Obama demands vote on health care reform
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
U.N. Security Council blames Syrian gov't for Houla killings
( 1 )
-
U.S. drones kill 5 militants in Pakistan
( 1 )
-
NATO has fight on its hands in Afghanistan - Panetta
( 1 )
-
Iran may rethink 20% enrichment: spokesman
( 0 )
-
Egypt's uprising activists weigh Brotherhood vote
( 0 )
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
-
- National Relief/Substitute Teacher - summer start
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥275,000 ~ ¥300,000 / Month
-
- 営業パーソン
- 加治金属工業株式会社, Tochigi
- Salary: ¥240,000 ~ ¥350,000 / Month Negotiable
Order by Time Order by Popularity
85 Comments
Login to comment
0
adaydream
Go for it. Get this health care reform through, even if Obama has to shove it through congress. <:-)
0
glycol57
Obama can make all the demands he wants, but he is not the king of the USA. The legislature will do what it wants.
The original plans were bad, the ten-times-rehashed plans are just as bad or worse. They need to start from scratch, and proceed in a different direction. While Americans want "free" medical, they are also rightly worried about the government having most or total control of something that can affect them on many levels. The US government doesn't exactly have a stellar reputation. It WOULD abuse the power and WOULD badly mis-manage the health system.
Better to regulate the individual 'industries' that factor into the price of a medical procedure - insurers, makers of medicines and equipment and the general "stuff" that's used, hospitals and - importantly - lawsuit artists as well. It is done with other privately-owned 'service' companies ... electricity, water, trash and such ... so it can be done with "medicine" as well.
Using that approach, prices could be kept down, choices would still exist and government power would be restrained.
0
RomeoRamenII
even if Obama has to shove it through congress
So much for the will of the people.
0
hoserfella
RomeoRamenll - I believe the will of the American people spoke pretty loudly a year ago last November for Obama and his healthcare platform.
0
RomeoRamenII
Obama's struggling to get 51 votes from his own party, that's how bad Obamacare is.
0
tkoind2
The will of the people is to have health care. And we are tired of corrupt legisators who care more about money from their insurance company friends than they do about the working people of America.
In the election we saw our country make a definitive statement about change, yet here we are with the GOP and other bought off politicians standing in the way of what the working people of our country want.
And they have got all the uniformed conservatives convinced that health care equals communism or worst, the hand of satan in their daily lives. When it is these same people who most need health care the most.
Insurance companies and politicians are trying to scare the masses into believing that broad health care means loss of choice, loss of quality and loss of freedom. But the reality is that the choice many, many Americans face today is the choice between socialized health care and no health care.
Stop spreading the fear. Canada, most of Europe and the UK have wonderfully well working socialized health care. People don't live in fear that an illness will rob them of their life savings. And people don't live worried that they must choose between care and ruin. It is time we changed. Push, pull, strangle, drag and kick the bought off barriers to this legislation and pass it. The people want it. To hell with what the insurance companies and their political pawns want.
0
DeepSpace
focus on Jobs Jobs Jobs. If people had a job they could buy health insurance and not need a hand out. He keeps talking about the high cost of health care, but the Government is the largest manipulator of cost through regulation and medicaid and medicare. he would be a superstar if he would fix that mess ! Hope and Change !
0
RomeoRamenII
What's more, the problem is no longer the Senate, it's the House. The dems don't have the votes and I don't see them getting them the more this drags on.
If a retiring dem won't vote for Obamacare how can they expect others who want to be re-elected to?
0
sf2k
Just take the senate-care medicare, medicaid and make it for all Americans. Add no refusal clauses and it's pretty much done. I don't get how Americans can take a snowflake and mistake it for Mt Everest.
Actually a lot of accounting jobs would be lost because there wouldn't be all that administration and paperwork deductible hell. I had to read about that, quite a cultural shock.
0
Sarge
The Democrats control the White House and the Congress. What's the big hold up?
0
brotokyo
Sarge answer: the Democrats.
0
GJDailleult
This whole debate is a joke. The USA already has the world's largest public health care system in terms of the amount spent, and one of the world's largest as a percent of GDP. As sf2k said the solution is very easy, but too many people want the corporate welfare cash to keep flowing in. Throw in more than a few bought politicians, a little anti-government propaganda and buzzwords and they will have no problem doing that.
0
Molenir
I'm thinking the will of the people is going to speak much louder this November. The people when they elected Obama, weren't thinking they would be getting a government mandate forcing them to buy health insurance. If he had come out and flat out told the American people his plans, we would be saluting John McCain as President. \
The latest polls put health care at less then 40%. Some polls slightly higher, most much lower. I'll split the difference and stick with 40% for now. How is ignoring the wishes of a huge majority of America, the will of the people?
