

    Barack Obama joined Democrats on what were largely party-line votes expressing the desire to roll back the Bush tax cuts on people making $42,000 or over. This is a fact. Look it up, people.

    Everton: "I had surgery in Australia on my appendix and it cost me nothing, yes diddly squat."

    It cost your fellow taxpayers something, Everton. Nothing in life is free. Someone has to pay the doctors, the nurses, the hospital staff, the medicine makers, etc. Didn't you know that?

    Good grief, I can't belive this Obama dude has an excellentg chance of becoming the next U.S. president. Putin is salivating...

  • 0

    yabits

    Sarge writes: "Barack Obama joined Democrats on what were largely party-line votes expressing the desire to roll back the Bush tax cuts on people making $42,000 or over. This is a fact."

    It was written into the Bush tax cuts at the very beginning that they would expire in ten years time. The reason for the expiration had to do with the state of government surpluses or deficits going forward. Those who had good reason to believe that the tax cuts would lead to greatly increased deficits pushed for the ten-year time limit -- and they have been proven correct.

    But to exclaim that a President Barack Obama would increase income taxes on people making $42,000 and over is a flat-out lie. His proposed tax plan is a compromise that extends the Bush tax cuts for families earning less than $250,000 per year. Families who earn greater than that will see their taxes return to the levels under Ronald Reagan.

  • 0

    yabits

    Nippon5 writes: "To make it fair why dont you point out the Obama lies on heathcare??"

    No one here has yet raised any of statements that Obama has made on health care and showed them to be false. Certainly, I've seen no one defending Obama's false statements on health care. On the other hand, several posters repeatedly lie about Obama's tax proposals.

  • 0

    yabits

    Sarge writes: "It cost your fellow taxpayers something, Everton. Nothing in life is free. Someone has to pay the doctors, the nurses, the hospital staff, the medicine makers, etc. Didn't you know that?"

    The scandal is that a greater percentage of US GDP goes into health care than any other modern country, and that the citizens of other countries enjoy far greater access to their system, and get equal or better care, than the average American does.

  • 0

    yabits

    Sarge writes: "Good grief, I can't belive this Obama dude has an excellentg chance of becoming the next U.S. president. Putin is salivating..."

    Much of the success of the Democrats can be attributed to the gross mismanagement by Republicans over the past 15 years. It was their game to screw up and screw it up they certainly did.

    There is actually reason for Putin to pray for McCain's election. McCain and his advisors have had numerous business dealings with the Kremlin -- away from the watchful eye of Sarah Palin.

    http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081020/ames_berman

  • 0

    SezWho2

    sailwind,

    I would agree to doctors being exempt from suit when we can agree that every professional is exempt from suit. Capping judicial awards for malpractice would be a better answer, but rather difficult to do fairly as long as medical personnel refuse to testify against one another.

    I also doubt that exemption from suit would do much to improve the neonatal death rates, however. When doctors are exempt from suits, patients will demand that their mortality statistics become public record. Poor patients will be forced to gravitate to those with the worst records and the travesty will continue.

    The fault is not primarily in the legal system but in the health care delivery system and in the health care system's relationship to the insurance industry.

  • 0

    SezWho2

    coulrophobic,

    I'm not sure where you get your figures, but illegal aliens are not Americans. So when 47,000,000 Americans are uninsured, there is no subtraction for illegal aliens.

    Furthermore, it is not true that no sane American would argue that tax dollars should be provided for health care for illegals. This is particularly true when American employers entice illegals by paying wages which do not support health care coverage and which American workers therefore reject whenever possible. Business people explain this practice by saying that it is necessary for the survival of their businesses. In actuality it acts as a downward drag on all labor prices and a further impediment to the availability of health care coverage for American citizens.

    Yes, many young people who are not automatically covered by employer plans may choose to buy a plasma TV instead of opting for insurance coverage. That's called self-insurance and is most suitable for the rich, for the poor and for gamblers. Most young people who reject insurance fall into the latter two categories. If you gambled and won, congratulations. It's a good thing you didn't need dialysis or expensive drug therapy of any kind.

    Cancer survival rates are higher in the US mostly due to the fact that those who have coverage get earlier screening in other countries. That's an example of a good decision that has been made. Unfortunately, it is not routinely available to those who do not have coverage. Incidentally, speaking of survival, the US ranks about 40th in terms of life expectancy at birth--well behind the countries I previously mentioned.

    I'm not sure what you mean by "keeping your life is a whole different statistic". If you are talking about standard of living, the US fails on average in comparison with many other industrialized countries. If you are talking about life expectancy, that's already been covered.

