Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 226
view profile
History
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percentPage 10 of 14    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)
Well, this might be a good time to remember to quote a well known socialist, 'cause you know how those people are.


To the Congress of the United States:

One of the most cherished goals of our democracy is to assure every American an equal opportunity to lead a full and productive life.

In the last quarter century, we have made remarkable progress toward that goal, opening the doors to millions of our fellow countrymen who were seeking equal opportunities in education, jobs and voting.

Now it is time that we move forward again in still another critical area: health care.

Without adequate health care, no one can make full use of his or her talents and opportunities. It is thus just as important that economic, racial and social barriers not stand in the way of good health care as it is to eliminate those barriers to a good education and a good job.

Three years ago, I proposed a major health insurance program to the Congress, seeking to guarantee adequate financing of health care on a nationwide basis. That proposal generated widespread discussion and useful debate. But no legislation reached my desk.

Today the need is even more pressing because of the higher costs of medical care. Efforts to control medical costs under the New Economic Policy have been Inept with encouraging success, sharply reducing the rate of inflation for health care. Nevertheless, the overall cost of health care has still risen by more than 20 percent in the last two and one-half years, so that more and more Americans face staggering bills when they receive medical help today:

--Across the Nation, the average cost of a day of hospital care now exceeds $110.
--The average cost of delivering a baby and providing postnatal care approaches $1,000.
--The average cost of health care for terminal cancer now exceeds $20,000.


For the average family, it is clear that without adequate insurance, even normal care can 'be a financial burden while a catastrophic illness can mean catastrophic debt.

Beyond the question of the prices of health care, our present system of health care insurance suffers from two major flaws :

First, even though more Americans carry health insurance than ever before, the 25 million Americans who remain uninsured often need it the most and are most unlikely to obtain it. They include many who work in seasonal or transient occupations, high-risk cases, and those who are ineligible for Medicaid despite low incomes.

Second, those Americans who do carry health insurance often lack coverage which is balanced, comprehensive and fully protective:

--Forty percent of those who are insured are not covered for visits to physicians on an out-patient basis, a gap that creates powerful incentives toward high cost care in hospitals;
--Few people have the option of selecting care through prepaid arrangements offered by Health Maintenance Organizations so the system at large does not benefit from the free choice and creative competition this would offer;
--Very few private policies cover preventive services;
--Most health plans do not contain built-in incentives to reduce waste and inefficiency. The extra costs of wasteful practices are passed on, of course, to consumers; and
--Fewer than half of our citizens under 65--and almost none over 65--have major medical coverage which pays for the cost of catastrophic illness.

These gaps in health protection can have tragic consequences. They can cause people to delay seeking medical attention until it is too late. Then a medical crisis ensues, followed by huge medical bills--or worse. Delays in treatment can end in death or lifelong disability
.

COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN (CHIP)

Early last year, I directed the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to prepare a new and improved plan for comprehensive health insurance. That plan, as I indicated in my State of the Union message, has been developed and I am presenting it to the Congress today. I urge its enactment as soon as possible.

The plan is organized around seven principles:

First, it offers every American an opportunity to obtain a balanced, comprehensive range of health insurance benefits;

Second, it will cost no American more than he can afford to pay;
Third, it builds on the strength and diversity of our existing public and private systems of health financing and harmonizes them into an overall system;

Fourth, it uses public funds only where needed and requires no new Federal taxes;

Fifth, it would maintain freedom of choice by patients and ensure that doctors work for their patient, not for the Federal Government.

Sixth, it encourages more effective use of our health care resources;

And finally, it is organized so that all parties would have a direct stake in making the system work--consumer, provider, insurer, State governments and the Federal Government.


BROAD AND BALANCED PROTECTION FOR ALL AMERICANS

Upon adoption of appropriate Federal and State legislation, the Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan would offer to every American the same broad and balanced health protection through one of three major programs:

--Employee Health Insurance, covering most Americans and offered at their place of employment, with the cost to be shared by the employer and employee on a basis which would prevent excessive burdens on either;

--Assisted Health Insurance, covering low-income persons, and persons who would be ineligible for the other two programs, with Federal and State government paying those costs beyond the means of the individual who is insured; and,

--An improved Medicare Plan, covering those 65 and over and offered through a Medicare system that is modified to include additional, needed benefits.
One of these three plans would be available to every American, but for everyone, participation in the program would be voluntary.

The benefits offered by the three plans would be identical for all Americans, regardless of age or income. Benefits would be provided for:
--hospital care;
--physicians' care in and out of the hospital;
--prescription and life-saving drugs;
--laboratory tests and X-rays;
--medical devices;
--ambulance services; and,
--other ancillary health care.

There would be no exclusions of coverage based on the nature of the illness. For example, a person with heart disease would qualify for benefits as would a person with kidney disease.

In addition, CHIP would cover treatment for mental illness, alcoholism and drug addiction, whether that treatment were provided in hospitals and physicians' offices or in community based settings.

Certain nursing home services and other convalescent services would also be covered. For example, home health services would be covered so that long and costly stays in nursing homes could be averted where possible.

The health needs of children would come in for special attention, since many conditions, if detected in childhood, can be prevented from causing lifelong disability and learning handicaps. Included in these services for children would be:
--preventive care up to age six;
--eye examinations;
--hearing examinations; and,
--regular dental care up to age 13.

Under the Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan, a doctor's decisions could be based on the health care needs of his patients, not on health insurance coverage. This difference is essential for quality care.

Every American participating in the program would be insured for catastrophic illnesses that can eat away savings and plunge individuals and families into hopeless debt for years. No family would ever have annual out-of-pocket expenses for covered health services in excess of $1,500, and low-income families would face substantially smaller expenses.