Don't count out Nancy Pelosi. She is extremely well known for her ability to twist Democrat arms in order to get the votes she needs. While she would need about 40 votes, the Dems have the majority in the House, all she needs is about 20 Dems to switch their vote, and she'll have it. Thats not an unreachable goal. Although these Dems know very well that should they vote for this, they may as well announce their retire the next day, because their term will end in November. Right now its looking likely that Republicans will regain the House this fall. Pass this monstrosity, and the deal is done, and the Senate is in play.
0
skipthesong
The will of the people is to have health care. And we are tired of corrupt legisators who care more about money from their insurance company friends than they do about the working people of America." Yes, so they are to give the insurance companies business on a silver platter, increase what I am already paying for the benefit of those who are not paying and mind you, those who are not poor, but either prefer to buy a PS games, fancy cars, and what not or those who simply won't pay. Oh, and whose going to handle what medical professionals pay in malpractice insurance?
So now states that have a state wide care as an option, will have to cut what they have now will have to increase what their residents pay to compete with the insurance companies who were previously not allowed to offer insurance in said state......
It would be much better to let this be handled at the state level and let your current insurance from your to be used in another.
0
RomeoRamenII
Really? When Harry and Nancy changed the locks on the doors to keep any opposition to Obamacare from being heard? You mean that will of the people? Please provide a link showing when a democrat congressional committee debated any of the original three proposals with republicans.
0
Odogma
No, they don't.
0
SushiSake3
"Please provide a link showing when a democrat congressional committee debated any of the original three proposals with republicans."
Incorporating Rebuplicans' ideas would be a disastrous backward step.
0
SushiSake3
America is being left behind in terms of universal healthcare.
Most developed countries have had it for years.
0
Helter_Skelter
Then why do so many come from all over the world to the United States for medical care? Arab sheiks, who can go anywhere, have reserved parking spaces at the Mayo Clinic. They're not going to Canada for their medical care.
0
Odogma
America leads the world in basic medical science, diagnostics and therapeutics. In fact, it is because America's market-based economy is still a large factor in the health care industry there that such advances emerge, and the rest of the world - - developed and undeveloped - - benefit because of it. Imagine where the world would be today if the US had nationalised health care in the 1970's,focused on the lunacy of 'equal outcomes,' and eliminated the incentives that brought amazing profits to companies, yes, but also amazing medicines, medical technology and medical procedures to market and to the rest of the world.
SS3 does not appear to understand economics, so I can overlook his 'argument' there. But it is also ridiculous, in debate, to try and compare America - with a population of 310 million - to a single country (like Canada). Furthermore - the US supports an illegal alien population which is anywhere between 12 and 20 million. None of the nations with universal care cited here have to deal with this.
0
SushiSake3
Odogma - "America leads the world in basic medical science, diagnostics and therapeutics."
While a good 15% of the population languishes with no healthcare coverage and the prospect of bankrupting healthcare bills, and the rest face steadily-increasing premiums due to lack of sensible regulation in the industry.
It actually sounds like you think this is a good situation.
0
skipthesong
America leads the world in basic medical science, diagnostics and therapeutics." Its been an easy sell for me over the years and what makes this difficult to believe, is that I've been trying to sell such products over seas including Japan and I have walked in some of the most horric medical centers. Japan has only recently started upgrading their systems with the dental sector being the first. Its taken a long time for just that portion to get up to speed. You can forget Canada (they don't have national dental care) and you know what I think about the UK's.
sushi: While a good 15% of the population languishes with no healthcare coverage and the prospect of bankrupting healthcare bills, and the rest face steadily-increasing premiums due to lack of sensible regulation in the industry"
This bill doesn't touch that. Why are you going out of bounds on this? If it really did, and was to be implemented correctly, you wouldn't be hearing what you've been hearing. So, you are willing to pay more now, for something that won't kick in for at least 10 years at best, to help this 15%?
0
skipthesong
Anyway, I think much of this board is getting off track
Neither side is doing a real good service in their approaches to this mess. The people on the left think this is a wonderful thing while those on the right think its evil. if this bill hit the following: 1. costs. This bill doesn't hit it. 2. Quality: It doesn't hit that either 3. Quantity: I bet you will see a lot of consolidation of medical facilities going on once this thing goes through. 4. Access to medicine. I know for a fact that the military, which many try to model this off of practices rationing as well as levels of quality. An enlisted will get generic drugs while and office will get a higher grade and You will notice a lot more enlisted spouses have c-sections while officers don't. 5. As we go across the US, we will find many places won't meet certain standards and they will either be shut down or a lot of equipment will have to be purchases, much less buildings that don't meet criteria will have to be rebuilt. Where's the money for this coming from? 6. Doctors in the mil are usually there because they would rather not pay the malpractice insurance. NOTHING in this bill hits that.
