Obama: Bipartisan health deal may not be possible

[spookyturtle 9,466]

There never will be a perfect bill. Someone will always find something they don't like, they always do. Let's do the best we can.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

ah okay, so that justifies $1 trillion and 5,000 lives does it? Interesting cost benefit analysis on that one.. What about Cigarette companies or those that have acquired cancer / leukemia due to negligence by private organizations pumping chemicals into the environment? Because it's cheaper to poison American families to death rather than disposing it properly. Or even drug dealers. Why don't we spend $5 billion let alone a trillion tackling those killers of Americans?

I never said I agreed with the wars my friend, just correcting you on the facts lol. It's one thing we can agree on easily

Which part of the bill do you find fails to fix anything? All of the points I have analyzed provide a great new health care option for the country and those less fortunate.

-Mandating people buy insurance for one is completely wrong and nothing to do with fixing the system. It's a straight tyrannical idea. Forcing people into an overburdened system does nothing to fix the ACTUAL problem and that's cost.

-Everything about the current bill does nothing but help to increase the profits of insurance companies (for those of you who hate this.. umm, how can you support the bill??). You mandate coverage, make people buy it, tell insurance companies that they basically have new customers that they can't deny for whatever reason.... you tell me who benefits?

- Those less fortunate already have medicaid. If you're middle class and can't afford health care, there's something wrong with the way you're spending your money and that's the bottom line right there. You aren't helping there again the system itself by adding more people to it or forcing them to buy something that have already chosen not to afford.

The 'public option' is not going to happen nor the 'exchange' that some are so fond of the idea for. Are you kidding me? The government monopolizing national insurance? #1 it's against the law if you want to get technical just as any monopoly should be and #2 it's unethical at that to not have competition. Competition is what drives costs down if anything else. I'm ALL FOR the 'public option' so long as Blue Cross and Humana are allowed to compete on that same level if they so choose to.

-Also along the lines of a "power grab" comes the 10th amendment into play. Each individual state has its own laws and mandates regarding health insurance and many states have already said they'd reject the current bills being proposed. If congress wants a health care bill, it literally would take a constitutional amendment for it to happen. The states won't allow it to happen in its present form and are flat out sick of the Federal Government trying to dictate their money.

[Pooky 3,844]

There never will be a perfect bill. Someone will always find something they don't like, they always do. Let's do the best we can.

That's just it. The Bill(s) out there are nowhere near the best we can do.

Strip out the detritus built in to buy the votes and support to get the legislation and it still would be a half-hearted effort at warming over the system we already have. Right now, doing nothing has a better chance at helping in the long run than doing what these Bill(s) propose.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Pooky, I have read many of your posts on the subject. And in general I applaud your tenacity in demanding more, rather than less, reform. If I understand your position you'd like to see the US move aggressively to a single payer model. Me too. Ideally, we'd remove the inefficiencies and waste and countless hours spent filing and approving and appealing preapprovals, claims, and denials. Just think of all the postage and paper saved merely by not needing to send out all the damned EOB statements! I think the difference between your position and mine (and, I suspect, most Democrats involved in crafting the present legislation) is a recognition of the political process in this country. Half a loaf is better than no loaf. I know you disagree, and apparently would prefer no loaf at all until a perfect bill can be passed. If I thought we had any hope at all of such a thing in my lifetime I might agree with you. Meanwhile we're wasting money for unacceptable healthcare results and millions uninsured and terrified of a pre-existing condition or a job loss tossing them out of the system altogether. Better half loaf than none at all, I say.

So in a country with a population of 310 million people in which MAYBE 50 million are uninsured (i'm being fair with that number) it's a problem?

Now don't count that as just "50 million" being uninsured.

Let's look at it like this.

- 10 million are making a choice not to be period.

- another 10.5 million are immigrants (legal and illegal)

- 20 million can afford it and have access to care, but make choices to spend their money elsewhere

- 10 million actually can't afford it at all and are out of the medicaid range

I'd say when a good solid majority of people either have coverage, or are making the choice not to have coverage, it's a pretty damn good system (minus the closed market side of it..).

The problem time and time again has NOTHING to do with the system itself and EVERYTHING to do with COST.

You don't re-write the whole ###### system that takes up 1/5th of our entire economy. You'd bankrupt us in a heartbeat further than we already are.

You figure out ways and you actually look at WHAT is causing the costs to be so high.

The problem is, too many politicians would rather play politics than actually look at the real problems. They'd rather line their own pocket books or the pocket books of those who make wonderful campaign donations to whomever helps them get their way.

You want to fix the problem? Tell Washington bureaucrats to stop worrying about THEIR money and to start worrying about OUR money.

