• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama calls for overhaul of U.S. health care system

TheNextEra

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
16,575
Reaction score
6,767
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Obama on Thursday called for a comprehensive overhaul of the U.S. health care system, warning that soaring medical costs present "one of the greatest threats not just to the well-being of our families ... but to the very foundation of our economy."

......

"We cannot delay this discussion any longer," Obama said. "Health care reform is no longer just a moral imperative, it is a fiscal imperative. If we want to create jobs, rebuild our economy, and get our federal budget under control, then we must address the crushing cost of health care this year."

My problem with this is not that Obama wants to do something about the Health Care system, my problem is that he is using the same fear type tactics that Bush did to get things he wants done.

If anything this needs EXTREME discussion, from all sides.

Obama, stop playing the fear tactics on the economy.

Obama calls for overhaul of U.S. health care system - CNN.com
 
My problem with this is not that Obama wants to do something about the Health Care system, my problem is that he is using the same fear type tactics that Bush did to get things he wants done.

If anything this needs EXTREME discussion, from all sides.

Obama, stop playing the fear tactics on the economy.

Obama calls for overhaul of U.S. health care system - CNN.com
It's his only card so far.

Fear fear, and then he holds goofy "discussion groups"... what's up with that crap. Glad you realize he's doing no one any favors with his talk, my belief is, he's gonna give us a UK style health program... and we're all gonna suffer for it.
 
WTF is a "health-care czar"?

Obama's new health and human services secretary nominee, Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, was not in attendance at the summit, though Nancy-Ann DeParle, the newly announced health care czar, was there.

Later it explains that this "czar" will be the point person to discuss options with Congress. Is the H&HS secretary position not allowed to speak to Congress? Here's a genius idea for cutting back government spending. Quit creating duplicate positions. We didn't need a war czar(because we have a Sec Def) and we don't need a healthcare czar(because we have a Sec of HHS).

I have a feeling Obama is going to try to fix everything, and end up fixing nothing. I mean, I'm not against healthcare reform and I have outlined where i think problems are many times in the past. But how much money does Obama think we can spend on everything?
 
It's his only card so far.

Fear fear, and then he holds goofy "discussion groups"... what's up with that crap. Glad you realize he's doing no one any favors with his talk, my belief is, he's gonna give us a UK style health program... and we're all gonna suffer for it.

I think if Obama sent you a personal check for a million dollars, you would find a reason to complain about it.
 
I have a feeling Obama is going to try to fix everything, and end up fixing nothing. I mean, I'm not against healthcare reform and I have outlined where i think problems are many times in the past. But how much money does Obama think we can spend on everything?

He's trying to fix everything too fast IMO. While I don't disagree with everything Obama is trying to fix, doing it too fast isn't going to help either.

My friend would like to get his kids college funds, house paid, new car, retirement money completely saved, and have enough for vacations for the next 10 years, but he isn't going to get all of that money at once. It takes time.

Obama needs to be patient as well. And if it is so urgent, it should have been in the last stimulus bill that was passed. Isn't that what it was for?
 
Last edited:
He's trying to fix everything too fast IMO. While I don't disagree with everything Obama is trying to fix, doing it too fast isn't going to help either.

My friend would like to get his kids college funds, house paid, new car, retirement money completely saved, and have enough for vacations for the next 10 years, but he isn't going to get all of that money at once. It takes time.

Obama needs to be patient as well. And if it is so urgent, it should have been in the last stimulus bill that was passed. Isn't that what it was for?

Just because you have checks, doesn't mean there is money in the account.
 
I think if Obama sent you a personal check for a million dollars, you would find a reason to complain about it.

Unless it was out of his personal account... yeah I probably would.
 
Hmmmm....and Obama is supposed to be a Hahvahd law perfesser, too.

I spell nationalization N-A-T-I-O-N-A-L-I-Z-A-T-I-O-N, not O-V-E-R-H-A-U-L.

Must be because Obama's native language is Kenyan.
 
He's trying to fix everything too fast IMO. While I don't disagree with everything Obama is trying to fix, doing it too fast isn't going to help either.

