• Controversial Topics
    Several months ago, I added a private sub-forum to allow members to discuss these topics without fear of infractions or banning. It's opt-in, opt-out. Corey Click Here

Obama Seeks $634 Billion for Health Care

Waging war and neutralizing our enemies is the primary purpose of government

This is one of the most disturbing comments we've ever read on the DISBoards.

From the Constitution (paraphrased):

Article I, Section 8 - Congress, ( Legislative Branch), has power to: collect taxes, pay debts, borrow money, regulate commerce with foreign nations, establish rule of naturalization, coin money, provide punishment for counterfeiting, establish Post Offices, promote Science, constitute tribunals, punish piracy on the seas, declare war, raise and support armies and Navy and have exclusive legislative authority over the District of Columbia.

Article II, Section 2 - The President, ( Executive Branch), Commander in Chief of the military, power to make treaties, nominate and appoint Ambassadors, public Ministers, Judges and all other offices, grant reprieves and pardons, recommend to Congress Measures necessary and expedient, convene or adjourn Congress, receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers, Commission all Officers of The United States and see that laws are faithfully executed.

Article III, Section 2 - The Courts, (Judicial Branch), power to extend to all cases of law arising under the Constitution and treaties, the trial of crimes and treason.
 
Waging war and neutralizing our enemies is the primary purpose of government???? Who wrote that, Conan the Barbarian???
 
Isn't taxing health benefits one thing that McCain wanted? But now since Obama says it, it's ok.


No, that was McCain's opponents' interpretation of McCain's plan, repeated ad nauseum. His actual plan involved offering more opportunities for individual coverage, gradually moving away from the status quo of employer-sponsored health care. This is the first I've heard of a real plan to tax health benefits.
 
Only if you include tithing. And we both know that's not really charity.

If you read through "Who Really Cares" it also included time and blood donations. I was unaware of any religion which called for people to tithe blood or time.
 


If you read through "Who Really Cares" it also included time and blood donations. I was unaware of any religion which called for people to tithe blood or time.

It doesn't matter anyway. What you or I do on an individual basis to help the needy doesn't say as much about us as what we want our government to focus on. People who want us to collectively help the needy, that is they want the govt to step it, are genuinely interesting in eradicating the problem. People who help on an individual basis, first of all they can never do enough to eradicate the problem, and second you never know what their motivations are.
 
No, that was McCain's opponents' interpretation of McCain's plan, repeated ad nauseum. His actual plan involved offering more opportunities for individual coverage, gradually moving away from the status quo of employer-sponsored health care. This is the first I've heard of a real plan to tax health benefits.

Candidate McCain's plan was to add the value of one's health benefits to their gross income, collect taxes on that gross income, and then offer a tax credit when filing income taxes. The tax credit was $5000 per family, $2500 individual.
 
One of the things I find most disturbing about this is not only raising the taxes of the highest income earners but also reducing the tax deductions for charitable donations. It is a double whammy. Although we donate greatly to charities we will need to cut back if our taxes are raised this much. The tax deduction gives us more money to donate so we will have to cut back even more. I could deal with this if I actually thought the government was capable of running a good program but all I envision is a lot more waste.
 


That's why there are private plans you can buy if you want to be self-employed.

Not if you have pre-existing conditions.

And for those of you that haven't dealt with this lately... pre-existing does not mean you currently have a serious disease or have had one recently.

You have to list every doctor/hospital visit you've ever had.

This year my company dropped Kaiser.

My wife has RSD... and even though its in remission she gets quarterly treatments.

I was going to pay the $10K / year out of my own pocket so she could keep her doctors.

She was declined... even though she was currently with Kaiser and had been for 10 years.

I am forced to always work for a company that provides healthcare which is ridicules.
 
Honestly...what's the point of these kinds of statements? The conversation goes nowhere and no actual debate can transpire if you can't simply state your point...that is, if you all actually have one, which I'm currently doubting...other than momto2girls inviting someone to come shoot her, which I do not get in the very least.

My point is exactly what I said it was -- the programs that are being proposed are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. That's the point. Sorry to interrupt your "actual debate" with facts. :confused3
 
It doesn't matter anyway. What you or I do on an individual basis to help the needy doesn't say as much about us as what we want our government to focus on. People who want us to collectively help the needy, that is they want the govt to step it, are genuinely interesting in eradicating the problem. People who help on an individual basis, first of all they can never do enough to eradicate the problem, and second you never know what their motivations are.

I want the government to help the needy--by lowering taxes and eliminating burdens to give EVERYONE the opportunity to thrive and to be able to efficiently find and support those unable to do so for themselves.
 
$15 billion a month isn't a reasonable response?

Maybe you can explain why Democrats have continued the fund the war in Iraq over the last two years. (By the way, I did not agree with the war in 2003 and I do not agree with it now.) It is easy to say that you disagree with the war, but much more difficult to vote against funding.
 
