Just who asked for universal health care coverage in America, anyway?

Originally posted by Melanerpes
Universal healthcare was one of the main topics during the 2008 campaign. During the Democratic primaries, one of the big issues was that Obama's universal healthcare proposal was slightly more moderate than Hilary's proposal.

The issue was also a key part of the general election campaign. I'm sure most people who voted for Obama or a Democrat for Co ...[text shortened]... te proposals. They fear losing in 2010 if they pass something that's too "watered down".

I agree with this point, although I for one did not think that Obama was doing more than keeping up to the right of Hillary by offering something less radical than she offered so she wouldn't run away with the base. It seemed to me at the time that he would not go out and sell out the american dream for socialism. It seemed at the time that he was more moderate and more reasonable.

In fact, Obama did say he did not believe in forcing people to get insurance whereas Hillary said you had to have a "mandate" like social security. Yeah, great idea Hillary, a financial model of success to be emulated.

How about if Obama sticks to his promise and finds something he can do without forcing anyone like he promised during his campaign.

#1 campaign lie by Obama:

He promised he wouldn't force people to buy insurance. He offered an alternative to Hilary's "mandate" and Hillary lost. Perhaps neither of them deserved to win if they were going to be dishonest to the American voter.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
It's an important (and major) distinction though. The a-hole Republicans who LIE about the proposal know the difference. And until Americans stop being so easily lied to the US is always going to have problems.

You argue semantics, that technically the government won't do everything without help, so it shouldn't be "CALLED" universal care. However, Obamacare does intend to force everyone to have it, hence the name "UNIVERSAL."

Whatever the Republicans or the Campaign promises said about not forcing everyone to have insurance, the important thing is that only the FEW were agitating for Universal care in America, and the MANY are being forced into it.

Not everybody wants to believe it, but that's a typical politician tactic:
say one thing in the primaries to win the nomination, push for something else once you're in office.

the principle is simple. is america a nation where people work, save money, take care of themselves and give charity to help the less fortunate or is it a socialist secular government struggle of the classes ?

the answer is self-evident. i vote for the amish and the mormons and the orthodox religious jews ( the self-reliant ) and toss away the socialist welfare leftists of all types.

it is war gentlemen...do not be fooled...you will die but will you die well ? if you die free you die well. if you die with a welfare check you die badly even if the socialist doctor is there to pull the plug at the end..

Originally posted by eljefejesus
You argue semantics, that technically the government won't do everything without help, so it shouldn't be "CALLED" universal care. However, Obamacare does intend to force everyone to have it, hence the name "UNIVERSAL."

Whatever the Republicans or the Campaign promises said about not forcing everyone to have insurance, the important thing is that onl ...[text shortened]... g in the primaries to win the nomination, push for something else once you're in office.

The only mandates I'm aware of is mandating children be covered - which was his plan during the campaign. I have not seen it myself in the current bill, but it may in fact be there.

Also, the bill does call for mandates of minimum coverage for certain employers.

Can you show me a source mandating that everyone must be covered?

there are 5 bills out there...which one did you read ?

Originally posted by eljefejesus
Was it you? It wasn't me. It wasn't the Europeans telling the American president what to do. It wasn't the Republicans. It wasn't the Independents. It wasn't even the Democrats, was it?

I would suspect that there are two goals in pushing universal health care coverage in an independent and more capitalist America, when it really seems to fit the ...[text shortened]... ction through government influence in the large and growing healthcare sector.


Debate!

As a med school student I hate the idea. Leave it to the states. We have adequate (free) health care here for anyone who makes under $1200/mo. or thereabouts. And from (sometimes unfortunate) experience, I believe any national health care plan would be just as $#**** either way (or, in other words, similar to our state plan).

almost all people who discuss this issue do not know enough facts ( there are many, many facts to know )...as an example...it is federal law that ANYONE showing up at an emergency room for an emergency problem CANNOT BE TURNED AWAY...all must be treated and the county where the hospital is pays the bill ( subject to requesting federal and state programs for later reimbursement ).

there is NO issue of general poor health service in the usa..there is an issue of 40 million who do not pay out of their own pocket in advance for the insurance....it is an accounting issue and an opportunity for socialists to demagague to try to enlarge the government thru a false crisis...by naming the problem falsely...cheats and liars...pants on fire..obama and his leftist are a sorry lot...

Originally posted by reinfeld
the principle is simple. is america a nation where people work, save money, take care of themselves and give charity to help the less fortunate or is it a socialist secular government struggle of the classes ?

the answer is self-evident. i vote for the amish and the mormons and the orthodox religious jews ( the self-reliant ) and toss away the socialis ...[text shortened]... welfare check you die badly even if the socialist doctor is there to pull the plug at the end..

wow, dramatic, but some degree of such spirit is admirable, depending on how far it goes. In this case, I have to credit you for being on the right side of the debate against universal obamacare.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
The only mandates I'm aware of is mandating children be covered - which was his plan during the campaign. I have not seen it myself in the current bill, but it may in fact be there.

