Monday May 28, 2012

Obama turns next to budget, health care, entitlements

World ( 40 )

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

40 Comments

Login to comment

  • 0

    Badsey

    Hey, I voted for you with the promise of a free George Foreman grill!! Haven't got it yet -I believe I am "entitled" to that.

    =We are all in big trouble.

  • 0

    bebert

    More money for the losers of life's lottery. In other words, the people who refuse to better themselves or work.

  • 0

    VOR

    if you can beat em join em. the name of the game now is to reduce your tax liability and rely on government as much as possible. if Americans are entitled to health care, why pay for it out of your pocket?

  • 0

    grafton

    He really needs to look at the UK before he takes this road. They poured money into the underclass & surprise, surprise, it just got bigger & bigger & bigger. The working economy needs the money to create the jobs that create the taxes without which nothing can be done. Keeping the underclass happy & safe may look very good but in time it will sap the will of the country. It may be hard to make hard choices but then that is why he got the job & the other guy didn’t. The American people trusted him to get them OUT of a mess, not dig them in deeper.

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    Heh, I think President Obama is messing up the heads of the Repupblicans/conservatives because for the first time in 8 long years, they have a president who is putting Americans first.

    bebert - "More money for the losers of life's lottery. In other words, the people who refuse to better themselves or work."

    That's a gross generalization in every sense of the word.

    I think there should be some kind of safety net to enable people who for whatever reason, be it poor health/disability, layoffs, etc., have lost their jobs.

    Republicans seem to believe in survival of the fittest, the previous president they supported clearly believed in survival of the richest. President Obama appears to believe in survival.

  • 0

    Sarge

    "the economic mess he inherited"

    Like his party had nothing to do with it.

    "The entire medical industry is warily watching his efforts"

    This is foreboding.

    "for the first time in 8 long years, they have a president who is putting Americans first"

    You mean President Obama considers Americans to be more important than other citizens of the world? What arrogance!

  • 0

    proxy

    I wonder which Western country will be first to bite the bullet and make the boomers work an extra 5 years. The boomers are now outnumber by younger voters and people will not stand to pay taxes so boomers can spend six months a year in Mexico. The boomers can all live in a tent and eat dogfood before I will pay taxes to support their cushy lifestyles.

    If they worked an extra 5 years it would not only increase revenue, and cut down on entitlements but probably keep them healthy in body and mind.

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    Sarge - "You mean President Obama considers Americans to be more important than other citizens of the world? What arrogance!"

    Considering you were a bush supporter, I can understand how alien this concept is to you. :-)

    proxy - " wonder which Western country will be first to bite the bullet and make the boomers work an extra 5 years."

    Adjustments have been happening for years. Remember when the retirement age was 60? How many countries still run with that? No, it's 62, 63, 65, whenever you want to retire....

    The blowback of keeping people working longer is that it prevents the younger generations from advancing up the ranks.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    "if you can beat em join em. the name of the game now is to reduce your tax liability and rely on government as much as possible. if Americans are entitled to health care, why pay for it out of your pocket?"

    Ridiculous statements of paranoia. The health care will not be 'free' in the sense that people are not paying for it -- it will come from taxes. It will be 'free' in that, for a MAJOR change in US history, and like it's superior neighbours (when it comes to health care programs, I mean), everyone will have access.

    '""The entire medical industry is warily watching his efforts" This is foreboding.'

    sarge: the medical industry is WARILY watching his efforts. Do you understand 'warily'? It's generally not approving, and in this case means, the medical industry, which makes BILLIONS off of high premiums and people struggling to make payments (and there are MILLIONS, sarge, with no coverage whatsoever). It's a GOOD thing that the medical establishment is 'wary', my friend. They may have to start putting the health of Americans before their bottom line.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    Damn... a line from my last paragraph cut out -- what I mean was that "...and in this case means, the medical industry, which makes BILLIONS off of high premiums and people struggling to make payments... may lose some money in lieu of doing what they vowed to under the Hippocratic Oath." or something like that.

  • 0

    Sarge

    "Do you understand 'warily'? It's generally not approving"

    Yes, that's why I said this is foreboding. An entire industry is generally not approving of the president's plans.

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    Gosh, this must be the same medical industry that the previous administration forbid from accessing the most competitive prices for pharmaceutical drugs, a gift from heaven to that industry.

