|| posted on 9-11-2009 at 13:16
|Does he? Are you sure? Is that why he advocates that others pay too, whether they can afford catastrophic cover or not?
|| posted on 9-11-2009 at 12:15
|scholar is, obviously, in the fortunate position to afford to pay for private health insurance, but what about those that can't
|| posted on 9-11-2009 at 12:11
|And, what's more, you won't have to pay for it! Free board and lodging! Go for it scholar!
|| posted on 8-11-2009 at 23:15
|At least you'd get medical care if you were a prisoner...
|| posted on 8-11-2009 at 20:49
|Under the Pelosi plan, some Americans who fail to maintain $15,000 in health insurance can be fined up to $250,000 and be required to spend up to five
years in prison.
Defy Democratic health care, go to prison.
|| posted on 8-11-2009 at 12:33
Despite American ambitions for world domination, they don't control Australia, yet.
|| posted on 8-11-2009 at 12:17
|It's worth noting that this post thread is headed "Obama's," but the House of Representatives passed a version of Pelosi's bill, which does not
agree with what Obama has said he wants for Health Care Reform in several respects.
One of the frustrations in the debate is when Obama says something that is not true when compared to the legislation. That doesn't mean Obama is
intentionally lying; it just means what he says doesn't match what is written into the legislation. He may expect that he will get his way in the
I understand that the final few votes necessary, by which the bill barely passed, were won by putting in words similar to the Hyde
Amendment--something like no money for abortions except in cases of rape or incest. I haven't seen the exact wording.
|| posted on 8-11-2009 at 10:14
|House passes bill
The argument now moves on to the Senate.
The bickering, of course, will only intensify as the two sides who claim to work for the American people attempt to reconcile their opposing views.
|| posted on 12-10-2009 at 22:25
|A report from the insurance industry, which at one point had supported a version of Democrat health care change, says that the Democrat plan which is
before the Senate will INCREASE health insurance costs by about $1700 per family by the year 2013.
The legislation reduces government funding for medicare by a huge amount. The reductions include reducing expenditures for wheelchairs! (Yeah, why let crippled old people roll around at
government expense?--so goes the thinking of the Democrats.)
The legislation includes massive tax increases, including:
--a tax on pharmaceuticals
--a tax on the better health care insurance
--a tax on EVERY medical device the government regulates. This includes taxes on condoms, tampons, and hearing aids.
But, will they allow the health consumer to buy health insurance from other states? Or will they include tort reform? Nooooo. These simple measures
would really bring the cost of health insurance down.
|| posted on 11-10-2009 at 01:27
|[bad img]http://roflrazzi.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/celebrity-pictures-arnold-schwarzenegger-health-insurance.jpg[/bad img]
|| posted on 11-10-2009 at 00:53
You are just lucky the US Congress didn't have a hand is drawing up your plan.
|| posted on 30-9-2009 at 14:03
|Our scheme here is set up such that those who pay tax are obliged to contribute to medicare (our national health service) If you are below a certain
threshold you do not have to contribute. If you choose to have private medical cover then you are allowed to claim that as a deduction against the
compulsory medicare levy. It seems to work quite well.
|| posted on 28-9-2009 at 16:19
That is exactly what it is Leigh, a scheme.
Some of the plan will be paid by cuts in Medicare. Medicare is a government health insurance plan for those over 65 that is funded in part with money
I had deducted from my paycheck for all the years I worked. I collect Social Security and they take $96.40 per month out of my SSI to pay for my
If I wish to have my health coverage with a third party insurer like Humana which will give me better coverage for the same money, the government will
pay Humana the $96.40 to insure me with the better coverage.
Under the Obama plan, to raise money to pay for the plan, they plan to still take the $ 96.40 out of my SSI. They will not pay the full amount to
Humana however, deducting for the extra coverage I now get for free. This means that I would have to pay extra to maintain the amount of coverage I
currently have or loose the extra coverage. This means they are taking some of my SSI retirement to pay for those who have no money to pay for
insurance. Gotta love their creativity.
If you look at what they say the want to accomplish, it looks like a great thing. The problem is when you start looking at the specifics buried in the
plan it starts to smell a bit.
I am not against the plan because it is Obama's plan, I am against it because of the way they plan on funding it. I also find it hilarious that if
you currently can not afford a health care plan, if this one gets passed you will be required to get it or be fined for not getting it. If you can't
afford it now, how will you pay the fine for not getting it?
|| posted on 28-9-2009 at 08:36
|I suppose, in a way, every worker in the UK is forced to buy health care insurance by way of their national insurance contributions - or "Stamp".
This is not optional and is basically just another element of tax. However, in theory, it pays for unemployment benefit, Statutory Sick Pay, Pensions
and the NHS.
|| posted on 28-9-2009 at 04:52
I support him on decisions and policies that are good and helpful, and disagree on those that I think are harmful.
I supported him on the pirate incident.
His decision to keep Gates on as Secretary of Defense was good.