0
Tatanka
I think is should be renamed "heath care system reform" since health care in America (if you can afford it) is the finest in the world; its the system of allocating care that needs fixing. God help you if you have anything remotely complicated wrong with you in Japan. I had to have skin cancer removed in the US using the Mohs procedure and believe it or not, no doctor in Japan knew how to perform the surgery -- which took all of 20 minutes in the doctor's office. Everyone here has access to "health care" but the quality leaves much to be desired...
0
skipthesong
tatanka: You hit a good point. My wife's a doc here. Honestly, she nor many of her friends know a whole lot to make me feel comfty should something come down on my daughter. I told my wife should our kid come down with a certain sickness, that I don't want her to be treated here. Over the last two years, I've compiled a list of places that are best suited to go to for certain sicknesses/ailments. Of the countries the US is being compared to, none of them are on the list. If there is a next time you do get a skin cancer, go to Israel btw........
I've noticed that even many nurses here don't even know how to perform basic first aid which we all learned in Army boot camp. I've got a Canadian friend of mine who still to this day still has metal and glass on his face and skin after four years of treatment - he can't even close is hand into a fist and he's been getting treatment in Canada!
0
USAFdude
Helter_Skelter
For two reasons: One, the US has the best medical care in the world. Two, the Arab sheiks are rich; they can afford it. Too many Americans, however, can't afford it. Pass this bill. Now.
0
adaydream
It to keep the republicans from going in late at night and making changes to anything they been working on. Republicans can't be trusted.
I don't know about the original three proposals, but I saure saw last Thursday and that was probably the best you could ask for.
I don't think we're first in medicine. < :-)
http://www.usnews.com/health/articles/2008/01/08/not-so-good-at-preventing-premature-death.html
0
skipthesong
aday: your point is moot. What is in the mill that hits your post?
We are first in a lot of area and we lag in many others. There's no denying that and really who is? I'm not. But if you, a vet, think the gov is going to come up with a great plan for care I think you need to relive, what do you Marines call it, sick bay trips. Also, you know full well that your hated repubs are going to gain some ground in the up coming elections. And in a few years, until people start voting for a third party, they will gain even more ground. Now, you will have a dem assembled health care run by repubs? That doesn't bother you? Even if it were the other way around it bothers me. You'll have the side that despises it running it. Why are you not thinking ahead?
0
Bgood41
Obama and the Dems control congress do not listen to American public. They raise the deficit to over $12 trillion and keep on climbing. Each American is in debt for $40,000.00, and $100,000.00 per American family. Now add on this nonsense European social collective consciousness health care bill; it will surmount to $14 trillion in debts for the first year. Wake up folks, it is all about Obama's legacy as the president of U.S.A. FDR initiated social security, so Obama has health care security even though he may be a one term president. It is all about Obama ego and his arrogant disregarding the future of the nation. Why is he going backward to follow European's failure examples in history? Simply, it is all Obama
0
presto345
Talk about the deficit all you want my friend. Who are the American public actually, those who wish health care or those who wish the US to be the 'police' of this earth, spending on guns and bombs. Those who were left out, who fall between the ship and the dock, or those in the higher echelons? When and how did the outrageous deficit start? Do we point at the present president now for the failures of his predecessors? One must be mad to do that. Does a nation now begin to realize no more money can be spend to give Americans what is owed to them, HEALTHCARE, because the pet wars are a priority of a misguided clique? I am sure clever replies will follow, but try to explain it to those millions left out.
0
adaydream
It's called "Sick Bay"
I'm not worried about what the republicans will gain in congress. I think there are a lot more democrats that would have to worry about their jobs if they don't vote for it.
I also think that there are republicans that will lose their jobs because not all republicans are against this health care reform.
I guess we're going to find out. < :-)
0
RomeoRamenII
Pure nonsense. But, hey, don't take my word for it. According to a survey by the United Nations International Health Organization:
Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:
U.S. 65%
England 46%
Canada 42%
Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:
U.S. 93%
Canada 43%
England 15%
Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:
U.S. 90%
Canada 43%
England 15%
Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:
U.S. 77%
Canada 43%
England 40%
Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:
U.S. 71%
Canada 18%
England 14%
Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in "excellent health":
U.S. 12%
Canada 6%
England 2%
Bottom line: When government takes over a private industry -- in this case, health care -- it goes south.
