US/Obama Healthcare Plan Consolidated MEGA-THREAD

[Sibirsky]

Medicare and Medicaid are very niche policies. They only cater to those that truly--I say very generously--cannot take care of themselves. However, Medicaid is too compassionate.

Medicare is a universal program, It covers everyone from sick poor elderly and rich super wealthy people. Medicaid fees are often so stingy that many doctors won't see those on medicaid. How is it too generous?

Medicare should have a means test for elligebillity. If you are facing jail time, you may be provided a court appointed lawyer if you cannot afford one. Why are there wealthy people, who can clearly afford private insurance using a government system? That would reduce the burden a bit. Not a solution, by any means, not even close, but a step in the right direction.

[Marcuslandia]

Medicare should have a means test for elligebillity. If you are facing jail time, you may be provided a court appointed lawyer if you cannot afford one. Why are there wealthy people, who can clearly afford private insurance using a government system? That would reduce the burden a bit. Not a solution, by any means, not even close, but a step in the right direction.

The argument (which I see as having some merit) is that if an individual pays taxes specifically for a given benefits program, then that individual should be entitled to partake in that benefit.

Medicare is definitely not a "Cadillac policy". It's more than just "bare bones", but there's a lot that it doesn't cover. Wealthy taxpayers (who paid into the program) are eligible to use those benefits, but they undoubtedly also supplement their coverage with a MUCH more expensive, all-frills-covered private plan as well.

[Sibirsky]

Medicare should have a means test for elligebillity. If you are facing jail time, you may be provided a court appointed lawyer if you cannot afford one. Why are there wealthy people, who can clearly afford private insurance using a government system? That would reduce the burden a bit. Not a solution, by any means, not even close, but a step in the right direction.

The argument (which I see as having some merit) is that if an individual pays taxes specifically for a given benefits program, then that individual should be entitled to partake in that benefit.

Medicare is definitely not a "Cadillac policy". It's more than just "bare bones", but there's a lot that it doesn't cover. Wealthy taxpayers (who paid into the program) are eligible to use those benefits, but they undoubtedly also supplement their coverage with a MUCH more expensive, all-frills-covered private plan as well.

Understood. However social security, Medicare, and Medicaid are all broke. This is a step towards fiscal sustainability. Benefits must be stripped back or inflated away. Either way the taxpayers lose.

[Marcuslandia]

Understood. However social security, Medicare, and Medicaid are all broke.

These are myths created by and sustained by those people (whose labels start with "C", "N", or "R") that desperately want Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid to be privatized (thus allowing themselves and/or their campaign contributors to collect larger dividends from the HMO and similar corporations that they've invested in).

IF NOTHING CHANGES in the way the programs are funded,
Medicare will become bankrupt by 2018. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01448.html )
Medicaid will become bankrupt by 2019. (http://www.californiahealthline.org/art ... topicID=37 )
Social Security will become bankrupt by 2041. (http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/art ... 0447.shtml)

Do you remember Reagan and his "trickle down economics"? He absolutely insisted on giving the wealthy tax cuts, hoping it would encourage them to create more jobs. (It didn't.) By doing so, he created a Budget shortfall. He "balanced" the Budget again by "borrowing" $350 billion from Social Security (never paid back). The reason that he could do that was because in the early '80s the "baby boomers" were paying in considerably more than SS was paying out. But now it's 2009 and guess what? Now it's those same baby boomers that are going to be retiring -- but where did all of their SS funding go?

The real irony is that the very same people that insisted Reaganomics was a great idea and enabled him to rape over SS are now the same ones clamoring the loudest about "Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid are all broken!"

Fixing and funding these programs properly would be incredibly easy -- in comparison to the way those people funded a totally unnecessary war. For less than the bankers' bailout, those programs would be iron-clad through 2050 (by which time most of the baby boomers would have died out). The reason that it isn't happening is because some people want them to be privatized because they're "broken" -- the same people that did the "breaking" in the first place.

Stop and think about it: Congress can find it in their hearts to throw $700 billion at a few hundred banks. But they can't (or won't) find it in their hearts to safeguard Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid for a half-century simply by paying back the $350 billion they "borrowed" to bankroll some major tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Few hundred banks on one side; few hundred million citizens on the other.

And these people supposedly work for us????

[Psychotic Mongooses]

A Jewish man praises the Israeli healthcare system during an interview, gets shouted at by a lady just off camera.