Universal health care has a basic and fatal flaw, you can’t simultaneously reduce the cost of a service and increase access to it. If you have universal access, you have to find a way of paying for people to get that access, which raises costs. If you want to keep costs down you can only economize so far before you have to restrict access. Universal health care is a bit like a perpetual motion machine—it would be wonderful in theory, but it can’t actually exist in reality.

What inevitably ends up happening is that governments cut costs first—which requires them to cut off access. This is how Britain’s NHS and the Canadian system work. You end up either waiting in line or having a government bureaucrat deny your request for treatment. That’s why the healthcare systems in those countries are having such trouble managing costs without drastically cutting back on services—and why both are more and more turning to private agencies to provide services they cannot.

Corporations love it because it passes on the costs to the federal government—turning it into a corporate welfare transfer payment. Bureaucrats love it because it gives them more power, as it would with politicians.
 
I don't think that Americans understand that with socialized medicine you are trading once set of problems for another.

In socialized medicine, it is not free. Everyone is forced to pay for it in taxes, here at least you can chose the type of coverage that suits you.

Because it is not free people other than physicians make medical decisions based on economic reasoning and not medical reasoning. This means that MRI's, CT scans, ultrasounds are no longer routine for diagnostic purposes. Surgeries such as Hip and knee replacements are based on quotas and not individual needs.

Medically necessary treatments can take more that a year.

Getting life saving cancer treatments in a timely fashion can be very difficult. Getting life saving transplants depend on whether a team deems it cost effective.

Medicines that are superior to treat diseases are no longer available as there are cheaper, albeit not as effective, versions that are preferable to the govt.

Physicians are no longer going into medicine because it is not worth their time, energy, intellect or money to pursue.

If you think I am joking, I assure you that I am not. I have plenty of experience working in both healthcare systems.

Many years ago when Canada switched to socialized medicine, the best and brightest of our medical field fled to the states. Nowadays there is a shortage of physicians in all but the largest cities.

In England, many of their best and brightest are also choosing not to go into medicine because the rewards are few and the problems are huge. They are importing physicians from foreign countries to cover the gap. These Drs are not always up to the standards of education that we presently demand in medicine.

If you are so sure that you think that socialized medicine works so well I implore you to REALLY look into what you are giving up in quality of care and timeliness in treatment. Don't be basing your opinion on movies that are propaganda at best.

Nothing in life is free so what are you willing to pay?
 
My point is exactly what I said it was -- the programs that are being proposed are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. That's the point. Sorry to interrupt your "actual debate" with facts. :confused3

What article of the Constitution do these plans violate?
 
My point is exactly what I said it was -- the programs that are being proposed are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. That's the point. Sorry to interrupt your "actual debate" with facts. :confused3
Agreed - only the states have the right to do these things. Well, Lincoln's War of Northern Agression changed that. Our Constitution has been meaningless since.
 
What article of the Constitution do these plans violate?

The federal government only has "enumerated" powers. Tell me where this is listed. If you can't find it listed, it is unconstitutional. It is really that simple...
 
Repeat:

Just an FYI:

President Obama is not proposing a Nationalized Health Care Plan or soailized medicine.

He wants to reform the healthcare system.

The Obama-Biden Plan
On health care reform, the American people are too often offered two extremes -- government-run health care with higher taxes or letting the insurance companies operate without rules. Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe both of these extremes are wrong, and that’s why they’ve proposed a plan that strengthens employer coverage, makes insurance companies accountable and ensures patient choice of doctor and care without government interference.

The Obama-Biden plan provides affordable, accessible health care for all Americans, builds on the existing health care system, and uses existing providers, doctors, and plans. Under the Obama-Biden plan, patients will be able to make health care decisions with their doctors, instead of being blocked by insurance company bureaucrats.

Under the plan, if you like your current health insurance, nothing changes, except your costs will go down by as much as $2,500 per year. If you don’t have health insurance, you will have a choice of new, affordable health insurance options.

Make Health Insurance Work for People and Businesses -- Not Just Insurance and Drug Companies.
Require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions so all Americans regardless of their health status or history can get comprehensive benefits at fair and stable premiums.
Create a new Small Business Health Tax Credit to help small businesses provide affordable health insurance to their employees.
Lower costs for businesses by covering a portion of the catastrophic health costs they pay in return for lower premiums for employees.
Prevent insurers from overcharging doctors for their malpractice insurance and invest in proven strategies to reduce preventable medical errors.
Make employer contributions more fair by requiring large employers that do not offer coverage or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of their employees' health care.
Establish a National Health Insurance Exchange with a range of private insurance options as well as a new public plan based on benefits available to members of Congress that will allow individuals and small businesses to buy affordable health coverage.
Ensure everyone who needs it will receive a tax credit for their premiums.
Reduce Costs and Save a Typical American Family up to $2,500 as reforms phase in:
Lower drug costs by allowing the importation of safe medicines from other developed countries, increasing the use of generic drugs in public programs, and taking on drug companies that block cheaper generic medicines from the market.
Require hospitals to collect and report health care cost and quality data.
Reduce the costs of catastrophic illnesses for employers and their employees.
Reform the insurance market to increase competition by taking on anticompetitive activity that drives up prices without improving quality of care.
The Obama-Biden plan will promote public health. It will require coverage of preventive services, including cancer screenings, and increase state and local preparedness for terrorist attacks and natural disasters.