0
skipthesong
Talk about the deficit all you want my friend. Who are the American public actually, those who wish health care or those who wish the US to be the 'police' of this earth, spending on guns and bombs. Those who were left out, who fall between the ship and the dock, or those in the higher echelons? When and how did the outrageous deficit start? Do we point at the present president now for the failures of his predecessors?"
Well, how about rolling the deficit back and then start things? Even a kid knows this HC is not going to help.
Does a nation now begin to realize no more money can be spend to give Americans what is owed to them, HEALTHCARE, because the pet wars are a priority of a misguided clique?"
Then stop the war. Bring those costs back home. BTW, its still going on.
I am sure clever replies will follow, but try to explain it to those millions left out." And you are clever to know enough that this bill is not going to help them - right?
0
presto345
Interesting figures, Romeo. Perhaps a few countries were left out??
0
presto345
Forgot to mention. Not only some countries were left out, but probably also where these figures were collected from. Those insured? Those who sought treatment? Those who received counseling and or treatment? It continues to amaze me the lengths some people go to to deny their fellowmen basic human rights and care.
0
Odogma
Such as?
0
sf2k
Romeo, can you explain why Americans have a higher mortality rate? Canadians live longer than you. Or a high mortality rate of children? Or why your birth rate is greater than a third world country? Lack of education and birth control I suspect.
In another 5 years, Americans will be so huge, they'll ship them off into space just to keep the earth rotating normally
0
sf2k
@presto45
considering that 40-80 million Americans are not insured at all, that'll mess with any statistic based upon another country that has statistics based on the whole population, which is why America is often excluded since it does not offer likeness to other nations with socialized medicine (ie: the rest of the world).
Americans have top universities, yet ignoring math is all important when any argument is only as good as the next comment
0
Molenir
Actually, right now, only 1 Republican voted for it, he's in a Democratic district, and quite frankly will lose. I expect right now, about 4 seats will flip Democratic this next term. Right now, the way things are trending, I'm counting about 46 seats going Republican. That will almost certainly increase if this passes. In addition, if this bill passes, the Senate will also be in play. Right now, if they fail to pass it, Republicans are likely to gain about 6 seats in the Senate. If they pass this though, its quite possible they will gain 9, or even more.
What really sickens me about this whole thing, is that what you and the Dems want, is to screw over 85% of Americans, in order to help 15% who are currently uncovered. Most of whom are uncovered, because they don't want to be covered. This is quite frankly morally wrong. Yes, I know, a lot of people claim its morally wrong to allow people to be uninsured, but to me, its worse to steal from people, in order to cover them. And even more then that, to destroy the current quality health care in order to cover these few individuals, the majority of whom are in the place they are, because of the choices they've made.
0
SushiSake3
Presto - "It continues to amaze me the lengths some people go to to deny their fellowmen basic human rights and care."
Agreed.
What a lot of conservatives/independents who are opposed to this bill on this thread don't appear to understand is that Americans are going to have to pay for healthcare whether they like it or not - either through insurance premiums or taxes.
The GOP's do-next-to-nothing plan hasn't a hope in hell of containing costs, which are on the verge of exploding as the retiring baby boomers stretch medicaid and medicare, both systems of which are set to go bankrupt this side of 2025, probably earlier.
NOT passing this bill will only see insurance premiums continue to go up, and the pool of people paying into the system continue to shrink.
If that's not a recipe for long-term healthcare coverage disaster, someone needs to tell us what is.
0
sf2k
I wonder what the personal bankruptcy rate is in each of the countries mentioned?
0
Odogma
For starters, America has more racial diversity. It also has more violence. And as has been pointed out upthread stats on the US are skewered by the presence of between 12 and 20 million illegal aliens.
The U.S. strictly follows this definition.Many other countries do not.
America's birth rate, which most perceptive folks call its 'reproductive rate' is at 2.1 children for every couple. In Europe the number now approaches 1.3 for every couple - a rate which many experts on the subject say no nation or culture can survive with; and the decline is quite likely a consequence of Europe's cradle-to-grave welfare system. Greece is a prime example.
0
sf2k
Rebuttal with some data. Nationmaster.com has stats on stats. http://tinyurl.com/32r9rd shows USA #1...in cost per GDP at 14.6%, whereas healthcare countries like Canada at #15 9.6% are tied with Norway. Japan at #43, 7.9% of GDP. If the capitalistic model is so much better, then it should also be cheaper, but it's the most expensive. Kinda ruins that argument then huh?
If everyone threw the kitchen sink at a problem I'm sure their stat would be higher too, but unlike America, we pay for it in higher taxes rather than insurance from work. That way it's fair to everyone, the same bill is being paid, but less corruption and no refusals. Hence why this is done elsewhere and incidentally why medicare and medicad work just fine. Public accountability.
