TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Opinions on Obama health care initiatives
Pages (9): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 »
Obama and other Democrats can pass Health Care legislation in the budget if they want. The Republicans and Blue Dogs are obstructing the legislation. Hideous display by the Blue Dogs. Obama prefers to be bipartisan.
The latest possibility I'm hearing is that the Democrats take a two-pronged attack at healthcare, passing some of the more difficult legislation via a reconciliation process that only requires a simple majority, while going for broader, more easily winnable provisions via traditional legislative process where it will be easier to get a super-majority.
If that happens, Republicans will likely label them as improperly using a budget reconciliation process to cram through much more controversial healthcare legislation.
I doubt that one. Once health care reform passes, the 2010 is a landslide for Democrats.
So, you will ask this man to show his i.d. to ask you a question, but you are adamantly opposed to checking someone's id before allowing them to vote or receive free food, housing, education, healthcare,...?
Somebody finish the quote: "God loves Marines..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/28/h...cs.html?_r=1&hp
| quote: |
WASHINGTON � The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has been lobbying for three decades for the federal government to provide universal health insurance, especially for the poor. Now, as President Obama tries to rally Roman Catholics and other religious voters around his proposals to do just that, a growing number of bishops are speaking out against it. Skip to next paragraph A new blog from The New York Times that tracks the health care debate as it unfolds. More Health Care Overhaul News Related Times Topics: Roman Catholic Church | Health Care ReformReaders' Comments Readers shared their thoughts on this article. Read All Comments (79) � As recently as July, the bishops� conference had largely embraced the president�s goals, although with the caveat that any health care overhaul avoid new federal financing of abortions. But in the last two weeks some leaders of the conference, like Cardinal Justin Rigali, have concluded that Democrats� efforts to carve out abortion coverage are so inadequate that lawmakers should block the entire effort. Others, echoing the popular alarms about �rationing,� contend that the proposals could put a premium on efficacy that could penalize the chronically ill. �No health care reform is better than the wrong sort of health care reform,� Bishop R. Walker Nickless of Sioux City, Iowa, declared in a recent pastoral letter, urging the faithful to call their members of Congress. In a diocesan newspaper column this week, Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver agreed, saying the proposal was �not only imprudent; it�s also dangerous.� The bishops� opposition � published in diocesan newspapers, disseminated online by conservative activists, and reported in a Roman Catholic newspaper to be distributed this weekend at churches around the country � is another setback for Mr. Obama�s health care efforts. His administration has been counting on the support of Catholic leaders to help rally believers behind his health care plan. Just last week, he held a conference call with 140,000 religious voters to appeal to what he called their �moral convictions.� The bishops� backlash reflects a struggle within the church over how heavily to weigh opposition to abortion against concerns about social justice. �It is the great tension in Catholic thought right now,� said M. Cathleen Kaveny, a professor of law and theology at Notre Dame. The same question, Professor Kaveny said, set off the debates over whether conscientious Catholics could vote for Mr. Obama despite his support for abortion rights, whether he should be invited to speak at Notre Dame, or whether Catholic politicians who support abortion rights, like Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., should present themselves for Communion. Mr. Obama has said the health care overhaul should preserve the current policy that federal money not pay for elective abortions, and congressional Democrats say they are trying to do that. House health care legislation would allow the secretary of Health and Human Services to decide whether a proposed government insurance program would cover abortions. But any health insurance plan that does cover abortion � whether government-run or private � would be required to segregate its government subsidies from its patients� premium payments so that no taxpayer money would pay for the procedure. And all patients would have the choice of plans that do and do not cover it. House Democrats say many states similarly segregate federal money when they cover abortion under Medicaid. But abortion opponents say they take as a model the federal employees benefits program, which excludes health plans that cover abortion. In an Aug. 11 letter to Congress, Cardinal Rigali of Philadelphia, head of the bishops� anti-abortion efforts called the proposed division of funds �an illusion,� arguing that taxpayers would still indirectly help cover abortion. He urged lawmakers to block the current House legislation from coming up for a vote unless it can be amended to expressly prohibit financing for the procedure. In his conference call with religious voters last week, Mr. Obama denied that his plan would mean government financing for abortions, calling such assertions �fabrications that have been put out there in order to discourage people from meeting what I consider to be a core ethical and moral obligation.