Points from Obama's speech

[RyanPaulShaffer]

It's "scare tactics" to actually read and discuss what is in the bills currently being worked on in Congress?

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: evident

Originally posted by: Duwelon
At this rate, 2010 and 2012 will be "Anyone but liberals".

why do you say that?

Seen any polls lately about the healthcare deform or Obama? That alone says a lot, nevermind the town halls that all the batty libs are so quick to discount as disingenuous, all the while SEIU and acorn a-holes are out in full force, bought out and paid for.

"The Meds...they do nothing!"


:moon:

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: HomerJS

All good debatable points. Question: if you eliminate the requirement to carry insurance what happens if a 23 year old doesn't carry insurance because he dosent want to pay for it? He breaks an arm or a leg doing some recreational sport. Hospital bill is $5000-$10000. What if the 23 yr old doesn't have the money, who pays? Should hospitals not treat if a patent can't show an ability to pay or carry insurance??

THen 23 year old deals with the consequences of his decision to not have insurance. He get treated and must pay the bill, put on payment plan, or it's sent to collections just like any other bill.

At 23 years old one is supposed to act like an adult, and part of that is taking responsibility for yourself which includes getting health insurance. If they don't want insurance, that's fine, that's your choice. But you still gotta pay for any work done.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: HomerJS

All good debatable points. Question: if you eliminate the requirement to carry insurance what happens if a 23 year old doesn't carry insurance because he dosent want to pay for it? He breaks an arm or a leg doing some recreational sport. Hospital bill is $5000-$10000. What if the 23 yr old doesn't have the money, who pays? Should hospitals not treat if a patent can't show an ability to pay or carry insurance??

THen 23 year old deals with the consequences of his decision to not have insurance. He get treated and must pay the bill, put on payment plan, or it's sent to collections just like any other bill.

At 23 years old one is supposed to act like an adult, and part of that is taking responsibility for yourself which includes getting health insurance. If they don't want insurance, that's fine, that's your choice. But you still gotta pay for any work done.

And for any serious medical condition beyond a broken arm he won't pay, he'll just declare bankruptcy... and once again we will all be stuck with the bill. There's simply no way to square having a health policy that treats everyone without requiring everyone to pay into it. Since we're not going to stop treating everyone, the choice is pretty easy.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: HomerJS

All good debatable points. Question: if you eliminate the requirement to carry insurance what happens if a 23 year old doesn't carry insurance because he dosent want to pay for it? He breaks an arm or a leg doing some recreational sport. Hospital bill is $5000-$10000. What if the 23 yr old doesn't have the money, who pays? Should hospitals not treat if a patent can't show an ability to pay or carry insurance??

THen 23 year old deals with the consequences of his decision to not have insurance. He get treated and must pay the bill, put on payment plan, or it's sent to collections just like any other bill.

At 23 years old one is supposed to act like an adult, and part of that is taking responsibility for yourself which includes getting health insurance. If they don't want insurance, that's fine, that's your choice. But you still gotta pay for any work done.

Too bad it doesn't worked like that (I guess reform IS needed). The insurers aren't going to wait around for a collections service to get the money...they pass their cost along to the rest of us. Insane or not, that's what we have right now.

But of course you already knew that, right?

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: HomerJS

All good debatable points. Question: if you eliminate the requirement to carry insurance what happens if a 23 year old doesn't carry insurance because he dosent want to pay for it? He breaks an arm or a leg doing some recreational sport. Hospital bill is $5000-$10000. What if the 23 yr old doesn't have the money, who pays? Should hospitals not treat if a patent can't show an ability to pay or carry insurance??

THen 23 year old deals with the consequences of his decision to not have insurance. He get treated and must pay the bill, put on payment plan, or it's sent to collections just like any other bill.

At 23 years old one is supposed to act like an adult, and part of that is taking responsibility for yourself which includes getting health insurance. If they don't want insurance, that's fine, that's your choice. But you still gotta pay for any work done.

Too bad it doesn't worked like that (I guess reform IS needed). The insurers aren't going to wait around for a collections service to get the money...they pass their cost along to the rest of us. Insane or not, that's what we have right now.

But of course you already knew that, right?

It wouldn't be the insurance trying to collect money, it would be the hospital. If one doesn't have insurance, no evil insurance company is involved.

 

[BassBomb]

whats the "public option"?

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Things I liked:

Medicare wont be touched.
Wont be paid for by increasing taxes.
Elimination of pre-existing conditions.
Elimination of lifetime caps.
Focus on the insurance industry on reducing waste and fraud.
Eluded to liability reform.

Things I didnt like:

Requirement to have insurance.
As much as many people don't like it, IMO this is the key to keeping premiums under control, the whole idea of insurance is pooled risk and if you allow the young and health to op out it will never work. Am 51 and have never been in a hospital in my life but have been covered by insurance my entire life and I or my parents payed premiums that entire time. So why should I and those like me continue to carry the load for those that don't think they need insurance? or those that want to wait until they have problems to get insurance?
Will create more government beuracracies.
I'm also not a fan of government bigger government, but what the insurance companies have going on is far worse than a beuracracy, at least with more government oversite or control we could expect a single set of rules that applied to everyone, not the maze of garbage we have now
Eluded to letting Bush tax cuts expire.
Nobody likes paying higher taxes, but the bottom line is the Bush tax cuts where totally unfunded by offsetting spending cuts and have created a trillion dollar deficiet, we simply can't sustain them
No specific mention of encouragement of healthy lifestyle choices by way of lower premiums.
I agree with the priciple of encouraging healthy lifestyle choices but implementing a system that would fairly judge lifestyle and set premiums according would be near impossible to implement. Are you going to force people to take comprehensive physicals every six months to prove their health rating? And what constitues an unhealthy lifestyle choice? I would include contact sports, anyone who rides a motorcycle, ect... ect... where do you draw the line

Overall I think it was decent.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: BassBomb
whats the "public option"?

