Obama calls for honest debate on health care
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
Israel blames Iran for series of blasts
( 17 )
-
Obama: Strong U.S.-China ties help rest of the world
( 3 )
-
Santorum surging in Republican presidential race
( 10 )
-
Private funeral Saturday for Whitney Houston
( 2 )
-
Egyptian minister's remarks stoke tensions with U.S.
( 3 )
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
-
- FT English Teachers for Kids - Osaka
- Kohgakusha Co., Ltd. （株式会社興学社）, Osaka
- Salary: ¥255,000 ~ ¥275,000 / Month Travel Expenses, Encouragement of Japanese learning*
-
- Translator
- ZAIHON, Inc. (日本財務翻訳株式会社), Tokyo
- Salary: ¥6.0M / Year Negotiable
Order by Time Order by Popularity
24 Comments
Login to comment
0
TheMarion
Honesty is not exactly Obama's forte.
0
Sarge
I wonder if Obama knows the Constitution says "promote the general welfare", not "provide for the general welfare".
0
TheQuestion
Unless he's going to come to my house and debate health care with me I've already heard this song and dance...wonder whats on the history channel?
0
Molenir
Hes talking honesty? All the things he claims won't be in the bills, have been in the bills. Taxpayer funded abortions, mandatory end of life counseling, all these things were in various versions of the bills in the house and senate. And yet he says they won't be in the bill? Who is lying here? People are right to be worried over this thing.
0
adaydream
I've heard all the fair and balanced commentary about health care from Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingrahm and Sarah Palin. Since listening to them I am only convinced that Barack Obama's health care plan is needed now. < :-)
0
seijichuudo9sha
The Obama administration lowballed the deficit estimate by a whopping 2 trillion dollars.Cable news and the talk radio are going to go ballistic.I think the health care thing is off.
0
TheQuestion
Than you aren't getting a proper arguement considering those are all news personalities, they are there to entertain, not nesisarily inform. I, for one, talked to my health care providers that told me that, depending on what parts of the bill are passed, I may expect to see some of my benefits taxed. I also talked to my doctor who is really upset over the fact that he could be fined if he doesn't follow government recomendations on what treatments he should or shouldn't perscribe.
Those in addition to the fact that I'm against the nationalization of any industry only serves to cement my opposition to the public option and most of the rest of the bill for that matter.
0
smithinjapan
TheQuestion: "I, for one, talked to my health care providers... I also talked to my doctor..."
So in other words, while you're accusing people of listening solely to the media, you yourself are simply listening to those who profit from the current system. Why not ask a few of the tens of millions of uninsured, or those who were turned down by their health providers (after paying into the system for years) when they needed them?
But that's part of the point, isn't it? Obama wants honest debate, but those on the Right aren't willing to engage in one, quoting radical talk show hosts and nuts from Alaska, or the fear mongering of doctors and private insurers who bilk millions from their customers.
0
mtimjones
If Obama, nor any of his chronies, cannot easily explain how this health reform will be paid for other than "savings", then it doesn't deserve 1% of the discussion that it's getting. Obama's desire is to turn the U.S. into a nation of slaves (including our children, ad infinitum)...
If there's one thing that we've learned, it's that the Govt managing anything is a serious mistake. Look at social security, medicare, tax system, etc. There's no benefit for the Govt managing it correctly, since fixing it is as easy as running deficits and raising taxes.
0
skipthesong
I've heard all the fair and balanced commentary about health care from Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingrahm and Sarah Palin" well, why in god's name would you be listening to them for?
0
GJDailleult
A little late to worry about that. The USA already has the world's largest government run health care system and spends more government money on health care per person than the UK. They then load a private sector health care and insurance system on top of that, which sets the prices and takes its cut, running health care costs up to 16% of GDP.
Obviously a perfectly logical system, and anybody who wants to reform it must be a socialist out to destroy America and freedom.
0
smithinjapan
skipthesong: "well, why in god's name would you be listening to them for?"
I hear music in the background, but I'm not listening to it.
0
TheQuestion
So what you're saying is that I shouldn't listen to health care professionals when it comes to health care? Sorry buddy, but I've known my insurance agent for a long time and my doctor even longer and both have treated me well over the years so I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt that they know what they're talking about.
Yeah...let me get right on that.
Alright here are a few talking points like Section 113 Subsection 2 "REPORTS.—Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Commissioner shall submit to Congress and the applicable agencies a report on the study conducted under paragraph (1). Such report shall include any recommendations the Commissioner deems appropriate to ensure that the law does not provide incentives for small and mid-size employers to self-insure or create adverse selection in the risk pools of large group insurers and self-insured employers. Not later than 18 months after the first day of Y1, the Commissioner shall submit to Congress and the applicable agencies an updated report on such study, including updates on such recommendations."
Maybe thats just me imanining it but it sounds a lot like the government discouraging large group and the self-insured which may involve invoking penalties on those individuals even though this bill comes under the guise of offering more options to taxpayers but it sure seems like they want everyone under their plan. That kind of sounds like a one way trip don't you think.
Then theres a slew of questions I have about Subtitle E section SEC. 1741. PAYMENTS TO PHARMACISTS. Which sounds quite a bit like it will be 'encouraging' doctors and pharmacists to listen to what the government thinks is best for the patient over what the doctor does.