Obama has to hurry before whatever opiate the public drank to vote for him wears off. The DJIA is a pretty indicator of how much opium is left in the voter's systems, I think.
 
My problem with this is not that Obama wants to do something about the Health Care system, my problem is that he is using the same fear type tactics that Bush did to get things he wants done.

If anything this needs EXTREME discussion, from all sides.

Obama, stop playing the fear tactics on the economy.

Obama calls for overhaul of U.S. health care system - CNN.com
I have to say that you just earned a lot of respect from me. It's nice to see a liberal on these boards for a change that is capable of seeing things how they actually are. It's one thing to disagree ideologically, but when there are so many here who are intellectually dishonest, it's nice to see someone like yourself that can call an apple an apple.

:bravo:
 
My problem with this is not that Obama wants to do something about the Health Care system, my problem is that he is using the same fear type tactics that Bush did to get things he wants done.

If anything this needs EXTREME discussion, from all sides.

Obama, stop playing the fear tactics on the economy.

Obama calls for overhaul of U.S. health care system - CNN.com

I personally think that since most people don't know the facts about the Health Care system that, so he is trying to capitalize on it before any real information makes it to the public.

He needs to deregulate it but I know he won't.
 
I personally think that since most people don't know the facts about the Health Care system that, so he is trying to capitalize on it before any real information makes it to the public.

He needs to deregulate it but I know he won't.

Deregulate? If you mean bring competition, I agree. Let the insurance companies compete against the most efficient health care system in the country.

That would be Medicare, at least for now; most private health insurance plans have a overhead ranging between 10% and 30%, Medicare’s overhead is around 1%.

Sooo..If they can beat that, great, give them the business. After all competition is the American way, right?
 
He needs to deregulate it but I know he won't.
Absolutely.
He wont because his ideology gets in the way of what actually works.



Let the insurance companies compete against the most efficient health care system in the country.

That would be Medicare, ...
Care to substantiate this?
 
Last edited:
Deregulate? If you mean bring competition, I agree. Let the insurance companies compete against the most efficient health care system in the country.

That would be Medicare, at least for now; most private health insurance plans have a overhead ranging between 10% and 30%, Medicare’s overhead is around 1%.

Sooo..If they can beat that, great, give them the business. After all competition is the American way, right?

You don't understand why government health care is bad.

It is not just about cost. It is also about time to receive service.
And for more information health insurance companies are subject to regulations that medicare isn't.

Your going to be hard pressed to defend government health care with facts.
 
Last edited:
The problem with the health care industry isn't too much regulation, it's not enough. I am not for nationalized health care. However, the excesses, manipulations, and control that insurance companies have over a provider's ability to treat their patients is not only a major problem procedural wise, but a huge problem cost wise. Some things that need to be regulated to fix the health care system are:

Tort reform
Health care decisions placed in the provider's hands, not the insurance company's
Simple, universal form/payment systems
Elimination of pre-existing condition limitation when switching insurance

I'm sure there are other issues that need regulation. Unfortunately, I only see a half hearted effort on the Obama administration to address these complicated issues. Seems like he's going for the quick fix to gain points with the public.
 
Tort reform
Health care decisions placed in the provider's hands, not the insurance company's
Simple, universal form/payment systems
Elimination of pre-existing condition limitation when switching insurance
Hmmmm?

Tort reform - not when there is clear negligence...like leaving equipment behind. Punitive awards...definitely need to be reigned in.

Health care decisions placed in the provider's hands, not the insurance company's - definitely, but only if covered. Which is pretty much the way the system is now.

Simple, universal form/payment systems - not sure what you mean...seems like that may be open to a greater degree of fraud.

Elimination of pre-existing condition limitation when switching insurance - only if the insurer can charge a higher premium.
Generally speaking, insurance is to cover what may happen, the unforeseeable. Not to cover what has already occurred or is likely to occur such as a genetic disease that hasn't surfaced yet.
Insurance is, and always has been a business, they should be allowed to charge more if these were requirements.


I would like to add that there should be no unilateral changing the conditions of the contract once signed.