[scandal 951]

He's President of the US and you're a whiner on a internet forum.

There's a long tradition of personal attacks on our leaders and politicians.

Andrew Jackson was called a jackass. His wife Rachel was accused of being a ####### and a bigamist.

Meanwhile, as to good ol' honest Abe:

Filthy story teller, despot, liar, theif, braggart, buffoon, usurper, monster, ignoramus Abe, old scoundrel, perjurer, swindler, tyrant, field-butcher, land-pirate..

Harpers magzine on Abraham Lincoln

Nothing more than a well meaning baboon

General McCellan on Abraham Lincoln

As to Obama, between the birthers and the tea partyers (often one and the same), you only need look at Rep. Joe Wilson to see where civility and decorum for our highest elected office has come:

[spookyturtle 9,466]

How much does malpractice insurance and the fear of being sued add to the cost? You cut your finger and doctors order an MRI and cat scan and a battery of other tests because they fear being sued and insurance will pay anyway so who cares. I'm sure this keeps costs down.

[Pooky 3,844]

So in a country with a population of 310 million people in which MAYBE 50 million are uninsured (i'm being fair with that number) it's a problem?

Now don't count that as just "50 million" being uninsured.

Let's look at it like this.

- 10 million are making a choice not to be period.

- another 10.5 million are immigrants (legal and illegal)

- 20 million can afford it and have access to care, but make choices to spend their money elsewhere

- 10 million actually can't afford it at all and are out of the medicaid range

I'd say when a good solid majority of people either have coverage, or are making the choice not to have coverage, it's a pretty damn good system (minus the closed market side of it..).

The problem time and time again has NOTHING to do with the system itself and EVERYTHING to do with COST.

You don't re-write the whole ###### system that takes up 1/5th of our entire economy. You'd bankrupt us in a heartbeat further than we already are.

You figure out ways and you actually look at WHAT is causing the costs to be so high.

The problem is, too many politicians would rather play politics than actually look at the real problems. They'd rather line their own pocket books or the pocket books of those who make wonderful campaign donations to whomever helps them get their way.

You want to fix the problem? Tell Washington bureaucrats to stop worrying about THEIR money and to start worrying about OUR money.

I am worrying about OUR money. We pay almost double, as a percentage of GDP, what a European nation pays for their healthcare system, yet we don't have the life expectancy, or comprehensive coverage they enjoy and, even while possessing health insurance, can still be denied healthcare coverage and experience bankruptcy. Tell me, how does that fit your model of a great system?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

There never will be a perfect bill. Someone will always find something they don't like, they always do. Let's do the best we can.

I would just settle for a mediocre bill. This one does nothing but put a lot of our money in the wrong peoples pockets.

[Pooky 3,844]

Pooky, I have read many of your posts on the subject. And in general I applaud your tenacity in demanding more, rather than less, reform. If I understand your position you'd like to see the US move aggressively to a single payer model. Me too. Ideally, we'd remove the inefficiencies and waste and countless hours spent filing and approving and appealing preapprovals, claims, and denials. Just think of all the postage and paper saved merely by not needing to send out all the damned EOB statements! I think the difference between your position and mine (and, I suspect, most Democrats involved in crafting the present legislation) is a recognition of the political process in this country. Half a loaf is better than no loaf. I know you disagree, and apparently would prefer no loaf at all until a perfect bill can be passed. If I thought we had any hope at all of such a thing in my lifetime I might agree with you. Meanwhile we're wasting money for unacceptable healthcare results and millions uninsured and terrified of a pre-existing condition or a job loss tossing them out of the system altogether. Better half loaf than none at all, I say.

Our disagreement lies in the fact that you think the Bill(s) out there are half a loaf. I see them more like the couple of slices on the end of a packaged loaf laced with 101 different ingredients, 95 of which have nothing to do with making the bread itself.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I am worrying about OUR money. We pay almost double, as a percentage of GDP, what a European nation pays for their healthcare system, yet we don't have the life expectancy, or comprehensive coverage they enjoy and, even while possessing health insurance, can still be denied healthcare coverage and experience bankruptcy. Tell me, how does that fit your model of a great system?

That's not entirely true.... it is and it isn't.

We also eat a lot worse than Europeans do. We literally are the fast-food nation.

On top of that our infant mortality rate is calculated differently than other nations.

It's not the difference that some make it out to be.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

There's a long tradition of personal attacks on our leaders and politicians.

Andrew Jackson was called a jackass.

When do you think the Democrat mascot came from?

