Obama sends out dishonest hit piece...real "politics of hope"

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Hillary for you has always "sunk to a new low" because you found some graphic from some right wing website...stuff so ridiculously out of context or just plain wrong that Obama peddlers on the internet won't even push it (and believe me, they'll push anything anti-hillary)

Obama does something and "it's not entirely accurate"

Holy double standard batman

Some could say Obama's new BFF Kennedy "simply made an accidental wrong turn" in 1969

The new Obama-Kennedy campaign team running through the country...is that morally superior while Bill isn't saying one mean word to anyone and Hillary is out campaining on her own, winning voters on issues, not attacks or underhanded mailers

Are you implying that under Hillary's plan there will be no lower income people passing up healthcare because they can't afford it? The ad is fairly accurate. What's wrong is that it seems to imply the problem would be widespread. And I do take issue with that. If it were a growing and consistent pattern of his campaign I'd be more upset. Hillary already did the same thing to him regarding abortion in numerous states. Doesn't give him the right to do it back and I don't think he should have stooped to her level, but it hasn't become a pattern.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Are you implying that under Hillary's plan there will be no lower income people passing up healthcare because they can't afford it? The ad is fairly accurate. What's wrong is that it seems to imply the problem would be widespread. And I do take issue with that. If it were a growing pattern of his campaign I'd be more upset.

You need to rephrase that

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by motivez

The primary problems (as I see them) with insurance is the nature of the beast, not because of anything related to the government.. as I said, competition only gets so far, but you can't change the nature of the beast by making more options of the same creature available.

When you have a company that makes money by allowing people to die, and everyone admits a company should try to make as much money as possible, there's a pretty obvious consequence to that mentality.

As far as it being a disaster overseas, like I've said.. none of the people I know from Europe would trade their system for ours, so while I don't think either system is perfect.. a system in which people are able to get coverage without allowing greedy corporations to profit off their deaths is a far more ethical system.

1) Nature of the beast in this case is the insurance companies need to make money. But making money makes them incredibly efficient but that also means that some bad things happen I will acknowledge that. But government does cause a problem because government keeps these companies from capitalizing on competition and free market effeciencies.

2) Most would argue that a companies obligations are to its STAKEHOLDERS not necessarily its shareholders, though they are included in the stakeholders umbrella. Furthermore, our society frowns upon letting people die to make more money though it does indeed happen, if the companies were allowed to freely compete we could drop the companies that treat people like shit could we not?

3) Talking to people in Europe who only hear the bad about our system is hardly an indicator of which is best. As I've stated before two friends of mine began their med school in the UK, the system according to them is a disaster. In fact Ash flew back to the US to get into a specialist because the wait times in the UK were horrendous.

4) I think you raise a good point despite my arguing points 1 through 3. I think it is absurd to believe that people are perfect and as such companies specifically insurance companies would make the right decisions. I believe these companies need to be allowed to compete across state borders. I also believe we need to computerize the medical industry as Hillary has stated numerous times. We also need to cap medical malpractice lawsuits except in extreme cases (like a limb gets amputated by mistake or something similar, in that case get as much blingage as you can).

5) Having said all of the above I do believe that government could perhaps help in this industry through VERY LIMITED mandates. I mean mandating that people need to be accepted with pre existing conditions and that you can not turn someone down simply to save money. If someone needs a kidney, liver or heart they NEED TO GET IT especially since they've paid their premiums. Not doing it is immoral and agregious.

6) I'd also be in favor of a catastrophic coverage option from the feds. This would lift a huge burden off the insurance community, the business community and indvidiuals and keep the industry largely private. But it would prevent people from having to file bankruptcy because they got cancer which in my opinion is truly sickening.

Just my brief thoughts on a very difficult subject.

[JaJae]

Off the line from Ron:

http://www.libertylounge.net/forums/...n-tapping.html
AP - Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to garnish the wages of workers who refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans.

The New York senator has criticized presidential rival Barack Obama for pushing a health plan that would not require universal coverage. Clinton has not always specified the enforcement measures she would embrace, but when pressed on ABC's "This Week," she said: "I think there are a number of mechanisms" that are possible, including "going after people's wages, automatic enrollment."

Clinton said such measures would apply only to workers who can afford health coverage but refuse to buy it, which puts undue pressure on hospitals and emergency rooms. With her proposals for subsidies, she said, "it will be affordable for everyone."

I understand there are a lot of different forms of socialism out there. And I understand a lot of people don't think Hillary's plan is exactly socialist in nature because it's different from socialized healthcare in Europe.

Her plan basically includes taking money out of people's paychecks against their will and enrolling them into government healthcare programs or programs selected by the government. If this isn't socialist, can someone please explain how it is capitalist?

And who gets to decide who can and can't afford healthcare? She claims to have a comprehensive health care plan. Where is the cutoff? Why haven't I read anything about it? There's no specifics. Even how she's going to enforce her federal mandates on us is still up in the air.

[Thorgrim]

Let's hit these out one by one:

You're honestly worried that the party that thought a family making 60,000 was below the poverty line for SCHIP is going to screw over the middle class?