    I don't think it's true that the US couldn't provide oversight on housing. I think what is true is that it didn't. The US health care delivery system is broken and in fixing it we need to consider models which work better than ours.

  • 0

    Betzee

    The US does have universal free health care... it is called emergency room.

    WilliB,

    Just because they have to treat patients in life threatening emergencies regardless of ability to pay doesn't mean it's free. You'll get a bill for their services and they will file the paperwork to be repaid from future income. Bankruptcies are often the result of inability to pay for services rendered under these circumstances. For those who wait owing to lack of insurance, they are a lot more costly to treat than had their health problems been addressed at an earlier stage. Diabetes, for example, can be managed on an out patient basis while diabetic comas require intensive care.

    Many people encounter problems with the employer-paid system when they want to change jobs and learn pre-existing conditions won't be covered. If you've got a few things wrong with you, well the cost of private insurance is likely to be prohibitive. A downturn in the economy makes health insurance a more pressing issue since loss of job means loss of health care for most people.

    I myself faced the prospect of paying for medical services out of pocket when I was hospitalized at the end of my schooling for four days. The insurance company wanted to wiggle out of it on the grounds I'd already graduated. It took a lot of wrangling to get them to reverse their initial refusal. The stress over the prospect of getting stuck with the bill impeded my recovery, forcing me to seek further medical services.

  • 0

    Betzee

    I'm not sure where you get your figures, but illegal aliens are not Americans. So when 47,000,000 Americans are uninsured, there is no subtraction for illegal aliens.

    In my county (central coast California) we ceased to provide services for the undocumented (few of whom have employer-paid insurance and the agriculture industry is seasonal anyway). But it didn't save any money since those in need of medical treatment simply waited until it was a life threatening situation and hospitals were forced to admit them. The public got stuck with a far bigger bill this way.

    It's common to see hospitals in California which offer no emergency or obstetrical services in order to vet patients' insurance before treating them. Many trauma centers have been closed to stem financial losses as well. That affects everyone; if you're in a car accident the nearest hospital which can provide treatment may be 50 miles away regardless of your insurance.

  • 0

    taniwha

    Obama is making promises he has absolutely no way of fulfilling.

    Reality break.

    The handover of hundreds of billions of dollars in public funds to Wall Street will preclude the use of those funds to aid working Americans. Should Obama win the presidency (and I don't think so) the legislation that Obama has himself helped to pass will in large measure set the agenda for his administration. It will be one of harsh austerity, budget cuts and attacks on essential social services.

    Facts speak for themselves. There is no way Obama can slap together an improved health system when the full burden of this financial meltdown (i.e. the failure of the capitalist financial system) has just been shifted onto the backs of American workers - while providing the wealthiest people in the country with a windfall.

  • 0

    taniwha

    If Barack intended to boost social services (including health care) he would not have supported the plundering of the government coffers to serve up relief for the wealthy few.

    Barack's deeds so far counter his words.

  • 0

    Everton2

    The share arrogance of pursuing an health care policy that leaves out millions is just unbelievable. Moreover, to suggest that these uninsured are merely illegal immigrants whom by and large deserve to have no access is simply false. The assessment of those who are deemed uninsured does not take into account the undocumented, as they exist to a large extent in a close parallel society that would not easily present itself for examination.

    The uninsured the statistics speak off comes from main street America. Those working two jobs and struggling to feed their kids, those who are terrified of getting sick because of the potential for bankruptcy due the manifold cost it may incur.

    The Australian health care system is fair and moral. The Government takes the view that good health care is a fundamental human right. Good health and access to health care should be an integral part of a country's strategic infrastructure building effort. I wont even go into the decline in the standard of individul health in America in comparison to other developed democracy

  • 0

    SezWho2

    taniwha,

    I don't think Barack's deeds counter his words so much as they reflect changing political realities. Barack is one Senator. He can accomplish no deeds without the support of others.

    He could, of course, take a high-minded and principled stand and refuse to budge from it. In that case, it is likely that he not be around to help anyone perform any legislative or executive deeds.

  • 0

    Sarge

    I can't understand how anyone can think that Barack Obama and Joe Biden are more capable than John McCain and Sarah Palin of leading the U.S.

  • 0

    SezWho2

    Sarge,

    I think it's because, McCain, for all his good points, is a maverick--and an old maverick at that. He has not exercised good judgment in selecting Palin, another maverick as self-described, as a running mate. Mavericks can lead some of the people some of the time, but by definition they cannot lead all of the people over the long haul.

