Figured this needed its own thread:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070529/ap_on_el_pr/obama_health

The plan calls to roll back tax cuts to the wealthy to fund the $50-65 billion annual cost. It intends to work with state-led efforts already in progress, and it also emphasizes preventative medicine and good lifestyle habits:

Quote :

"Obama also called for a series of steps to overhaul the current health care system. He would spend more money boosting technology in the health industry such as electronic record-keeping, put in place better management for chronic diseases and create a reinsurance pool for catastrophic illnesses to take the burden of their costs off of other premium payers. His plan also envisions savings from ending the expensive care for the uninsured when they get sick. That care now is often provided at emergency rooms. The plan also would put a heavy focus on preventing disease through lifestyle changes. Obama conceded that the overall cost of the program would be high. "To help pay for this, we will ask all but the smallest businesses who don't make a meaningful contribution to the health coverage of their workers to do so to support this plan," said Obama. "And we also will repeal the temporary Bush tax cut for the wealthiest taxpayers." "

I suppose we should have seen this coming, and yes the plan looks very ambitious. Conservatives are going to have a field day attacking the plan, considering small businesses and the wealthy are going to be footing the bill. This looks like an obvious ploy to the democratic base, especially to the poor.

I agree with the necessity of the plan in principle, and I also appreciate that he's bothering to explain HOW the plan will be funded, but he definitely should have considered more conservative explanations. I'd have talked about eliminating pork from congressional bills, or reducing the size of the bureacracy in DC, which Bush has expanded. He could also have talked about savings from pulling troops back and demanding more accountability and efficiency from FEMA, another huge sinkhole in tax-payer money.


I wasn't sure whether Obama would make a stand on health care, but he's done it. He's jumped into hot water, and done so willingly. Lets see if he can stand the heat.


Discuss.

5/29/2007 12:49:16 PM

What's to discuss?

5/29/2007 12:51:10 PM

the poor already have healthcare. We need to find away for the working poor to have better healthcare than the people who choose to do nothing, yet expect everything. We could save a ton of money by limiting what medicaid covers. Its one thing to cover blood pressure meds, its another to pay for fertility meds, viagra, accutane..etc.

One thing you will learn about politics, whenever a politician throws out a number of what something will cost.. you need to multiply it by at least 2.5.. And in Bush's case by 10.

5/29/2007 2:19:29 PM

"roll back tax cuts"

I hate that phrase. The plan is to take $50-$65 billion dollars from the wealthiest Americans and use it to fund universal health care.

I would rather see a plan that saves $50-$65 billion that would have been wasted elsewhere (and god knows the government wastes far more than that annually), and fund the program with that. What incentive is there for them to run more efficiently when they can always tax the hell out of the very wealthy and the general population supports it. The top 10% of earners already pay over 70% of taxes (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/63/NRST-dollars.png). How much more can we really expect from them?

5/29/2007 2:36:37 PM

Quote :

"considering small businesses and the wealthy are going to be footing the bill."

HAAHAHAHAHAAA!

Quote :

"This looks like an obvious ploy to the democratic base, especially to the poor."

HAHAHAAAAHHAAA!!!

Those were good ones. Why don't you tell another?

5/29/2007 2:38:28 PM

^The wealthy foot just about all the bills.

5/29/2007 2:51:15 PM

roll back sounds alot more friendly than tax increase. However the people who are getting "rolled back" are smart enough to know that.

5/29/2007 2:53:51 PM

Dollar for dollar, sure. But you need to understand who we are talking about when we say "Rich"

There are different types of rich; those that are politically connected and those that are not. It is the non-connected politically that pay all that tax money, and who are going to pay these higher taxes. Or did you never wonder why the effective tax rate for the top 1% has historically been about half the marginal tax rate?

It is these non-politically connected rich that also tend to own small businesses; they're going to get it both ways: higher labor costs and higher marginal tax rates. Bravo!

As for my second comment; this is not directed at helping the poor. The poor already have healthcare in emergency rooms. The purpose here is to enable hospital owners, which tend to be politically connected, to wrack up all the charges they can muster against the poor and have a third party, the government, foot the bill. Utterly brilliant!

This proposal is nothing more than the latest salvo in the war to make America's healthcare system even more profitable; I mean, expensive. If you want Universal Health Care then you need to nationalize it, kick the politically connected owners to the curb. Only then will we have a chance at containing the current cost explosion.

5/29/2007 3:00:37 PM

shark, I really have some trouble with your logic. The only way to contain costs is by kicking out a politically connected hospital owner, and then hand over the WHOLE system to politically connected politicians?