"Heil Hitler!" she yells at him at the 0:36 second mark.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/1 ... 62554.html

He's goes apeshit at her. Her response?


"Durrrrr, you should be most against President Obama".

[The Infinite Dunes]

A Jewish man praises the Israeli healthcare system during an interview, gets shouted at by a lady just off camera.

"Heil Hitler!" she yells at him at the 0:36 second mark.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/1 ... 62554.html

He's goes apeshit at her. Her response?


"Durrrrr, you should be most against President Obama".

What a bitch. Did you see how she mocks they guy at the end by pretending to cry as well...

[DaWoad]

A Jewish man praises the Israeli healthcare system during an interview, gets shouted at by a lady just off camera.

"Heil Hitler!" she yells at him at the 0:36 second mark.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/1 ... 62554.html

He's goes apeshit at her. Her response?


"Durrrrr, you should be most against President Obama".

to be fair most of the conservatives here are brighter than this particular lady . . .

[Sibirsky]

Understood. However social security, Medicare, and Medicaid are all broke.

These are myths created by and sustained by those people (whose labels start with "C", "N", or "R") that desperately want Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid to be privatized (thus allowing themselves and/or their campaign contributors to collect larger dividends from the HMO and similar corporations that they've invested in).

IF NOTHING CHANGES in the way the programs are funded,
Medicare will become bankrupt by 2018. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01448.html )
Medicaid will become bankrupt by 2019. (http://www.californiahealthline.org/art ... topicID=37 )
Social Security will become bankrupt by 2041. (http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/art ... 0447.shtml)

Do you remember Reagan and his "trickle down economics"? He absolutely insisted on giving the wealthy tax cuts, hoping it would encourage them to create more jobs. (It didn't.) By doing so, he created a Budget shortfall. He "balanced" the Budget again by "borrowing" $350 billion from Social Security (never paid back). The reason that he could do that was because in the early '80s the "baby boomers" were paying in considerably more than SS was paying out. But now it's 2009 and guess what? Now it's those same baby boomers that are going to be retiring -- but where did all of their SS funding go?

The real irony is that the very same people that insisted Reaganomics was a great idea and enabled him to rape over SS are now the same ones clamoring the loudest about "Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid are all broken!"

Fixing and funding these programs properly would be incredibly easy -- in comparison to the way those people funded a totally unnecessary war. For less than the bankers' bailout, those programs would be iron-clad through 2050 (by which time most of the baby boomers would have died out). The reason that it isn't happening is because some people want them to be privatized because they're "broken" -- the same people that did the "breaking" in the first place.

Stop and think about it: Congress can find it in their hearts to throw $700 billion at a few hundred banks. But they can't (or won't) find it in their hearts to safeguard Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid for a half-century simply by paying back the $350 billion they "borrowed" to bankroll some major tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Few hundred banks on one side; few hundred million citizens on the other.

And these people supposedly work for us????

They haven't worked for us in decades. So you're basically saying they're not broke yet. The actual date they run out of money doesn't matter to me. They are spending more than they are taking in. I was against the war and all bailouts.

[Sibirsky]

A Jewish man praises the Israeli healthcare system during an interview, gets shouted at by a lady just off camera.

"Heil Hitler!" she yells at him at the 0:36 second mark.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/1 ... 62554.html

He's goes apeshit at her. Her response?


"Durrrrr, you should be most against President Obama".

What a bitch. Did you see how she mocks they guy at the end by pretending to cry as well...

Yes. A dumb bitch.

[Treznor]

They haven't worked for us in decades. So you're basically saying they're not broke yet. The actual date they run out of money doesn't matter to me. They are spending more than they are taking in. I was against the war and all bailouts.

Of course they're paying out more than they're taking in. There are more people in retirement than are in the work force, which is what happens when you have a baby boom that reaches retirement age. By the time these programs are bankrupt, a lot of that generation won't need the funds any longer. And bankruptcy assumes that the policies aren't tweaked further to deal with the "raiding" on their funds.

The problem is generational, not financial. Once the Baby Boomers are out of the system, the crisis will be over and the programs won't be in such dire straits. Name another program -- government or otherwise -- that's lasted for three generations and has succeeded so well that its funds have been raided to pay for unrelated tasks.

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

Medicaid will become bankrupt by 2019. (http://www.californiahealthline.org/art ... topicID=37 )

That's not what your source says.

They are spending more than they are taking in.

Then It should be easy to find a source to back this claim up.