    Add to that the virtual lack of substance in McCain's campaign to date. He has not been presenting a program that truly differentiates himself from the incumbent--with whom America is mightily distressed. He has been presenting an almost exclusively negative campaign. And with Palin's most recent disgraceful slanders he has apparently decided that negativity and attempting to schmooze the American people is the way to win.

  • 0

    taniwha

    SezWho2

    I don't think Barack's deeds counter his words so much as they reflect changing political realities.

    I accept that in part. Because it is clear that Barack Obama is following the trend of American pragmatist politics. Part of the growing problem for his publicity campaign though is that the political pragmatism of his words (e.g. more troops to Afghanistan, accusing Russia of beginning the conflict with Georgia, urging Congress to pass the bailout of Wall Street and so on) conflict with his posture as the idealist visionary who will bring beneficial change to America.

    The pragmatic content of his speech is aimed at the right wing military industrial corporate audience, particularly his Wall Street campaign funders. He aims to show he can 'out McCain' John McCain in fulfilling their imperialist aims abroad, and the necessary slashing of expenditure on the domestic front. His John Fitzgerald Kennedy styled image is there to ring in the old Democrat audience yearning for a return to the days of the American Dream, or at least a clear break from the current nightmare.

  • 0

    Sarge

    Sez - He has not exercised good judgment in selecting Palin"

    On the contrary, this is a brilliant pick. Shortly after he selected Palin, he was ahead of Obama in the polls after being behind since the get-go. He's behind now again because of this ridiculous financial fiasco being unfairly blamed on Republicans.

  • 0

    borscht

    Ridiculous financial fiasco being unfairly blamed on Republicans.

    Innersting. Are you better off now than you were 8 years ago? I'm sure the bankers are (WaMu Pres. gets 7.something million)

    Oh, and by the way, waaaaay back there I suggested the Japanese health care system not because of its perfections or imperfections but because the doctors get to be rich while the patient doesn't have to sell his or her house to pay for an appendectomy.

  • 0

    SezWho2

    taniwha,

    Except for the occasional stridency of your lexis, I agree entirely with what you said in response to my observation. However, while you have correctly identified a problematic area, you have offered no practical solution for Obama.

  • 0

    SezWho2

    Sarge,

    We could obviously go back and forth on this for some time.

    McCain's selection of Palin was brilliant--but as a distraction to Obama's nomination, as a bid to seize the feminine vote, as a bone to placate conservatives in his own party and as a tonic for his own lack of youth and vigor.

    As a selection of a person who could be a competent leader of our country, however, it showed very poor judgment. A vice-president must be qualified to step up to the duties of president. Sarah Palin is not. No one who cannot hold their own with the press is qualified to be vice-president.

    I don't think McCain is necessarily behind because the financial problem is being blamed upon Republicans. I think he is behind because the public has seen that Palin cannot speak knowledgeably except in very controlled circumstances and because McCain showed himself to be out of touch with regard to the state of the economy.

  • 0

    taniwha

    SezWho2

    Except for the occasional stridency of your lexis...

    Hey, stridency is a personal style choice, designed solely for the purpose of posting on this particular site.

    However, while you have correctly identified a problematic area, you have offered no practical solution for Obama.

    Since Obama's campaign has presented him as the bringer of "change", and considering the kind of change desired by much of the traditional support base of the Democrats includes an end to America's wars, an end to the greedy parasitism of Wall Street, and more funding of social services, and a health system that actually works - yes, I have a solution for Obama.

    He should align himself with the SEP, because they are the only political party that could possibly bring that kind of change to the American people. However, given the character of Obama, and of the interests he represents, will it happen? Not in your wildest dreams.

    The essential issue here actually is not Obama. It is the contradiction between the interests both candidates serve and democratic system itself. Doesn't the preamble to the Constitution goes something "We the people..."? That line doesn't appear to include "and we the wealthy" or anything like "we the corporations". Think about it, really.

    If Obama does make it into the presidency (and I am fairly certain McCain will be the one to get that job) then you will see him slash and burn what's left of the American dream.

  • 0

    SezWho2

    taniwha,

    Prediction noted.

    However, I would say this. At this point I don't think it's a question of any president destroying the American dream. I think it's a question of whether or not any president can revive it.

    And, yes, stridency is a personal choice. If you're interested in winning people to your point of view, however, I don't think it's the best one.

Back to top

Login to leave a comment

OR

Follow us

Facebook
Twitter

More in World

View all

View all