This works also for our border manufacturing since American companies who setup show do not have to pay healthcare premiums since their Canadians works don't need it (although we need the dental insurance, which is not covered and which we pay full price!)
So, if statistically Canada had the expenditure on healthcare on par with the USA, the statistical comparisons would be much higher if not equal.
Seems the USA can learn a thing or two from hundreds of countries around the world who are having longer lives at lower costs. If it would first learn to not make a buck off sick people would be a plus.
If doctors made less money then maybe you'd get people who actually like working and helping people instead.
0
RomeoRamenII
Americans are going to have to pay for healthcare whether they like it or not either through insurance premiums or taxes.
Those are better alternatives than facing fines or jail time for not signing up for Obamacare.
0
sf2k
life expectancy by country. What's going on USA?? http://tinyurl.com/ytxqjv
0
sf2k
Romeo;
If you're paying the same or lower fee to the gov't and actually get service, because you go more often thus are healthier and thus use the service less. Versus a high premium out of your paycheque that you can never use because suddenly you don't qualify, and which people wait until they are very sick so it costs the most. What's the deal? How do Americans mess that up?
0
sf2k
@Odogma
Uh buddy, I have 150 languages just in my city of Toronto. Since Canada is also rich in diversity that isn't a useful argument metric on comparative statistics. Otherwise Toronto would be a basketcase and it clearly is not. We had maybe 30 shootings last year. Because of our benefits system and transit network we take a lot of reasons for crime away.
Birth rate in USA I've seen as high as 3% and low as 1% and oddly it depends on the economy. I say oddly because in every other country that is in a recession, the birthrate goes up but in the USA, it goes DOWN. Again the whole state support system showing up here too as a cultural difference.
Anyway USA births have to go down and reduce the population down from 350 mill back down to 250. You actually have too many which is why you are having resource depletion. After 500 mill, what pray tell are you going to do for food? So in this case with a gentle but clear direction, America can be strong by reducing population to a more realistic level versus available resources.
0
sailwind
sf2k,
Interesting read about Canada's health care system and the solution they are doing without being forced to by the Government to cope with the problems there.
Whereas U.S. healthcare is predominantly a private system paid for by private insurers, things in Canada tend toward the other end of the spectrum: A universal, government-funded health system is only beginning to flirt with private-sector medicine.
Hoping to capitalize on patients who might otherwise go to the U.S. for speedier care, a network of technically illegal private clinics and surgical centers has sprung up in British Columbia, echoing a trend in Quebec. In October, the courts will be asked to decide whether the budding system should be sanctioned. More than 70 private health providers in British Columbia now schedule simple surgeries and tests such as MRIs with waits as short as a week or two, compared with the months it takes for a public surgical suite to become available for nonessential operations.
'What we have in Canada is access to a government, state-mandated wait list,' said Brian Day, a former Canadian Medical Assn. director who runs a private surgical center in Vancouver. 'You cannot force a citizen in a free and democratic society to simply wait for healthcare, and outlaw their ability to extricate themselves from a wait list.'"
In other words, while Congress debates whether to set U.S. medicine on the Canadian path, Canadians are desperately seeking their own *private *option.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574443253009607932.html
Interesting very interesting.
0
sf2k
hmm that can't be right, probably shooting in Toronto <200 but over 100. Not many though compared to any US city.
0
sf2k
less than 200 but more than 100
0
sf2k
thanks sailwind. I think what BC will find out that you can't be a little bit one way or the other. If the committment level would increase, even if it means a health tax increase, then the payor is still the gov't for better services. Ontario did this and yes increased taxes which was not popular I can tell you. But I respect it, and agree with it now, as it was the right decision. It also helped that Sicko movie came out about the same time. Nice fluke that. Really put my benefits into perspective (alone will an urge to move to France?!)
Anyway, if people are going to pay out of pocket anyway then that money should have gone to the whole pool to improve all services rather than someone else's bottom line.
I think that's what BC will find out. Many politicians can't make the right decision. Health costs money. If you have more population then health instantly went up. It is what it is. This is not a tax break anyone can avoid, unless you live in Okinawa with a great traditional diet ;)
0
sf2k
@sailwind,
I should point out that healthcare is a patchwork in Canada done by the Provinces. I have an Ontario health card that would be used in any province but would have to have a new one if I moved elsewhere.
Often you can ask the province to pick up the tab in the USA. It would appear that was not an option here for that wsj piece. Note though that our system is a good maintenance system. If you take the time for regular checkups and don't overdo it you can make it out okay. (I have multiple surgeries costing in excess of the article's price in the USA and didn't wait at all. YMMV).