    Oh, and that's right, neither Sarge, nor people like VOR batted an eyelid.

    Hmmm.....that's speaks volumes.

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    Sarge - "An entire industry is generally not approving of the president's plans."

    That'd be becuase, if you read my previous post, the previous administration allowed the pharmacs to fleece customers (probably some of your family members), instead of allowing them to engage in competitive bidding for prescription drugs.

    The result: Americans got fleeced while the pharmacs got even richer.

    The pharmac industry is now seeing this model under threat, hence their opposition.

    Heck Sarge, as an American, you really should be paying more attention. :-)

  • 0

    Gombei424Canada

    Bang on, sushisake! And kudos to you, mon ami. It is truly funny to watch the few remaining bush loyalists here try to defend the previous administration's complete subservience to big pharma (and of course, Halliburton), but then again logic never was their strong suit. It's just too funny that those of us outside of America know even more about their medical system than they do!ha ha ha. Well, anyways, it is good to see that President Obama is bringing justice to the whole mess at last.Said mess is of course ALL bush's fault, and that's why he was turfed out last November, exactly as WE had predicted he would be.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    sarge: "Yes, that's why I said this is foreboding. An entire industry is generally not approving of the president's plans."

    Did you even read my post (and what Sushisake improved on!)? Of COURSE the entire industry is not approving -- they made HEAPS of profits off of screwing Americans from proper health care, and could ensure that continued with your former president. It seems that for the first time in American history you have a president who wants to make healthcare accessible to EVERYONE at equal cost, not just the super-wealthy. The medical industry sees a man who poses a threat to their massive profits, while making them actually do more work for their money. God forbid!

  • 0

    sailwind

    The reason for not being able to provide affordable health care for all Americans is simple.

    Insurance rates. The ones DOCTORS have to pay. Malpractice insurance rates. A health care practitioner especially an OBY/GYN (Everyone wants a perfect baby) pays up to 200,000 dollars a year in premiums.

    I repeat up to 200,000 dollars a year. Of course he has to pass that cost on to his patients, or he would be out of business.

    Any questions why our health care system is so screwed up. Get the lawyers out, cap Malpractice awards to a set max if gross negligence is proven. Limit people's ability to sue the Doctor or hospital at the drop of a hat so they can settle out of court for a nice tidy sum.

    Get the damn lawyers out, insurance rates drop and guess what......It's now affordable to all Americans.

    I don't see Obama or for that matter any Republicans much on board with that.

    After all the majority of them including Obama are lawyers to begin with. Birds of a feather flock together when it comes to protecting that cushy income they get from the malpractice racquet.

  • 0

    sailwind

    P:S

    I'll return you to those greedy Doctors and Pharmacy companies now. Let's not mention the Lawyers the true champions of the poor here......Not.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    sailwind: "Any questions why our health care system is so screwed up. Get the lawyers out, cap Malpractice awards to a set max if gross negligence is proven. Limit people's ability to sue the Doctor or hospital at the drop of a hat so they can settle out of court for a nice tidy sum."

    It's refreshing to be able to debate the issues, and to hear actual 'practical' solutions that could point towards progress. I only put practical in quotation marks because while it sounds perfectly practical to me, we all know how litigious American society can be, and we all know the lawyers and people you mention are not going to go out without a MASSIVE fight, and will tie up any progress until a president comes in who leans more towards their pockets (ie. in 8 years or so).

    Anyway, IF this stuff could be capped, as you suggest, it would be great. They need to completely revamp the health care industry, and I think Obama is putting a start towards this.

  • 0

    SuperLib

    SushiSake3: That's a gross generalization in every sense of the word.

    Wait, you understand what "gross generalization" means?

  • 0

    SuperLib

    I can't say that I'm for the current medical system, but then again I can't say I'm for the Canadian medical system which sends Canadians south for decent care. What we need is a good 3rd option for all countries.

  • 0

    The_Pope

    I agree people on Medicare should receive medications at a lower cost, but everyone else should pay current prices. I have owned stock for over two decades in the two largest drug companies in the world and their stock value has not appreciate or their dividends are no better than other Blue Chip stocks. Their investment in R&D is literally a crap shoot; they need to recoup their expensives and pay dividends to their shareholders or else we would not have all the drugs availble now. Outside of the US and a very few companies in Europe who else makes lifesaving drugs? China? Cuba? Russia? Wow, isn't socialism great...

