lordmandeep
Banned
Imo Obama will be able to do anything else he wants but he will not succeed in health Care.
|
|
|
Universal Health Care - Still Not Possible in US
- Thread starter Brandon716
- Start date
kEiThZ
Superstar
+1
If he achieves half of what he's trying to accomplish on this file that'll be a notable success.
Roy G Biv
Senior Member
Canada should be proud it doesn't deal with this non-sense.
It's too bad, because the proposed multi-tiered US system would have been better than ours.
Brandon716
Senior Member
The public option they are speaking of can still deny benefits, there is no government mandate that they pay benefits. I hardly see how that can be better.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Compared to what's there now (no public option) isn't that better?
kEiThZ
Superstar
Yep, at some point we are going to have to have this discussion. I don't see how our system can be sustained as presently constituted. Health care is eating up more and more of the provincial budget. I don't mind more tax increases to support and expand the system (as long as they aren't regressive a la McGuinty). But I might be in the minority on this.
afransen
Senior Member
On the other hand, health care spending as a % of GDP in Canada has declined significantly over the long term. The reason why it seems to be gobbling an ever larger share of budgets is because government has been shrinking.
Brandon716
Senior Member
Here's what I find asinine about the US debate.
1) We have a failed health system that is clearly apparent. Tens of millions uninsured, tens of millions more under-insured with health plans that don't pay enough to matter. People die in our system more than any other advanced, civilized society on earth.
2) When it comes to debating how to fix it, they include only corporate voices and the heads of the insurance companies. Doctors have minimal voice, and there is no voice of the largest doctor group that supports single-payer to be at the negotiation table.
3) When they propose a plan that includes a public option - with no mandate to pay benefits - its only to 'compete' with the private market, and the cost of the program - since no cost controls are instituted - is reportedly almost double what they said it would be.
4) They use this cost excuse during the Congressional Committee meetings to point to the fact that a full public option isn't viable, and now they are talking about only reducing the number of uninsureds.
5) They never go back to the original problem: that in order to create health care for everyone that is affordable, you must institute a price schedule and start billing in bulk instead of per item via a single-payer method.
Instead of looking into the single-payer model, they start finding excuses and expanding the existing system.
1) We have a failed health system that is clearly apparent. Tens of millions uninsured, tens of millions more under-insured with health plans that don't pay enough to matter. People die in our system more than any other advanced, civilized society on earth.
2) When it comes to debating how to fix it, they include only corporate voices and the heads of the insurance companies. Doctors have minimal voice, and there is no voice of the largest doctor group that supports single-payer to be at the negotiation table.
3) When they propose a plan that includes a public option - with no mandate to pay benefits - its only to 'compete' with the private market, and the cost of the program - since no cost controls are instituted - is reportedly almost double what they said it would be.
4) They use this cost excuse during the Congressional Committee meetings to point to the fact that a full public option isn't viable, and now they are talking about only reducing the number of uninsureds.
5) They never go back to the original problem: that in order to create health care for everyone that is affordable, you must institute a price schedule and start billing in bulk instead of per item via a single-payer method.
Instead of looking into the single-payer model, they start finding excuses and expanding the existing system.
Brandon716
Senior Member
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/ushealt...zBHNlYwN5bi1yLWItbGVmdARzbGsDLW1vc3RpbnVzc3Vw
The public overwhelmingly supports a government option, if not total single-payer, yet the Democrats still won't do it with a commanding majority.
It is politically feasible to do it more than ever in American history, and the Democrats are blowing the chance. I am furious at the Democrats for being total sellouts until proven otherwise. If they amazingly get a public plan created I will be able to retract these statements, until then they are a disgrace of a party as the debate stands today.
The public overwhelmingly supports a government option, if not total single-payer, yet the Democrats still won't do it with a commanding majority.
It is politically feasible to do it more than ever in American history, and the Democrats are blowing the chance. I am furious at the Democrats for being total sellouts until proven otherwise. If they amazingly get a public plan created I will be able to retract these statements, until then they are a disgrace of a party as the debate stands today.
Roy G Biv
Senior Member
Yup, a total joke. This was the time.
So now basically they're just running up the deficit.
CodeMonkey
Active Member
Health Insurance companies and companies alike are like animals. If you corner them or show hostile force to their life, they will attack to survive.
jade_lee
Active Member
To those complaining about public money going into public health care costs. would you rather that public money go to banks and the auto industry?
Brandon716
Senior Member
Obama finally delivered his first strong, pointed support of a government option today, nearly two months after health discussions began. But within seconds of stating his support of a public option, he pulled back from the position.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_insurers_analysis
Even for a Democratic president, Barack Obama's challenge to health insurance companies and free market principles Tuesday was unusually pointed.
A government-run health insurance option is needed "to discipline insurance companies," he said, part of his rallying cry for comprehensive health care overhaul. If they can't compete, it's probably their fault. Many private insurers, he said, spend too much time thinking about profits instead of helping people.
The barbs were aimed at the Republican lawmakers and insurance industry groups that have criticized his plan while wrapping themselves in free enterprise's cloak. But the president, whose liberal supporters sometimes question his fervor for their causes, stopped short of fully committing to a public insurance option.
"We have not drawn lines in the sand," Obama said at a White House news conference. His call for a public insurance option, in other words, might become a bargaining chip as Congress grapples with sweeping proposals to revamp the nation's health care system.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_insurers_analysis
Even for a Democratic president, Barack Obama's challenge to health insurance companies and free market principles Tuesday was unusually pointed.
A government-run health insurance option is needed "to discipline insurance companies," he said, part of his rallying cry for comprehensive health care overhaul. If they can't compete, it's probably their fault. Many private insurers, he said, spend too much time thinking about profits instead of helping people.
The barbs were aimed at the Republican lawmakers and insurance industry groups that have criticized his plan while wrapping themselves in free enterprise's cloak. But the president, whose liberal supporters sometimes question his fervor for their causes, stopped short of fully committing to a public insurance option.
"We have not drawn lines in the sand," Obama said at a White House news conference. His call for a public insurance option, in other words, might become a bargaining chip as Congress grapples with sweeping proposals to revamp the nation's health care system.
Brandon716
Senior Member
Its worth noting the US has a shortage of primary care physicians as well, so we know the system of funding isn't the cause of the lack of docs.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31507763/ns/health-health_care/
I'm doubtful health reform will help encourage more primary care physicians as Canada also faces a shortage, but its interesting both nations face a lack of primary care physicians.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31507763/ns/health-health_care/
I'm doubtful health reform will help encourage more primary care physicians as Canada also faces a shortage, but its interesting both nations face a lack of primary care physicians.
kEiThZ
Superstar
^ In our case it's a combination of doctors here controlling the labour market (very tight licensing for foreign trained physicians) and an unwillingness on the part of provinces to spend more on educating more physicians. I'd like to see more effective use made of physician's assistants and nurses to help relieve the load on GPs. There's no reason somebody with a cold has to see a GP every time.