I am going to try something here.

This is a playlist off my YouTube site.

20/20 on Health Care

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/p/802B564D24BB341F" /><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/p/802B564D24BB341F" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Very cool, it works. I will have to use this more often instead of posting several videos one after another

I recently read that Obama's health care plan would hurt small business, so I looked into it. Here is some of the things I found.

1st, off Obama's own web site.


Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe both of these extremes are wrong, and that�s why they�ve proposed a plan that strengthens employer coverage, makes insurance companies accountable and ensures patient choice of doctor and care without government interference.

right off the bat I am against it.

"Strengthens employer coverage" means forcing employers pay for your health care coverage.

"without government interference" This is a flat out lie, the fact they are going to do anything is government interference.


patients will be able to make health care decisions with their doctors, instead of being blocked by insurance company bureaucrats.


Ah, HMO's are a choice, you can get a PPO if you want. But HMO's are much cheaper.


Create a new Small Business Health Tax Credit to help small businesses provide affordable health insurance to their employees.



Unless you are going to give me the money to pay for it, I don't pay any taxes to give me credit on. I know a lot of small business are like this.


Lower drug costs by allowing the importation of safe medicines from other developed countries, increasing the use of generic drugs in public programs and taking on drug companies that block cheaper generic medicines from the market


you know what is funny, the Federal government STOPPED Americans from doing this with Canada. It is much cheaper to guy non generic drugs in Canada for the exact same drugs that are in the US. If they would allow this again, the local price would drop.

Why did they stop?? Because the Medical Industrial complex told them to.


Anyways, I am getting frustrated reading this load of crap.

They make it sound good, but in reality, it will not work. You will not have prices drop unless you have competition. What Obama is proposing is not going to drop the prices. In fact, I will argue it will make health care even more expensive when you calculate all the costs.

“People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.”
-Ben Franklin

http://www.breitbart.tv/shocking-audio-rep-dingell-says-obamacare-will-eventually-control-the-people

�People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.�
-Ben Franklin

"Beer is proof that god wants us to be happy"
-Ben Franklin

Funny. I work in a small business, about 40 employees. We are getting killed on healthcare costs. I am paying an obscene amount for healthcare. Almost everybody in our small business is strongly in favor of the President's plan. I represent injured workers. I am amazed at how many of them have no private health coverage. I also see plenty of people who hold on to garbage jobs simply to keep their coverage.

I am amazed by the so-called freedom argument in opposition to this bill. I have not lost one bit of my freedom when I am required to have auto insurance when driving my car. In order to live in a free country I know that I have to pay taxes and support the armed forces. Sometimes there has been a draft for those same armed forces. We pay a small price for freedom. I hear that from the right all the time. In order to live in a free society where the insured are not subsidizing the uninsured, where people do not go without treatment and endanger themselves and others, I will submit to having health coverage. I have been doing that for the past 30 years. Its not much of a change.

You may be required to have auto insurance when driving your car, but you are not required to own a car.

You may be required to have auto insurance when driving your car, but you are not required to own a car.

I often hear this as some kind of rebuttal.

Car insurance is to driving as health insurance is to living. So, to parallel an anology you already agree with: you won't be required to have health insurance after you are dead.

I often hear this as some kind of rebuttal.

Car insurance is to driving as health insurance is to living. So, to parallel an anology you already agree with: you won't be required to have health insurance after you are dead.


I didn't mean it as a rebuttal of anything, just a comment.

Driving:Privilege
Driver's Insurance:Obligation of accepting that privilege

Living:Right
Health Insurance:?

Rights are not accepted, they just are. One does not have to do anything to gain a right.

And true, once you are dead, you no longer have the right to live, but not sure how germane that is to the argument.

I didn't mean it as a rebuttal of anything, just a comment.

Driving:Privilege
Driver's Insurance:Obligation of accepting that privilege

Living:Right
Health Insurance:?

Rights are not accepted, they just are. One does not have to do anything to gain a right.

And true, once you are dead, you no longer have the right to live, but not sure how germane that is to the argument.

The right/privilege distintion is not relevant to the analogy.