� Now, a prominent Catholic newspaper, Our Sunday Visitor, is declaring that the president was wrong, citing Cardinal Rigali�s letter about the House bill. �U.S. Bishops, fact-checkers contradict Obama�s health claims on abortion,� declares the headline in the issue of the paper that will be distributed in many churches this weekend. Liberal Catholic groups argued that most bishops still strongly supported the broader goals of the health care proposals. �There are certainly some strident voices out there that want to see health care reform abandoned on the back of this issue,� said Victoria Kovari, acting director of the liberal Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, �but I don�t think that is where the bishops are.� As recently as July 17, a letter to Mr. Obama and Congress from Bishop William F. Murphy, chairman of the bishops� domestic justice, appeared eager to back the Democrats� effort. Bishop Murphy of Rockville Centre, N.Y., noted that the �we strongly oppose inclusion of abortion as part of a national health care benefit.� But he emphasized the priority the church placed on coverage for the poor, calling health care �not a privilege but a right.� �Health care is not just another issue for the Church or for a healthy society,� he wrote. �It is a fundamental issue of human life and dignity.� On its Web site this summer, the bishops� conference published a commentary by the Rev. Douglas Clark of Savannah, Ga., arguing that the country now rationed �health care on the basis of wealth.� Father Clark cited an encyclical last month from Pope Benedict XVI about the evils of global economic inequality. Catholic Charities and the Catholic Health Association endorsed the president�s plan without reservation. But as the focus has shifted to the health care overhaul�s ramifications for abortion provisions, bishops who oppose it on many grounds have grown more vocal. �The Catholic Church does not teach that government should directly provide health care,� Bishop Nickless of Sioux City wrote, adding, �Any legislation that undermines the vitality of the private sector is suspect.� |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by thedoggyworld I doubt that one. Once health care reform passes, the 2010 is a landslide for Republicans. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by The17sss Fixed... considering the majority of americans do not want it passed in its current form. |
Let's have an honest debate about this whole health care thing, right?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka Let's have an honest debate about this whole health care thing, right? |
MoveOn.org member bites off finger of man who opposed Obamacare at rally:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/200...itten-off-.html
but it's the GOP who are "evil mongers", "nazis", "psychos", and "violent angry mobs"
| quote: |
| Originally posted by The17sss MoveOn.org member bites off finger of man who opposed Obamacare at rally: http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/200...itten-off-.html but it's the GOP who are "evil mongers", "nazis", "psychos", and "violent angry mobs" |
I dont.
| quote: |
| by Bill Maher And I have to say this, if you get injured while fighting against health care, you have to lie there and bleed. You just do. I'm sorry. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by The17sss MoveOn.org member bites off finger of man who opposed Obamacare at rally: http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/200...itten-off-.html but it's the GOP who are "evil mongers", "nazis", "psychos", and "violent angry mobs" |
| quote: |
| A 65-year-old man had his finger bitten off Wednesday evening at a health care rally in Thousand Oaks, according to the Ventura County Sheriff's Department. Sheriff's investigators were called to Hillcrest and Lynn Road at 7:26 p.m. About 100 protesters sponsored by MoveOn.org were having a rally supporting health care reform. A group of anti-health care reform protesters formed across the street. A witness from the scene says a man was walking through the anti-reform group to get to the pro-reform side when he got into an altercation with the 65-year-old, who opposes health care reform. The 65-year-old was apparently aggressive and hit the other man, who then retaliated by biting off his attacker's pinky, according to Karoli from DrumsnWhistles. The man took his finger and walked to Los Robles hospital for treatment. http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/kt...0,7135717.story |
| quote: |
| To be clear here: There were no threats, no dark moods, and there was no mob. I repeat, there was no mob. We were peaceful people holding candles and signs. (snip)However, there is no question that Orange Shirt guy was aching to fight, was willing to pick a fight, and certainly didn�t care who he fought with. He chose people who were shorter than he, and he used his voice, his body, his body language and his height to intimidate them. http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/2009/09/03/health-care-vigil-in-thousand-oaks-provocation-to-violent-response/ |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka Somebody finish the quote: "God loves Marines..." |
What a great system we currently have. We really should keep it instead of having this illegitimate, Hitleresque president change things and take over ALL OF OUR LIVES!!!!!!!!
