Obama's record

[Doktor Faustus]

Republicans argue and whine, but can't offer a single good argument against universal healthcare. Everyone has a right to free treatment of any and all medical ailment, and I'm proud the Obama administration is paving the way toward this lofty goal.

It will lead to a postcode (zipcode?) lottery depending on who is providing the healthcare - it IS a good service, but if run badly will bleed money worse than US armed forces (lol).

Let business people run it, those with a track record of getting value for money - do NOT let politicians anywhere near the earmarked cash, they are not to be trusted.

Also, might want to start dismantling pharmaceutical comapanies who belive they can own patents on plants that have existed for eons.

[Badpaladin]

Opponents of Obamacare argue this point.

The issue is it's often times not a choice. Pay more than what you have or die is very much the "choice" presented to people.

[Kuthumii]

Look, a Democrat Sheep. Very similar to the Republican Sheep in that both are totally ignorant and should be cleansed from our gene pool.

[bergmann620]

You be trolling.

Seriously. I live in Canada. I support our UNIVERSAL healthcare system. However anybody who tries to sell it off as FREE is selling snake oil.

We pay for it in higher taxes. In some parts of the country other areas of government spending such as infrastructure and education suffer because of their smaller slice of the budget. It doesn't cover prescriptions, it doesn't cover dental, it doesn't cover psychological help (because all that would be too expensive).

But what it does cover most importantly is children who's parents would otherwise be too irresponsible to get them on a health insurance plan THE MOMENT they are born, when there are 0 pre-existing conditions by which to deny them coverage.

As far as the concern about people wrecking their own health goes, to compensate for that there's sin taxes. The biggest of which is the tobacco tax. Canadian governments take in roughly 12 billion dollars a year in tobacco taxes. So Canadian smokers pay exponentially more for the health care system than the average Canadian does. The downside to that is that ofcourse the government doesn't REALLY want people to quit smoking, because that would mean 12 billion dollars in tax increases for everybody else.

The biggest problem with Obama's healthcare plan is that it's a national plan. Canada does not have national health care. It generates too many worthless overpaid beaurocrats on the provincial level as it is. Health care is a provincial responsibility.

EDIT: Oh ofcourse another benefit to universal healthcare is that supplementary health insurance is very cheap because of the many things it doesn't have to cover.

There's 2 important things here:

1) With our screwed up tax system, to most of the people that it's being sold to, it would be free. Because, you know, if we ask you to carry ANY of your own burden, it's too much.

2) Most (sensible) Republicans would agree that constitutionally, or otherwise, any state that wants to take an action to provide improved healthcare is more than free to do so. Does anyone think it would be a great idea to institute a UHC plan over the full Eurozone, to be run centrally? Then why advocate for it in the U.S.?

My big problem with health care is that no one is promoting a system that rewards responsibility. If you want to set up a national Health Savings Account thru the IRS, I am down. If you want to sell a "health give-away" to win votes, not so much.

Lastly, there IS NO NATURAL RIGHT TO HEALTH CARE. We have, in the U.S., added a right to EMERGENCY care to our social contract.

[xylophone]

Another problem is here


http://www.businessinsider.com/the-1...d-14-million-7


The U.K.'s healthcare system is one of the top 10 employers in the world, and in a general sense, governments do a fairly poor job at things that the private sector are able to do much better. Imagine if 1 in 23 people in the U.S. worked for the federal government in the Healthcare dept. the main argument against Obamacare is the cost, and our inability to afford it.

[Rendelsiand]

While we all think that the right to healthcare is a great pursuit, I am always weary of any law passed by congress that they exempt themselves from. If the bill was so good, why did they exempt themselves from it?

That and the bailouts to companies with poor quality standards, ignorance of our nations traditions, and the constant chipping away at the Bill of Rights is the #1 reason I will not vote for him or most of the incumbents who are running this year.

[goetz401]

You fail to see the logic that people doing stupid things deserve what they get?

Oh boy...

considering how unequal the levels of education and support are in the US, by not properly educating people on how to take care of themselves and providing an avenue they can get the means to do so is the real issue. there are people out there thinking all kinds of ass-backwards things about health and safety. even in my area in north dakota there is a lot of misinformation. the dumbest people get their information from TV and they have been watching coke and mcdonalds ads for some 30 years telling them that their products are good for them. then there are the other TV shows glorifying drinking and drugs for the most part as recreational activities that have no side effects. these people don't know they are wrong and they can't believe that the media and advertising companies would screw them over so bad and straight lie to them.

[Halicia]

World wide population is increasing. However, in EU and US it is decreasing.

To reduce birthrates, improve people's standard of living... that being said, I think the birthrate in the US could drop dramatically.

I'm all for spending money to assist children in need, but I don't think it should be going to welfare mommas who just lay on their back all day. Benefits should be going to the adoption system and assisting children and adolescents without a home. Cap traditional child welfare at one child, and only to the amount that is cheaper for the state to leave the children with the parent. If you want to have more children then you can support, you can look to the adoption system, but don't go expecting handouts from those that are actually working for a living.

As far as healthcare, I agree there's little argument against universal healthcare, but there's hella argument against UNLIMITED healthcare. Thats where the scary comes in. Insurance companies makes their profits by ensuring there's a large gap between services paid for and services received... but even without that, there would have to be some point where you tell a patient 'we just cant help you anymore'.

I think a good start would be to treat doctor's like any other public employee, and get them on the public payroll. Ensuring there is adequate health coverage for regions seems about as important as any other public utility.

