Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To be honest, I don't see why Obama didn't extend Medicare for everyone and dropped Medicaid in the process. It would have really driven down the cost of private insurance and our employers would be more competitive with other countries.
To be honest, I don't see why Obama didn't extend Medicare for everyone and dropped Medicaid in the process. It would have really driven down the cost of private insurance and our employers would be more competitive with other countries.
to be honest, I cant imagine how people could say that with a straight face.. How exactly would you suggest we pay for it?
I was reading the linked article, and I came to this:
"Of course, this is a feature, not a bug of ObamaCare. Getting more employees out of the private health insurance market and into highly-regulated government-run health insurance exchanges is an important step towards a single payer health care system."
It was then that I checked the source and wadda ya know, it's Breitbart! Of course, such a RW rag would put editorial content into a news article.
Here is an article about his speech from the largest newspaper in Nebraska.
From the second link: "But Obama repeated that he rejects an immediate shift to a single-payer system. “Given that a lot of people work for insurance companies, a lot of people work for HMOs. You’ve got a whole system of institutions that have been set up,” he said at a roundtable discussion with women Monday morning after a voter asked, “Why not single payer?”
“People don’t have time to wait,” Obama said. “They need relief now. So my attitude is let’s build up the system we got, let’s make it more efficient, we may be over time—as we make the system more efficient and everybody’s covered—decide that there are other ways for us to provide care more effectively.” "
Third link is a RW rag.
Ditto fourth link, which is where your sentence came from. It's also opinion, not factual.
Another problem no one seems to realize is how is the risk gong to be distributed. Insurers will have to accept and cover all pre-existing conditions. What's going to prevent one insurer from taking on a lot more risk than another and then when they do, they'll have to raise their rates drastically to cover the higher claims they're experiencing....when they do insureds will go elsewhere for cheaper coverage. It's going to be a rollercoaster ride and it's going to put them out of business one by one.
Agreed!
That's the best argument for government controlled healthcare insurance (aka-one payer) and against private insurance.
As the election draws near democrat politicians who want to keep their job will throw obama under the bus.
He's not "keeping his job" he's running for an open seat. He's a politician saying whatever it takes to get elected in a Republican state. He's gonna lose but Obamacare is here to stay, carp about it all you want.
Agreed!
That's the best argument for government controlled healthcare insurance (aka-one payer) and against private insurance.
The problem there is that they want to pay providers what Medicare pays and if that was the only source of payment for them, then they would be losing money. They've said over and over that what they receive from private insurers makes up for the loss the take from Medicare.
Then there's the argument that nothing the goverment runs is ever done efficiently ...that's debatable. I know one thing though, employees at insurance companies are not unionized.
In the U.S. right now, there's one hospital per 140-150,000 people. A lot of the countries where there's goverment provided healthcare have one hospital per 1,000,000+ people.
Those stats are something I heard John Stossel recently say. It wasn' t the number of beds per capita, it was hospitals per capita.
Last edited by Danno3314; 09-12-2012 at 08:32 AM..
Democratic Senate candidate Bob Kerrey said Thursday that he hates the employer mandate in the Affordable Care Act and that his own businesses might drop employee insurance and pay the federal fine for doing so if the mandate goes into effect in 2014.
Kerrey said wealthy Americans pay their fair share in taxes. And he said President Barack Obama made a big mistake by not following the recommendations of his own bipartisan budget deficit commission.
He went beyond just a general opposition to ObamaCare, however. He was very specific, and knowledgable, about one of the law's chief failings:
“I hate the employer mandate,” Kerrey said. “I think it’s going to have a counterproductive impact. We don’t have any (insured employee) that costs us less than $7,000 (a year), and the fine’s $2,000. We’ll dump ’em off. We won’t call it dumping, we’ll say ... ‘Go get it from the exchange.’”
He said the employer mandate “will accelerate an already breaking-down employer-based system.” That portion of the law should be repealed, he said.
That Kerrey has to distance himself so far away from the Democrats' signature achievement is further evidence that the Democrat party is no longer a national party. It is increasingly a regional party, clustered on the coasts, and big urban areas. Winning: Top Senate Dem Recruit Slams ObamaCare
Of course he hates the employee mandate. He doesn't feel that employers should be the one providing health insurance, so it's nothing new from him.
From the candidates website:
The only criterion of eligibility for health care should be being a citizen or a legal, taxpaying resident. We should sever the link between employment and health care so entrepreneurs can focus on creating jobs.
Health care reform should place all Americans in the same pool so we share risk.
Consumers should have choice between competing options.
The Affordable Care Act was a step in the right direction. However, a law as important as health care reform should ideally be based on real cost controls, bipartisan support and meaningful input from Nebraskans.
Then there's the argument that nothing the goverment runs is ever done efficiently ...that's debatable. I know one thing though, employees at insurance companies are not unionized.
"nothing the goverNment runs is ever done efficiently"
That may be correct, but the current situation is that there may not be another option, but the government. How can healthcare insurance run, if even the advocates of the private option say that these companies should make profits (preferably big and increasing). Therefore, they should charge significantly more than they pay back. If that's the case, how can healthcare costs be lowered if the general public is to pay more then they receive? Especially if America has already the most expensive healthcare system on the globe and low income people are more numerous then ever?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