But I guess just because I took time to read a heafty chunk of the bill I must still have no idea what I'm talking about and couldn't possibly have any thoughful concerns about how the bill would effect my lifestyle.
I never said I was happy with it before, just that I am even less happy with it now than I was before.
0
TheQuestion
Sorry I should have elaborated more. That section is about reimbersment limits (sounds like a cut off point), and exemptions of coverage for drugs if a hospital or doctor perscribes a drug that "is an inhalation, infusion, or injectable drug". In addition to more 'incentives' to put government reccomendations over the unique needs of patients.
0
sailwind
Send this plan back to sender.
The American people do not want health care reform with the efficiency of the post office. The sustainability of Social Security and all the compassion of the I.R.S
What we can do and it would be supported by the Republicans and most moderate Democrats is this. Health insurance reform for Doctors. Medical liability insurance costs all of over 200 billion dollars a year in inflated costs. Doctors order more more tests because if they don't they are going to face a lawsuit. Tort reform is needed and needed now. It would have an immediate effect and it would lower every ones premiums almost immediately.
An OBY-GYN in Florida pays almost 200,000 dollars a year in medical liability insurance premiums. Of course he has to pass that cost on to his patients. This is pure nuts. I like for everyone to have a job but this is one area where I sure wouldn't shed a tear if a bunch of trail lawyers were out of a job because we passed tort reform and get these vultures out of the health care system.
This could pass, this has populist appeal across the political spectrum and Obama should not let this pass by. If he had real leadership instead of a nanny state agenda that he really wants he'd be all over this.
After Tort reform was passed then he could crow (and rightfully so) I lowered your rates and now that part is down, now lets start to tackle the un-insured and see if we can't get the rates even lower so all can afford a basic plan.
Start with TORT reform first Mr. President. It's doable and it's way overdue.
0
SushiSake3
"Obama calls for honest debate on health care"
That's just not going to happen if the Republicans and their conservatives supporters are involved in the debate.
0
Wolfpack
An honest debate would start with President Obama admitting that his goal is a government run, single payer health care system. He has stated that this is his goal even if it takes 10, 15, or 20 years to achieive. Obama has made contradictory statements where on the one hand the government will not get between you and your doctor and at the same time he says there will be a panel of government "experts" that will decide which treatments doctors will be allowed to provide for their patients.
The reason that needed health care reform is in serious trouble is because Obama is doing a terrible job of communicating his policy objectives causing consternation among both the far Left and the Blue Dog Democrats. Obama has no interest in working on a bipartisan plan simply because his ideological inclinations do not permit it. For Repulicans, as-long-as Obama pushes for greater government/socialist control of the health care system, they have no reason to support him. 85% of Americans have health care. Of the remaining 15%, most either choose not to get health coverage although they can afford it, or are illegal aliens and are the obligation of their own governments, not that of the U.S. The government run health plans of Medicare and Medicaid are subsidized by those that are privately insured to the tune of 15~20% of actual costs and has therefore increased the health care costs for most Americans. Medicare and Medicaid have unfunded future obligations in the trillions of dollars. These entities would be considered bankrupt if they were privately run. Government health care in the US has proven to be tremendosuly expensive and cannot continue without signficant future reductions in future costs. What we need is less government control, not more.
0
Molenir
lol, not going to happen at all as long as Obama and the Democrats keep lying to the American people.
Very true, however you know as well as I do that Obama is in the pocket of the trial lawyers. He will never support anything that undercuts that.
0
Wolfpack
SushiSake3 says:
The fact of the matter is, Democrats do not need Repulican support for President Obama's health care policy. He has yet to obtain solid Congressional support for it among Democrats. Obama spoke a great deal about bi-partisanship during the election but he has not had any serious health care negotiations with Repulicans. He is banking on strong-arming his overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate. He has the bully-pulpit but the more he speaks the less support he gets from the public. His message is consfusing and contradictory.
0
seijichuudo9sha
I think this is the hill Obama falters on. There are just too many rallies across the country. Maybe the only hope is SEIU, ACORN, and MoveOn coordinating enough false flag sabotage of town hall protests.
0
tungincheke
what our cancer stick puffing hypocrite in chief can do for starters is to have Pelosi and Reid include in the legislation making it mandatory for all elected officials and appointees of all all three branches of government, federal, state, county, city employees and union members to abandon their current health plans for the government option.
0
Molenir
Agreed. If they want to foist this boondoggle off on the American people, they and their families should all be under the public option and have to wait for rationed, managed care like the rest of us. No special perks merely because you are the President or a member of congress!
0
SuperLib
Sure. Then balance that against the hundreds of millions who are covered now and are worried that they'll get less care at a higher cost.
One might agree with Obama that reform is needed but not necessarily agree that his method is best. But people such as yourself seem to think that any disagreement with anything Obama does is a purely political move and evidence of Republican evil. I happen to support a lot of his plan, but one thing I'm concerned about is the fact that his plan doesn't account for rising costs overall. I think that's a legitimate concern, yet you'll ignore a legitimate concern, one that you might even agree with, and pretend that all opposition is formed by Limbaugh and Palin. So instead of asking how we can create a plan to help reduce costs, you turn the debate into "let's see what crazy Palin said today."
Back to top