If Obama's proposed healthcare bill is so good, why are he and congress exempt from it?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124536864955329439.html
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$5 Answers
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$Although all Federal employees are not covered by this bill, that's only because they are already covered by pretty much the same thing. Which is not anything special, it's just the usual employee's choices of Blue Cross and the other major insurance plans.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
Do you think a monopoly is good for the consumer? The government is never on equal plane with private enterprise. With a government program, everyone is taxed for services provided to a few, but free enterprise collects revenue from only customers. Also, if a government program loses money, it is not shut down. This path ends in a government monopoly except for the very rich who can afford to pay for healthcare through taxes and still go to private doctors. In other words, like public education, the very rich will have better services than the poor who are stuck with the government monopoly. With our current system, everyone has access to the same hospitals. That's going to change, and the poor and middle class will be the victims. The rich will be the only ones untouched.
People who don't want to use made up facts shouldn't read the Washington Times. Try the Post. Anyway:
"These critics are looking at it backwards, say researchers at the liberal Economic Policy Institute: Including a public plan will actually reduce the overall costs of health care:
While a public plan would indeed likely raise the level of federal government health spending, it is just as likely to reduce total national health spending. Independent research evaluating proposals produced by EPI and other sources has consistently found that a public plan would save money and result in better health outcomes by providing all Americans regular access to health care.
Indeed, they point out, one independent analysis found that having a public plan could actually save the US up to $1 trillion over ten years, while providing health care to all. Some of the elements of the plan contributing to that figure include increased competition among health care providers and lower administrative costs.
It’s a compelling argument, and one that deserves to have a more central place in this debate, lest we nickel-and-dime ourselves into an anemic health care plan that ends up costing us more in the long run, while abandoning the goal of health care for the currently uninsured."
http://moneyfeatures.blogs.money.cnn.com/2009/06/28/obamacare-cheaper-than-you-think/
Since President Obama is heading to quadrupling the national debt (article) and ran out of money before his 100 days were over (article), maybe it would be prudent to see how his other measures fair before agreeing to a $1-2 trillion healthcare reform bill meant to cover only 47 million uninsured.
http://healthinsurance.about.com/b/2009/04/24/poll-shows-the-average-health-insurance-premium-out-of-reach-for-uninsured.htm
What you are ignoring is that the poor, especially the working poor that are employed by those "small businesses" that the conservatives love so much, have no health care at all! And many others on limited budgets, such as the retired, can't afford the medications that they are prescribed. We should go to a Canadian or British system; but, the current proposal is at least a step in the right direction.
Of the 47 million uninsured, 14 million are not in Medicaid by choice but can sign up at any time (and do when they need medical attention), 27 million make over 50k/year. That leaves 6 million, many of which are illegal immigrants.
Of 33 million not eligible for medicaid, 23 million are uninsured for less than 4 months at a time (typically between jobs). "The truly uninsured are, thus, largely young people who can afford insurance but who make the decision to temporarily go without it as they move between jobs. This tends to be for very short periods of time.
"As the late, great senator from New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, used to say: "You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts." The sensationalized plight of the uninsured is not a valid reason for enacting national health care" (Washington times).
If private companies are so efficient they will compete. If not, good riddance. The federal employees will certainly be added later if the plan is a success - it will be hard enough getting a bill through without the hurdles of affecting the federal employee system which is a big job in itself. You are looking at an irrelevant point with regard to the Federal Employees (including Congress).
When there is a government health care option, how will insurance compete? They can't raise taxes or just run a deficit like congress. The government makes the rules, takes money by force, and can run deficits, but private insurance companies that must make a profit to stay in business. Once this plan is an option, struggling businesses will cut health insurance benefits for employees, because everyone can use the public system. And Pres. Obama is talking about requiring people who do not want to be in the system to pay in anyway: "' . . . if we want to have system that drives down cost for everyone, we have to have healthy people not opt out of the system,' Obama told ABC" (Foxnews.com). . . . unless those people are congress.
And yet you are always asking snarky questions like this where you make no attempt to understand the other side's point of view, and treat them as if they are idiots or downright evil.