As part of this program, every American who participates in the program would receive a Health-card when the plan goes into effect in his State. This card, similar to a credit card, would be honored by hospitals, nursing homes, emergency rooms, doctors, and clinics across the country. This card could also be used to identify information on blood type and .sensitivity to particular drugs-information which might be important in an emergency.


Bills for the services paid for with the Health-card would be sent to the insurance carrier who would reimburse the provider of the care for covered services, then bill the patient for his share, if any.

The entire program would become effective in 1976, assuming that the plan is promptly enacted by the Congress.

HOW EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE WOULD WORK

Every employer would be required to offer all full-time employees the Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan. Additional benefits could then be added by mutual agreement. The insurance plan would be jointly financed, with employers paying 65 percent of the premium for the first three years of the plan, and 75 percent thereafter. Employees would pay the balance of the premiums. Temporary Federal subsidies would be used to ease the initial burden on employers who face significant cost increases.

Individuals covered by the plan would pay the first $150 in annual medical expenses. A separate $50 deductible provision would apply for out-patient drugs. There would be a maximum of three medical deductibles per family.


After satisfying this deductible limit, an enrollee would then pay for 25 percent of additional bills. However, $1,500 per year would be the absolute dollar limit on any family's medical expenses for covered services in any one year.

As an interim measure, the Medicaid program would be continued to meet certain needs, primarily long-term institutional care. I do not consider our current approach to long-term care desirable because it can lead to overemphasis on institutional as opposed to home care. The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare has undertaken a thorough study of the appropriate institutional services which should be included in health insurance and other programs and will report his findings to me.

IMPROVING MEDICARE

The Medicare program now provides medical protection for over 23 million older Americans. Medicare, however, does not cover outpatient drugs, nor does it limit total out-of-pocket costs. It is still possible for an elderly person to be financially devastated by a lengthy illness even with Medicare coverage.
I therefore propose that Medicare's benefits be improved so that Medicare would provide the same benefits offered to other Americans under Employee Health Insurance and Assisted Health Insurance.

Any person 65 or over, eligible to receive Medicare payments, would ordinarily, under my modified Medicare plan, pay the first $100 for care received during a year, and the first $50 toward outpatient drugs. He or she would also pay 20 percent of any bills above the deductible limit. But in no case would any Medicare beneficiary have to pay more than $750 in out-of-pocket costs. The premiums and cost sharing for those with low incomes would be reduced, with public funds making up the difference.

The current program of Medicare for the disabled would be replaced. Those now in the Medicare for the disabled plan would be eligible for Assisted Health Insurance, which would provide better coverage for those with high medical costs and low incomes.

Premiums for most people under the new Medicare program would be roughly equal to that which is now payable under Part B of Medicare--the Supplementary Medical Insurance program.

HOW ASSISTED HEALTH INSURANCE WOULD WORK

The program of Assisted Health Insurance is designed to cover everyone not offered coverage under Employee Health Insurance or Medicare, including the unemployed, the disabled, the self-employed, and those with low incomes. In addition, persons with higher incomes could also obtain Assisted Health Insurance if they cannot otherwise get coverage at reasonable rates. Included in this latter group might be persons whose health status or type of work puts them in high-risk insurance categories.

Assisted Health Insurance would thus fill many of the gaps in our present health insurance system and would ensure that for the first time in our Nation's history, all Americans would have financial access to health protection regardless of income or circumstances.

A principal feature of Assisted Health Insurance is that it relates premiums and out-of-pocket expenses to the income of the person or family enrolled. Working families with incomes of up to $5,000, for instance, would pay no premiums at all. Deductibles, co-insurance, and maximum liability would all be pegged to income levels.

Assisted Health Insurance would replace State-run Medicaid for most services. Unlike Medicaid, where benefits vary in each State, this plan would establish uniform benefit and eligibility standards for all low-income persons. It would also eliminate artificial barriers to enrollment or access to health care.

COSTS OF COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH INSURANCE

When fully effective, the total new costs of CHIP to the Federal and State governments would be about $6.9 billion with an additional small amount for transitional assistance for small and low wage employers:

--The Federal Government would add about $5.9 billion over the cost of continuing existing programs to finance health care for low-income or high risk persons.

--State governments would add about $1.0 billion over existing Medicaid spending for the same purpose, though these added costs would be largely, if not wholly offset by reduced State and local budgets for direct provision of services.

--The Federal Government would provide assistance to small and low wage employers which would initially cost about $450 million but be phased out over five years.

For the average American family, what all of these figures reduce to is simply this:

--The national average family cost for health insurance premiums each year under Employee Health Insurance would be about $150; the employer would pay approximately $450 for each employee who participates in the plan.

--Additional family costs for medical care would vary according to need and use, but in no case would a family have to pay more than $1,500 in any one year for covered services.

--No additional taxes would be needed to pay for the cost of CHIP. The Federal funds needed to pay for this plan could all be drawn from revenues that would be generated by the present tax structure. I am opposed to any comprehensive health plan which requires new taxes.

MAKING THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM WORK BETTER

Any program to finance health care for the Nation must take close account of two critical and related problems--cost and quality.

When Medicare and Medicaid went into effect, medical prices jumped almost twice as fast as living costs in general in the next five years. These programs increased demand without increasing supply proportionately and higher costs resulted.

This escalation of medical prices must not recur when the Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan goes into effect. One way to prevent an escalation is to increase the supply of physicians, which is now taking place at a rapid rate. Since 1965, the number of first-year enrollments in medical schools has increased 55 percent. By 1980, the Nation should have over 440,000 physicians, or roughly one-third more than today. We are also taking steps to train persons in allied health occupations, who can extend the services of the physician.