[Sibirsky]

Medicaid will become bankrupt by 2019. (http://www.californiahealthline.org/art ... topicID=37 )

That's not what your source says.

They are spending more than they are taking in.

Then It should be easy to find a source to back this claim up.

That's not my source. And that is what it says. To go broke, one must spend more then they receive in revenue. It's common sense, you don't need a source. You got THREE earlier.

[CommunistSovietAmerica]

It is terrible, but not as bad as it's made out to be.

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

Medicaid will become bankrupt by 2019. (http://www.californiahealthline.org/art ... topicID=37 )

That's not what your source says.

They are spending more than they are taking in.

Then It should be easy to find a source to back this claim up.

That's not my source. And that is what it says. To go broke, one must spend more then they receive in revenue. It's common sense, you don't need a source. You got THREE earlier.

Obviously that first quote isn't from you because the comment system on this forum is about as user friendly as this.


Anyway,

They are spending more than they are taking in.

None of those three sources say this^^^

[Sibirsky]

None of those three sources say this^^^

If they wren't why would they go broke in 2018, 2019 and 2041 respectively?

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

None of those three sources say this^^^

If they wren't why would they go broke in 2018, 2019 and 2041 respectively?

Read the three sources.

[Rainasia]

Im from the UK, and our NHS system was seriously demonised particularly by fox. British people will sit and complain for hours about the NHS, but thats only because British people will complain about anything they can. We wouldn't change to a privatised health system, for the simple fact that we can't comprehend being billed thousands for life saving treatment. Our system provides for everyone, with waiting times being slashed all the time.

A national health system is fantastic and totally morally sound. Just because you have a nationalised system doesn't mean you have to use it... if you can afford not to then don't... I can't quite understand why one of the most patriotic nations in the world, and by far the most economically advanced in the world, would even be having a debate over this issue when millions of its tax paying citizens are left without treatment every year.

I hope that Obama can give a more nationalised system to America purely for the fact that it is only the right wing media that have duped people into believing that this will turn America into a 1970's Soviet state, and rob them of their freedom... When Bush suspended habius corpus (Police needing a reason to arrest a citizen) no-one gave a shit, but some how free healthcare is an attack on freedom...

Too many Americans struggle with hospital bills and suffer without fully comprihensive insurance... I can go to any hospital in Britain and receive a good standard of treatment without the added stress of how I'm going to pay for it all...

The only political party in the UK to have individuals who don't believe in the NHS is the Conservative Party, and publically the leadership will always support it because for Britain it is as important as a public police force, fire department and education system...
You couldn't expect people to provide those for themselves (save maybe education), so the nations health is public good should be publically provided.

National healthcare is NOT BAD AT ALL... and there is no way that the majority in any country to have it would wish a system like America's...

[The_pantless_hero]

A national health system is fantastic and totally morally sound. Just because you have a nationalised system doesn't mean you have to use it... if you can afford not to then don't... I can't quite understand why one of the most patriotic nations in the world, and by far the most economically advanced in the world, would even be having a debate over this issue when millions of its tax paying citizens are left without treatment every year.

Because it would hurt insurance industry profits and if there is anything private companies in American hate, it's something that cuts into their profits - even if that something is a benefit to the welfare of the nation. And if there is one thing politicians, and especially Republicans, hates, it is something cutting into the profits of the people spending millions upon millions of dollars to convince politicians that they shouldn't do anything to reduce said companies profits. So what do they do? They lie, misinform, distort facts, and anything else they can do to kill the bill. And the Democrats are too big of cowards to fight back on the same footing the Republicans fight with, and Obama is either too stupid or too much of a centrist jackass to realize negotiating with the Republicans is NOT going to get any bill passed and most certainly not any bill passed that could be recognized as reform.

[The_pantless_hero]

Hmm. I perceive that much of Obama's perceived "weakness" comes from his very strong and very obvious desire to have some bipartisan accord in the process.

Out of curiosity, if at this point Obama cracked down and capitalized on the fact that he finally has solid control of the House AND 60 compliant seats in the Senate, how would you feel if he simply pushed EVERYTHING through Congress with EVERYTHING boiling down to passage by Democrat majority and _every_ Republican voting against? No more attempts at compromise; just simple brute force. (Sort of like Bush from 2000-2006.)

Of course consensus is a good thing. But you can only come to a compromise with someone who is actually willing to compromise. To me it doesn't seem like the Republicans are interested in any compromise, Palin has even gone so far to call the reforms 'evil'.

Palin? Palin is a bit player practically. Grassley, a key Republican on the fucking compromise committee, is saying he won't vote for the bill regardless of how much he himself personally guts it.

Obama needs to stop compromising and tell the Republicans to go fuck themselves then get whoever the fuck was in charge of his campaign to go out there right now and start generating some damn pro-healthcare reform noise.

[Sibirsky]

Hmm. I perceive that much of Obama's perceived "weakness" comes from his very strong and very obvious desire to have some bipartisan accord in the process.

Out of curiosity, if at this point Obama cracked down and capitalized on the fact that he finally has solid control of the House AND 60 compliant seats in the Senate, how would you feel if he simply pushed EVERYTHING through Congress with EVERYTHING boiling down to passage by Democrat majority and _every_ Republican voting against? No more attempts at compromise; just simple brute force. (Sort of like Bush from 2000-2006.)

Of course consensus is a good thing. But you can only come to a compromise with someone who is actually willing to compromise. To me it doesn't seem like the Republicans are interested in any compromise, Palin has even gone so far to call the reforms 'evil'.

Palin? Palin is a bit player practically. Grassley, a key Republican on the fucking compromise committee, is saying he won't vote for the bill regardless of how much he himself personally guts it.

Obama needs to stop compromising and tell the Republicans to go fuck themselves then get whoever the fuck was in charge of his campaign to go out there right now and start generating some damn pro-healthcare reform noise.

I would love for him to do it in those words. I would get a kick out of that

[Grave_n_idle]

Medicare should have a means test for elligebillity. If you are facing jail time, you may be provided a court appointed lawyer if you cannot afford one. Why are there wealthy people, who can clearly afford private insurance using a government system? That would reduce the burden a bit. Not a solution, by any means, not even close, but a step in the right direction.

The argument (which I see as having some merit) is that if an individual pays taxes specifically for a given benefits program, then that individual should be entitled to partake in that benefit.

Medicare is definitely not a "Cadillac policy". It's more than just "bare bones", but there's a lot that it doesn't cover. Wealthy taxpayers (who paid into the program) are eligible to use those benefits, but they undoubtedly also supplement their coverage with a MUCH more expensive, all-frills-covered private plan as well.

Understood. However social security, Medicare, and Medicaid are all broke. This is a step towards fiscal sustainability. Benefits must be stripped back or inflated away. Either way the taxpayers lose.

If they are, indeed, broken - then what they need, is to be fixed.

It always astounds me how wasteful some people can be - maintainence is almost always cheaper in the long run, than throwing 'it' away and starting over.

[Marcuslandia]

They haven't worked for us in decades. So you're basically saying they're not broke yet. The actual date they run out of money doesn't matter to me. They are spending more than they are taking in. I was against the war and all bailouts.

Then it doesn't sound like you're down on them because they're "broken"; it sounds more like you're down on them because you simply dislike the idea of those programs to begin with. As in, "Those programs shouldn't be in existence in the first place!" kind of thing.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Sdaeriji]

If they are, indeed, broken - then what they need, is to be fixed.

It always astounds me how wasteful some people can be - maintainence is almost always cheaper in the long run, than throwing 'it' away and starting over.

I don't think "and starting over" is part of the plan for the people advocating getting rid of the programs.

[Sibirsky]

They haven't worked for us in decades. So you're basically saying they're not broke yet. The actual date they run out of money doesn't matter to me. They are spending more than they are taking in. I was against the war and all bailouts.

Then it doesn't sound like you're down on them because they're "broken"; it sounds more like you're down on them because you simply dislike the idea of those programs to begin with. As in, "Those programs shouldn't be in existence in the first place!" kind of thing.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Although I would prefer they did not exist it's a little too late for that. At this point I would settle for making them fiscally sustainable.

[Treznor]

They haven't worked for us in decades. So you're basically saying they're not broke yet. The actual date they run out of money doesn't matter to me. They are spending more than they are taking in. I was against the war and all bailouts.

Then it doesn't sound like you're down on them because they're "broken"; it sounds more like you're down on them because you simply dislike the idea of those programs to begin with. As in, "Those programs shouldn't be in existence in the first place!" kind of thing.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Although I would prefer they did not exist it's a little too late for that. At this point I would settle for making them fiscally sustainable.

Hmm...like increasing taxes and preventing their funds from being raided for other programs?