Don't you think that kind of attitude is half of what's wrong with the world today?
I don't know the ins and outs of the proposed bill. No doubt it has many flaws, it's a rare piece of legislation that doesn't have flaws, whoever wrote it. Just as it is a rare piece of software that has no bugs, especially in alpha stage.
From what I have seen of your posts, at the end of the day you differ in your values and priorities from the President. For example from what I've seen you say, you just don't believe in paying for anyone else's healthcare or education. That is fair enough, you are entitled to that view.
However that does not mean that people who feel differently about such issues are stupid or evil.
As for politicians, for the most part they are trying to do their best on matters of bewildering complexity, where nothing can get done without all kinds of deals and compromises that they ideally might prefer not to make.
And that applies pretty much to politicians of all parties.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
A huge number of Americans have no healthcare. The sooner the old system ends the better.
Watching the president and Congress passing bills that will destroy our healthcare system angers and frightens me. Obama is already talking about rationing and cutting payments to doctors. Oddly enough, we hear the answer to education is more money, but suddenly the answer to health care is less money, more government control, and less choices. I am absolutely terrified that this bill will be passed, which by Obama's own admission will lead to rationing and to bureaucrats' deciding who deserves what treatment. People think that the president is good and kind, but he is talking heartlessly of not allowing people to have surgery but just giving them pain killers LA Times. If he genuinely wanted the best healthcare for everyone, he would not be proposing such a disastrous bill. I believe he is making this move despite the fact that it will harm healthcare in America because it will lead to more dependency on government, and therefore more power.
It is absurd to say that this bill will not hurt current plans. When there is a government health care option, how will insurance compete? Can they raise taxes or just run a deficit like congress? The government makes the rules, takes money by force, and can run deficits, and we are supposed to think that insurance companies that must make a profit to stay in business will be around in 10 years. This bill will begin the end of free-enterprise healthcare in America. That means the best and the brightest doctors from around the world will no longer have motivation to come to America to work (Have you noticed the number of foreign doctors in America?). That means that college students will no longer be willing to run up the average $140k in medical student loan debt (AMA) and will choose professions that pay better. And that means that when you go to the hospital, you are no longer the paying customer, and decisions about what care you deserve are out of your hands.
The way to fix healthcare is to 1) have tort reform that reduces the amount of money you can collect from a doctor making a human mistake and to 2) move toward catastrophic health insurance rather than insurance for routine visits. No other insurance industry insured for things that are guaranteed to happen, but health insurance is supposed to cover you for any time you need a doctor, and we all will need doctors in our lives, and that means high premiums, and a lot of paperwork done by a lot of people. Instead, costs could be lowered by Health Savings Accounts and catastrophic insurance, which would cause people to price shop for doctors, prescriptions, etc. If it's all free, I might as well start being scanned for every possible disease from the time I'm 12 years old. No amount of money is ever enough for healthcare, because we always die in the end. By putting the decisions in the hands of those it affects (the patient), people can limit their own costs as they see fit, not as bureaucrats see fit.
AMTRAK is a good example. Private industry simply refuses to provide services, no matter how important to the country, if it can make more money doing something else. When the government has to step in, it has to spend money. But, at least it gets the jobs done.
If President Obama gets any major health bill through Congress that will be an amazing accomplishment to add to the other major legislation that he has signed and executive orders he has issued. I've lost count, but are we even through the second hundred days yet?
@philipy, (sorry to tag this on late, but I re-read your question.)
you said that I don't believe in paying for anyone else's healthcare or education, and that is a little inaccurate, but it is a difficult point, so let me clarify.
1. I want to help those around me in need. (I am a little less happy to have my money taken by force by another person who gives it to the poor and then takes credit for it. Still, if someone who is poor is helped, I can ignore the offense of taking my money and giving it without my approval.)
