Okay, anyone disappointed in Obama so far?

[Anonymous]

I like my healthcare just fine thank you-it has served me well and I have no problem paying for it. I am not interested in socializing our system which is what is going to happen. Just how do you think this great plan will be paid for--if you think it's just going to be the rich you are wrong since it doesn't make financial sense. The people who will be screwed will be the middle class since the wealthy will do what other socialized countries do..pay for private insurance.

[Anonymous]

How much will someone who makes $60K be taxed for UHC? Will it be more than the $450 a month I pay now? Even though I work over 40 hours a week and have a part-time job, my employer doesn't cover my family's HI, and I break myself trying to pay for decent coverage. I don't qualify for Medicaid because I make too much.

[Anonymous]

If you already pay for health care and like your coverage, my understanding is that nothing will change for you.

I'm sorry, but for me and living in the country, it is really unacceptable for someone who is sick to be faced with no health care or going into financial distress to pay for treatment. That's is just not something I am personally willing to tolerate and if that means I pay more taxes or whatever, I'm fine with that.

[Anonymous]

I like my healthcare just fine thank you-it has served me well and I have no problem paying for it. I am not interested in socializing our system which is what is going to happen. Just how do you think this great plan will be paid for--if you think it's just going to be the rich you are wrong since it doesn't make financial sense. The people who will be screwed will be the middle class since the wealthy will do what other socialized countries do..pay for private insurance.

Let's all say it together again...there is a big difference between socialized medicine and universal health coverage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Come on folks, just because someone doesn't agree with Obama's health plan, that does not make them callous or disregarding the suffering of their fellow human being - unless of course that you feel the Obama plan is the absolutely only way to help them.

Please - can't we have a conversation without resorting to these absolutes?

I guess since our President resorts to the same rhetoric it is unreasonable for the rest of us to restrain ourselves.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/03/all_the_presidents_straw_men.asp

All the President's Straw Men

President Obama is famous for building up straw men, then knocking them down. You know, on the one hand, some would have government do nothing at all to help the economy, on the other, there’s his plan. This is a transparent (and crude) rhetorical device, but that didn’t stop Obama from trotting out a whopper last night in his second prime time press conference at the White House.

Now the alternative is to stand pat and to simply say, “We are just going to not invest in health care. We’re not going to take on energy. We’ll wait until next time that gas gets to $4 a gallon. We will not improve our schools. And we’ll allow China or India or other countries to lap our young people in terms of their performance. We will settle on lower growth rates and we will continue to contract, both as an economy and our ability to provide a better life for our kids. That, I don’t think, is the better option.

The word “better” means of two options, that one and his. So it's either his option or the end of America as we know her. And that, from the great orator of our time.

[Anonymous]

God, yes. The hell with policy. He completely screwed up with the Easter egg roll tickets!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you already pay for health care and like your coverage, my understanding is that nothing will change for you.

Yeh, it is business as usual, except the bill will come up later.

I am actually very sympathetic to the idea of universal health care. But I believe Obama's cost estimate is way too low.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Come on folks, just because someone doesn't agree with Obama's health plan, that does not make them callous or disregarding the suffering of their fellow human being - unless of course that you feel the Obama plan is the absolutely only way to help them.

Please - can't we have a conversation without resorting to these absolutes?

I guess since our President resorts to the same rhetoric it is unreasonable for the rest of us to restrain ourselves.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/03/all_the_presidents_straw_men.asp

All the President's Straw Men

President Obama is famous for building up straw men, then knocking them down. You know, on the one hand, some would have government do nothing at all to help the economy, on the other, there’s his plan. This is a transparent (and crude) rhetorical device, but that didn’t stop Obama from trotting out a whopper last night in his second prime time press conference at the White House.

Now the alternative is to stand pat and to simply say, “We are just going to not invest in health care. We’re not going to take on energy. We’ll wait until next time that gas gets to $4 a gallon. We will not improve our schools. And we’ll allow China or India or other countries to lap our young people in terms of their performance. We will settle on lower growth rates and we will continue to contract, both as an economy and our ability to provide a better life for our kids. That, I don’t think, is the better option.

The word “better” means of two options, that one and his. So it's either his option or the end of America as we know her. And that, from the great orator of our time.

Well, can you articulate the Republican response? Because all I have heard is a tax cut. And that's more of an attempt to fix the GOP than the country. What is their vision for America in this time of crisis? Is that what we heard from Kenneth the Page? Because that was the official Republican response, and it was a tax cut and a bundle of can-do spirit (golly!).

If Obama is knocking down strawmen, it's because the Republicans are busy putting them up.

[Anonymous]

PP are you referring to our current health care system as the "time of crisis"? Or the economy? Or the budget? Not clear what exactly you are asking for the solution to. FWIW our health care system to me is not in crisis. Needs a tune up for sure, but we haven't been in a wreck or dropped the transmission.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP are you referring to our current health care system as the "time of crisis"? Or the economy? Or the budget? Not clear what exactly you are asking for the solution to. FWIW our health care system to me is not in crisis. Needs a tune up for sure, but we haven't been in a wreck or dropped the transmission.

I am referring to the entirety of the topics covered in the "straw man" post. I beg to differ on your assessment of health care. But I would rather return to the issue I raised, namely that the Republicans have not offered an alternative plan for our domestic issues other than a tax cut. It's their job as a good opposition to do more than complain. They need to offer an alternative.

So, is there a plan out there that the Republican party supports? Otherwise Obama is right, that it's either do nothing or get with the program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Come on folks, just because someone doesn't agree with Obama's health plan, that does not make them callous or disregarding the suffering of their fellow human being - unless of course that you feel the Obama plan is the absolutely only way to help them.