Also, the bill does call for mandates of minimum coverage for certain employers.

Can you show me a source mandating that everyone must be covered?

You must surely know that anyone who does not get insurance is proposed to be taxed like the price of getting insurance anyway, what sort of non-mandate is that?

Originally posted by fatalinsomnia
As a med school student I hate the idea. Leave it to the states. We have adequate (free) health care here for anyone who makes under $1200/mo. or thereabouts. And from (sometimes unfortunate) experience, I believe any national health care plan would be just as $#**** either way (or, in other words, similar to our state plan).

Sounds like a reasonable perspective that washington is not listening to. Are states rights passe with the current administration, or is that a whole other forum thread?

Originally posted by eljefejesus
I agree with this point, although I for one did not think that Obama was doing more than keeping up to the right of Hillary by offering something less radical than she offered so she wouldn't run away with the base. It seemed to me at the time that he would not go out and sell out the american dream for socialism. It seemed at the time that he was more neither of them deserved to win if they were going to be dishonest to the American voter.

I have already made the argument for why an "individual mandate" is probably necessary if we're going to produce a system that gives everyone access to insurance. (Unless you want to do single-payer, which it seems almost no one likes.)

Otherwise, you end up with all those people in my Group B who are already sick and no one is going to cover them - or if they do, they're going to charge astronomical premiums.

You yourself said that you support a subsidy. If you don't like the idea of taxing the "healthy people" to raise money for this subsidy, what group do you believe should be taxed instead?

Now there is the alternative of having a system where a certain % of the population is just not going to be able to afford the healthcare that they need. Some people may find this to be an acceptable thing, and would be willing to say "too bad, that's life". If so, then I can understand their opposition to healthcare reforms. But if this situation isn't acceptable, then the opposition needs to find a legitimate alternative - and find it soon because something is probably going to be passed within the next couple months.

Originally posted by reinfeld
almost all people who discuss this issue do not know enough facts ( there are many, many facts to know )...as an example...it is federal law that ANYONE showing up at an emergency room for an emergency problem CANNOT BE TURNED AWAY...all must be treated and the county where the hospital is pays the bill ( subject to requesting federal and state programs for ...[text shortened]... the problem falsely...cheats and liars...pants on fire..obama and his leftist are a sorry lot...

Many people have chronic healthcare needs that aren't "absolute emergencies". But treatment is still needed to allow these people to function (and be able to work, care for their family etc). If the emergency rooms were so wonderful, why not get rid of all the other doctors and clinics and just have everyone go to the emergency room to deal with all their healthcare needs?

The typical emergency room is a bunch of doctors running around at a hectic pace to deal with a never-ending stream of people who actually need instant attention. People with less urgent needs do not need to be taking precious time away from these doctors and these patients.

And if you do go to the emergency room, YOU are the one that has to ultimately pay for it -- unless you're absolutely destitute, in which case you're already covered by Medicaid.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
I have already made the argument for why an "individual mandate" is probably necessary if we're going to produce a system that gives everyone access to insurance. (Unless you want to do single-payer, which it seems almost no one likes.)

Otherwise, you end up with all those people in my Group B who are already sick and no one is going to cover them - or ...[text shortened]... soon because something is probably going to be passed within the next couple months.

Right, and it's not like you don't have a well-articulated, clearly laid out basis for supporting universal care, which is that it makes things affordable for your Group B people (adverse selection).

Here are the two types of subsidies that I think are acceptable. If someone is on temporary public assistance, then I think healthcare can be part of it, but as long as it's temporary. If they want more, or they want it longer, they need to start being motivated to go out and find it and earn it. That is the motivator that America bases its unemployment laws on, for example, and why unemployment is so much lower in the US, because benefits are more temporary than in many European countries.

I also think that the pre-existing condition issue can be dealt with through a "State Fund" rather than through nationalized coverage.

Let each state decide what it believes. Why make even the dixiecrats or any individual state worry about a federal program that it does not support? Nationalized healthcare is indeed a very statist idea as has been pointed out on these threads.

There is certainly room to minimize the damage that a huge benefits program would cause.

Originally posted by reinfeld
almost all people who discuss this issue do not know enough facts ( there are many, many facts to know )...as an example...it is federal law that ANYONE showing up at an emergency room for an emergency problem CANNOT BE TURNED AWAY...all must be treated and the county where the hospital is pays the bill ( subject to requesting federal and state programs for ...[text shortened]... the problem falsely...cheats and liars...pants on fire..obama and his leftist are a sorry lot...

Emergency care is the only possible care yes/no

Originally posted by eljefejesus
You must surely know that anyone who does not get insurance is proposed to be taxed like the price of getting insurance anyway, what sort of non-mandate is that?

I found it.

Here's an interesting article written by one of the few sources that are worth a dam.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/health-care-overhaul-constitutional/