In general the cost of health care isn't a problem of the insurer, but the lack of a truly free market within the health care system.
 
Hmmmm?

Tort reform - not when there is clear negligence...like leaving equipment behind. Punitive awards...definitely need to be reigned in.

Agreed. That was my intent.

Health care decisions placed in the provider's hands, not the insurance company's - definitely, but only if covered. Which is pretty much the way the system is now.

The system is nothing like that, currently. Insurance companies can overrule whether they pay for a treatment, even if it is covered, and even if the provider authorizes/recommends the treatment. Some paper-pusher, who has never seen the patient, dictates treatment.
Simple, universal form/payment systems - not sure what you mean...seems like that may be open to a greater degree of fraud.

Insurance companies use confusing routing and payment practices...and change them, sometimes monthly without notification, in order to not pay, or delay payments. Making it simple and universal would cut down on bureaucracy, save money, and lower costs.

Elimination of pre-existing condition limitation when switching insurance - only if the insurer can charge a higher premium.
Generally speaking, insurance is to cover what may happen, the unforeseeable. Not to cover what has already occurred or is likely to occur such as a genetic disease that hasn't surfaced yet.
Insurance is, and always has been a business, they should be allowed to charge more if these were requirements.

Disagree because of my qualifier. If you have insurance and switch companies for whatever reason, the pre-existing condition limitation should not apply. If you are getting first time insurance, I agree with your position.
I would like to add that there should be no unilateral changing the conditions of the contract once signed.

Agree
In general the cost of health care isn't a problem of the insurer, but the lack of a truly free market within the health care system.

Completely disagree. The problem is certainly with the insurer. Less regulations will make it worse.
 
The system is nothing like that, currently. Insurance companies can overrule whether they pay for a treatment, even if it is covered, and even if the provider authorizes/recommends the treatment. Some paper-pusher, who has never seen the patient, dictates treatment.
That isn't my understanding.
The coverage is being denied because it really isn't covered.
It is being denied because of the minutia of the details in the contract. Experimental treatment. Treatment that really wouldn't extend a persons life.
Patient really did not fit the criteria even though it would extend their life.
Cost caps. Etc..



Insurance companies use confusing routing and payment practices...and change them, sometimes monthly without notification, in order to not pay, or delay payments. Making it simple and universal would cut down on bureaucracy, save money, and lower costs.
If this is what is happening, then by all means, yet somehow it seems that it would be more vulnerable to fraud.


If you have insurance and switch companies for whatever reason, the pre-existing condition limitation should not apply. If you are getting first time insurance, I agree with your position.
Ok.
I do have a problem with this because when you change to a new insurer you are receiving insurance from them for the first time.
It isn't there problem that you have a preexisting condition, so they should be allowed to charge higher premiums to provided cover that obviously they would have to start paying out if they accepted the person.



Completely disagree. The problem is certainly with the insurer. Less regulations will make it worse.
Ok. Agreed to disagree.
Less regulation should result in a lower overall cost that would then be transferred to the insurer, and on to the insured.
 
Was it not just the other day a US republican stated that healthcare coverage was a privilege not a right? Shows the attitude towards your fellow man there.. heartless.

Problem with this debate is that it is buried in half truths, distortions, omissions and petty partisans bull**** than the facts.. and that is just from the anti UHC people..
 
I think if Obama sent you a personal check for a million dollars, you would find a reason to complain about it.
Can you be any more partisan? Probably. :roll:
 
Was it not just the other day a US republican stated that healthcare coverage was a privilege not a right? Shows the attitude towards your fellow man there.. heartless.

Problem with this debate is that it is buried in half truths, distortions, omissions and petty partisans bull**** than the facts.. and that is just from the anti UHC people..
Then why don't you become a US citizen and help pay up?
 
I think if Obama sent you a personal check for a million dollars, you would find a reason to complain about it.

If Obama sent me a cheque for a million dollars, I probably wouldn't cash it because the cost would be too high.

You don't understand why government health care is bad.

It is not just about cost. It is also about time to receive service.
And for more information health insurance companies are subject to regulations that medicare isn't.