It's a question of timely service, but I point out that it's really just the Baby Boomers hitting their 60s and finding out they are no longer immortal. They have to learn to take care of themselves, a new concept.
0
sailwind
sf2k,
I've been following this for a long time as almost all Americans have. They are thoroughly engaged in this debate and extremely well informed. The vast majority of Americans except those on the farther left side of the spectrum do not like this bill. They expressed that in the Bluest of the Blue states with the election of Scott brown as number 41 in the Senate to kill this nightmare. Obama, Reid and Pelosi want nothing more than to complete a total Liberal dominance of the American political landscape for the next 50 years. They do not care if they lose seats in November or throw their current majority under the bus in November. People who become dependent on Government for their basic needs such as housing, food and the next entitlement if passed 'health care' will more than likely vote their own self-interest first. That is why you have such Democratic dominance in the poorest inner city districts that they now can be counted on to vote Democrat each and every time, just a matter of turn-out now for the DNC.
Obama and company may mouth the words of bi-partisanship but it isn't anything but pander rhetoric to the public in the hopes they buy it. They want to win this thing for a far left wing agenda that America doesn't want and has rejected, they are going to force this through come hell or high water if they can, damn the bloodbath in their own party that will occur in November as they press forward with this.
Now if the Democrats REALLY want to get a real Health care reform bill that will actually ensure all Americans get coverage in the long-run and with real bi-partisan cooperation and quit with the naked power grap and maybe even save themselves in November and might even have Obama not be a one term failure as a President.
This is how you do it. The U.S spends about 16 percent of her GDP on health care the highest in the world yet we rank something like 24th in the world overall in our health care rating (not exact figures but I'm close to the last time I checked. France spends about 13 percent, Japan about 7 percent, and I think Japan was rated as number one overall in the world.
Of every dollar spent in the U.S only about 33 cents goes to delivery of actual services. The rest is eaten up in administrative costs, red tape and just flat out bloat. Everybody in America knows this status quo is ridiculous and unsustainable and needs to be reformed. This bill is not the way.
The first step should be, reverse this. Only 33 cents of every dollar for administrative costs the rest actual delivery of services. Ton's of ways to do that most of them Republican proposals (portability, tort reform, high risk pools etc, some Democrat preventive medicine care, Medicaid overhaul) Make a national target to lower the nations percent of GDP on health care to be more in line with the rest of the world. Say a a target of between 8 to 10 percent. In return for basically passing a Republican driven health care reform package first with Democratic bi-partisan cooperation to achieve cost reduction first, the Republicans would have to agree to work with the Democratic on a bill driven by them to cover the uninsured once the savings were realized. I would be thinking something along the lines of a surcharge on insurance policies in the future once they were reduced in cost by about 30 percent, which is realistic actually. Let's say that adds two percent to national health care bill and the cost of the average policy. That two percent is then used to fund subsidies for the uninsured to buy affordable insurance. Since Americans are already paying 16 percent GDP the ideas I'm throwing out after going this all the way through this two step route would be a national health care cost of about 12 percent GDP. We still save 4 percent from what we are paying now. Americans can hang with that proposal Centrist Conservatives and Centrist Liberals alike, or as we say the sensible center.
Will this happen...hell no, to much common sense involved. But that is what we should do as a Nation right now. Scrap this nightmare and start on a blueprint along the lines I'm talking about.
0
taj
I agree that tort reform must be a priority. Can't that be separate from health care though? Does it need to be lumped into the same bill?
As for the cost=benefit ratio: "Only 33 cents of every dollar for administrative costs the rest actual delivery of services." In Japan, that other 66% is not going to shareholder profit dividends, advertising campaigns, lobbyists, etc. - all that stuff that comes with a purely for-profit health insurance system.
I have not been following this debade very closely. Too much of the rhetoric makes me cringe. (And I'm not American so, while the uninsured, unisurable, under-insured, and over-paying have my sympathies, this is just not my battle to fight.
I am curious though, sailwind, do you know the administrative vs. cost ratios of gov't run programs like the military health insurance? Is that better than HMOs? Does Medicare come in the middle or is it less efficient than private health care?
I wonder if it's even possible to find unspun, straight-fact data on such matters. Even all the think-tanks and research bodies seem to be partisan.
0
taj
'What we have in Canada is access to a government, state-mandated wait list,' said Brian Day, a former Canadian Medical Assn. director who runs a private surgical center in Vancouver. 'You cannot force a citizen in a free and democratic society to simply wait for healthcare, and outlaw their ability to extricate themselves from a wait list.'"
This bloke is obviously biased. No surprise his stance is what it is.