With these and other efforts already underway, the Nation's health manpower supply will be able to meet the additional demands that will be placed on it.

Other measures have also been taken to contain medical prices. Under the New Economic Policy, hospital cost increases have been cut almost in half from their post-Medicare highs, and the rate of increase in physician fees has slowed substantially. It is extremely important that these successes be continued as we move toward our goal of comprehensive health insurance protection for all Americans. I will, therefore, recommend to the Congress that the Cost of Living Council's authority to control medical care costs be extended.

To contain medical costs effectively over the long-haul, however, basic reforms in the financing and delivery of care are also needed. We need a system with built-in incentives that operates more efficiently and reduces the losses from waste and duplication of effort. Everyone pays for this inefficiency through their health premiums and medical bills.

The measure I am recommending today therefore contains a number of proposals designed to contain costs, improve the efficiency of the system and assure quality health care. These proposals include:

1. HEALTH MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATIONS (HMO'S)

On December 29, 1973, I signed into law legislation designed to stimulate, through Federal aid, the establishment of prepaid comprehensive care organizations. HMO's have proved an effective means for delivering health care and the CHIP plan requires that they be offered as an option for the individual and the family as soon as they become available. This would encourage more freedom of choice for both patients and providers, while fostering diversity in our medical care delivery system.

2. PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS REVIEW ORGANIZATIONS (PSRO'S)

I also contemplate in my proposal a provision that would place health services provided under CHIP under the review of Professional Standards Review Organizations. These PSRO's would be charged with maintaining high standards of care and reducing needless hospitalization. Operated 'by groups of private physicians, professional review organizations can do much to ensure quality care while helping to bring about significant savings in health costs.

3. MORE BALANCED GROWTH IN HEALTH FACILITIES

Another provision of this legislation would call on the States to review building plans for hospitals, nursing homes and other health facilities. Existing health insurance has overemphasized the placement of patients in hospitals and nursing homes. Under this artificial stimulus, institutions have felt impelled to keep adding bed space. This has produced a growth of almost 75 percent in the number of hospital beds in the last twenty years, so that now we have a surplus of beds in many places and a poor mix of facilities in others. Under the legislation I am submitting, States can begin remedying this costly imbalance.

4. STATE ROLE

Another important provision of this legislation calls on the States to review the operation of health insurance carriers within their jurisdiction. The States would approve specific plans, oversee rates, ensure adequate disclosure, require an annual audit and take other appropriate measures. For health care providers, the States would assure fair reimbursement for physician services, drugs and institutional services, including a prospective reimbursement system for hospitals.

A number of States have shown that an effective job can be done in containing costs. Under my proposal all States would have an incentive to do the same. Only with effective cost control measures can States ensure that the citizens receive the increased health care they need and at rates they can afford. Failure on the part of States to enact the necessary authorities would prevent them from receiving any Federal support of their State-administered health assistance plan.

MAINTAINING A PRIVATE ENTERPRISE APPROACH

My proposed plan differs sharply with several of the other health insurance plans which have been prominently discussed. The primary difference is that my proposal would rely extensively on private insurers.

Any insurance company which could offer those benefits would be a potential supplier. Because private employers would have to provide certain basic benefits to their employees, they would have an incentive to seek out the best insurance company proposals and insurance companies would have an incentive to offer their plans at the lowest possible prices. If, on the other hand, the Government were to act as the insurer, there would be no competition and little incentive to hold down costs.

There is a huge reservoir of talent and skill in administering and designing health plans within the private sector. That pool of talent should be put to work.

It is also important to understand that the CHIP plan preserves basic freedoms for both the patient and doctor. The patient would continue to have a freedom of choice between doctors. The doctors would continue to work for their patients, not the Federal Government. By contrast, some of the national health plans that have been proposed in the Congress would place the entire health system under the heavy hand of the Federal Government, would add considerably to our tax burdens, and would threaten to destroy the entire system of medical care that has been so carefully built in America.

I firmly believe we should capitalize on the skills and facilities already in place, not replace them and start from scratch with a huge Federal bureaucracy to add to the ones we already have.

COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN--A PARTNERSHIP EFFORT

No program will work unless people want it to work. Everyone must have a stake in the process.

This Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan has been designed so that everyone involved would have both a stake in making it work and a role to play in the process consumer, provider, health insurance carrier, the States and the Federal Government. It is a partnership program in every sense.

By sharing costs, consumers would have a direct economic stake in choosing and using their community's health resources wisely and prudently. They would be assisted by requirements that physicians and other providers of care make available to patients full information on fees, hours of operation and other matters affecting the qualifications of providers. But they would not have to go it alone either: doctors, hospitals and other providers of care would also have a direct stake in making the Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan work. This program has been designed to relieve them of much of the red tape, confusion and delays in reimbursement that plague them under the bewildering assortment of public and private financing systems that now exist. Health-cards would relieve them of troublesome bookkeeping. Hospitals could be hospitals, not bill collecting agencies.

CONCLUSION

Comprehensive health insurance is an idea whose time has come in America.

There has long been a need to assure every American financial access to high quality health care. As medical costs go up, that need grows more pressing.

Now, for the first time, we have not just the need but the will to get this job done. There is widespread support in the Congress and in the Nation for some form of comprehensive health insurance.

Surely if we have the will, 1974 should also be the year that we find the way.

The plan that I am proposing today is, I believe, the very best way. Improvements can be made in it, of course, and the Administration stands ready to work with the Congress, the medical profession, and others in making those changes.

But let us not be led to an extreme program that would place the entire health care system under the dominion of social planners in Washington.

Let us continue to have doctors who work for their patients, not for the Federal Government. Let us build upon the strengths of the medical system we have now, not destroy it.