Your going to be hard pressed to defend government health care with facts.

There are problems with both government run and private health care...
With government they are stuck within a 'budget' for everyones health care, and the help each individual gets is reduced... where private health care you get better treatment if you can pay for it.

So, a combination system, would have to be ideal... perhaps all generic health care is covered, so they would treat you rather than let you die... but having the private care option for specialists and the like.
 
Then why don't you become a US citizen and help pay up?

Thanks for proving my point. :2wave: on the debate antics of the right and the anti UHC people.
 
There are problems with both government run and private health care...
With government they are stuck within a 'budget' for everyones health care, and the help each individual gets is reduced... where private health care you get better treatment if you can pay for it.

So, a combination system, would have to be ideal... perhaps all generic health care is covered, so they would treat you rather than let you die... but having the private care option for specialists and the like.

Oh you mean like UHC in Europe!
 
The problem with the health care industry isn't too much regulation, it's not enough. I am not for nationalized health care. However, the excesses, manipulations, and control that insurance companies have over a provider's ability to treat their patients is not only a major problem procedural wise, but a huge problem cost wise. Some things that need to be regulated to fix the health care system are:

Tort reform
Health care decisions placed in the provider's hands, not the insurance company's
Simple, universal form/payment systems
Elimination of pre-existing condition limitation when switching insurance

I'm sure there are other issues that need regulation. Unfortunately, I only see a half hearted effort on the Obama administration to address these complicated issues. Seems like he's going for the quick fix to gain points with the public.

I'll go over some of these things again, as I have done a few times.

I agree that there needs to be more regulation in the healthcare system, not less, but only in some areas. But the focus needs to be in the relationship between the provider and insurer, because this is a two way street. Yes, insurance providers do have people looking at treatments and rejecting payment of those treatments to the provider, based on what they believe to be treatments that are unecessary. While its true that these people do not see the patient, the treatment is reviewed by a liscenced medical professional. The insurers pay good money to these people. In the case of an RN, he/she could make well more than they could working at a hospital. However, providers are more willing to do "more tests" for insured patients, than they will for uninsured patients. Because the insurance companies have the deep pockets. This back and forth fight between health insurer, and provider over what is necessary, is a HUGE part of the problem IMO. This is an area that needs regulation. However, it is my opinion that the regulation needs to come from the states and not the federal government. Insurance laws are written by state legislatures and are overseen and enforced by a commisioner of insurance in each state. Devising a national regulatory system would infringe on the ability for states to retain control over the health care providers and insurers under their rule.

The payment situation is absurd, and its because of the back and forth struggle between insurer and provider. I received a bill for $350 almost a year after my son was born, from my wifes anethesia. I called to find out why I was getting a bill for $350 dollars, since we hadn't been to the hospital for nearly a year. Supposedly there was a dispute between the two that had to be settled before they could bill us. Now thats not a huge bill in this case, but its an inconvience for sure.

If we were to remove the stipulation that pre-existing conditions have to be covered, then insurers will have to be allowed to charge additional premium because of pre-existing conditions. Insurance by definition is the transfer of risk. The greater the risk they assume, the greater the premium they charge. Thats the insurance market in a nutshell. The reason they do not cover pre-existing conditions, is because they are trying to keep the premiums lower. Anybody who seeks to reform this, had better be careful because if they try to be noble and force insurers to cover pre-existing, and deny them the ability to charge for it, will seriously screw everything up and insurance companies would either collapse(more unemployment for you to deal with Mr. President) or they would find a way to increase premium in an "unrelated" way, to cover costs.

Also I remember reading on Obama's website during the campaign season, that he would essentially remove the cap on insurance policies. I do not know if he still seeks that, but that would be a disaster of epic proportions. As I said before, insurance is a transfer of risk. If we tell insurance companies they must take on an infinite amount of risk, what do you think that will do to premiums? ALL insurance policies, regardless of what kind of insurance it is, has a policy limit. The higher the limit, the higher the premium. Insurance companies have deep pockets, but not that deep.
 
Back
Top Bottom