My mother waited for about three months for a surgical slot for a herniated disk and during that time she was bumped at least once. My father and brother both got near immediate surgery for heart value repair. (Possibly bumping people with lower priority concerns). Sure, it's not first come first served, but that's triage. And to me triage beats, biggest bank account first served.
In Japan, I've had 2 MRIs and both times I waited about a week, but that was based largely on my convenience. Why does no one ever mention wait lists in Japan? (On the other hand, lack of obsteitricians is a huge concern, but not one likely to be fixed by a switch to survival-of-the-fittest, dog-eat-dog, capitalism.)
0
sailwind
I wonder if it's even possible to find unspun, straight-fact data on such matters. Even all the think-tanks and research bodies seem to be partisan.
taj,
Not really an expert at all on the ratios at all so my opinion really wouldn't help there. I also want to compliment you on bringing some facts that I didn't consider, cost of advertising, shareholder concerns etc, that would also have to tackled some way to reduce costs but I think it could be manageable through Government regulatory oversight that is stronger than we have now.
As far as partisanship, this is from the Wall Street Journal but I found it to be non-biased and straight forward with the facts. I wish everyone in Congress from the President on down would read this and start from there. It was what formed the basis of my overall policy thinking on the matter.
http://www.smartmoney.com/Investing/Economy/How-Much-Could-Health-Care-Reform-Save-You/
0
skipthesong
All the fixes that are needed to provide a more cost effective health care to Americans aren't even touched in this bill coming...
0
ca1ic0cat
The bill commonly known as "Obamacare" is a giveaway to the insurance companies and other vested interests that does nothing to reign in the malpractice abuse. It won't cover everybody - not even close - even after it is phased in. The GAO says it's going to raise costs, not bring them down. It will cost a trillion dollars to do this. So why would anybody want this bill? Why not ditch Lieberman and the rest of his ilk and put together a bipartisan bill with those willing to tell the vested interests to get off? A bill that actually does what it is supposed to? Why not? And don't start saying "it's this bunch" or "them rotten so-and-sos. There is enough blame for this travisty to go around. What seems to be lacking is the backbone to stand up and do the job right.
0
SushiSake3
ca1 - "Why not ditch Lieberman and the rest of his ilk and put together a bipartisan bill with those willing to tell the vested interests to get off?"
Because the Republicans aren't willing to do what's best for Americans.
They're too deep in bed with the insurance companies.
0
ca1ic0cat
Yeah, right. Like Lieberman is a republican now and the democrats aren't in bed with the trial lawyers. Like I said, there is blame enough to go around for this travisty. No backbone to fix it though. Or original thinking. Blame the republicans! Blame the republicans! Starting to sound like a broken record, don't you think?
0
adaydream
I go to the local Community Center just about everyday, play a little pool, swim, etc. I talk to people mostly 50 years old and older. And I must go on a qualify this by saying that most of these guys I talk to are well off and retired, also.
Everybody I talk to are looking forward to this health reform passing. < :-)
0
usaexpat
Welcome to a Republican majority in both houses after the next election. If this is passed by reconciliation the incumbent democrats are going to pay bigtime. Personally I want to see universal coverage and a public option which this bill doesn't contain. This is a mandate that amounts to a taxpayer handout to the insurance industry. This bill deserves to die and I'm questioning why Obama would stake his party's future on such an incomplete measure. Again no one wants this, not conservatives obviously but not progressives either.
0
adaydream
usaexpat, that's what the republicans want you to believe. But it also sounds like the republicans don't keep in touch with reality. You keep hearing, "Nobody wants this!!", from the republicans. Well I know for a fact people everywhere that want health care protection.
The republicans are throwing out all kinds of garbage to roadblocks to block this from passing.
So the democrats just have to continue their mission and vote in health care reform. < :-)
0
usaexpat
adaydream: I think both the Repubs and Dems are just fine with the handout to insurance companies just the repubs have to look like they're the opposition and party of no. I don't want this bill, as I said it's not universal healthcare but a mandate that puts taxpayer money in the hands of the insurance industry. If they went after national health insurance I would be behind it 100%, that is after all what this was supposed to be. Too many compromises and thinking that passing a bad bill is better than passing no bill. Dean was right when he said vote it down.
0
ca1ic0cat
I think that trips to a community center might indicate that some people support this bill but it hardly represents a representative sample of the population in general. All the polls are showing that the majority are against this bill. The bill panders to the vested interests. It is not the republicans who are against this bill; although they will benefit from it's demise and are willing to help achieve that end. The public is against a handout to the vested interests that is presented as "health care reform."
0
SushiSake3
usexpat - "but a mandate that puts taxpayer money in the hands of the insurance industry."