We should let the states implement their owns forms first, see what works and what doesnt before we let a politician implement some god awful plan for the whole country.

Besides, part of the problem and increases you see are due to the fact that the govt currently provides over 50% of healthcare as is. Govt controlled healthcare will control the costs of healthcare as well as it has controlled the costs of road construction, or ANYTHING else they touch.

5/29/2007 3:26:57 PM

Quote :

"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/63/NRST-dollars.png"

Finally a realistic view of the national sales tax.

5/29/2007 3:31:28 PM

government healthcare is awesome


just ask a veteran

5/29/2007 3:41:36 PM

All the ones I've spoken to about it think it's pretty good.

5/29/2007 3:46:58 PM

^good point. I love the logic that it will somehow be better when its "MY" healthcare. Besides FREE HEALTHCARE sounds great, its sad people arent smart enough to dig any deeper.

If the govt would get out of healthcare, and let the market run. Let people purchase health insurance from different states, like they are allowed to do for car insurance. Let consumers make the decision. The main problem with healthcare is that most people, including highly educated people, have no idea what the NAME of their insurance is, much less what is covered. When you have an uninformed public, a few people can get away with murder.

5/29/2007 3:49:33 PM

they must not go to the VA hospital then

5/29/2007 3:49:56 PM

Quote :

"shark, I really have some trouble with your logic. The only way to contain costs is by kicking out a politically connected hospital owner, and then hand over the WHOLE system to politically connected politicians?"

It is a question of incentives. In the current American system, the politicians and the owners have conspired to rip off the people. The incentives are thus: the politicians set the rules and encourage the owners to get rich, which then use their money to help the politicians keep their power. As costs explode, politicians blame the owners, and the owners blame the politicians, and the cycle continues. This mechanism is legal and very difficult to prove intent.

Meanwhile, in other countries with state-run systems we do not see the same game played. Politicians have no mechanism they can use to legally funnel the people's money into their re-election campaign. At the same time, mis-management of the system does result in electorial backlash, which the politicians fear.

5/29/2007 3:51:08 PM

the poor already have free healthcare. it's the middle class that needs affordable healthcare.

ever wonder how much social services for citizens we could afford with the money we spend on health/education/etc for illegals?

5/29/2007 3:51:57 PM

not that much. i've seen the numbers and the legal poor suck out far more money than illegals.

5/29/2007 3:55:36 PM

yeah, how much could 12,000,000 illegals suck from the system?

5/29/2007 3:57:37 PM

shark, I can only speak of my own experiences. I can tell you that the practitioners are usually underpaid. I have insurances that pay 37 bucks for an exam. Now who is getting rich? I think the ins. companies. I cant explain how our insurance for the practice goes up 15%, while our reeimbursments get cut 3%.

Let the market work. Stop govt from setting all the rules that prevent competition. And people need to start getting informed about thier own insurance and plans.

5/29/2007 4:10:41 PM

Quote :

" I can tell you that the practitioners are usually underpaid"

LOL, thats funny.

5/29/2007 4:19:48 PM

Yep, thats why we have the doctor shortage. Applications to med school down, and we supplement with overseas docs, esp in smaller, rural areas. The rewards arent worth the risks anymore. Smart people are simply going into other professions.

[Edited on May 29, 2007 at 4:27 PM. Reason : .]

5/29/2007 4:26:53 PM

I'm confused, snark. I thought you were against all forms of government intervention. Or are you a little-l libertarian as opposed to a capital-L Libertarian?

I agree that this is a good idea on paper; health care should be one of those things that everybody should have access to, not just the people that happen to be able to afford it. As somebody who has to pay for health insurance, I've noticed that premiums are only getting more and more expensive while the list of reasons to deny a claim is only getting longer. I'm not against the free market or insurance companies or whoever, but it's starting to feel like that health insurance is dominated by those with a government-sponsored monopoly.

And that's potentially the problem with any sort of national healthcare in this country. The politicians will only put forth a plan that benefits their rich constituents/lobbyists, who in turn ensure that those same politicians get re-elected next year.

5/29/2007 4:33:40 PM

If you want to make a ton of money, being a doctor is not the way.... unless you get into elective surgery where you don't have to deal with insurance companies.

5/29/2007 4:33:42 PM

There's a reason so many doctors come from other countries. Just compare their income here to what they would make in Canada or somewhere else.

5/29/2007 4:37:09 PM

Prawn Star
All American
2499 Posts
user info
edit post There's a reason so many doctors come from other countries. Just compare their income here to what they would make in Canada or somewhere else.