Indeed, let us act sensibly. And let us act now--in 1974--to assure all Americans financial access to high quality medical care.

RICHARD NIXON
The White House,
February 6, 1974.

[url]http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2009/September/03/nixon-proposal.aspx[/url]


Almost twenty six years ago to the day. So long ago, n fact, that a Republican President could actually be a socialist.





 tmak18
Joined: 11/8/2009
Msg: 227
view profile
History
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 2/9/2010 10:51:04 PM
We as BEINGS should care about one race and that race being the HUMAN RACE. How can we as decent people watch others die because he/she can't afford heath care??? America the great nation!? The only western country that doesn't provide EVERY ONE citizen the health care WE NEED. You know having an healthcare for everyone and raising the tax just a little won't hurt us. It will help us. There will be less stress in America that's for sure. Take a look at Canada, France, Great Britian, Cuba, and many more countries healthcare plan. Please take the time to investegate. There are millions of people that can't afford or nonetheless even obtain health care; It's because these HMO's have strict guidelines to whome they want to cover. Please people open your eyes and stop being brain washed by government owned news media. These healthcare insureance companies pay billions of dollars to pay for newspaper ads, tv commercials, billboards, internet ads, websites, "GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS", ETC just to keep us in a trance. Wake up!!!! If you don't believe anything I say just Please WATCH MICHAEL MOORE'S MOVIE WACKO. This docemetary will open those eyes that has been in a daze for I don't know how long..... Let's restore and relearn what we know is the right thing to do.

Please WRITE YOUR RESPONSE AFTER WATCHING OR DOING RESEARCH.
 cooldude
Joined: 4/26/2004
Msg: 228
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 4/6/2010 9:41:48 PM

One question, from a foreigners perspective, is how come government run healthcare is so great for the US military and government workers - especially everyone in the judicial, legislative, and executive branches. Those last three make really great salaries, as well.

No one in those groups seems to have any complaint whatsover. What makes all those people so special ?


I can only speak for the military as I've been US Navy for 20 years. Good health care is important to mission readiness. Often it places a military member in adverse conditions were regular heath care may not be available. So when it is available, you bet they are going to receive high quality care.

I've often have to go on long 6 month deployments on a ship. These ships rarely have real certified physicians or dentists. Most have personnel trained as a corpman ( Depending on branch ) that do basic medical care. Then women who can also be deployable may or may not have access to gynaecological care.

While this health care is free while on active duty, it offsets the many negative aspects such as long working hours ( Often without much sleep ), working in extreme heat or cold...often there is only enough water for drinking so taking a hot shower is often considered a luxury.

Now I do receive Tricare standard health care for free after I retired, I have more then earned that right.
 Imported_labor
Joined: 3/7/2008
Msg: 229
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 4/7/2010 2:51:52 AM

Now I do receive Tricare standard health care for free after I retired, I have more then earned that right.


That is a great example for having a sense of entitlement!

From what we know about serving in the armed forces, the workers receive pay for the job that they perform, like most people who work in other areas of the economy; probably they don't make as much money as they would like to earn, but so do most working people who don't make the kind of money that is necessary nowadays to take good care of their families. The big difference here seemed to be that more and more workers had lost affordable access, let alone free access, to health care. After so many years of being denied the right to have access to health care, millions and millions of people had lost that sense of entitlement that we saw in the above post. I hope that now all that is about to change.

All workers, just like the workers that serve in the military, deserve to have access to health care. All workers, in all areas of the economy, need to be in good health so they can perform their jobs at their best for as long as they can, and when they retire they should receive the best care that our country can provide to all of them, no matter in what area of the economy they served their country.
 cooldude
Joined: 4/26/2004
Msg: 230
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 4/7/2010 5:56:24 AM
Most workers are not going to be shot at on a regular basis, with the exception of police officers. You start adding on the the threat of of losing ones life or losing limbs due to a roadside bomb more then qualifies you for a lucrative health care plan IMO.
 Imported_labor
Joined: 3/7/2008
Msg: 231
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 4/7/2010 6:15:50 AM
^^^^^ It never ceases to amaze me!

There are plenty of jobs that expose workers to conditions that constantly threaten their safety, many of them losing their lives while performing their jobs. Many workers spend long, long years working in environmental conditions that will surely impact their good health in later years, and shorten their life-span and retirement years.

They all deserve the best health care. Their tax-dollars pay for the first class health care provided to the federal workers. They don't deserve to be treated like second class citizens by those who believe that they, and them only, deserve the first class treatment.

After all, we are all Americans right? Unless you happen to believe that some are more American than others!
 cooldude
Joined: 4/26/2004
Msg: 232
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 4/7/2010 6:26:01 AM

There are plenty of jobs that expose workers to conditions that constantly threaten their safety, many of them losing their lives while performing their jobs. Many workers spend long, long years working in environmental conditions that will surely impact their good health in later years, and shorten their life-span and retirement years.


If a person places themselves in a high risk job they need to make sure the pay or benefits out weigh the risks. That includes making sure they have a good health care plan that goes along with the job they are taking or make enough money to pay for themselves if they get injured. If they are taking this high risk job with little return might want to re-evaluate their decision on why they are in it to begin with.

 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 233
view profile
History
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 4/7/2010 9:07:44 AM

If a person places themselves in a high risk job they need to make sure the pay or benefits out weigh the risks. That includes making sure they have a good health care plan that goes along with the job they are taking or make enough money to pay for themselves if they get injured. If they are taking this high risk job with little return might want to re-evaluate their decision on why they are in it to begin with.
you have a point,here you could work on dangerous roofing jobs in searing 110-120 desert heat and risk skin cancer,heat stroke or falling for $10-$11 an hour,no matter what health plan you have,or you could work safely inside in air conditioning for the same pay or a little less. Whether of not your job gives,supplies,or merely offers a way to get health insurance,the bottom line is still that you decided to be a Lion tamer,an ice trucker,or a fisherman in the Bering Sea,and your choice might kill you before you even have a chance to use your insurance.