I hear what you're saying, but I'm confused. Most people who purchase private health insurance do so from an insurance company, so of course this is going to benefit the insurance industry, but at the same time, it should also impose tougher regulations on the industry.
0
SushiSake3
Newsweek poll - 48% favor Democrat healthcare bill.
ABC-Washington Post - 63% say keep trying to pass this bill.
CBS/NY Times - 59% favor public option.
Hmm....now who was out there saying 75% of Americans want this bill scrapped?
0
SushiSake3
"75% of Americans want this bill scrapped" - that'd be according to the 'Fair and Balanced' folks down at Fox News, I'd expect.
0
adaydream
I'm not saying everybody wants it, just I keep hearing from republican posters and republican politicians that nobody wants this bill.
I'm just clarifying that not everybody is against it. <:-)
0
ca1ic0cat
48% in favor - no majority there and Newsweek is no more balanced than Fox. Just a different bias.
63% want the to keep trying to pass this bill - what the heck kind of statement is that? Keep trying to pass a bill? Oh, and ABC / Washington Post. About as biased as Newsweek?
CBS/NYT - 59% favor public option. Bias again but Obama is talking about dropping the public option. So where does that leave you?
This bill does not accomplish it's stated goals. Health care costs continue to go up. All the people are not covered, not by a long shot. There is no public option. Instead the vested interests are handed cash. It's a farce! A pox on the houses of both political parties. Time for the centrists to put together a bipartisan proposal. I wish the elected representatives had the backbone to stand up to their party leadership and get something done right. Chuck Reid, Pelosi, Gingrich, Lieberman, the whole lot, and get something put together that works. The current bill is a sad joke. The public is figuring this out. It seems that the idiots in the beltway have lost the plot.
0
SushiSake3
Watch out - GOP Talking Point No.6125: 'The government is trying to push (or 'ram') this bill down our throats.'
GOP Talking Point No.6214 - 'No one supports this bill' (or its variant -) GOP Talking Point No.6215 - '75% of people are against this bill'
(How can they have both?) and the most widely used GOP Talking Point is of course No.6202 - 'It's a government takeover.' (this one comes with optional pre-recorded shrieking and I suspect is downloadable as a ringtone.)
0
Odogma
"The plan, as it comes from the Senate, hangs out every Democrat who’s running for office to dry — including the president, in 2012, because it makes him defend a plan that isn’t in effect essentially yet," Howard Dean said during an appearance on the liberal Bill Press Radio Show.
Go Obama ! Rahm that bill thru ! Be da man !
0
Molenir
The Democratic talking points are also available. A Simple up or down vote. Oddly enough, you can also find clips of Obama swearing not to use reconciliation, or 50 plus 1. Thats rather amusing played back to back. Lie, Reality, Lie, Reality.
Read my Lips... no reconciliation!
0
sf2k
Trying to circle the square of American political dogma over fear of Liberals is emblematic of their inability to simply extend their already existing medicare/medicaid program for elderly to all citizens. You already have liberalized medicine. The sky didn't fall.
The closest would be Japan, as it is also work insurance based, but because of diet Japanese are just not as fat (albeit trying to get there now with hamburgers galore) .
No doubt this action will fail and Americans can celebrate a victory over themselves and continue to enjoy a sub-70 y/o life expectancy. Congrats I guess. Sorry you can't see beyond Republican/Fox News talking points and instead value fellow citizens.
Good Luck.
0
Odogma
Sub - 70 life expectancy? Do have a reference for this? The US has between 12 and 20 million illegal aliens who skewer any and all stats on health care, and yet the figure I find for America is 78 years on average - - same as Denmark.
And btw - - the remark that Americans don't care about others is also easily disproved. What could be more charitable than allowing 12 to 20 million to squat in your country illegally and recieve access to the best health care in the world - - at the expense of hard-working ordinary folks you will never meet or be able to thank?????
0
Unchingu
Go Obama! Put the smack down on these insurance companies. Everyone needs a suitable healthcare.
0
Sarge
"Everyone needs a suitable healthcare"
And so many don't want to pay for it. Incredible...
0
RomeoRamenII
The dems had a supermajority and still couldn't get this passed. They don't have enough lipstick to put on this pig of a health care bill.
0
Unchingu
@Romeo; Well at least you won't have to worry about healthcare if you are living in Japan.
0
Greapper1
Sure I want suitable healthcare... I just don't want to be forced to pay for everyone else to have it. ;)
0
realist
Obama will not copmplete 8 years as president. He will be tuirfed out after 4. The man is becoming a totalitarian despot. "Yes, we can!" has been replaced with "Yes I will!"
Back to top