2. I do not want someone else paying for my healthcare and education. Think of it in terms of food. You may be happy to buy food for others (and you'd prefer to do it without force), but you don't want to contribute to a common food budget and then accept whatever you get. When the government gives healthcare and education to everyone, we all contribute to one pot and then take whatever we get instead of having options. When we don't pay for our own healthcare, we lose the right to make the decisions about whether an 100-yr-old should get a pacemaker, or whether to have surgery or take painkillers (see video).
The Economist has a briefing on US healthcare reform this week. I have not read it yet but it starts off...
-- Quote
America’s health care is the costliest in the world, yet quality is patchy and millions are uninsured. Incentives for both patients and suppliers need urgent treatment.
NO ONE will be astonished to hear that health care costs more in Indiana than in India. However, a few might be surprised to learn that Americans spend more than twice as much per person on health care as Swedes do. And many may be shocked to be told that in Miami people pay twice as much as in Minnesota, even for far worse care.
-- /Quote
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13899647
As usual with the Economist, looks like lots of hard data and top notch analysis in there
See article cited above on the truly uninsured: http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/25/who-are-the-uninsured/
What Obama is trying to do is provide citizens with the same option of government health care. Just like all those wacky "socialist" countries like Canada, Britain, France etc...
I am not sure why Americans are so afraid of Universal Health Care, all it means is that when you are sick, you don't need permission from an insurance company to get help, you just get it.. for free...at least thats how it works up here.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
If we are being offered the "same option," why is congress exempting themselves?
Because they already have the best option.
If I had a mansion and came up with a plan that gives everybody bungalows, would I give up my mansion for a bungalow?
So you admit that our healthcare will not be as good as that of congress. Isn't that sort of elitist that the government will provide two tiers: one for congress and one for the masses?
You make it sound like insurance companies are the only ones who will have rules for what treatment is covered. (I don't like those rules either, which is why the choice needs to be with the consumer.) But all countries with socialized healthcare have similar rules.
If you want great healthcare, the solution is not emulating a system that is causing Canadians to come to the US for treatment. Some Canadians have had to wait 3 years for a 30 minute surgery for incontinence (article). Maybe Canada's life expectancy is the same as USA's, but at least US citizens can get incontinence surgery in less than a month.
I've had 2 major surgeries and have a few chronic diseases, so I know about healthcare. I made only $14k/year when they told me I needed major surgery, but I still had it within a week of the first doctor's visit. I don't want to change to a system that is working great for even the poor (assuming < $7/hour is poor). Show me someone who is genuinely too poor to go to the doctor in the US, and I will gladly help them. The government is not the answer to our problems.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
@philipy, yes, but one would hope people interested enough to offer opinions on bills before congress would know about how the system of government works.
In @hortyman's defense, President Obama has full support of the majority of congress, and has thus far gotten everything he wanted: massive spending bills, controlling share of two major car companies, expensive climate change bills, and he has said that health care reform will "absolutely" be passed this. year http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/24/white-house-pushes-bipartisan-health-plan/
Probably best to not answer political questions without previous knowledge. If you do want to answer it never hurts to do some research beforehand.
This is the first time in a long time that I have been tempted to click on "unhelpful" I didn't, but it was close. I enjoy reading differing opinions, but I want them to be informed opinions. The president can not do anything he wants. He can not even do most of what he wants.
I admit I do not know loads about American politics, no need to go clicking unhelpful. I haven't done that on plenty of answers I have seen of Albanian's that I deem unhelpful, hmm maybe I should do this from now on?
@albanian.... not everyone knows how US poltiics works. People do tend to think Presidents are more powerful than they really are.
You know perfectly well that the president can not do whatever he wants. It is a hard fight getting anything through congress and always requires many compromises.
Government's coming under budget just means that they spent less than they projected, not that it was cheaper than free enterprise. You are giving examples of things that have no free enterprise examples to be compared to. How about education, package delivery, transportation (AMTRAK), feeding the poor? Those are things that we have public and private sector versions of, and we know which are more expensive and which are higher quality.
Thanks you choosing me. I don't know. I've never lived in a place that had it. But to me the most significant evidence is that my fundamentalist Christian sister, who would ordinarily agree with you in almost every way, is reluctant to leave Australia, where she is a missionary's wife, to return to the US because she and her husband would loose the health care that Australia provides.