These miners and such that say its always been this way,its the only good job in town,all the generation of my family worked the mines had a choice.You have a choice to move to another town that have more than one industry.Sure you might have to work the mine for 8 months to move,but then move.Its usually your choice.

I have always watched way to many people drive an hour and a half to work to own a better house or work a highly dangerous job job to make $15,000 more.Half the time its just so the family can have a bigger or nicer home,or drive a nicer car.At my age I work safer and easier to make myself a far more comfortable life for myself,at 19 I worked 20-30 day stretches to make more money,and for what,to blow more money.

Enjoy your life,no one enjoys a life that revolves around work.

I feel sorry for those burdened with medical bills so high that that they are forced to work any high pay job to attempt to cover the treatments and meds for their loved one,we had 13 million people that might be those ones that had no choice or little choice.Their loved ones pre conditions put them in a world of pay as you go system.

My friend has follicular lymphoma and a rare incurable blood disease that only 200 in the U.S. have.Her radiation medicine alone is $4200 a month,shes on at least 20 prescriptions.Her trips to the Mayo clinic all the time would be off the scale if not for her COBRA,Obama just extended it for 6 months,thank god.Hope had a great job,until she lost her job because of her illnesses,if not for the COBRA then what.

Thank you Barrack,for saving a friend because her great job of many many years, had to let her go.
 cooldude
Joined: 4/26/2004
Msg: 234
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 4/7/2010 12:46:28 PM
Actually I thought up some more things last night. What about paying for people who live bad lifestyles? People who are chain smokers, then develop cancer. Obese people who have bad eating habits. Alcoholics who need liver transplants. People with drug addictions. People who don't have high risk jobs, yet take high risks at recreational activities. Like base jumpers...ect. How about when Friends & family and even their doctors warn them of these risks is it fair for other people to have pay for their own negligence?
 Imported_labor
Joined: 3/7/2008
Msg: 235
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 4/16/2010 9:57:31 AM

Only 28 percent of those polled said they understand the overhaul extremely or very well. And a big chunk of those who don't understand it remain neutral.


So, if one considers the numbers of those opposed to health Care Reform represented by this poll as being at 50%, but only 28% say "they understand the overhaul extremely or very well," then, perhaps, one would be inclined to think that the Tea Party, the Republican Party, Fox News and their allies in the Health Insurance industry knew that the grand master of the propaganda machine during the 3rd Reich had something whe he said: 'Lie, lie, lie! Something will stick to people's minds.'

Then again, looking at those poll numbers, one would be inclined to ask how is it that only

Another 10 percent of Americans say they are neutral.

when the number of people who don't understand it very well or extremely well is 72%, and a "big chunk of those who don't understand it remain neutral.?"

Wouldn't a "big chunk" of 72% be a number higher than 10%?

My take on this poll is that it is just another piece of the big lying campaign?
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 236
view profile
History
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 4/17/2010 10:31:11 AM

What about paying for people who live bad lifestyles?
You're absolutely right!!! I mean women should definitely be charged more because they can have a baby and men can't ... right?

On the other hand, maybe men should be charged more just because (according to the forums in here) they have higher sex drives than women and want to have lots more sex than the women they meet (just going by the forums, you know) ... and if they don't have a vasectomy or use protection, that increases the amount of women getting pregnant and needing prenatal care especially now that the health care bill won't cover abortions. It will mean many more babies and many more expensive births and more women off work from having to have the babies. Anyways, it's been my experience that the men can afford it much easier than the women since they usually always make more money (even doing the same job) as women ... right?



 CallmeKen
Joined: 9/4/2009
Msg: 237
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 4/17/2010 8:08:41 PM

is it fair for other people to have pay for their own negligence?

Who said the Democrats were fair? This law is about reform, not fairness. In government, that is often two widely different concepts.

NPR reported on one of the first return salvos from the health insurance industry a few days ago. In the law, the insurance companies are supposed to spend 85 cents of every dollar collected on "patient care." So what do the companies do? Why, just reclassify everything as "patient care." Customer service centers? Patient care. Marketing brochures? Patient care. Paperwork filing? Why, patient care, of course.

Yup. Change you can believe in.
 cooldude
Joined: 4/26/2004
Msg: 238
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 4/17/2010 10:45:06 PM

On the other hand, maybe men should be charged more just because (according to the forums in here) they have higher sex drives than women and want to have lots more sex than the women they meet (just going by the forums, you know) ... and if they don't have a vasectomy or use protection, that increases the amount of women getting pregnant and needing prenatal care especially now that the health care bill won't cover abortions. It will mean many more babies and many more expensive births and more women off work from having to have the babies. Anyways, it's been my experience that the men can afford it much easier than the women since they usually always make more money (even doing the same job) as women ... right?


Using birth control is a part of taking personal responsibility for your actions. ( Both men & women ) Ever hear of the octomom? ( Nadya Suleman ) You know how big a topic that was on how that was going to end up being a tax payers problem in the end. That was even before the health reform changes took place.



Anyways, it's been my experience that the men can afford it much easier than the women since they usually always make more money (even doing the same job) as women ... right?