And what kind of system does canada have? Thats another reason why they have trouble keeping docs. Its kind of sad that I get paid 33bucks for an exam by some insurances... people who cut hair get paid more. Bobby is right on, the only way to make money in healthcare is by not dealing with insurances, or doing surgery. I love hearing people whine about wait times now, cant wait to see how they love thier month wait times on the gubment plans. Which also force docs from not accepting cash, for those who want to PAY to have procedures.

5/29/2007 4:43:41 PM

Quote :

"I'm confused, snark. I thought you were against all forms of government intervention. Or are you a little-l libertarian as opposed to a capital-L Libertarian?"

My opinion on this matter stems from the overruling opinion that the current system must be destroyed at all costs. If I must sacrifice my fundamental beliefs to get rid of the current system then so be it. Arguing in favor of a free market for healthcare is a non-starter, so we must go with the first lesser evil, which is complete nationalization.

Now, even nationalized there is room for free market competition on the ground, just as many cities have operating markets for various other city services. And this being America I suspect we will impliment one of these systems for healthcare.

5/29/2007 4:50:13 PM

Quote :

"The poor already have healthcare in emergency rooms."

Because that's the only type of healthcare anyone needs, right?

5/29/2007 5:57:43 PM

you guys are confused. THe poor have medicaid, which despite paying for doctors visits, alot these people instead tend to use the ER as their PCP. So what would cost taxpayers 50 bucks, cost 400. But they dont care, why would they? The uninsured have the ER, and many simply use it with no intention of every paying thier bill, which then gets passed on again to us taxpayers.

5/29/2007 6:20:14 PM

Edwards has been pushing health care hard for a while, glad to see the other candidates are starting to talk about it too.

5/29/2007 7:43:58 PM

doctors in the US deserve every cent they make, if not more

ya know, they bust their asses to get the bachelor's degree and even more so over the 4 years of medschool........then the 6 year residencies during which they're at the bottom of the chain, and they don't get paid shit for btw. Then, by the time they finally are able to get out and actually start their career in their early to mid 30's, they get dicked out of pay by insurance companies and have to pay annually increasing astronomical premiums for malpractice.......

and a lot of these new healthcare plans propose to pay doctors less, which i just don't understand.........must be a democrat thing

let the flaming continue!!

5/29/2007 9:14:38 PM

Quote :

" Smart people are simply going into other professions."

That explains why you stayed then.

5/29/2007 9:51:37 PM

^cute

Glad someone else sees that slaptit.

5/29/2007 10:09:50 PM

does anyone have the income ranges for the "rich"

are we talking $100,000 and up? $200,000 and up? $500,000 and up?

im really curious

5/29/2007 11:14:04 PM

How about this - the government do what the fuck they're supposed to do - govern, not hand out shit for free to people. If you want the government to subsidize your healthcare, joing the military, plain and simple. I'm tired of seeing people who think they can tax the hell out of me and then spend it on stupid-ass shit like this. I love this country, don't get me wrong, but we have some helluva bunch of fucknuts running this place, and even more who are stupid enough to go for their hair-brained ideas.

The federal government doesn't offer us shit these days - no, I take that back - that's about all we're getting.

/rant

5/29/2007 11:26:37 PM

Quote :

"Supplanter: Edwards has been pushing health care hard for a while, glad to see the other candidates are starting to talk about it too."

What is your deal, dude? You're like a perpetual campaigner. You actually picked a side in NCSU elections.

Is Edwards your man right now or something?

(Cause tons of the Dems have been talking health care. Not just Edwards.)

[Edited on May 29, 2007 at 11:31 PM. Reason : sss]

5/29/2007 11:30:43 PM

He was the first to make it a top issue, and the first to lay out a detailed plan.

I'm glad obama is laying one out now, and I think they'd make a good team on the same ticket. (I actually saw 2 Edwards-Obama 08 bumper stickers today)

Quote :

"That's where he differs with Democratic rival John Edwards, the only other candidate who has laid out a specific plan."

The article listed in this thread & the CNN one both mention this.

So yeah, I think he should get a little credit for that.

5/30/2007 12:57:19 AM

Are you or are you not an Edwards supporter?

I'm not accusing you of shit or trying to put you down, but you must admit that a lot of what you do here is campaigning in this weird way...

Claiming they'd make a good ticket and mentioning "Edwards-Obama" stickers...come on...

