If you aren't sure what they are trying to accomplish, this should clarify it...

[Jamisjockey]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/03/obama-in-iowa-three-years-ago-we-made-a-promise-that-promise-has-been-kept.html

"It doesn’t do everything that everybody wants, but it moves us in the direction of universal health care coverage in this country, and that's why everybody here fought so hard for it.” -President Obama, Today.

[mellestad]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/03/obama-in-iowa-three-years-ago-we-made-a-promise-that-promise-has-been-kept.html

"It doesn’t do everything that everybody wants, but it moves us in the direction of universal health care coverage in this country, and that's why everybody here fought so hard for it.” -President Obama, Today.

This was a secret?

[Jamisjockey]

This was a secret?

Kind of.  Before the election he said he was for a single payer Universal system.  Now, He keeps saying he's not trying to take over the Health Care system, and that this bill wasn't about universal health care.  But then immediately today he reverses and says its intent was to start us towards Universal Health Care. 

[Perd Hapley]

Is it possible that by Universal Coverage, he meant that everyone not covered privately would get govt. coverage? 

Or not?

[Battle Monkey of Zardoz]

It's not about universial coverage. It's real simple. Each according to their need ..........paid for by each that have a work ethic.

YMMV

[Nitrogen]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/03/obama-in-iowa-three-years-ago-we-made-a-promise-that-promise-has-been-kept.html

"It doesn’t do everything that everybody wants, but it moves us in the direction of universal health care coverage in this country, and that's why everybody here fought so hard for it.” -President Obama, Today.

I don't think this is a bad thing, but I 'm sure most of you disagree with me on THAT topic.

I think Obama is honest when he says "HE" doesn't want to nationalize healthcare, or, more honestly, that he can't do it, even if he wanted to.

HAving said that, I do not support new taxes if/when we do this.  There's plenty to cut in the federal budget to more than pay for it.
I'd even support a huge cut in SS benefits in order to accomplish this.

Whatever happens, as long as we can still get private insurance for an increased standard of care (like what happens in Canada and the UK) I'm not terribly worried about it, as long as taxes don't change.

(yeah, I was annoyed that we have new taxes for this reform effort, as I said above, plenty of other garbage can be cut to pay for it.)

[mellestad]

Kind of.  Before the election he said he was for a single payer Universal system.  Now, He keeps saying he's not trying to take over the Health Care system, and that this bill wasn't about universal health care.  But then immediately today he reverses and says its intent was to start us towards Universal Health Care. 

Hmm.  If I had to interpret, I would imagine he meant the current bill in its current form is no longer about universal health care...it obviously is not.

I was not aware he ever backed off on wanting a universal, public health care option though.  Heck, that is what many of his voters want.  I guess I just missed the part where he ever claimed that it was not his overall goal.

[longeyes]

Universal--except for the Politburo.

How do you say Cadillac plan in Russian?

[41magsnub]

Universal--except for the Politburo.

How do you say Cadillac plan in Russian?

ZIL plan!

[grey54956]

He's not trying to take over the Health Care System.

He's trying to kill it.  Nuke it from orbit.  Utterly destroy it.

[Jamisjockey]

Hmm.  If I had to interpret, I would imagine he meant the current bill in its current form is no longer about universal health care...it obviously is not.

I was not aware he ever backed off on wanting a universal, public health care option though.  Heck, that is what many of his voters want.  I guess I just missed the part where he ever claimed that it was not his overall goal.

He's been very careful to not say Universal coverage for awhile. 


And yes, the current bill is about universal coverage.  This is the Canadian model.  They didn't go single payer overnight.  They incrementally chipped away at thier system and rebuilt it as single payer.

[zahc]

The key to implementing universal care will be to completely cripple the current system, then yell how the 'free market' has failed us, and then swoop in to save everyone and 'do it right'.

[MillCreek]

I cannot help but wonder how the opinion here might change if you lost your job and your health insurance coverage. 

[makattak]

I cannot help but wonder how the opinion here might change if you lost your job and your health insurance coverage. 

So, if I lose my job and selfishly want to suck at the teat of government, that means it's the best system?

You know there are other means by which we can decouple employment and "health insurance," right?

[MillCreek]

So, if I lose my job and selfishly want to suck at the teat of government, that means it's the best system?

You know there are other means by which we can decouple employment and "health insurance," right?

I don't know about the best, but I certainly believe in the concept of a safety net for society.  Most of the rugged individualists here generally do not, though, unless we bring back the Dickensian concept of the workhouse. 

I also know that unlike pretty much anyone else here on this board, I actually work in healthcare and I see the consequences of not having adequate insurance and healthcare everyday amongst our uninsured patients.  For good or ill, healthcare and the insurance to pay for it is largely linked to employment.  Coming up with an alternative to that link, in order to provide for at least some level of healthcare for the uninsured, is a good thing as far as I am concerned. 