I already covered that on some of the reasons why that might happen in another thread: http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts13578063.aspx post 85
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 239
view profile
History
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 4/18/2010 8:39:41 AM


What about paying for people who live bad lifestyles?
On the other hand, maybe men should be charged more just because (according to the forums in here) they have higher sex drives than women and want to have lots more sex than the women they meet (just going by the forums, you know) ... and if they don't have a vasectomy or use protection, that increases the amount of women getting pregnant and needing prenatal care especially now that the health care bill won't cover abortions.
Using birth control is a part of taking personal responsibility for your actions. Ya ... tell that to the men who refuse to use birth control because it's either too much trouble or just doesn't feel good that way.

Not to mention, if a woman is the only one using birth control, it doesn't stop a man from spreading his STD's which also cost money to treat. Men are at higher risk to have the STD's because of all their screwing around ... ya know? LMAO ...it's a joke ... just couldn't resist doing my fair share of contributing to ignorance as well.)

Anyways, it's been my experience that the men can afford it much easier than the women since they usually always make more money (even doing the same job) as women ... right?
I already covered that on some of the reasons why that might happen in another thread: http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts13578063.aspx post 85
I believe its because of life choices and not the pay gap like some people are saying. Women often choose jobs based on quality of life, rather then how much it makes.That's right ... we purposely choose a lesser paying job because we have no desire to live in a better or safer neighborhood or perhaps buy a better car. We'd rather live in run down areas where we could get mugged and drive broken down junk heaps. We'd just rather not make more money ...

Women opt to work less hours then men to spend more time with children and family.
Mostly because (if they have a partner) they are with men who won't step up to the plate and take equal responsibility for such tasks ... eh?

Some of that is due to being a single parent ( Both genders can be effected, like me )
Most single parents are apparently women. I wonder why the fathers aren't the single parents? Oh maybe it's because a lot of them (note I did not state ALL) just are really good at "getting out of town", "hitting the road", use the excuse that "they can't earn money if they have to take care of the child" ... the list does go on. Maybe the real reason most single parents are women is because it is our nature-given chore ... as we are the ones who bear the fruit of the act ... right? And for that reason, we just deserve less pay than men.

Choosing jobs that are more fulfilling but pay less like a social worker, school teacher or liberal arts.
Or perhaps being forced into such positions since the men are out there scooping up the "less-fulfilling, but better-paying" jobs?

Women are afraid of asking for more money thinking they will not get hired if they ask for more money.
I know that's right ... because you know, women just could never be as strong a personality as a man. Women (no matter what their profession) could just never do the same job as a man or just as well as a man.

Some jobs have veteran preferences when hiring, but less women enter the military then men.
Veteran preferences should only affect the hiring status and never the pay grade.

We don't need more opportunities for women, we need more women taking advantage of these opportunities they already have.
Good to know just how men feel about those things.

Also good that I'm not so ignorant as to believe that every man thinks that way.

My experience:
I have (without exception) experienced men nurses doing the exact same nursing job as me, with the same number of years of experience and no military preference (which as I said should have nothing to do with pay grade) getting at least $2.00 to $5.00 more per hour than me.

We work the same hours, the same shift, the same job, and often I even do much more work than they, but they were just getting more per hour. When working in a jail setting, I always had many more inmates assigned to me than the men. When working in a nursing home situation, I always had at least 1/4th more patients then the men.

Hmmm ... I wonder ... maybe the only thing that was really different was that I didn't come equipped with the right equipment to screw the lady that hired us both?

These are but of the few reasons of many, why women are not making as much as men.
Get back with me when "Women's Rights" really kicks in ... umkay?


Ever hear of the octomom?
Without a man donating sperm (in one way or another) that woman would never have been an "Octomom" ... so I fail to see the point there.

You know how big a topic that was on how that was going to end up being a tax payers problem in the end. That was even before the health reform changes took place.
But just look at all the money they will eventually be earning and contributing towards the overall plan!!! In the meantime, let the men (with their high risk life styles) who "over-earn" ... come up with some extra cash.

If the men want the (ridiculous) position of always making the better decisions when it comes to jobs and asking for the higher rates of pay ... I guess they shouldn't have such a big problem paying more into the plan.

OT ...
I think when people see what advantages they will get, the approval will increase.
 cooldude
Joined: 4/26/2004
Msg: 240
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 4/18/2010 1:12:47 PM

Ya ... tell that to the men who refuse to use birth control because it's either too much trouble or just doesn't feel good that way.


Then refuse to have sex with him! If you still do after you know the consequence's, then its just as much your fault, then just his. ( Not talking about you directly )



Not to mention, if a woman is the only one using birth control, it doesn't stop a man from spreading his STD's which also cost money to treat. Men are at higher risk to have the STD's because of all their screwing around ... ya know? LMAO ...it's a joke ... just couldn't resist doing my fair share of contributing to ignorance as well.)


This is where condom use comes into play.



Women often choose jobs based on quality of life, rather then how much it makes.That's right ... we purposely choose a lesser paying job because we have no desire to live in a better or safer neighborhood or perhaps buy a better car. We'd rather live in run down areas where we could get mugged and drive broken down junk heaps. We'd just rather not make more money ...


If you want to talk wage gap...I would be more then willing to discuss that in the other thread that I mentioned as talking about it here would be off topic.


Without a man donating sperm (in one way or another) that woman would never have been an "Octomom" ... so I fail to see the point there.


I suppose that she kept on wanting to be pregnant had nothing to do with it? Again personal responsibility, not the man she never meet who donated the sperm.
 cupani67
Joined: 12/29/2009
Msg: 241
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 4/18/2010 3:32:47 PM


Women often choose jobs based on quality of life, rather then how much it makes.That's right ... we purposely choose a lesser paying job because we have no desire to live in a better or safer neighborhood or perhaps buy a better car. We'd rather live in run down areas where we could get mugged and drive broken down junk heaps. We'd just rather not make more money ...
If you want to talk wage gap...I would be more then willing to discuss that in the other thread that I mentioned as talking about it here would be off topic.
Yes please do take it to the other thread, but reading through the thread, I see that you were the first to insert it here in the thread. If it's not on topic for the poster to respond, then it probably wasn't on topic to insert it in the thread either.