| quote: |
| Insured and in debt: Even with coverage Californians struggle to pay medical bills 1.4 million have medical debt despite having insurance, new report shows By Gwendolyn Driscoll | 8/31/2009 11:15:00 AM More than 2.2 million California adults report having medical debt, and two-thirds of those incurred the debt while insured, according to the authors of "The State of Health Insurance in California (SHIC)," a comprehensive new report from the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research. In total, nearly one in seven non-elderly adults in California (13 percent) have some kind of medical debt, and more than 800,000 Californians have medical debt greater than $2,000. The state's Northern and Sierra counties are the most affected, with nearly 25 percent of the population having medical debt of some kind. Central Coast counties also had high percentages of debt. (View a breakdown of medical debt by region and county.) Individuals with medical debt are twice as likely as those without debt to delay or forgo needed health care, the report found. "That even insured people are forced to take on medical debt to pay for their health care is another glaring inadequacy in our current system of health insurance," said E. Richard Brown, director of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research and lead author of the SHIC report. "Current policies either do not offer enough coverage or offer full-coverage at a cost that is too expensive for many people to bear. "The result is that too many people have health insurance plans that leave them financially vulnerable and force them to delay the care they need." The biennial SHIC report, produced by the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research with support from The California Endowment and The California Wellness Foundation, presents a representative view of the troubled state of health insurance coverage at a crucial moment, as members of Congress debate the merits of national health insurance reform. The report, based on the latest data from the California Health Interview Survey (CHIS), the nation's largest state health survey, is the most comprehensive examination of health insurance coverage in the nation's most populous and diverse state. "Heath coverage is supposed to protect Americans from the financial burden of health care costs," said Dr. Robert K. Ross, CEO and president of The California Endowment. "Americans should be outraged that the very system that they depend on for health care no longer offers that protection." Specifically, the SHIC report found: Medical debt results in delays in care Californians with medical debt were much more likely than those without debt to delay getting the care they needed. * Those with debt were twice as likely to report delays in care: 32.3 percent reported delays in getting needed care, compared with 16.1 percent of those without medical debt. * Delays were higher as the amount of debt increased: Among those with more than $8,000 of medical debt, 43 percent reported delays in getting care. * Debt can lead to loans and bankruptcy: Among those with medical debt, more than half (55.4 percent) reported financial consequences ranging from an inability to pay for basic necessities to credit card debt to a declaration of bankruptcy. * High-deductible plans may contribute to medical debt: Nearly 40 percent of individuals with privately purchased insurance coverage chose plans with deductibles of $1,000 or more or, for a family plan, $2,000 or more. Health insurance coverage is stagnating In 2007, at the height of an economic expansion, 6.4 million Californians were uninsured for all or part of the year, a number that has changed little since 2001. Specifically: * There has been little change in employment-based insurance: Job-based insurance covered 56.4 percent of the total non-elderly population in 2001; in 2007, coverage was at 55.6 percent. * Employment-based children's coverage has declined: Slightly more than half (52.2 percent) of children in California were covered by their parent's employer's policy in 2007, a rate nearly three percentage points lower than in 2001 (55.1 percent). * Public coverage is flat: Coverage of children and non-elderly adults by Medi-Cal (California's Medicaid program) and Healthy Families (California's State Children's Health Insurance Program) remained flat between 2005 and 2007, at 15.3 percent. "It raises questions about the effectiveness of the current market-based system of private health insurance," said Dr. Shana Alex Lavarreda, director of health insurance studies and a co-author of the report. "If, at the height of an economic expansion, California's health insurance coverage was still weaker than in the past, then what does that say? It suggests that our health insurance system is at its straining point and millions of people are falling through the cracks." In 2007, at the peak of this decade's economic expansion, 6.4 million Californians, including 1.1 million children, lacked insurance all or part of the year. Since then, the recession, severe cuts to state programs that insure children and the doubling of the state's unemployment rate have pushed the number of uninsured even higher, the report's authors say. "With more than 6 million Californians uninsured and more than 1 million who have health insurance in medical debt, the need for comprehensive health care reform is clear," said Gary L. Yates, president and CEO of The California Wellness Foundation. "However, no matter what the outcome of reform efforts, adequate funding for the health care safety net � community clinics, public