Link:
Change.gov
 
This is not about socialized medicine or improved healthcare. It is about cradle to grave caring and feeding of the people of America by the government. It is a power play, pure and simple. The sad thing is that those who support this don't see it. The more that we need the government, the more control we give them.

Governments are put in place to control the masses. We are the masses.

"We are here to help you." When a politician says that, run...
 
Repeat:

Just an FYI:

President Obama is not proposing a Nationalized Health Care Plan or soailized medicine.

He wants to reform the healthcare system...
What will he do when his reforms put these insurance companies out of business? Many of the proposed changes would directly impact profitability.
 
Here is an interesting article from the WSJ;

Why Obama's Health Plan Is Better

By DAVID M. CUTLER, J. BRADFORD DELONG and ANN MARIE MARCIARILLE

The big threat to growth in the next decade is not oil or food prices, but the rising cost of health care. The doubling of health insurance premiums since 2000 makes employers choose between cutting benefits and hiring fewer workers.

Rising health costs push total employment costs up and wages and benefits down. The result is lost profits and lost wages, in addition to pointless risk, insecurity and a flood of personal bankruptcies.


Sustained growth thus requires successful health-care reform. Barack Obama and John McCain propose to lead us in opposite directions -- and the Obama direction is far superior.

Sen. Obama's proposal will modernize our current system of employer- and government-provided health care, keeping what works well, and making the investments now that will lead to a more efficient medical system. He does this in five ways:

- Learning. One-third of medical costs go for services at best ineffective and at worst harmful. Fifty billion dollars will jump-start the long-overdue information revolution in health care to identify the best providers, treatments and patient management strategies.

- Rewarding. Doctors and hospitals today are paid for performing procedures, not for helping patients. Insurers make money by dumping sick patients, not by keeping people healthy. Mr. Obama proposes to base Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements to hospitals and doctors on patient outcomes (lower cholesterol readings, made and kept follow-up appointments) in a coordinated effort to focus the entire payment system around better health, not just more care.

- Pooling. The Obama plan would give individuals and small firms the option of joining large insurance pools. With large patient pools, a few people incurring high medical costs will not topple the entire system, so insurers would no longer need to waste time, money and resources weeding out the healthy from the sick, and businesses and individuals would no longer have to subject themselves to that costly and stressful process.

- Preventing. In today's health-care market, less than one dollar in 25 goes for prevention, even though preventive services -- regular screenings and healthy lifestyle information -- are among the most cost-effective medical services around. Guaranteeing access to preventive services will improve health and in many cases save money.

- Covering. Controlling long-run health-care costs requires removing the hidden expenses of the uninsured. The reforms described above will lower premiums by $2,500 for the typical family, allowing millions previously priced out of the market to afford insurance.

In addition, tax credits for those still unable to afford private coverage, and the option to buy in to the federal government's benefits system, will ensure that all individuals have access to an affordable, portable alternative at a price they can afford.

Given the current inefficiencies in our system, the impact of the Obama plan will be profound. Besides the $2,500 savings in medical costs for the typical family, according to our research annual business-sector costs will fall by about $140 billion. Our figures suggest that decreasing employer costs by this amount will result in the expansion of employer-provided health insurance to 10 million previously uninsured people.

We know these savings are attainable: other countries have them today. We spend 40% more than other countries such as Canada and Switzeraland on health care -- nearly $1 trillion -- but our health outcomes are no better.

The lower cost of benefits will allow employers to hire some 90,000 low-wage workers currently without jobs because they are currently priced out of the market. It also would pull one and a half million more workers out of low-wage low-benefit and into high-wage high-benefit jobs. Workers currently locked into jobs because they fear losing their health benefits would be able to move to entrepreneurial jobs, or simply work part time.

<SNIP.
Everyone agrees our health-care financing system must change. But only one candidate, Barack Obama, has real change we can believe in.

Mr. Cutler is professor of economics at Harvard and an adviser to Barack Obama's presidential campaign. Mr. DeLong is professor of economics at University of California, Berkeley. Ms. Marciarille is adjunct law professor at McGeorge School of Law.


Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A25

Link to full article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122152292213639569.html
 

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!











facebook twitter
Top