[xylophone]

The issue is it's often times not a choice. Pay more than what you have or die is very much the "choice" presented to people.

The issue of affordability is the real problem IMO, but there are other ways to solve it.

[Deleted]

Opponents of Obamacare argue this point.

Which is a fairly stupid argument in itself. Then again, Britain as far as countries go, is pretty charitable and has a long history in helping out impoverished workers, dating back to as early at the 19th century, so my views are perhaps skewed in that regard..

But anyway, if you think about it, you're not paying for other people's health care. You're paying a monthly fee to get access to a healthcare system. One that won't try and rip you off; considering the medical insurance companies in America actually spend money on hiring lawyers to find any reason not to pay for your medical bills.

However; as mentioned above, I do agree that it would have to be state run, not federally run.

[Himora]

your pres is BOSS

[twh]

As far as I'm concerned, Bush and Obama have destroyed this country. America is on its deathbed.

The rule of the Republimocrats needs to end if we are to survive the next few years.

[Gheld]

The issue is it's often times not a choice. Pay more than what you have or die is very much the "choice" presented to people.

The problem is, being a third party who supports and has access to universal healthcare, that Obamacare is a disgustingly bloated piece of partisan legislation. In Canada, at the very core, health care is merely a federal court ruling which states that the right to life as outlined in the constitution should be interpreted to mean that provincial governments have the responsibility to ensure universal access to healthcare.

So although all of the provinces went with some slightly ineffective cookie cutter model for Healthcare the fact is that they didn't have to. I think a similar ruling in the States would be better; that states have the responsibility to ensure all citizens have affordable access to essential health services, leave it at that let them sort it out, and disassemble the bloated Medicaid monster, which is apparently so bloated that it passes Google chrome's spell check.

[goetz401]

While we all think that the right to healthcare is a great pursuit, I am always weary of any law passed by congress that they exempt themselves from. If the bill was so good, why did they exempt themselves from it?

That and the bailouts to companies with poor quality standards, ignorance of our nations traditions, and the constant chipping away at the Bill of Rights is the #1 reason I will not vote for him or most of the incumbents who are running this year.

specifically, what has obama done to "chip away" at the bill of rights and how does it compare to bush, clinton, bush? mandating health care coverage is not very different than mandating auto insurance or other kinds of insurance at the state level. the patriot act and congresses new bill to detain american terrorists are not obamas work and are the definition of killin the bill of rights.

[Badpaladin]

The issue of affordability is the real problem IMO, but there are other ways to solve it.

How does one solve that problem when private institutions are for-profit, prioritizing only the interests of their shareholders? I'm not saying I completely support Obamacare, but privatization is not the answer here.

[Kuthumii]

If you never end up with a medical problem; then sure, you've saved yourself a fair bit of money. However, if anything serious does ever happen to you, you'll get screwed over big time by various medical companies who are privatized instead of being public.

In the end, your choice, bet against your own health if you wish.

Do try to read and comprehend a person's post. He didn't say public health care was a bad thing. He indirectly made the point that so many people are saying people deserve free health care; but are to ignorant to understand nothing is free. We'd all pay for it via higher federal taxes.

US politicians can't be trusted to save. If we allow them to raise our taxes to cover the cost of this new health care system, they will eventually start funneling money out of it and into one of their pet projects. Thus, furthering our national debt and breaking the system. Take a gander at the Social Security System. I'm paying in right now, I will not be receiving anything when I am of the age to withdrawn because there are more people withdrawing now than there are people paying in. Money was taken from that system and diverted into another project, thus crippling the longevity of SS.

US politicians need to be cleansed.

As far as I'm concerned, Bush and Obama have destroyed this country. America is on its deathbed.

The rule of the Republimocrats needs to end if we are to survive the next few years.

A man who understands the true problem in the US right now. Couldn't agree more.

[Dwight Howard]

Republicans argue and whine, but can't offer a single good argument against universal healthcare. Everyone has a right to free treatment of any and all medical ailment, and I'm proud the Obama administration is paving the way toward this lofty goal.

I see you trollin', I'm hate'n

User infracted

[xylophone]

How does one solve that problem when private institutions are for-profit, prioritizing only the interests of their shareholders? I'm not saying I completely support Obamacare, but privatization is not the answer here.

Some ideas I've heard include allowing providers to cross state lines, increasing competition. Also reforming doctor liability laws, as it stands doctors pay rediculous premiums for malpractice insurance as a result of slip-and-fall lawyers.

[Kuthumii]

Some ideas I've heard include allowing providers to cross state lines, increasing competition. Also reforming doctor liability laws, as it stands doctors pay rediculous premiums for malpractice insurance as a result of slip-and-fall lawyers.

Texas took this route. It worked to a degree.

[Badpaladin]

Some ideas I've heard include allowing providers to cross state lines, increasing competition. Also reforming doctor liability laws, as it stands doctors pay rediculous premiums for malpractice insurance as a result of slip-and-fall lawyers.

No doubt it's a huge mess of a system right now -- I'm still apprehensive about privatization, though. Every company, regardless of borders, is going to have different policies that doctors have to adhere to. All other things aside, the sheer enormity and complexity involved with doctors trying to be as broad as they can would be a disaster. A possible solution is some sort of federal policy (one that's not very long and incapable of being loophole'd), but I also really don't trust the federal government enough right now to issue something reasonable.