Name for me one thing that government provides you that is better quality than free enterprise. Sure, you won't have to discuss if you can afford a doctor. You'll be discussing when and if they'll get around to treating you or whether a hospital visit is worth the risk of infection.
None of us wants people to not be treated because they can't afford to pay. The reality is that socialized medicine instead of improving treatment for all leads to declining treatment for all. We all want medical care like rich people with personal doctors, but that's impossible. So instead of raising the standard of living to that of the rich, socialism lowers it to the standard of living for the poor. And I think some people want that: "I don't mind living poorly as long as no one else is doing better."
I want the best health care for everyone, which is why I am so strongly against government involvement. America is acting like the girl who hooks up with the guy with a history domestic violence: "It'll be different with me." We have to learn from the mistakes of all the other nations who tried this. America is not different. It'll be just as bad here as in all the other nations who fly to America now when they need the very best.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6293
http://www.theadvocates.org/freeman/8903lemi.html
http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/01/illusion-of-socialized-health-care.html
I don't admit anything of the sort. I am the government. And so is philipy. And so are you. I'm somewhat cynical of the people we send to represent us, but I don't think that they go out of their way to screw us. The reason for that is they have lives of their own and they are too busy with their kids and sometimes making mistakes like flying to Argentina to bother conspiring to do us wrong. I agree that I want the government (the rest of you) to mainly stay out of my life, but that does not relieve me of my responsibility to the rest of you. 50 years ago, whenever someone in my family had to see a doctor, there was a debate about whether or not we could afford it. That still happens and it has to come to a stop. This year. Today.
You have to admit that the government knows that this plan will not be good for people under it. I am rather suspicious of people giving me something that they make sure they don't have to take. "Here. Drink this! It'll fix all your problems, but I am exempt."
I realize that @philipy thinks I'm being negative, but perhaps he doesn't realize how bad this will be for America. When I needed surgery for possible cancer, I had it in less than a week. That doesn't happen in socialized systems where waiting lists rule the day. The reason healthcare is as bad as it is now is because of the amount of bureaucratic involvement already in place. When has government involvement raised quality and lowered costs as the president and congress are claiming this bill can do? This is a very bad move, and once we have public health insurance, people will believe they are entitled to it, and the harm cannot be undone.
I want a government that protects me from crime and foreign invaders and then stays out of my life. It's not their business if I wear a seatbelt when I drive or if I want to play video games for 10 hours straight. But when the government also pays for my healthcare, it is all their business. Anything you do that can harm your health (drink, eat chips, play sports, physical relationships) is now of public interest. If government can show that fining people for getting drunk will lower healthcare costs, they may be tempted to do just that.
The government built the Panama Canal and came in under budget. The government built the Interstate Highway System, one of the world's modern marvels. The government built Hoover Dam, the Golden Gate Bridge, the Tennessee Valley Authority projects, and did the Manhattan Project that ended World War II years before it otherwise would have ended. As a matter of fact, during World War II, almost every price and every wage in the country was controlled. It was the most socialist time in our history and it resulted in the defeat of the most powerful Axis of Evil that has ever been known.
@morriss003... so far nothing has happened. Proposals get kicked back and forth and hopefully get improved. Or possibly not. :)
Sure if there are things in the bill that would make things worse for people that already have excellent healthcare deals, I would hope that the proposals can be tweaked to avoid that problem.
But if not, I don't think it is exactly wise or demonstrates great leadership for congress to have the only exemption.
However, my answer was not addressing the details of healthcare proposals at all. As I said, I don't even know those details really.
Instead, after seeing many questions of this kind from @srgothard, who seems in every other way to be a very nice person, I thought it was time to address the negative tone of those questions.
I think that's important.
My small amount of experience is that people who seldom go to the doctor like the idea of "free" health care. It's not until you have major health problems that the issues of socialized medicine dawn on you. My husband even said that until he had a wife (me) with health problems, he thought socialized medicine sounded fine. He's never been to the doctor for anything that couldn't have been treated by a nurse practitioner.