And mak, if you paid into the system, is it not appropriate that the system be there for you when you need it?  Or if you lose your job, will you decline any unemployment, welfare or other government assistance? 

[HankB]

. . . I actually work in healthcare and I see the consequences of not having adequate insurance and healthcare everyday amongst our uninsured patients . . .

Just out of curiosity, from your experience what percentage of the uninsured seeking treatment would you guess are illegal aliens? 5%? 10%? More?

[MillCreek]

Just out of curiosity, from your experience what percentage of the uninsured seeking treatment would you guess are illegal aliens? 5%? 10%? More?

Here in the Seattle area, it is much lower than in other areas of the country.  The healthcare system that I work for also has hospitals and clinics in Southern California, and I bet the percentage is higher there, although I have not seen actual numbers.  I suspect that the percentage probably correlates with the overall percentage of illegal aliens in a given area.  Many of our illegal aliens in this area are from Canada.

[Jamisjockey]

I don't believe in a government safety net.  Period. 

[mellestad]

I don't know about the best, but I certainly believe in the concept of a safety net for society.  Most of the rugged individualists here generally do not, though, unless we bring back the Dickensian concept of the workhouse. 

I also know that unlike pretty much anyone else here on this board, I actually work in healthcare and I see the consequences of not having adequate insurance and healthcare everyday amongst our uninsured patients.  For good or ill, healthcare and the insurance to pay for it is largely linked to employment.  Coming up with an alternative to that link, in order to provide for at least some level of healthcare for the uninsured, is a good thing as far as I am concerned. 

And mak, if you paid into the system, is it not appropriate that the system be there for you when you need it?  Or if you lose your job, will you decline any unemployment, welfare or other government assistance? 

That has been my opinion.  The social cost of not having a safety net seems greater than the monetary cost of having one.  I don't want to live in a country with no social services or safety nets, and most Americans don't want to either...even if they do hate whatever the socialist evil of the day is.  But APS has an unusual concentration of hard core libertarian types.

[longeyes]

Where's the give-back? 

When my mother was in a nursing home--she paid her own way, depleting her savings--I don't remember welfare kids coming around with kind words and baskets of flowers.  That would be the LAST thing they'd consider doing.

[alex_trebek]

Why must every safety net be managed by the gov? Even then why must every net be managed by the FED gov?

Is it so wrong for the state gov to manage a system if it finds need for one?

Is it so wrong for private groups to donate healthcare to the poor?

Millcreek:

please don't think that I am criticising you, but if you are bothered by poor people's healthcare woes why not offer your services for free on your own time. Or start a group of Dr's ,RN's, PA's, etc that go around helping the poor?

Generosity does not come from the government. It comes from individuals.

[MillCreek]

^^^ I do.  And the faith-based healthcare system that I work for provides millions of dollars per year in charity care, much of it uncompensated by anyone, private or government payors.  

I am sure that you also donate your time and money to charitable causes too, correct?

[Fjolnirsson]

I cannot help but wonder how the opinion here might change if you lost your job and your health insurance coverage. 

I can tell you. Last year, I was adamantly against the Health Care Bill. I lost my job in November, and remained adamantly against it. I am still, nay, even more Adamantly against it, after it was passed. Sucks to be me, so far as healthcare goes, but that's no reason other people should be expected to pay for me. Further, I'd be in favor of health care reform that was actually reform. For example, tort reform. Or stripping of some of the endless reams of paper the government requires health care providers to fill out, which causes them to hire more clerks, which costs me more money.

Having no health care coverage sucks, but bankrupting my grandchildren and destroying 1/6th of our nations economy sucks more.

[MillCreek]

^^^ And yet, you had the safety net of EMTALA.  The Federal law requiring hospitals to treat all patients who present to the emergency department, regardless of their ability to pay.  This is a major loss of income for most hospitals. 

If the choice is dying, removing your own inflamed appendix with a butter knife or going to the local ED, I suspect even the hard-core libertarians may be willing to bend on this just a tad.

[mellestad]

^^^ And yet, you had the safety net of EMTALA.  The Federal law requiring hospitals to treat all patients who present to the emergency department, regardless of their ability to pay.  This is a major loss of income for most hospitals. 

If the choice is dying, removing your own inflamed appendix with a butter knife or going to the local ED, I suspect even the hard-core libertarians may be willing to bend on this just a tad.

And that is the crux of it, isn't it?  One of the main ideas of this health care bill is the fact that people pay for a safety net whether it is 'there' or not.  Unless we are literally willing to let broke people die in the street, we *are* paying for universal health care.  With that understanding, why not pay the cost up front so we can actually manage it, instead of pretending it doesn't exist while we pay anyway through increased costs of service and higher insurance premiums?

There are at least some on this board who have stated they are willing to live in a society where there is no safety net at all, with the full understanding of what that means.  But most people do not, even though the push the ideology.