  • 0

    VOR

    "After focusing his first month on the economic mess he inherited, U.S. President Barack Obama now starts rolling out his own..."

    and what now appears to be creating an even bigger mess of his own.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    SuperLib: "I can't say that I'm for the current medical system, but then again I can't say I'm for the Canadian medical system which sends Canadians south for decent care. What we need is a good 3rd option for all countries."

    BS. Only the rich go south for medical care if the waiting lists for surgery are too long. Now, doctors and nurses, who can get rich by overcharging people if they practice in the States, yes, they do go south. It's a real brain-drain problem. The problem with the Canadian medical care system -- or one of them anyway -- is that there are far too many immigrants that come in, become citizens, and bilk the system. Canada is working on that, though.

    I do agree that something with the Canadian Universal Health Care needs to be implements in the US (as in, free access for all), but with some more stringent conditions.

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    Sailwind - "Any questions why our health care system is so screwed up. Get the lawyers out, cap Malpractice awards to a set max if gross negligence is proven. Limit people's ability to sue the Doctor or hospital at the drop of a hat so they can settle out of court for a nice tidy sum."

    Good stuff. Keep it coming.

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    VOR, naturally you have some better ideas?

    Care to share them with us instead of just complaining? :-)

  • 0

    SuperLib

    smith: Only the rich go south for medical care if the waiting lists for surgery are too long.

    So you're saying that the only people who go to the US are the ones who have the option of going to the US....

    The problem overall is cost, which is rising too fast. It doesn't matter if you have a private system like the US or a public one like in Canada. The fact is that both will be bankrupt in the end.

    Health care should be one way that countries work together. We need a global solution that will have to be semi-private and semi-public. Insurance rates have to come down and drug companies need be offered some kind of incentive to produce drugs that are needed but aren't profitable. The care should be universal and partially paid for based on income.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    SuperLib: "Health care should be one way that countries work together. We need a global solution that will have to be semi-private and semi-public. Insurance rates have to come down and drug companies need be offered some kind of incentive to produce drugs that are needed but aren't profitable. The care should be universal and partially paid for based on income."

    That's more like it. Unfortunately, as with what sailwind suggested, drug firms, etc. are never going to put people ahead of sales as long as the current mind-frame exists in the world -- which is personal gain before that which could benefit all, if they do not go together.

    "So you're saying that the only people who go to the US are the ones who have the option of going to the US...."

    You're twisting my words; what I said was that, unlike what you seemed to be saying in your comment, no one goes south for health care unless absolutely necessary. It's not like people are rushing south for a regular check-up or screening.

    And of course, it stands to reason that amongst anyone who WOULD go south, only those who can are able. If it helps you understand better to type out the obvious, all the power to you.

  • 0

    proxy

    The Canadian health care system is broken and probably the problem is the same fundamental one the US has; Canadians are fat and unhealthy. If people want to fix the health care system they should fix their health by dropping 10-30 kilograms. Canadians are, to be polite "fat" and as long as they are obese the line ups will just continue to grow.

    On Canadians going to the US for treatment that old "scare tactic" has been refuted so many times I wonder if Americans that drag it out understand that there are only 30 million people up north. It is simple demographics, specialists settle where demand is higher and patients commute to them. Yes people from Toronto go down to New York for treatment because that is where the specialist lives. Americans travel to the same specialists from across the country. It would not be unusual for an American living in North Dakota to travel to seek health care but that is not an indictment of the entire system.

  • 0

    SuperLib

    smithinjapan: Unfortunately, as with what sailwind suggested, drug firms, etc. are never going to put people ahead of sales as long as the current mind-frame exists in the world -- which is personal gain before that which could benefit all, if they do not go together.

    Well I think most people recognize that drug firms would soon go out of business if they stopped focusing on what's profitable. I'm not sure how that scenario could be seen as a benefit. What I said is that drug companies need to be given an incentive to research drugs that are too risky in terms of cost. That basically means partial funding by governments (taxpayers) and more collaboration.

  • 0

    SuperLib

    proxy: The Canadian health care system is broken and probably the problem is the same fundamental one the US has; Canadians are fat and unhealthy.

    Ah, so Canadians should follow those wonderfully healthy and thin countries that aren't having any problems with the cost of health care at all. Which countries would those be?