and nonprofit hospitals � must be maintained to ensure access to care for the state's uninsured and underinsured." The California Endowment, a private, statewide health foundation, was established in 1996 to expand access to affordable, quality health care for underserved individuals and communities and to promote fundamental improvements in the health status of all Californians. The California Wellness Foundation's mission is to improve the health of the people of California by making grants for health promotion, wellness education and disease prevention. The California Health Interview Survey (CHIS) is the nation's largest state health survey and one of the largest health surveys in the United States. The UCLA Center for Health Policy Research is one of the nation's leading health policy research centers and the premier source of health-related information on Californians. For more news, visit the UCLA Newsroom or follow us on Twitter. Gwendolyn Driscoll, 310-794-0930 [email protected] http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucl...debt-99981.aspx |
Obama is Hitler because he wants a universal health insurance coverage for the people. LOL. At least he wants to spend more money on the people, than spend on Iraq. We might as well annex Iraq for all the money we'v spent on them, money that could have solved so many problems like healthcare here at home.
thats awesome
I don't think anyone has posted John Mackey's editorial anywhere yet (that I've seen). It has gotten a lot of positive attention.
| quote: |
The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare Eight things we can do to improve health care without adding to the deficit. By JOHN MACKEY "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." �Margaret Thatcher With a projected $1.8 trillion deficit for 2009, several trillions more in deficits projected over the next decade, and with both Medicare and Social Security entitlement spending about to ratchet up several notches over the next 15 years as Baby Boomers become eligible for both, we are rapidly running out of other people's money. These deficits are simply not sustainable. They are either going to result in unprecedented new taxes and inflation, or they will bankrupt us. While we clearly need health-care reform, the last thing our country needs is a massive new health-care entitlement that will create hundreds of billions of dollars of new unfunded deficits and move us much closer to a government takeover of our health-care system. Instead, we should be trying to achieve reforms by moving in the opposite direction�toward less government control and more individual empowerment. Here are eight reforms that would greatly lower the cost of health care for everyone: �Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs). The combination of high-deductible health insurance and HSAs is one solution that could solve many of our health-care problems. For example, Whole Foods Market pays 100% of the premiums for all our team members who work 30 hours or more per week (about 89% of all team members) for our high-deductible health-insurance plan. We also provide up to $1,800 per year in additional health-care dollars through deposits into employees' Personal Wellness Accounts to spend as they choose on their own health and wellness. Money not spent in one year rolls over to the next and grows over time. Our team members therefore spend their own health-care dollars until the annual deductible is covered (about $2,500) and the insurance plan kicks in. This creates incentives to spend the first $2,500 more carefully. Our plan's costs are much lower than typical health insurance, while providing a very high degree of worker satisfaction. �Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits. Now employer health insurance benefits are fully tax deductible, but individual health insurance is not. This is unfair. �Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable. �Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. These mandates have increased the cost of health insurance by billions of dollars. What is insured and what is not insured should be determined by individual customer preferences and not through special-interest lobbying. �Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. These costs are passed back to us through much higher prices for health care. �Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost. How many people know the total cost of their last doctor's visit and how that total breaks down? What other goods or services do we buy without knowing how much they will cost us? �Enact Medicare reform. We need to face up to the actuarial fact that Medicare is heading towards bankruptcy and enact reforms that create greater patient empowerment, choice and responsibility. �Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren't covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Many promoters of health-care reform believe that people have an intrinsic ethical right to health care�to equal access to doctors, medicines and hospitals. While all of us empathize with those who are sick, how can we say that all people have more of an intrinsic right to health care than they have to food or shelter? Health care is a service that we all need, but just like food and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges. A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter. That's because there isn't any. This "right" has never existed in America Even in countries like Canada and the U.K., there is no intrinsic right to health care. Rather, citizens in these countries are told by government