[Edited on May 30, 2007 at 1:20 AM. Reason : sss]

5/30/2007 1:17:49 AM

I support John Edwards over any other candidate out there right now.

I don't think he has much of a chance, however.

5/30/2007 1:20:08 AM

Why do you support Edwards?

And I think he has a really good chance of winning. I also kinda dig Supplanter's idea about Edwards/Obama.


(We should start a Soap Box pool right now for who's going to win.)

5/30/2007 1:24:23 AM

I support him because I know him personally, he's a family friend and I trust him.

His voting record is also pretty moderate compared to the other democratic candidates.

Unfortunately, his "2 Americas" mantra is blowing up in his face right now in light of his work for a hedge fund et al.

Don't get me started on the republicans and their pandering to the christian conservative base. The only republican candidate I can back is Ron Paul, and he's being ostracized by the party right about now.

5/30/2007 1:30:28 AM

AHA, class differences abound!

Cause my friend claims Edwards shafted his father on some construction work or something. I don't care what my friend says, but it's weird, you know. You know him personally. I know of him through a friend. And the reports are quite different.

I mean, the highest places my family goes is a DA my dad is friends with in some random county who filled us in on a good lawyer to help us out with my run-ins with law.

Edwards as a family friend...that's crazy! He's not even the same age as your parents. (Just guessing.)

[Edited on May 30, 2007 at 2:06 AM. Reason : Better...]

5/30/2007 1:59:54 AM

Edwards is gonna be 54 in June if you can believe it. He doesn't look that old.

Don't be so quick to assume that my family is high-class or anything like that. Contrary to popular belief, Senator Edwards does mix with the plebians. John's late son Wade was my brother's age and they used to play soccer together. In fact before he went into politics, John was the team's coach for a few years. Elizabeth was also a very involved soccer mom. I remember her screaming on the sidelines at the refs

5/30/2007 2:20:32 AM

Quote :

"Contrary to popular belief, Senator Edwards does mix with the plebians"

When it serves his own interests.



NO NATIONAL HEALTHCARE. 1/3 of people without healthcare can afford it, but choose not to get covered. Another 1/3 have access to Government or other plans, but choose not to enroll. The other 1/3 is probably mainly people who dropped out of high school or otherwise made decisions in their life that left them in the state that they are. Too bad, so sad. NOT MY PROBLEM.

5/30/2007 10:36:51 AM

Thank God you aren't a registered voter.

5/30/2007 10:47:57 AM

You know I'm going into medicine and I'm not completely opposed to the idea of a socialized system but I'm afraid that due to the nature of how it will be actually be implemented it will be completely FUBAR.

I assure you that healthcare quality and access won't be as good as it is now. I wish I had an answer to making it more affordable but I don't.

5/30/2007 10:57:29 AM

Well, the bureaucracy of filing insurance claims could use a little standardization, if you ask me. I wonder how much of my medical expenses are meant to cover the administrative staff required to coordinate that shit for your average practice. I've heard that these cash-only doctors have lower prices since they cut out all that labor.

5/30/2007 11:05:28 AM

yeah let the poor people die off. It is natural selection. If they are too lazy or stupid to get a full time job which usually includes health insurance plans then they should not be holding up the line when I go to the doctor's office.

5/30/2007 11:26:52 AM

If we cut out insurance, we could lose 4 employees, see less people and make more money. What we charge gets overinflated to counter cuts from insurances. We never get paid what we bill. Most docs offer as much as a 20% discount on cash payers.

5/30/2007 11:31:31 AM

Quote :

"THe poor have medicaid, which despite paying for doctors visits, alot these people instead tend to use the ER as their PCP. So what would cost taxpayers 50 bucks, cost 400. But they dont care, why would they? The uninsured have the ER, and many simply use it with no intention of every paying thier bill, which then gets passed on again to us taxpayers."

As healthcare for "the poor" is so good, it's amazing anyone cares about health insurance.

5/30/2007 2:29:30 PM

^ thats the rub. People who have any value, either land, savings, good paying jobs they dont qualify for it. So we end up not only paying for our ins. but for medicaid, which is often better as far as drugs covered and cost.. cant beat it.

Its terrible that there is an incentive for people on the cusp to encourage them to NOT be productive, bc then they qualify for the freebies. One of my pretesters is considering getting a divorce from her husband so that they can qualify for medicaid and other benefits.. THey can still live together, but now bring home extra money since they are having another baby, and he makes too much for them to qualify for the system alone. Now if she gets a divorce and quits working, the tax payers make up the difference. helluva system.

5/30/2007 2:51:39 PM