One is required to have car insurance to cover their potential liability to others in case of an accident, thereby preventing the financial burden from faliing on others. Likewise, one is required to have health insurance to cover their potential liability to others in case they need medical care, thereby preventing the financial burden from falling on others.

As long as this society believes in treating the sick, this requirement is pretty much a no-brainer. It also embodies the belief, once-held by republicans, of paying your own way and not leaching off others.

you're completely missing the point. one has a choice to drive or not to drive. therefore they have the choice to have car insurance or not. removing the choice for health insurance is effectively a tax on having a pulse.

I understand the distinction. Think of it this way: the decision by our society to provide life-saving care to everyone is equivalent to "thou must receive health care." For this discussion, that is equivalent to "thou must drive."

So, if everyone was forced to drive, you presumably would go along with a requirement that everyone has to have car insurance. It's the same thing with health care: everyone will recieve health care, therefore they must carry insurance.

I suppose the republicans could now argue that it is OK to deny care to the non-insured. Maybe they could have a tatoo or an implanted chip so that EMS and doctors would know to ignore them. That would make the republican argument internally consistent at least.

But everyone CAN receive healthcare now, it just may be less inconvenient for those without health insurance.

There is a difference between "can" and "must".

Lets call it what it is--I love the argument that the Government will be forcing people to get health coverage. I suspect there is a small percentage of people living off the grid who are insulted by this. More power to them. I think we should find a way to allow this to continue. Wanna live apart? Be my guest but do not ask anything, I mean anything, of the rest of us and don't drive on public roads! I will send you my Boy Scout Fieldbook in case you need a little first aid.

I suspect the vast majority of the people upon whom health insurance will now be "forced" are thrilled that they can finally have coverage. They do not want to be uninsured. (Expletive), I am too chicken to commit suicide so I figured I would just ignore this bloody, pulpy mess on me since I really can't afford to see a doctor..."

What else do I suspect? I suspect that the overwhelming majority of the opponants of the new bill all have health care coverage. Sort of a twist on the old phrase, "I'm ok. who cares about you."

We have made a decision as a society that we are willing to cough up the cost to make sure more people are under the net. We understand that we may be subsidizing some. However, we will not longer be doing it indirectly with higher medical costs that account for the cost of unpaid bills. We now do it on the surface. Some, fearing that bad word (socialism) do not like this. This is emotional now. Social Security was emotional when it was enacted. Its now an accepted part of life. semi-universal healthcare (hey, we really didn't go all the way) will be a fact of life to our children. We can all move on and know that we have done something to make the world better for them. Your welcome kids, now clean your friggin' room.

Sort of a twist on the old phrase, "I'm ok. who cares about you."

no. how about, "i've made sacrifices and decisions to ensure that i have health care, i don't want to see another system created that is ripe for abuse by those too negligent to do the same." i see rampant abuse of unemployment benefits and other social welfare programs everyday. i've witnessed more than my share of people turn down health insurance but live lavish lifestyles by many standards. do i think we should force health insurance upon them? no and most certainly not at taxpayer's expense.

However, we will not longer be doing it indirectly with higher medical costs that account for the cost of unpaid bills.

do you really think the government is capable of doing this? i agree that health care costs need to be addressed but universal health care at taxpayer's expense is a giant leap in the wrong direction.

Social Security was emotional when it was enacted. Its now an accepted part of life.

do you mean the same social security that is bankrupting our government? the same social security that we're being told time and time again not to trust will be there when we retire?

here's a good read that greatly influenced my position:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/09/how-american-health-care-killed-my-father/7617/

do i think we should force health insurance upon them? no and most certainly not at taxpayer's expense.

I've seen this argument made several times but this is not a valid statement.

If this person that you don't want to force to buy insurance ends up in the ER, he will get medical care.

The taxpayer still pays, either for his care or his insurance.

no. how about, "i've made sacrifices and decisions to ensure that i have health care, i don't want to see another system created that is ripe for abuse by those too negligent to do the same." i see rampant abuse of unemployment benefits and other social welfare programs everyday. i've witnessed more than my share of people turn down health insurance but live lavish lifestyles by many standards. do i think we should force health insurance upon them? no and most certainly not at taxpayer's expense.

