• 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 discusses deathbed measures

Upstairs. When I got there, the line was half way down the steps. The line moved pretty fast; I was at the counter in about 5 minutes or so. Then I waited on the line to see one of the service people or whatever they're called. Took about 5-7 minutes in line. The woman I saw handled the issue pretty quickly after asking me a few questions. This was on a pretty busy Saturday, late morning. Another time, about a week later, I went on a Monday morning. Things moved faster.





You speak myth. :lol: :shock:
 
You speak myth. :lol: :shock:

Nope. Absolutely true. Like I said, I remember the old days of waiting for 3 hours in the Springfield DMV's waiting room, on those absolutely painfully uncomfortable chairs, just to get my simple car registration renewed. Last year I went for my picture driver's license renewal...at Springfield...on Thursday night, the one night they were open (at least that was the night, then...I don't think the do nights anymore). Took me less than 30 minutes. I was pretty impressed at their efficiency.
 
Nope. Absolutely true. Like I said, I remember the old days of waiting for 3 hours in the Springfield DMV's waiting room, on those absolutely painfully uncomfortable chairs, just to get my simple car registration renewed. Last year I went for my picture driver's license renewal...at Springfield...on Thursday night, the one night they were open (at least that was the night, then...I don't think the do nights anymore). Took me less than 30 minutes. I was pretty impressed at their efficiency.

I recently did my car registration down town and it took about 5 minutes. I even forgot my paperwork.
 
I disagree, any control is a gateway to total control.

Single payer means, one payer, meaning one entity dictates who and how doctors see.

Are they proposing to require all doctors to work within the plan?
 
The government won't decide for you what tests are necessary and what ones aren't. That is not what universal health care is. The government is not operating on a profit incentive so you won't be hounded as much as with the private insurance companies. Publically paid health services will be clearly laid out with little deviation. If you want the test and it's covered, then you get the tests. There are no deductibles, pre-existing condition clauses, or scams.

Furthermore, UHC won't replace private insurance. You will still be able to supplement health care with your private plan, but UHC would create healthy competition which would challenge the private companies to be less draconian in their corporate policy. As of now they have the monopoly on your health. UHC may also partially cover certain things, while the balance is deferred to the insurance company. When dealing with a lesser payout, the insurance companies may become more relaxed.

I think Obama's statement on geriatric care and unlimited use of the system is a good point. Too many people are just on life support even though their end is pretty much guaranteed. I do believe though that part of health care and cutting long term costs lies in preventative care, something that the current insurance system in the U.S. does not support as readily. Most people wait until they are ill to see a doctor and that is when costs rise for everybody.

With cancer, I don't think it's acceptable to say that just because a person has been given six months that they will definitely die after six months, and therefore shouldn't get hip replacement. The time estimates given by oncologists are ball park ones based on statistics only, and a lot of people defy these.

It depends on the case, but generally I wouldn't recommend hip replacement anyway because most major surgery compromises the body's immune system and bodily resources for months upon months. If someone is terminally ill, then they are shortening the quality of life that they have left.
 
Of all the reasons to criticize Obama's health care proposal (and there are many), this isn't the best one.

I haven't heard that any proposal would ban private doctors or otherwise prevent you or I from purchasing medical care that the government system did not cover. The only decision that government would have would be as to what it would choose to cover.

There is no way the private insurance companies can compete with a free government plan.
 
Another possible theory: A public plan will by design attract those whose care is the most costly. The practical result of this might be a decrease in the average consumer cost on private plans, which could lead to a decrease in private plan cost.

And the extra costs assumed by the public plan will be transferred to the tax payers, thus negating any decrease in the aggregate price of private health insurance.

All systems maintain equilibrium. Transferring a burden to one sector of a system will not alleviate the system of the burden.
 
There is no way the private insurance companies can compete with a free government plan.

If they're not covering the same thing, then of course they could compete. Or, if the government plan is not a universally free plan, same story.
 
If they're not covering the same thing, then of course they could compete. Or, if the government plan is not a universally free plan, same story.

So, the private health insurance industry can just pick at the scraps falling off the government's table?
 