His handling of the prisoner situation in North Korea was excellent.
So far, he has shown wisdom in following the recommendations of the military with respect to reducing troops and operations in Iraq at a prudent
With respect to revision of health care, it is worth remembering that he wanted former Senator Daschle in his cabinet, but had to withdraw the
nomination because he was found to be a tax criminal. Daschle had written a book in which he said President Clinton failed in getting Hillary's
version of health care changes passed because the Clintons had developed a health care plan which they put out for people to examine, and most people
did not want it. Daschle wrote that was the problem--by letting people see the details, they knew where and why they didn't like it. Daschle said
the way to get a health care plan passed would be to talk about the good the plan was supposed to accomplish, but NOT to get pinned down on details.
Obama has followed Daschle's recommendation in this respect--he has not written a health care plan, and his description does not completely match any
of the Congressional legislation.
For example, the Congressional plan makes it mandatory for most people to buy health insurance. You can be sent to prison if you don't buy health
insurance, but instead spend your money on other things you need. The health care bureaucracy is allowed to look at your tax records, to see if you
should be fully paying for your own health insurance because, according to the government, you make enough to pay entirely for your own health
insurance. The Congressional plan gives the government the right to withdraw money from your bank account to pay for your health insurance, if you
are failing to do so--too bad if you lose your job because you needed that money to fix your car so you could get to work.
Obama doesn't include these details in his own thoughts about the plan. It is Congress that gets its hands dirty with such things.
|| posted on 27-9-2009 at 13:35
|It sounds great to me, but I support him.
I think when it comes to anything "Obama" Scholar has his "blinders" on.
Have to admit my mother is the same way, she only sees "the black man". So sad
I am so happy that her opinions never influenced my own way of thinking.
|| posted on 27-9-2009 at 13:07
|So? That would be "no", then?
|| posted on 26-9-2009 at 03:19
|Is this addressed to
I will credit President Obama with good intentions.
|| posted on 25-9-2009 at 15:06
|Can you find nothing good to say about this scheme?
|| posted on 25-9-2009 at 10:00
|| posted on 25-9-2009 at 08:09
|Well, it sounds good to me. I must admit I am quite bemused by the opposition to the idea.
|| posted on 25-9-2009 at 04:22
|There are some problems with the description, mainly because it does not describe the actual legislation before the House or the Senate.
When Obama addressed both Houses of Congress, after Obama said it would not cover illegal aliens, one Congressman yelled, "You lie!" Those who
didn't want a bill that would cover illegal aliens had tried to get it rewritten with language to explicitly exclude illegal aliens, but the
Democrats would not allow it. After Obama promised that it would not cover them, the legislators changed the wording so that illegal aliens would be
excluded. Why did they need to CHANGE it? Because Obama spoke falsely when he said it did not cover them. The Congressman apologized to the
President because of his rudeness--but, when the bill had to be changed in order to exclude illegal aliens, it proved the Congressman was right in his
criticism. Obama, on the other hand, twice accused his opponents of lying. But, he did not have to apologize. He does not have to follow rules set
Several legislative leaders from both parties in the Senate have said no, there won't be a public
option in the Senate's legislation, because there is not sufficient support. Overwhelming numbers of people in many states hate it, and strenuously
The various versions in the legislature have a common
element--they take large amounts of money OUT of Medicare. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office recognizes this.
This, from the guy
who had to admit that the deficit would be $2 trillion more than he had projected earlier this year. This, from the man whose has supported more
deficit spending than all the presidents before him, combined.
When has any government program ever cost as little as its proponents said it would? Since every version of the program is massively expensive, when
Obama says that it will not add to the deficit, he must balance the expense with massive tax increases.
Obama has denied this, but the language of the legislation refers to the tax on more expensive health insurance/health care programs as an excise
How would Obama save money? He has said that people toward the end of their lives have too much money spent on them. In an unguarded moment, he said
that a grandma whose life had been extended for several years with a pacemaker should perhaps have been given pain medicine instead. This was a
particularly stupid statement, because pain medicine is not a treatment for people who have irregular heartbeat from time to time.
The government saves money in Medicare and Medicaid one of two ways:
1) Excluding medical care. I know of a doctor who needed to use a certain antibiotic to keep his Medicaid patients from getting an infection that
would blind them. It was not on the list of medicines that Medicaid would pay for. A nurse told me that there are many procedures for which Medicaid
will not pay.
2) Refusing to pay the full cost. Medicare is famous for paying doctors less than the real cost of procedures, with the result that doctors commonly
reach a limit of how many Medicare patients they can handle. (They need to make a profit on some patients, to pay their huge malpractice insurance
costs, to pay what they owe for their schooling, and to pay for their office space, equipment, and staff.)
An estimated 10% of Medicare costs are from criminal fraud.
|| posted on 24-9-2009 at 17:09
|Read about it here
Granted not what most of you Brits want to read but I provide this as a service to the few Americans on the board.