Now as to the other topic here.
Message 306
What about paying for people who live bad lifestyles?
How about when Friends & family and even their doctors warn them of these risks is it fair for other people to have pay for their own negligence?
How is it that others are going to pay for anyone's negligence?

I'm personally cheering for single payer. I haven't decided if I want that on a state by state basis or just a national basis. I'm swaying towards a national basis.
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 242
view profile
History
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 4/18/2010 4:07:39 PM
Well, you may in fact start to see this approval rating change, as the benefits start to be seen by more Americans.


WITHIN THE FIRST YEAR OF ENACTMENT
*Insurance companies will be barred from dropping people from coverage when they get sick. Lifetime coverage limits will be eliminated and annual limits are to be restricted.
*Insurers will be barred from excluding children for coverage because of pre-existing conditions.
*Young adults will be able to stay on their parents' health plans until the age of 26. Many health plans currently drop dependents from coverage when they turn 19 or finish college.
*Uninsured adults with a pre-existing conditions will be able to obtain health coverage through a new program that will expire once new insurance exchanges begin operating in 2014.
*A temporary reinsurance program is created to help companies maintain health coverage for early retirees between the ages of 55 and 64. This also expires in 2014.
*Medicare drug beneficiaries who fall into the "doughnut hole" coverage gap will get a $250 rebate. The bill eventually closes that gap which currently begins after $2,700 is spent on drugs. Coverage starts again after $6,154 is spent.
*A tax credit becomes available for some small businesses to help provide coverage for workers.
*A 10 percent tax on indoor tanning services that use ultraviolet lamps goes into effect on July 1

WHAT HAPPENS IN 2011
*Medicare provides 10 percent bonus payments to primary care physicians and general surgeons.
*Medicare beneficiaries will be able to get a free annual wellness visit and personalized prevention plan service. New health plans will be required to cover preventive services with little or no cost to patients.
*A new program under the Medicaid plan for the poor goes into effect in October that allows states to offer home and community based care for the disabled that might otherwise require institutional care.
*Payments to insurers offering Medicare Advantage services are frozen at 2010 levels. These payments are to be gradually reduced to bring them more in line with traditional Medicare.
*Employers are required to disclose the value of health benefits on employees' W-2 tax forms.
*An annual fee is imposed on pharmaceutical companies according to market share. The fee does not apply to companies with sales of $5 million or less.

WHAT HAPPENS IN 2012
*Physician payment reforms are implemented in Medicare to enhance primary care services and encourage doctors to form "accountable care organizations" to improve quality and efficiency of care.
*An incentive program is established in Medicare for acute care hospitals to improve quality outcomes.
*The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which oversees the government programs, begin tracking hospital readmission rates and puts in place financial incentives to reduce preventable readmissions.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1914020220100319


It's hard to see how most of these will be interpreted as being a bad thing, by the people receiving the benefits provided. One positive experience with the program will go a long way towards people being aware of what this legislation means to them as citizens - especially if they mention it to others, like friends and neighbors.

Especially with internet, this may in fact provide enough good PR that it may be able to overcome the media blitz against it by the right.

If it does, they will be in serious trouble in an election campaign after three-four years of gains for average Americans.
 cooldude
Joined: 4/26/2004
Msg: 243
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 4/18/2010 4:23:31 PM

Yes please do take it to the other thread, but reading through the thread, I see that you were the first to insert it here in the thread. If it's not on topic for the poster to respond, then it probably wasn't on topic to insert it in the thread either.


While I'm not sure how she associated what I said about bad lifestyles relating to pregnant women. She lead the topic to that direction, so I added my thoughts to that. To me a planned pregnancy between a man and a woman is their choice that I'm not against. Some how she loosely associated the assumption that she believes since men make more, they should pay more in health insurance. That part is on topic, the rest, off topic. By providing the link, it showed my thoughts on the pay gap ( And having her relate it to health care ), without having to go off topic.



How is it that others are going to pay for anyone's negligence?


I already covered that in post 306
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 244
view profile
History
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 4/18/2010 6:28:30 PM

While I'm not sure how she associated what I said about bad lifestyles relating to pregnant women.
I guess I consider men screwing around "a lot (possibly impregnating women and then running off) as a bad lifestyle that according to your message 306 ... "Actually I thought up some more things last night. What about paying for people who live bad lifestyles?" ... should be included in your list of people who live bad lifestyles?

After all, all those pregnant women who are now (according to the health care bill) no longer going to be allowed to have an abortion ... are now going to have to follow through with the full pregnancy ... all the prenatal care and the delivery and the care of the baby in the hospital also costs thousands ... all because a man has to satisfy his higher sex drive (or "bad lifestyle").

You see ... women have traditionally been penalized with having to pay higher insurance premiums when they are of "child-bearing" age, but men don't seem to ever be penalized with higher insurance premiums for being of "sperm-bearing" age. Not to mention that most men earn lots more than women (even doing the same jobs) and could probably easily afford higher insurance premiums.

That was my point. And BTW ... if you can get by with posting unrealistic crap (just stoooopid propaganda), I figured I'd give it a shot as well. LMFAO ...



How is it that others are going to pay for anyone's negligence?
I already covered that in post 306

Where (in Message 306) is the information that clearly defines that anyone will be paying for others? Where (in Message 306) is the information that others will have to pay for anyone's negligence?