bureaucrats what health-care treatments they are eligible to receive and when they can receive them. All countries with socialized medicine ration health care by forcing their citizens to wait in lines to receive scarce treatments. Although Canada has a population smaller than California, 830,000 Canadians are currently waiting to be admitted to a hospital or to get treatment, according to a report last month in Investor's Business Daily. In England, the waiting list is 1.8 million. At Whole Foods we allow our team members to vote on what benefits they most want the company to fund. Our Canadian and British employees express their benefit preferences very clearly�they want supplemental health-care dollars that they can control and spend themselves without permission from their governments. Why would they want such additional health-care benefit dollars if they already have an "intrinsic right to health care"? The answer is clear�no such right truly exists in either Canada or the U.K.�or in any other country. Rather than increase government spending and control, we need to address the root causes of poor health. This begins with the realization that every American adult is responsible for his or her own health. Unfortunately many of our health-care problems are self-inflicted: two-thirds of Americans are now overweight and one-third are obese. Most of the diseases that kill us and account for about 70% of all health-care spending�heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes and obesity�are mostly preventable through proper diet, exercise, not smoking, minimal alcohol consumption and other healthy lifestyle choices. Recent scientific and medical evidence shows that a diet consisting of foods that are plant-based, nutrient dense and low-fat will help prevent and often reverse most degenerative diseases that kill us and are expensive to treat. We should be able to live largely disease-free lives until we are well into our 90s and even past 100 years of age. Health-care reform is very important. Whatever reforms are enacted it is essential that they be financially responsible, and that we have the freedom to choose doctors and the health-care services that best suit our own unique set of lifestyle choices. We are all responsible for our own lives and our own health. We should take that responsibility very seriously and use our freedom to make wise lifestyle choices that will protect our health. Doing so will enrich our lives and will help create a vibrant and sustainable American society. Mr. Mackey is co-founder and CEO of Whole Foods Market Inc. |
Obvious I am not from the US but I spent many years working as an insurance claims handler for travel insurance so got to experience the US health care system very frequently.
What Obama has proposed is an idea which has the interests of people at it's heart and that is what should be at the top of the list for any government.
We in the UK of course mainly got to hear about the attacks made to our NHS. There are a million things which can go wrong in a health care system like this (believe me).
Using the NHS as a comparison, The NHS fail most when it comes to those with medical conditions who sit in the middle. If you are dying or have a serious illness such as cancer, the NHS are unquestionable in their work and efforts, as if you have a quick minor injury such as a broken leg. Where it fails is for people like myself who suffer from conditions such as cronhes disease. I have to wait 3 months for an MRI scan then a another 4-5 months for a follow up appointment for results and action. This is simply not good enough consider my condition needs every day maintenance to keep under control.
But that said, it is well worth remembering that the NHS was set up a long long time ago and it's only now (in the last few years) they have tightened up their act in terms on money leakage etc. The US could learn a lot of lessons from NHS if this goes ahead and with real thought and a modern "business model" so it operates as effectively as it can, then I can't see why anybody would be against the notion of a such a health system.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Yeah, right. Whatever you say, champ. What exactly happened again?: According to eyewitnesses: The "man who opposed Obamacare" threw the first punch, but yet he isn't a "violent angry mob?!?!?" Sorry he got his finger bit off and all, but who got violent first here? And the biggest fucking irony of all? The fucking douchebag wingnut teabagger HAD GOVERNMENT-RUN MEDICARE!!!!!! Wonder if he's going to give his Social Security payments and Medicare back to the government anytime soon.... Keep those stories running. They're terrific. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by The17sss actually no, one man can't be a violent angry mob. |
| quote: |
| he threw the punch because the guy got all up in his kitchen... I would throw a punch too if some rabid fuck started screaming at me 2 inches from my face. |
| quote: |
| and since when does punching someone equate biting off a fucking finger? lol |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 So wait, weren't you the one who accused a pro-reformer as a "violent angry mob" in the first place? I'm simply using your language here. |
| quote: |
| Instead of walking away and avoiding any stupid controversy in the first place? In any case, the actual physical violence was started by the anti-reformer, a convenient fact that you cannot escape from. |
| quote: |
| I can't and won't justify that retaliation. Admittedly, that's just fucked up. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.