  • 0

    ashika1009

    This article is pure bunk and so is Obama.Obama may have "inherited" a mess. But his actions will only make things worse. Much worse.Bush ain`t the president anymore.Obama is (the president). Focus on Obama.His (doomed to fail) policies will result in a resurgence of the Right, if they can summon will to do the right thing (and that, too, remains to be seen).In fact, it is hard to find any real "leaders" in the West anymore.Most of the leaders these days are to be found in the freedom-loving Middle-East. Not good news in that, either.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    SuperLib: "Well I think most people recognize that drug firms would soon go out of business if they stopped focusing on what's profitable. I'm not sure how that scenario could be seen as a benefit"

    I never anywhere said they SHOULD give up their stuff and work for free to starve themselves. I do think there is a line between exorbitant profits at the cost of health and giving up a little for the sake of humanity. Now, that said, I didn't comment on the fact that you are correct in saying they should be given 'incentives' to do research deemed risky otherwise (that also doesn't mean I disagree). But there has to be a middle ground; perhaps like lawyers have to take on a certain amount of pro bono work, drug companies have to give up a certain amount of product, or else time towards 'pure research', which would otherwise cost them. In lieu of losing everything during that time, there can be a certain amount of subsidy.

    "Ah, so Canadians should follow those wonderfully healthy and thin countries that aren't having any problems with the cost of health care at all. Which countries would those be?"

    I realize you're addressing proxy here, but it sounds like you're more interested in arguing than, well... actually 'arguing' a point.

  • 0

    Sarge

    According to smithinjapan and SushiSake3, the entire U.S. medical industry is evil! Lol, it's a good thing these two aren't in charge of anything of significance.

  • 0

    grafton

    Why is the blindingly obvious so easily missed? Perhaps because it is blindingly obvious. None of us would think anything wrong about a nationalised health care system so long as it functioned well & wasn’t an insane drain on the rest of the economy. Yet aside from workers the main costs to any health care system is going to be drugs & medical machinery, yet nobody ever seems to think that it might be a good idea to nationalise these industries. No matter how good a health care system any country designs it always has to buy in from private industry. The idea may be uncomfortable to the political thinking of many, but if we really want a fair health care system for all you need to find ways of reducing the costs to the government of running such a system. Let the government run the hospitals, the drug companies, the medical machinery manufacturers & even the medical insurance companies so that those that want to take out an extra insurance for special or faster treatment still have that option, but not at the expense of making medical treatment out side the reach of all.

  • 0

    Sarge

    "Let the government run the hospitals, the drug companies, the medical machinery manufacturers 6 even the medical insurance companies"

    Good grief!! If you think the system is screwed up now, wait til the government takes it over! No, laddie, that is not the ticket to better health care.

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    SuperLib - "Ah, so Canadians should follow those wonderfully healthy and thin countries that aren't having any problems with the cost of health care at all. Which countries would those be?"

    North Korea.

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    Sarge - "According to smithinjapan and SushiSake3, the entire U.S. medical industry is evil!"

    Where did I say that?

  • 0

    grafton

    Sarge at 09:50 PM JST - 22nd February

    “Good grief!! If you think the system is screwed up now, wait till the government takes it over! No, laddie, that is not the ticket to better health care.”

    I have to agree that I don’t have any faith in any government running anything, so fine, create a central medical service that does cover all aspects of health care. But whatever, take the profit margin out of it. Think about it, do you know how much an incubator for a premature baby costs? No, me neither. But why should anybody being running a company that manufactures such things for PROFIT? Name any life saving drug, what’s the mark up on it for the drug company? I’m not talking about morality or politics I’m simply being pragmatic. If the objective is to supply health care to the masses then these are the costs that need to be cut to make it affordable & the only way I can see of doing that is a single all encompassing system that does not value itself on how much profit is makes. And don’t call me “laddie” I doubt that there is that much an age difference between us & your not a Scot. If you’re a Canadian it might JUST be understandable though it is still very condescending.

  • 0

    SuperLib

    a single all encompassing system that does not value itself on how much profit is makes.

    That's when you get worse quality at a higher price. Some business principals have to be applied to the health care situation.

Back to top

Login to leave a comment

OR

Follow us

Facebook
Twitter

More in World

View all

View all