That is not explained in Message 306 at all. Message 306 is nothing more than an unrealistic list of Republican/Te Bagger propaganda. Just what do you have against others having health care benefits anyway?

OT ...
Promoting inappropriate ideas may further the Neo-GOP idea of trying to "kill the bill" but it still won't make it so. People are still going see benefits and it will pull the rug out from under those who do not want others to have benefits.

I still don't see why there is anyone who would not want benefits for all. It's no skin off their nose if others finally get benefits.
 cooldude
Joined: 4/26/2004
Msg: 245
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 4/19/2010 2:04:30 AM

I guess I consider men screwing around "a lot (possibly impregnating women and then running off) as a bad lifestyle that according to your message 306.... should be included in your list of people who live bad lifestyles?

all because a man has to satisfy his higher sex drive (or "bad lifestyle").


You might as well add to the list, women who's children have three or four different fathers. For every guy satisfying his sex drive you'll find a woman who's satisfying hers.


You see ... women have traditionally been penalized with having to pay higher insurance premiums when they are of "child-bearing" age, but men don't seem to ever be penalized with higher insurance premiums for being of "sperm-bearing" age.


Men still have to pay higher life & car insurance premiums then women, so welcome to the club.


Just what do you have against others having health care benefits anyway?


NEVER said that, I'm saying how will this bill effect people who are chain smokers, are obese, drug addicts ect. Basicly take poor care of themselves due to their own negligence. So far I've never seen this brought up in this topic, so I did.


That was my point. And BTW ... if you can get by with posting unrealistic crap (just stoooopid propaganda), I figured I'd give it a shot as well. LMFAO ...


And the crown does go to you. At least I'm bringing up very good points, but you seem way off in left field.
 cupani67
Joined: 12/29/2009
Msg: 246
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 4/19/2010 7:55:13 AM



How is it that others are going to pay for anyone's negligence?
I already covered that in post 306
Where (in Message 306) is the information that clearly defines that anyone will be paying for others? Where (in Message 306) is the information that others will have to pay for anyone's negligence?

That is not explained in Message 306 at all. Message 306 is nothing more than an unrealistic list of Republican/Te Bagger propaganda. Just what do you have against others having health care benefits anyway?
Yes, where is the information in message 306 that tells how others are going to pay for anyone's negligence?

And what does that have to do with the topic of health care approval or disapproval percentage wise?

On topic: I think the more benefits that are becoming available to the people, the more the approval rates will improve.
 Imported_labor
Joined: 3/7/2008
Msg: 247
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 4/19/2010 8:06:12 AM


Yes please do take it to the other thread, but reading through the thread, I see that you were the first to insert it here in the thread. If it's not on topic for the poster to respond, then it probably wasn't on topic to insert it in the thread either

While I'm not sure how she associated what I said about bad lifestyles relating to pregnant women. She lead the topic to that direction, so I added my thoughts to that.


How about displaying some of that personal responsibility that you preach about, and stick to the topic of this thread?



I'm saying how will this bill effect people who are chain smokers, are obese, drug addicts ect. Basicly take poor care of themselves due to their own negligence.


Hopefully this new law will allow those people access to good quality health care and education, which may help them to kick their bad habits and recover their health. If we as a society may accomplish that, you can expect some significant changes in the economy and the culture. Imagine a society in which you won't have anyone to scapegoat, or berate for not being as perfect a citizen as you are?
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 248
view profile
History
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 4/19/2010 10:14:55 AM

Hopefully this new law will allow those people access to good quality health care and education, which may help them to kick their bad habits and recover their health.
The hope of many of us (nurses and health care workers) is that we can finally get that affordable preventative help for our patients that has been lacking for so long.

As a home health nurse, I used to be able to request a couple of visits from a nutritionist to visit my home-bound patients who just discovered they have Diabetes. Our first line of treatment is proper diet and exercise and obviously for people who are impaired, exercise is not going to be easy, but the one thing we can do is teach them proper diet/eating habits.

It's not an easy task and needs extra reinforcement since by the time I get to these people, they are very set in their ways and change for them is not at all easy, not to mention they have limited budgets that don't often allow them to buy the special food they need.

If we as a society may accomplish that, you can expect some significant changes in the economy and the culture.
As preventative care gets better and better, we should be better able to thwart off the increasing problems of (for example) obesity. If we can get obesity back under control, we can bring side effects such as Diabetes, and Stroke, and Heart Disease and Kidney Failure to a drastic slow down. All those diseases that are associated with obesity can cripple a society and the health system that provides care.

When I think how much cheaper health care could be (alone) without the devastation of obesity ...

Imagine a society in which you won't have anyone to scapegoat, or berate for not being as perfect a citizen as you are?
Ya ... imagine.
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 249
view profile
History
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 4/22/2010 6:01:03 PM
And the disapprovals will likely rise when more people read this report.

WASHINGTON – Government economic forecasters say President Barack Obama's health care overhaul will increase the nation's health care tab instead of bringing costs down. The report by economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department, released late Thursday, says the health care remake will achieve Obama's aim of expanding coverage.

But the report says that the law falls short of the president's twin goal of controlling runaway costs. And it warns that Medicare cuts may be unrealistic and unsustainable.

The first comprehensive look at the health care law by neutral experts amounts to a mixed report card for Obama's top priority during his first year in office.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100423/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_law_costs
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 250
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 4/22/2010 11:35:11 PM


And the disapprovals will likely rise when more people read this report.


Ah, you beat me to it. For the past year liberals have been claiming that the new law (or rather the ideological underpinnings of it) will reduce health care costs, and for the past year I've been patiently explaining why that can't possibly be so. It appears that the inability to understand basic economics is a side effect of being a liberal.
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent