Obamacare is working already!

[houston7]

I will try and add to/interpret whatmoney's point of view.

To start with, how much money is enough for the rich? How much is too much? I used to have a link saved that showed that back in the 1980's the average CEO made $45 to every $1 that each of his employees made. Now that figure is shown to be $1081. I am going to take a wild guess and say that outsourcing has had something to do with this. Rthugs scream that this is the beauty of capitalism. I call this out and out greed. I think the point that whatmoney is trying to make is that anyone who paid attention in either history or social studies class knows that revolutions start when the poor become aware/pissed off at their plight when compared to the rich. Add to that the fact that we have a right to bear arms. This is a bad combination that people like myself and whatmoney do not want to see play out. Unfortunately, the rich are too greedy and cannot see past today's exploitation list, therefore they must be regulated by government.

You can also include lack of specific answers to specific questions and the republican's obstructionist policies since Obama became president. Rthugs are more concerned about gaining control of congress than working together to improve the current economic situation. They are willing to throw millions of americans under the economic bus in their effort to show how bad the democrats are. Did I mention hypocrisy. You know, the rthugs didn't want to extend unemployment without paying for it because they didn't want to add to the debt. But, they were more than willing to exend the tax breaks for the rich even though it would add to the debt. Also, rthugs cling to the constitution when pointing out every move Obama makes, yet they are more than willing to ignore/try to change the constitution when it comes to that part about anyone born in the US is automatically a citizen of the US. Racist much?

So, other than uncontrolled greed, willingness to exploit anything and anyone, lust for power instead of improving our country, hypocrisy, and racism, I am fresh out of ideas as to why anyone would hate republicans.

[chrisdfw]

To start with, how much money is enough for the rich? How much is too much? I used to have a link saved that showed that back in the 1980's the average CEO made $45 to every $1 that each of his employees made. Now that figure is shown to be $1081. I am going to take a wild guess and say that outsourcing has had something to do with this.

I sense a die hard democrat.

First of all, I would agree with you on that CEO pay thing, except the extra earnings the corporation make should belong to the shareholders, whereas I sense you think it belongs to the general public or employees. CEOs are using insiders to approve excessive pay packages for themselves. That money needs to be given to the shareholders as dividends, which would help shore up pensions and 401ks and bring some stability back to the stock market. But the money made by companies rightfully belongs to shareholders, not to be stolen by CEOs using their cronies as board members to approve what shareholders would never truly vote for. That needs to be reformed to put the control back in the hands of shareholders, requiring their explicit approval of any pay package over a certain amount. I don't mean just the ones at the meeting, but a sizeable majority of all shareholders, and require at least a certain percentage to vote. Property rights of the shareholders is important to most true conswervatives/libertations, not the ass clowns that have been running our government both republican and democrat.

The constution has a process to make ammendments, why is it hypocfrisy to try to do it. The income tax required an ammendment, without the ability to steal from the rich to give to the poor through the income tax many social programs couldn't exist. I think you're probably in favor of that. The 14th ammendment that "supposedly" grants citizenship to all those born on US soil is itself an ammendment, wo there is no hypopcrisy to want to end that. I don't think anyone envisioned a whole class of criminals exploiting that ammendment to try and get citizenship for their children, and yes, if you enter the country illegally you are a criminal, regardless of your race, I don't see why race is an issue here, there are illegal aliens of every race violating our laws, students that come on student visas from europe that never leave, canadians on tourist visas that overstay, etc.

But the constitution still needs to be followed, all parts until it is changed. Whether the 14th ammendment really grants citizenship to criminal aliens children is a fair question for the courts and a fair thing to revisit, nothing hypocritical there.

obstructing policies you don't agree with is not a sin, that is a virtue. By the way, all the polls indicate that most Americans did not support the policies, but the liberals wanted it and pushed it against the will of the public. Obstructing things that are unconstitutional and bad for america is a good thing. Republicans are no angels, they pushed the same kind of shit when they were in power. But the public was against baiolouts, and both Bush and Obama pushed them through. The were against the GM bailouts, but yet they had it pushed in their faces. They were against stimulus, and yet we got it. Most were against the final healthcare bill, yet we got that too.

[tobee43]

this issue if far more reaching than posing the simplifying of the view of whether it's the state of mind of either republicans or democrats that are the center core for these unprecedented economic occurrences .

if we simple follow the rules of economics it is clear enough that obama had no other choice than to bail out the banks and the auto industries. i hated every move and moment that it was happening...but think one more step ahead.

was....or better yet could.... obama let the United States of American's Banks fail??? the ramifications would have destroyed the entire core of the global economy.

most of the time what's important to us, is what is truly in front of us. what we live and breath and nowadays, especially, we cannot see beyond our front doors.

my personal political views aside, but i'm putting them right out there...the great hope for all mankind...my idealist view that someday we could just look at a MAN and he simply be a MAN with no label whether it be color or religion...(ahhhh my ole hippie days are still deep inside somewhere in there). the fool i was and am to still have had some faith in mankind. i personally feel responsible for this because i believed all the lies...

obama is no MAN..., at least not one i would ever care to know as he single handedly wiped out the middle class in one full scoop. oh....bush put us here...and got the country so blind sided that we wanted to believe. we only ourselves to blame.

[chrisdfw]

we only ourselves to blame.

Now that is true, over the last 50 years we have as a society voted to give ourselves goodies without paying for them, putting future generations in debt.

We all want to believe in things and go along, I believed Bush would reduce government but he didn't, I believed Obama was a populist who would go with the will of the people, but I was wrong there too. I wish I knew who to vote for that would put things on track, but I am in many ways a cynic about politics. I also believe that people in this country want something for nothing and are willing to vote for whoever promises them stuff that they don't have to pay for. That is our pattern.

I don't know what we should do next, but I worry where we are headed.

[tobee43]

Now that is true, over the last 50 years we have as a society voted to give ourselves goodies without paying for them, putting future generations in debt.

We all want to believe in things and go along, I believed Bush would reduce government but he didn't, I believed Obama was a populist who would go with the will of the people, but I was wrong there too. I wish I knew who to vote for that would put things on track, but I am in many ways a cynic about politics. I also believe that people in this country want something for nothing and are willing to vote for whoever promises them stuff that they don't have to pay for. That is our pattern.

I don't know what we should do next, but I worry where we are headed.

well said...and i so agree.

a true story ...i had a friend from france...years ago i was speaking to her about "instant" coffee....she asked...what is it with americans and this word "instant"....you want instant coffee, instant food, instant everything...she explained at the time, which i'm certain there is a word for it now, but at the time she proclaimed there was no translation in french for the word "instant"....as in we americans needed instant gratification with all and everything...a concept so difficult for her to grasp.

if ONLY walt disney were still alive...he would have been an outstanding president! he is the ONLY one i have even known with such insight and foresight into what our futures could or would be. LOL!

[WhatMoney]

Since tobee has never heard of Elizabeth Warren, here is one of her many videos directed to the average lay American, this time talking about health care. Despite being one of the most respected scholarly law minds in the country, this Harvard professor has the rare talent of expressing her ideas so that the average Joe Sixpack American can understand her. She reminds me of Ronald Reagan with a brain.

And after watching this video you can understand why the Republicans, the insurance companies, and the anti-government wingers hate this lady. She is trying to tell the American people the truth. Now why does tobee43 write an attack article, complete with a thumbs down icon for Professor Warren?. She's just a nice Methodist Sunday school teacher from Oklahoma after all. You'd think the TeaBaggers would consider her a hero and spokeswoman. But she is the enemy to these misinformed folks who have no idea who their friends in high places really are. Sad for the country if this trend of ignorance continues.

[ryan]

The Left has lots of videos of people like Ms.Warren all talking up the greatness of the health system in Canada and the UK, for instance. But what they don't tell you is, for every hoped-for benefit, you will suffer many disadvantages. Long waiting times, limited access to the latest high-tech diagnostic equipment, limited new drug research, doctor shortages and much more.

Ms. Warren in her interview here with the 'great thinker' Michael Moore, says 50% of BK's occur due to medical bills, even with health insurance. Yet, there isn't a shred of evidence that 'Obama Health Care' will reduce costs even one nickel. In fact, the administration is now backing off any such claims and merely touting that the health service will be better quality...
even though 30+ million people will be forced into the existing system with no proportionate increase in the number of new doctors etc. Sheer folly to pretend waiting times will not go thru the roof!

This video of 20/20 episode hosted by John Stossel is shocking and reveals just a little of the challenges Canadians have with their own system. It is hardly a prefect or enduring solution as you'll see.

I actually happen to like Ms Warren, btw, but she is no authority on Health Care Policy.

[WhatMoney]

The Left has lots of videos of people like Ms.Warren all talking up the greatness of the health system in Canada and the UK, for instance. But what they don't tell you is, for every hoped-for benefit, you will suffer many disadvantages. Long waiting times, limited access to the latest high-tech diagnostic equipment, limited new drug research, doctor shortages and much more.

It's a shame to see ABC 20/20 produce such a one-sided report - it's almost as if they were funded by insurance companies. There are more useful TV programs about health care reform, like the one in my signature from Frontline.

I have many Canadian friends, and not one of them would give up their National Health Insurance. Their experiences in delays and doctor shortages are comparable to the present US private system - except they don't have to go bankrupt if they get sick. 20/20 concentrated on a few weaknesses of the system, MRI availability, and long waits for doctors in rural provinces where there are few hospitals and doctors.

The same problem exists for rural areas in the USA. Doctors and specialists practice where the most patients, facilities, and money is - and will always tend toward larger cities because of the culture. The memory of a small town doctor making house calls in his horse and buggy are long gone in this country and in Canada. Wasn't it Sarah Palin that went to Canada for her health care because it wasn't available in her state?

Here is something wriiten by an American who lives in Canada, and has been in both systems. His experiences are closer to what I hear from Canadians than the political crap put out by the insurance lobby.

(And what on earth does the fact that Billionaire Arab sheiks visit the US for critical health care have to do with health insurance? They can afford to pay the entire cost out of pocket. That little bit in the program lowers the credibility of the entire show. Seems like something you'd find on the Fox TV network.)

3. Wait times in Canada are horrendous.
True and False again -- it depends on which province you live in, and what's wrong with you. Canada's health care system runs on federal guidelines that ensure uniform standards of care, but each territory and province administers its own program. Some provinces don't plan their facilities well enough; in those, you can have waits. Some do better. As a general rule, the farther north you live, the harder it is to get to care, simply because the doctors and hospitals are concentrated in the south. But that's just as true in any rural county in the U.S.

You can hear the bit*hing about it no matter where you live, though. The percentage of Canadians who'd consider giving up their beloved system consistently languishes in the single digits. A few years ago, a TV show asked Canadians to name the Greatest Canadian in history; and in a broad national consensus, they gave the honor to Tommy Douglas, the Saskatchewan premier who is considered the father of the country's health care system. (And no, it had nothing to do with the fact that he was also Kiefer Sutherland's grandfather.). In spite of that, though, grousing about health care is still unofficially Canada's third national sport after curling and hockey.

And for the country's newspapers, it's a prime watchdogging opportunity. Any little thing goes sideways at the local hospital, and it's on the front pages the next day. Those kinds of stories sell papers, because everyone is invested in that system and has a personal stake in how well it functions. The American system might benefit from this kind of constant scrutiny, because it's certainly one of the things that keeps the quality high. But it also makes people think it's far worse than it is.

Critics should be reminded that the American system is not exactly instant-on, either. When I lived in California, I had excellent insurance, and got my care through one of the best university-based systems in the nation. Yet I routinely had to wait anywhere from six to twelve weeks to get in to see a specialist. Non-emergency surgical waits could be anywhere from four weeks to four months. After two years in the BC system, I'm finding the experience to be pretty much comparable, and often better. The notable exception is MRIs, which were easy in California, but can take many months to get here. (It's the number one thing people go over the border for.) Other than that, urban Canadians get care about as fast as urban Americans do.

4. You have to wait forever to get a family doctor.
False for the vast majority of Canadians, but True for a few. Again, it all depends on where you live. I live in suburban Vancouver, and there are any number of first-rate GPs in my neighborhood who are taking new patients. If you don't have a working relationship with one, but need to see a doctor now, there are 24-hour urgent care clinics in most neighborhoods that will usually get you in and out on the minor stuff in under an hour.

It is, absolutely, harder to get to a doctor if you live out in a small town, or up in the territories. But that's just as true in the U.S. -- and in America, the government won't cover the airfare for rural folk to come down to the city for needed treatment, which all the provincial plans do.

5. You don't get to choose your own doctor.
Scurrilously False. Somebody, somewhere, is getting paid a lot of money to make this kind of stuff up. The cons love to scare the kids with stories about the government picking your doctor for you, and you don't get a choice. Be afraid! Be very afraid!

For the record: Canadians pick their own doctors, just like Americans do. And not only that: since it all pays the same, poor Canadians have exactly the same access to the country's top specialists that rich ones do.

Excerpt from Mythbusting Canadian Health Care -- Part I

Entire article is here: http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/...th-care-part-i

[tobee43]

Since tobee has never heard of Elizabeth Warren, here is one of her many videos directed to the average lay American, this time talking about health care. Despite being one of the most respected scholarly law minds in the country, this Harvard professor has the rare talent of expressing her ideas so that the average Joe Sixpack American can understand her. She reminds me of Ronald Reagan with a brain.

And after watching this video you can understand why the Republicans, the insurance companies, and the anti-government wingers hate this lady. She is trying to tell the American people the truth. Now why does tobee43 write an attack article, complete with a thumbs down icon for Professor Warren?. She's just a nice Methodist Sunday school teacher from Oklahoma after all. You'd think the TeaBaggers would consider her a hero and spokeswoman. But she is the enemy to these misinformed folks who have no idea who their friends in high places really are. Sad for the country if this trend of ignorance continues.

really whatmoney...prior to you responding to anything you really need to READ and try and at the least attempt to understand what is written.

let me clear a few misinformation's you have decided to attempt to communicate incorrectly.

1. i never said i did not know whom ms warren is, of course not only do i know...i simply don't care it was NOT...the point of what i was writing, which you clearly could not grasp; was with respect to the out of control handling of the stimulus package...i understand that's difficult for you to get. (basically...and i understand this may be rather deep for you...ms. warren is simply a metaphorical example of what my point was) .

2. you have no idea of what my political views are....you were too young while in the 60's i was being gassed for protesting while walking thru our college campus....get educated...it's step one to unlocking the key to many doors...

Now why does tobee43 write an attack article, complete with a thumbs down icon for Professor Warren?.

the answer is quite simple...i didn't...lol...READ and learn PLEASE.

while some like and enjoy taking what is written and said out of content for their own distorted views, may i first suggest that you READ very carefully prior to making so many misinformed, mistaken, misinterpreted and ill willed responses. i promise it will help you in your future endeavors.

now getting back to a much more important issue...can you ship me some salmon berries or NOT?

[WhatMoney]

let me clear a few misinformation's you have decided to attempt to communicate incorrectly.

1. i never said i did not know whom ms warren is, of course not only do i know...i simply don't care it was NOT...the point of what i was writing, which you clearly could not grasp; was with respect to the out of control handling of the stimulus package...i understand that's difficult for you to get. (basically...and i understand this may be rather deep for you...ms. warren is simply a metaphorical example of what my point was) .

2. you have no idea of what my political views are....you were too young while in the 60's i was being gassed for protesting while walking thru our college campus....get educated...it's step one to unlocking the key to many doors...

Re 1. - Anyone can read your OP on that thread and tell you really had no point. And you are still yakking about committee reports and Warren, which suggests you are still confused.

Re 2. - above, you are once again way off the mark. I am approaching 70. And I was a part of the famous Dow Riots in Oct, 1967 on the UW Madison campus, so I too was tear gassed by the cops, although at least they didn't beat me with their clubs.

Dow riot (1967)
Anti-war protest on the University of Wisconsin's Madison campus, Oct. 18, 1967. When hundreds of students protesting recruiters from Dow Chemical, the makers of napalm, blocked access to the University's Commerce Building, Madison police removed them by force. Dozens of students were beaten bloody, tear gas was used for the first time in an anti-war demonstration, and 19 police officers were treated at local hospitals. The violence of the event is credited with politicizing thousands of previously apathetic students and helping to transform the Madison campus into one of the nation's leading anti-war communities.

And I had already finished my Master's degree in Electrical Engineering at the time and was working full-time as an instrumentation design engineer at the UW High Energy Physics Dept. in October 1967. When I returned from Vietnam in 1970 (my draft board was nice enough draft me that later that fall), I returned to get another MS and PhD in solid state physics from the UW. My minor (all engineers needed a minor) was Political Science. I also started my own small hedge fund company in the early 90's and lasted for 14 years before the crooks on Wall Street (Texas energy company crooks actually) forced me to retire. I think I've had enough education...



Yes, I am actually in this photo of the Dow Riots - watching safely in the back - before they set off the tear gas to disperse the large crowd that had formed.

[tobee43]

caught me with that stick in the picture!!!!!!!!!...how did you find that one of me?? LOL!!

i have a few degrees myself in the closet...one from uc berkeley and one from bu....those and a dime won't even buy me a cup of coffee at starbucks today! and i can't even type! right LOL


i can't help myself whatmoney, you just seem to grow on me....i just got off the phone with my screaming liberal atty calif sister...she even agrees with me on this one...sorry....and it was ME at the protests...she actually went to class!!

ok...i concede...your older than i am...

[albacore44]

i work for a big fortune 500 company. we were notified last week that after Jan 1st our contribution for medical insureand would go up substancially, as the insurance companies are all raising their rates. well there goes any salary increase I could expect for the next few years. My company always shows us how much they pay monthly for my medical coverage, and its a lot

Whats happened is the insurance companies will all be required to contribute to funds for government run Heroine clinics, and medical funds for the poor, etc. so they will be passing these additional costs on to those who pay premiums, us the middle class.

When the Liberals were politicing trying to shove this bill down our throats, i distinctly remember them saying rates would not increase for the middle class. will as usual.............they lied. but it was doomed to work out that way, since they had not read the bill.

I know it's easy to gripe and moan how the insurance companies are ripping us off. we forget that insurance companies are in business for a profit. you cant expect to get $10 worth of health care for a $1 worth of premium. if you expect that then keep your money and pay cash for your treatment as you need it

[ryan]

[QUOTE=WhatMoney;450911]It's a shame to see ABC 20/20 produce such a one-sided report - it's almost as if they were funded by insurance companies. There are more useful TV programs about health care reform, like the one in my signature from Frontline. I'm afraid I prefer ABC's bias to the liberal bias of PBS. Its actually funny you would complain about ABC tv, hardly a 'right wing' favorite.

I have many Canadian friends, and not one of them would give up their National Health Insurance. Their experiences in delays and doctor shortages are comparable to the present US private system - except they don't have to go bankrupt if they get sick. 20/20 concentrated on a few weaknesses of the system, MRI availability, and long waits for doctors in rural provinces where there are few hospitals and doctors. I've only had one Canadian friend, who is moving to Thailand, partly due to the high tax burden in Canada. I can't recall if he ever commented about the health care in Canada.

The same problem exists for rural areas in the USA. Doctors and specialists practice where the most patients, facilities, and money is - and will always tend toward larger cities because of the culture. The memory of a small town doctor making house calls in his horse and buggy are long gone in this country and in Canada. Wasn't it Sarah Palin that went to Canada for her health care because it wasn't available in her state? Don't know, do know that one of the Members of Canadian Parliament went to US for surgery, and had quite a bit of explaining to do!

Here is something wriiten by an American who lives in Canada, and has been in both systems. His experiences are closer to what I hear from Canadians than the political crap put out by the insurance lobby.

(And what on earth does the fact that Billionaire Arab sheiks visit the US for critical health care have to do with health insurance? They can afford to pay the entire cost out of pocket. That little bit in the program lowers the credibility of the entire show. Seems like something you'd find on the Fox TV network.)
I think you missed the point.... They were proving that when people around the world want the best there is only ONE country they choose for medical care: The United States.

Excerpt from [B]Mythbusting Canadian Health Care -- Part I

Heres what the revered 'Father Of Canadian Health Care' system NOW thinks of his creation:

Claude Castonguay fathered the single-payer system in Quebec that locked out private insurance. This is the one which advocates of nationalized health care in the US love to cite as a success story. However, Claude Castonguay now has reached a far different conclusion about his creation.

Back in the 1960s, Castonguay chaired a Canadian government committee studying health reform and recommended that his home province of Quebec — then the largest and most affluent in the country — adopt government-administered health care, covering all citizens through tax levies.

The government followed his advice, leading to his modern-day moniker: “the father of Quebec medicare.”

Four decades later, as the chairman of a government committee reviewing Quebec health care this year, Castonguay concluded that the system is in “crisis.”

“We thought we could resolve the system’s problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it,” says Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: “We are proposing to give a greater role to the PRIVATE SECTOR so that people can exercise freedom of choice.”

Castonguay has realized — a little late — that socializing medicine creates a shortage-management system. It limits the resources available, which drives down the level and the quality of service. Without free-market competition and under a burdensome regulatory scheme, there are no incentives for investment, and not even “massive” amounts of government spending can solve those core problems.

What does Castonguay suggest for Canada?

He wants the immediate legalization of private insurance.

Since the government now owns all caregiving facilities, Castonguay recommends that they lease space to entrepeneurial physicians and care-giving companies to get more services available to Canadians. Right now, the Canadians actually pay Americans to see their citizens, those whose urgent needs cannot be addressed in a timely manner. Not only is that a gigantic hypocrisy — the state system paying private-sector providers in another country — but it also sends money outside of Canada that would remain in Canada if they had private sector health-care options.

The bottom line is that the Canadian experiment has failed so badly that even its creator recognizes it.

The theory of socialized health care is wonderful. However, put it in practice long term, and the economics fail. ....and this is the model the Left wants us to follow??????

[SweetGeorgia]

I think that's a grievous misrepresentation of Castonguay's report. It is about proposing reforms and improvements to Quebec's provincial system, not abolishing the thing. Medical costs are growing faster than the economy, so a committee of experts studied the issues at hand and recommended various solutions to the problem. Practices in other developed countries were examined for effectiveness and possible emulation.

(The U.S. system is excluded from the emulation talk, because our results suck and because we don't share their values. Planning is for communists. Healthcare planning is for really boring communists. Our right to pay more and get less is written in the Constitution. Right?)

"This new social contract is based on a number of values and principles that should
be familiar to all. The Task Force has identified six, namely universality, solidarity,
fairness, efficiency, responsibility and freedom."

..."The Task Force believes that the contribution of the private sector should be
viewed as a complementary resource: it means giving Quebecers more
freedom of choice on how to meet their health needs, while making essential
improvements to the public system by introducing elements that will foster
vitality and emulation. This is a vision diametrically opposed to privatization.

The Task Force is convinced that there is a role for the private sector, while
keeping to the bases of the public system. The private sector should be
recognized as an ally of the public system, while clearly delineating its role,
rather than continuing to needlessly view it as a threat.

None of the components of the social contract we have outlined calls the bases of
our public health system into question."

..."2.2 A common value, identical problems

In all the industrialized countries – except the United States – universal access to
care is the common value and fundamental objective."

..."The OECD countries

From the outset, it is necessary to point out that all countries, except the United
States, have the objective of ensuring universal and equitable coverage of health
services. "

..."The norm: mutualization of risks

In the first place, in all the developed countries – with the notable exception of the
United States – mutualization of health-related risks is the norm."

[dakota112]

It was precisely this horrible reimbursement by ins companies that led to my financial troubles as a doctor. I was a good doc but a poor businessman and stayed in to long giving care away for years for free while borrowing money to stay afloat until the day came when of course this couldn't go on any more. I no longer do office work as it is extremely poorly compensated. Those who do go to an office that is not concierge care will get short shrift and lousy care. Believe me I know. Good luck to all. Obama did not help the doctors and hurt the patients tremendously in the USA. Care will only get worse. Lawyers don't work for nothing. Why should a million doctors? They are not all mother Teresa, but most have intentions that are pure of heart as opposed to lawyers, politicians, CEO's, stock brokers and so on.