obamacare

[Quicksilver]

Ok stop complaining for one moment and
answer my question..................

It is an interesting problem this health care
thing. I suppose we can all agree health care
for all is a good idea. But if there is a disagreement
regarding the government instituting the plan
then who should put the program in place and how
should it be paid for? Or are you saying that
universal health care is not needed at all?

And don't tell me nothing is wrong with what we
have now. Everybody already knows to same game
cant continue as it is.

When you get to be my age you get to witness the
accelerating cost and regulations associated with
health care, and the other insurance limitations
that can be imposed.

Am I defending Obamas program? Not yet.
It's full of holes at this point. But people need answers

What I find interesting is that people seem to find it
more advantageous (or entertaining) to debate about
the faults of the proposed program rather than come
together with a collective constructive pragmatic
idea instead.

[Quicksilver]

Very constructive observation.........

Originally Posted by askhao

It hasn't even been one year and Obama has failed as president...

[FSETH]

[QUOTE=dsm2925;644030]and it seems like there is more to go. but look at the positive side / if we had Bush for another 4more year - it would of been hell
QUOTE]

The problem with that though is that Bush would have never been able to pass as much through as Obama is going to be able to with the Dems controlling everything. Obama has WAY more power than Bush did. I am telling you, this could get ugly.

The Republicans ran themselves out of control this time around and the Democrats are already setting themselves up to do the same exact thing, IMO.

[AzX5]

Originally Posted by Quicksilver

What I find interesting is that people seem to find it
more advantageous (or entertaining) to debate about
the faults of the proposed program rather than come
together with a collective constructive pragmatic
idea instead.

Republicans have offered many great ideas. Dems want nothing to do with any ideas not their own:

•Consumer choice guided by transparency. We need a system where individuals choose an integrated plan that adopts the best disease-management practices, as opposed to fragmented care. Pricing and outcomes data for all tests, treatments and procedures should be posted on the Internet. Portable electronic health-care records can reduce paperwork, duplication and errors, while also empowering consumers to seek the provider that best meets their needs.

•Aligned consumer interests. Consumers should be financially invested in better health decisions through health-savings accounts, lower premiums and reduced cost sharing. If they seek care in cost-effective settings, comply with medical regimens, preventative care, and lifestyles that reduce the likelihood of chronic disease, they should share in the savings.

•Medical lawsuit reform. The practice of defensive medicine costs an estimated $100 billion-plus each year, according to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, which used a study by economists Daniel P. Kessler and Mark B. McClellan. No health reform is serious about reducing costs unless it reduces the costs of frivolous lawsuits.

•Insurance reform. Congress should establish simple guidelines to make policies more portable, with more coverage for pre-existing conditions. Reinsurance, high-risk pools, and other mechanisms can reduce the dangers of adverse risk selection and the incentive to avoid covering the sick. Individuals should also be able to keep insurance as they change jobs or states.

•Pooling for small businesses, the self-employed, and others. All consumers should have equal opportunity to buy the lowest-cost, highest-quality insurance available. Individuals should benefit from the economies of scale currently available to those working for large employers. They should be free to purchase their health coverage without tax penalty through their employer, church, union, etc.

•Pay for performance, not activity. Roughly 75% of health-care spending is for the care of chronic conditions such as heart disease, cancer and diabetes—and there is little coordination of this care. We can save money and improve outcomes by using integrated networks of care with rigorous, transparent outcome measures emphasizing prevention and disease management.

•Refundable tax credits. Low-income working Americans without health insurance should get help in buying private coverage through a refundable tax credit. This is preferable to building a separate, government-run health-care plan.

These steps would bring down health-care costs. They would not bankrupt our nation or increase taxes in the midst of a recession. They are achievable reforms with bipartisan consensus and public support. All they require is a willingness by the president to slow down and have an honest discussion with Americans about the real downstream consequences of his ideas. Let’s start there.

[alewifebp]

Everyone knows that some kind of reform is needed. However, more government can rarely solve a problem. In most cases, less government regulations and meddling would lower costs.

And as Wagner says, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the quality of care in the US. I have access to some of the best hospitals in the world being in the NYC area. The list of quality facilities around the US goes on and on. I don't have the richest plan, but I know that if I needed surgery, I would be able to get one fast. I don't want the quality of my care to go down because the government decided to get in the way. It's the costs that are the problem, and this bill only increases those.

[Dannyell]

More gov control bad... Health care companies just as bad if not worse...after all we're here since they have had their way for some time now...

I'd rather have more gov control and hold them accountable for it, rather than complaining for no reason while health care companies keep putting $$ into their pockets...

So far under this administration it looks to be a lose/lose situation

[Wagner]

Originally Posted by Quicksilver

Ok stop complaining for one moment and
answer my question..................

It is an interesting problem this health care
thing. I suppose we can all agree health care
for all is a good idea. But if there is a disagreement
regarding the government instituting the plan
then who should put the program in place and how
should it be paid for? Or are you saying that
universal health care is not needed at all?

And don't tell me nothing is wrong with what we
have now. Everybody already knows to same game
cant continue as it is.

When you get to be my age you get to witness the
accelerating cost and regulations associated with
health care, and the other insurance limitations
that can be imposed.

Am I defending Obamas program? Not yet.
It's full of holes at this point. But people need answers

What I find interesting is that people seem to find it
more advantageous (or entertaining) to debate about
the faults of the proposed program rather than come
together with a collective constructive pragmatic
idea instead.

Ah, see post 14.

The problem you're witnessing is the fact that Obama has yet to help draft a bill. There is NO bill on the floor for health care, instead Obama just keeps talking about it. If he took a stand and said exactly what he wanted to see and how it would work, some questions would be resolved and statements could become more pointed. It is Obama's constant lack of detail and definition that is causing this 'debate'. And you don't have to be older to simply see health care costs. Anyone who has had a family member with cancer has seen the same thing. Same goes for small business owners. I saw our health care costs rise on average, 25-30% annually. Again, go back to post 14 and you'd see the answer to this problem that would get the government looking where they need to look, at costs...not at access and care.

[AzX5]

Originally Posted by Wagner

Again, go back to post 14 and you'd see the answer to this problem that would get the government looking where they need to look, at costs...not at access and care.

Or look at Post #24 for even better ideas.

[Quicksilver]

Thanks for #14 and 24

[Quicksilver]

I agree with your thoughts. It's just too bad that weather it's the government
or the private sector people will find some way to allow their greed
and corruption to screw it up. That includes patients.

Originally Posted by alewifebp

Everyone knows that some kind of reform is needed. However, more government can rarely solve a problem. In most cases, less government regulations and meddling would lower costs.

And as Wagner says, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the quality of care in the US. I have access to some of the best hospitals in the world being in the NYC area. The list of quality facilities around the US goes on and on. I don't have the richest plan, but I know that if I needed surgery, I would be able to get one fast. I don't want the quality of my care to go down because the government decided to get in the way. It's the costs that are the problem, and this bill only increases those.