So, the private health insurance industry can just pick at the scraps falling off the government's table?

I'm not sure why you think I'm advocating for this. I'm just pointing out that "they won't let me get the healthcare I want" isn't the best criticism.
 
I'm not sure why you think I'm advocating for this. I'm just pointing out that "they won't let me get the healthcare I want" isn't the best criticism.

Under Obama's plan it is unlawful for the private sector to provide equivalent coverage as the government. Doesn't that validate some people's concerns regarding their healthcare options, or lack thereof?
 
Under Obama's plan it is unlawful for the private sector to provide equivalent coverage as the government. Doesn't that validate some people's concerns regarding their healthcare options, or lack thereof?

Serious question: Link? I hadn't heard this.
 
Under Obama's plan it is unlawful for the private sector to provide equivalent coverage as the government. Doesn't that validate some people's concerns regarding their healthcare options, or lack thereof?

That law is the same in all nations with UHC, including Canada. The point is to make it so that the private sector is supplementary to the UHC system instead of it taking the full burden. In the U.S. this would mean a downsizing of the private sector, but insurance companies have already proven they cannot be trusted so I say this is their loss. People wouldn't be advocating for UHC if there weren't foul play happening.

The law makes private insurance more useful and less redundant. People will still rely on private insurance for some of the things UHC doesn't cover. It will make insurance plans cheaper and less bureaucratic.
 
That law is the same in all nations with UHC, including Canada. The point is to make it so that the private sector is supplementary to the UHC system instead of it taking the full burden. In the U.S. this would mean a downsizing of the private sector, but insurance companies have already proven they cannot be trusted so I say this is their loss. People wouldn't be advocating for UHC if there weren't foul play happening.

This is a fairly unfounded assumption.
 
Another possible theory: A public plan will by design attract those whose care is the most costly. The practical result of this might be a decrease in the average consumer cost on private plans, which could lead to a decrease in private plan cost.

No.

The goal of the Democrats is to destroy private health care for the masses and force more than three hundred million people into dependency on the federal government for treatment of the most common ailments, thereby attracting to the government the control of a full 14% of the US economy.

That's always what the health care debate has been about, no matter how sickly sweet the words from the Left have been.

Awake America, don't let them fit their chains upon your necks!
 
No.

The goal of the Democrats is to destroy private health care for the masses and force more than three hundred million people into dependency on the federal government for treatment of the most common ailments, thereby attracting to the government the control of a full 14% of the US economy.

That's always what the health care debate has been about, no matter how sickly sweet the words from the Left have been.

Awake America, don't let them fit their chains upon your necks!

Oh damn, Scarecrow figured out our evil super sekret plan. Whatever will we do now?
 
This is a fairly unfounded assumption.

It's a perfectly founded statement, not even an assumption.

The Democrats are pushing it, the Democrats are the party of goonions, rape, perjury, and corruption.

That the Democrats are trying to gain control of 14% of the US economy is indicative of foul play, just because who's doing it.

Naturally, if it was the Republicans pushing the scam, you Kool-Aid drinkers would be opposing it, on orders.
 
No.

The goal of the Democrats is to destroy private health care for the masses and force more than three hundred million people into dependency on the federal government for treatment of the most common ailments, thereby attracting to the government the control of a full 14% of the US economy.

That's always what the health care debate has been about, no matter how sickly sweet the words from the Left have been.

Awake America, don't let them fit their chains upon your necks!

Right.

.....
 
It's a perfectly founded statement, not even an assumption.

The Democrats are pushing it, the Democrats are the party of goonions, rape, perjury, and corruption.

That the Democrats are trying to gain control of 14% of the US economy is indicative of foul play, just because who's doing it.

Naturally, if it was the Republicans pushing the scam, you Kool-Aid drinkers would be opposing it, on orders.

Reread the post I was responding to. Hope that clears things up.
 
This is a fairly unfounded assumption.

Why?

There are plenty of people who want UHC because they are tired of jumping through the hoops of insurance companies, and being denied coverage arbitrarily. I have never seen such corruption before as I have in the U.S. private insurance sector.
 
Back
Top Bottom