It's not "socialist" for obvious reasons I won't go into...why is it "capitalist"? Because you're going to have a mail-like environment, where you have the government and private business going after the same customers, they compete in an open market...if anything the government is at a disadvantage because they would seem to be at risk for getting the sickest and poorest customers

Money is taken out of your check for social security, you want to rattle about how that's socialist go ahead, also they take out taxes, which as we all know goes to things like welfare, iraq, roads, the weather service, et al

She's laid out a detailed road map...you don't actually write a bunch of bills and run for president, because such specifics would mean you'd get nothing at the negotiating table

Any intelligent person knows the GOP is going to water down UHC as much as possible, so if she comes in 2009 with her general outline, and fills in the details with higher costing solutions, the GOP will counter with her general outline and lower costing solutions, and no filibuster...if she gave all the details, she'd be dooming things she thinks are key because 40% of the country which will vote Republican will demand the GOP does SOMETHING to weaken UHC

The biggest point:

What she is trying to prevent is that 25 year old single investment banker making six figures a year and feels in great shape, and in between his coke he parties like a champ...now he refuses to pay heathcare because the only time he'd need to see a doctor would be if he overdosed

To be honest I haven't "needed" to see a doctor in probably almost a decade (the shoulder thing i could have worked out with ib profen and pain tolerance...and obviously most people don't even have what i got)

It's simply NEEDED, and if people won't pay...there's only one realistic way to get the money

Otherwise, no universal healthcare, and we're left with the mess we have now...which, despite what you think, americans DON'T want

[JaJae]

You seem to have ignored the very premise or idea laid out in my post. Forcing people into health care of the government's choosing and garnishing their pay for it is not competing in the open market by any incredulous stretch of the definition.

[bheld]

Somebody already mentioned "death by spreadsheet," now you want to mandate that we give these insurance companies money? How is the situation going to improve when you start squeezing their margins by making them take everybody that applies for coverage? It's going to increase denials.

Neither one of them has a great plan, but Hillary's is terrible.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by bheld

Somebody already mentioned "death by spreadsheet," now you want to mandate that we give these insurance companies money? How is the situation going to improve when you start squeezing their margins by making them take everybody that applies for coverage? It's going to increase denials.

Neither one of them has a great plan, but Hillary's is terrible.

Excellent point.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

You seem to have ignored the very premise or idea laid out in my post. Forcing people into health care of the government's choosing and garnishing their pay for it is not competing in the open market by any incredulous stretch of the definition.

You choose, not the government

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by bheld

Somebody already mentioned "death by spreadsheet," now you want to mandate that we give these insurance companies money? How is the situation going to improve when you start squeezing their margins by making them take everybody that applies for coverage? It's going to increase denials.

Neither one of them has a great plan, but Hillary's is terrible.

Obama says his plan is great, you disagree? You like McCain's plan better, what's your solution?

BTW I don't get how the companies are forced to take in everyone for insurance yet at the same time their denials for taking someone in for insurance are going to go up...which isn't even the case anyway

[bheld]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Obama says his plan is great, you disagree? You like McCain's plan better, what's your solution?

BTW I don't get how the companies are forced to take in everyone for insurance yet at the same time their denials for taking someone in for insurance are going to go up...which isn't even the case anyway

See my post in the other thread. I'm talking about denial of care, not denial of coverage. People will get insurance but there will be more of the "death by spreadsheet" effect.

[Thorgrim]

Both Obama and Hillary have said denial of care will be outlawed as a general policy

[bheld]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Both Obama and Hillary have said denial of care will be outlawed as a general policy

I think you're talking about denial of insurance coverage. Mandating that there be no denial of benefits to the insured would be assuming that there are absolutely zero restrictions on resources. You can't expect the government to force a company to pay out for everything. If that's the case what is the point of the insurance company even being involved?

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by bheld

I think you're talking about denial of insurance coverage. Mandating that there be no denial of benefits to the insured would be assuming that there are absolutely zero restrictions on resources. You can't expect the government to force a company to pay out for everything. If that's the case what is the point of the insurance company even being involved?

No denial of benefits that would risk life or limb

Companies are already forced to pay out "everything" under many circumstances...diabetes has a significant portion caused by obesity, yet there are mandates where insurance companies are forced to help those people without charging them more...strangely enough insurance still exists

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

You choose, not the government

Not always...

Originally Posted by Hillary Clinton

"I think there are a number of mechanisms" that are possible, including "going after people's wages, automatic enrollment."

[bheld]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

No denial of benefits that would risk life or limb

Companies are already forced to pay out "everything" under many circumstances...diabetes has a significant portion caused by obesity, yet there are mandates where insurance companies are forced to help those people without charging them more...strangely enough insurance still exists

Why is there a problem with the current system then? How do you explain the death of Natalie Sarkisyan? Cigna denied her treatment and she died. That's going to be more commonplace.

Look, there are restraints. If we're honest about it care is going to have to be rationed somehow. The point is that if you're going to mandate insurance companies take all comers and then mandate that you pay for everything that they want/need, there isn't a point for going through private corporations in the first place. All that does is basically pay private companies a big bonus for administering a program you could do on your own for less.

It's a law of nature that medical care must be rationed. What we need to be sure of is that corporate profits do not factor at all into the equation.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Not always...

That has nothing to do with what organization you choose...it's your choice

[bheld]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Not always...

And that's a great example of government behaving just like conservatives love to see. A gigantic, lumbering oaf that never saw a system it couldn't make more complicated.

Why create a sleek system that actually distributes the true costs of health care more fairly when we can just force you to buy private health insurance by taking it directly out of your already meager paycheck? Instead of going after the root of the problem, let's exacerbate it and force people that already can't afford it to shoulder more of the burden for taking care of people that have no reason to stop killing themselves.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

That has nothing to do with what organization you choose...it's your choice

There won't be any choices that are any good. It's either going to make health care even more unaffordable, deny more benefits, or simply drive the insurance companies out of business.