I understand and agree with the frustration over those who have the means but fail to have insurance. I represent injured workers in workers' compensation claims and nothing gets me angrier than a two bit contractor driving a new F150 truck, who owns three buildings in his wife's name and having no insurance. The purpose of the legislation is to remedy the poor sap who works for that guy and never could afford insurance before. I will admit I have not read the thousands of pages of the legislation but it was my understanding that one's income is considered in the amount of any subsidy. I pay lots of taxes. I pay an insane amount for my own health insurance. I still think we are a better society if we make sure that the so called working poor, and that is a growing group, needs our and my help. I am reluctantly willing to pay.

do you really think the government is capable of doing this? i agree that health care costs need to be addressed but universal health care at taxpayer's expense is a giant leap in the wrong direction.

Well, having spent a career working for and against insurance companies I certainlty do not think they are capable. However, the reality is this legislation is a boon for insurance companies. They will still run the show. I wish the government was more involved this time. The compromise that allowed this bill to pass took away a public option. Your wish has been granted.


do you mean the same social security that is bankrupting our government? the same social security that we're being told time and time again not to trust will be there when we retire?

Yes, I was referring to the same social security system that has been underfunded and will crash when the baby boomers retire. I will work until I die as that will be the only option. My point here was that it is no longer considered revolutionary. Its just considered broke.

here's a good read that greatly influenced my position:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/09/how-american-health-care-killed-my-father/7617/

Fascinating piece. It does suggest that the piecemeal legislation that was passed will not do the job. Well, I certainly think a universal healthcare system would be better, but that is not the will of the majority. I think the majority sits in between you and I.

Florida Doctor tells Obama voters to go else where.:D

The sign reads: "If you voted for Obama...seek urologic care elsewhere. Changes to your healthcare begin right now, not in four years."

What about the Student loan issue that went into the bill?

I almost like it but them I remember it will give the schools another reason to raise tuition.........

LOL

The health care bill, as passed, is a bad deal for everyone but the insurance industry. That said, it got to be that way because of a number of factors, including deals between the Obama administration and insurance, and the reluctance of the GOP to take up the issue, or any issue for that matter.

That we need health care reform is obvious:

16% of our GDP, yet 1/3 of our population is uncovered. The next closest nation is 9% of GDP and they cover everyone (there are several countries that fall in the 6% to 9% of GDP including several in Europe, Canada, and several in Asia). All of them have problems, all of them are way better than what we have.

If you're rich, you're covered here as well as anyone does it, period. Everyone else is hosed.

The number one cause of bankruptcy for the middle class, medical expenses, something like 75% of all bankruptcies at this point.

Our relative health compared to the rest of the world is something like 34th. Our life spans are less etc. Don't give me the "it's the food." McDs are everywhere. And yes eating and living better is key, so is education about this issue, which comes from the doctor, that none of those poor people and much of the middle class can't afford to see.

Don't point fingers to find a cause unless you spread your fingers out to they point at everyone. Doctors, Insurance Companies, Hospitals, Pharmaceutical Companies, and medical device manufacturers. They are all taking a slice of the pie and getting rich baby.

The best solution is one that involves government and business working together, there are several models like this one that work pretty well.

It'll happen, after it becomes so bad that we have no choice.

I am anxiously waiting for the November elections! :)

I am anxiously waiting for the November elections! :)

Yes, but are you for the throw all the bums out or are you still of the notion that one set has a clue and is actually on our side?

The GOP and DEM basically overlap on 80% of what they do. That 80% is transferring wealth from the middle class to the rich and big business. The difference, that is, the 20% where they vary, is that the DEMS support the poor and environmentalists, and the GOP supports gun advocates, the paranoid, and the religious faction that wants to force their religious beliefs on the unenlightened (of course the gun advocates and the paranoid are more or less the same thing).

BTW - Neither supports small efficient government. Each wants a big government, but has a completely different view of what parts of the government should be big.

The difference, that is, the 20% where they vary, is that the DEMS support the poor and environmentalists, and the GOP supports gun advocates, the paranoid, and the religious faction that wants to force their religious beliefs on the unenlightened (of course the gun advocates and the paranoid are more or less the same thing)

Quite the objective statement there, Lyle. Hard to tell which side you lean toward :D