Please - can't we have a conversation without resorting to these absolutes?

Sure, if people will stop posting such asinine things as calling Obama's plan socialized medicine. And justifying the current system by saying they are satisfied with their own health care, so what's the problem? Geeze, I think that attitude is definitely a problem. All Americans need access go good health care, and Obama has a plan to provide that. Do Republicans have a better plan that will do that? Tax cuts won't help people who pay no taxes because their incomes are not high enough. Of course they have no money for health insurance, and their jobs don't provide it. Do we just say, "tough luck folks" to those people who cannot access the American health system (and all those wonderful treatments, drugs, etc.) because they cannot pay for it? People die in America every day because they cannot afford drugs for chronic conditions, or surgeries or other treatments that are out of their reach financially.

I don't suggest that the American government buy everyone a new car or a large screen TV, but I think the government should provide universal access to health care. If it costs the rich higher taxes, so be it. I will gladly pay higher taxes for this. And I will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Come on folks, just because someone doesn't agree with Obama's health plan, that does not make them callous or disregarding the suffering of their fellow human being - unless of course that you feel the Obama plan is the absolutely only way to help them.

Please - can't we have a conversation without resorting to these absolutes?

Sure, if people will stop posting such asinine things as calling Obama's plan socialized medicine. And justifying the current system by saying they are satisfied with their own health care, so what's the problem? Geeze, I think that attitude is definitely a problem. All Americans need access go good health care, and Obama has a plan to provide that. Do Republicans have a better plan that will do that? Tax cuts won't help people who pay no taxes because their incomes are not high enough. Of course they have no money for health insurance, and their jobs don't provide it. Do we just say, "tough luck folks" to those people who cannot access the American health system (and all those wonderful treatments, drugs, etc.) because they cannot pay for it? People die in America every day because they cannot afford drugs for chronic conditions, or surgeries or other treatments that are out of their reach financially.

I don't suggest that the American government buy everyone a new car or a large screen TV, but I think the government should provide universal access to health care. If it costs the rich higher taxes, so be it. I will gladly pay higher taxes for this. And I will.

Lucky you that you are wealthy. When the quality of your health care declines under a universal system, you can fly to India for treatment or pay for private insurance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People die in America every day because they cannot afford drugs for chronic conditions, or surgeries or other treatments that are out of their reach financially.

And people die every day in Britain and Canada because the government decides what medical treatments will be made available or they have to wait six months to get an appointment.

Let's see, we're all going to pay less for health care but have better access and higher quality care? How exactly is that going to work? I guess it will work the way it works in Canada and Britain - that is, the government will ration treatments. If you only need to see a doctor once every five years or need a follow-up for your viagra prescription, it's a great system. But if you need a specialist or are diagnosed with cancer, I guess you will be SOL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People die in America every day because they cannot afford drugs for chronic conditions, or surgeries or other treatments that are out of their reach financially.

And people die every day in Britain and Canada because the government decides what medical treatments will be made available or they have to wait six months to get an appointment.

Let's see, we're all going to pay less for health care but have better access and higher quality care? How exactly is that going to work? I guess it will work the way it works in Canada and Britain - that is, the government will ration treatments. If you only need to see a doctor once every five years or need a follow-up for your viagra prescription, it's a great system. But if you need a specialist or are diagnosed with cancer, I guess you will be SOL.

You assume that money = quality. We do a lot of stupid things in our health care system that cost money and do not improve, even sometimes diminish, the quality of care. For instance, since we compensate doctors poorly for visits but generously for procedures, we heavily incent doctors to rely on an excess of lab and radiology tests. So you can have a neurologist diagnose a patient by watching him walk, check reflexes, etc. But these days, they end up doing an MRI because MRI's bill for a lot of money and no one gets sued for doing an extra MRI.

And we could save a bundle by negotiating the same prices for drugs that European nations get today. Our PBM's are not incented to get the best prices because they get a cut from the drug companies for the prescriptions. It should be illegal, but it's not.

As for access, when I was in Britain, I had a serious and rapidly moving infection. I was directed to the nearest hospital. They asked me for nothing more than my name, address, and my next of kin. 30 minutes later, I was seen by the doctor. He diagnosed me, handed me two sets of antibiotics, and gave me follow-up instructions for my doctor after I flew home. When I asked where to go to pay, he said "don't worry about it. You don't pay here".

I got home and got in to see my doctor after two days. My doctor immediately switched my antibiotics to a new, expensive one because that is the recommended approach of doctors here. (I later found out that study data says the two cheap drugs together are equally effective for what I had, and I believe the reason has to do with avoiding malpractice if I had a multi-resistant strain). Mind you, we could already see the infection retreating after taking the original drugs. I had to pay my doctor out of pocket for the visit because he's not on my plan and I'm sick of changing doctors with every job. I had to pay a co-pay. And the health care system racked up the cost of a new and very expensive antibiotic that I had to take.

So I don't mean to discount your concern about access or quality of care entirely. What I'm getting at is that there is a lot of absurdity in the way we run health care, specifically in the U.S. It is far, far, from an efficient free market industry like we expect in other sectors of the U.S. economy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1457-I have lost jobs and then I had gone on cobra or I have gotten insurance on my own--for majority of people without coverage it is a choice. As for helicopters--much like ambulances they are something that should be funded by states as they are not an insurance tool so I don't see what the point of bringing that up is? Again, no one is against taxes just penalizing a group of people to foot the bill. Universal coverage is not only a bad business model it won't help overall quality of life for majority of Americans who already have great coverage..it will just bring down the quality to serve people who choose not to be insured.

No, it's not. I think about 30% of the uninsured are uninsured by choice. I can find those stats for you if you'd like.