[Ali G. 37]

Speaking from my own experience, I dread going to the doctor here. Even bad curry could end up being used as preexisting condition, resulting in some future denial for surgery. The few times I have used the medical system, I have not exactly written home to tell them about it. Instead, I just looked at my wallet be drained by co-pays, pondering that the same services would have cost me next to nothing in AUS.

The other day I just realized the whole out of network thing. What the heck is that all about? So if I travel to CA and need to be hospitalized, there is a good chance I will be 'out of network' and end up paying through my azz. Heck, under Australia's HC system, I could be in New Zealand, United Kingdom, Ireland, Sweden, The Netherlands, Finland, Italy, Belgium, Malta, and Norway yet I am still considered in-network and covered; let alone in any other part of AUS.

[Ali G. 37]

So in a country with a population of 310 million people in which MAYBE 50 million are uninsured (i'm being fair with that number) it's a problem?

Now don't count that as just "50 million" being uninsured.

Let's look at it like this.

- 10 million are making a choice not to be period.

- another 10.5 million are immigrants (legal and illegal)

- 20 million can afford it and have access to care, but make choices to spend their money elsewhere

- 10 million actually can't afford it at all and are out of the medicaid range

I'd say when a good solid majority of people either have coverage, or are making the choice not to have coverage, it's a pretty damn good system (minus the closed market side of it..).

The problem time and time again has NOTHING to do with the system itself and EVERYTHING to do with COST.

You don't re-write the whole ###### system that takes up 1/5th of our entire economy. You'd bankrupt us in a heartbeat further than we already are.

You figure out ways and you actually look at WHAT is causing the costs to be so high.

The problem is, too many politicians would rather play politics than actually look at the real problems. They'd rather line their own pocket books or the pocket books of those who make wonderful campaign donations to whomever helps them get their way.

You want to fix the problem? Tell Washington bureaucrats to stop worrying about THEIR money and to start worrying about OUR money.

While I respect your opinion I have to disagree. We already pay more than double (per capita) than Japan and Australia yet live 3 to 4 years less. This bill is the first step in ensuring that health care is no longer treated like purchasing a car. This should not be an industry were corporations are allowed to make billion in profits at (literally) the expense of Americans' lives. The number you quoted also does not cover the under-insured, or those insured that are denied coverage and have to simply die of a disease.

What are the first three words of the document you just today swore to protect? Clearly there was a purpose for those words having been chosen to be first, as being the most important part of the constitution. By passing such a monumental bill, Congress is effectively "form a more perfect Union" and put Americans ahead of profit; as the founding father intended.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Speaking from my own experience, I dread going to the doctor here. Even bad curry could end up being used as preexisting condition, resulting in some future denial for surgery. The few times I have used the medical system, I have not exactly written home to tell them about it. Instead, I just looked at my wallet be drained by co-pays, pondering that the same services would have cost me next to nothing in AUS.

The other day I just realized the whole out of network thing. What the heck is that all about? So if I travel to CA and need to be hospitalized, there is a good chance I will be 'out of network' and end up paying through my azz. Heck, under Australia's HC system, I could be in New Zealand, United Kingdom, Ireland, Sweden, The Netherlands, Finland, Italy, Belgium, Malta, and Norway yet I am still considered in-network and covered; let alone in any other part of AUS.

So much is dependent on who your carrier is.

I've had a carrier that there were "in-network" doctors all throughout the country, it just depends on what kind of 'deals' they have worked out.

What many don't know about doctors and insurance companies and the whole 'in-network' thing is that they are considered to be in-network because that doctor has worked with that insurance company on negotiated rates. The doctor agrees to charge X amount for the service and the insurance company agrees to pay the doctor that X amount. That's why out-of-network doctors will cost you something usually because the rates have not been negotiated with that particular doctor.

It sounds absurd, but actually works in the favor of the doctors very well, especially those who need to make up in compensation from the lack of government funds in medicare/medicaid. Insurance companies take care of doctors very well and it's why doctors are usually willing to fight for you when it comes to insurance because they know they'll be compensated accordingly.

The red-tape is a bit much, but much of that red-tape is also caused by current regulations be it on a federal level or even a state level.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Are you for real? You actually think Obama is trying to game the country? So what are those against the much needed reform doing? Being patriotic or something..

Yes, how patriotic to borrow $1 trillion and waste 5,000 lives avenging the deaths of 2,000 NYers, the same people who would sell half of America for a profit, yet ignoring the Americans that die daily because of health care denials, lack of adequate coverage and the other dodgy shenanigans.

YES! And for someone from Aussie land. Bragging six figurs all the while criticizing the very land you draw a paycheck is hilarious. Get on back to the barbee! We know who fights your battles, some unknown soldier you dont know.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Col. Lingus