I think it's been respun to be a "not for profit exchange of insurance providers where one can shop for insurance" Regulated and overseen by the gubment, of course.

It's hard to keep up with everything changing constantly.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: PatranusSounds to me like Obama is the one peddling scare tactics.

Oh, it is scary. Thing is, what he said is all true.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: HomerJS

All good debatable points. Question: if you eliminate the requirement to carry insurance what happens if a 23 year old doesn't carry insurance because he dosent want to pay for it? He breaks an arm or a leg doing some recreational sport. Hospital bill is $5000-$10000. What if the 23 yr old doesn't have the money, who pays? Should hospitals not treat if a patent can't show an ability to pay or carry insurance??

THen 23 year old deals with the consequences of his decision to not have insurance. He get treated and must pay the bill, put on payment plan, or it's sent to collections just like any other bill.

At 23 years old one is supposed to act like an adult, and part of that is taking responsibility for yourself which includes getting health insurance. If they don't want insurance, that's fine, that's your choice. But you still gotta pay for any work done.

Too bad it doesn't worked like that (I guess reform IS needed). The insurers aren't going to wait around for a collections service to get the money...they pass their cost along to the rest of us. Insane or not, that's what we have right now.

But of course you already knew that, right?

It wouldn't be the insurance trying to collect money, it would be the hospital. If one doesn't have insurance, no evil insurance company is involved.

This is exactly what the current situation is now, and all that has happened is that the hospitals have needed large subsidies to cover uncompensated care. A horrible situation. If someone who makes $30,000 a year owes the hospital $100,000, the hospital can send them to collections all they want, they still won't be getting any money.

Again, in the end we all pay for this sort of thing in one way or the other.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: HomerJS

All good debatable points. Question: if you eliminate the requirement to carry insurance what happens if a 23 year old doesn't carry insurance because he dosent want to pay for it? He breaks an arm or a leg doing some recreational sport. Hospital bill is $5000-$10000. What if the 23 yr old doesn't have the money, who pays? Should hospitals not treat if a patent can't show an ability to pay or carry insurance??

THen 23 year old deals with the consequences of his decision to not have insurance. He get treated and must pay the bill, put on payment plan, or it's sent to collections just like any other bill.

At 23 years old one is supposed to act like an adult, and part of that is taking responsibility for yourself which includes getting health insurance. If they don't want insurance, that's fine, that's your choice. But you still gotta pay for any work done.

Thats exactly what happens today. He gets treatment, he doesn't pay, it gets sent to collections, it gets written off because everybody has medical hits on thier credit right! And paying stiffs like me end up paying the bill through higher premiums. Irresponsiblity disguised as "Choice" THIS IS NO LONGER ACCEPTABLE

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Patranus

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,392962,00.html

Like I said, the USA has seen "death panels" thanks to the state of Oregon. If you would like to provide evidence to the contrary please do so.

Oregon doesn't cover life-prolonging treatment unless there is better than a 5 percent chance it will help the patients live for five more years ? but it covers doctor-assisted suicide, defining it as a means of providing comfort, no different from hospice care or pain medication.

Perhaps Oregon is just facing the reality that it doesn't make sense to spend huge amounts of money to help terminally ill people eek out another couple months worth of low-quality life. At least Oregon is advanced enough to offer terminally ill people assisted suicide.

What's interesting is that these people don't seem to have private health insurance. Could it be that private health insurance Death Panels dropped their coverage long ago? We also have CEO-approved Death Panels at private health insurance companies, you know. Stories abound about people having their insurance coverage revoked just before scheduled surgery and also of insurance employees receiving bonuses for finding ways to rescind sick people's coverage. To hear you tell it, the insurance companies are angelic, altruistic, good Christian organizations.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: BarrySotero
"Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close."

The dems own CBO clarified Obama's stealth-care deform will be a budget buster. Like most tyrants Obama lies like a sociopath. He can talk crap right to your face and not blink. Lying and sounding sincere is Obama's greatest talent. Obama is pushing families and businesses right down the potty. He wants to crush US with deficits and taxes. I don't know how US survives another 3.5 yrs of this headcase.

Are you criticizing Obama for offering a band-aid as opposed to his proposing real socialized medicine, which has proven to save large amounts of money in other countries, or are you saying that our current system is just fine the way it is--where tens of millions of Americans go without health insurance yet we're spending far more as a percentage of GDP than any other nation?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: PatranusAgain, PROOF of "death panels" in Oregon has been posted. I am not sure where you get this idea that a bus picking up old people is the only form of a "death panel".

Why don't you get equally worked up over the Death Panels at private health insurance companies?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Merge Point

Senior Anandtech Moderator
Common Courtesy

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Balt
Yeah, just change your insurance provider after you've been diagnosed with cancer and denied coverage from your current provider. It's that simple. :roll:

So it is the insurance companies fault you didn't read the extent of your coverage before you purchased it? It is the insurance companies fault you just ASSUMED that certain things were covered?

Unexpected things usually happen when you assume.


Again, can we please get back on topic and discuss Obamas assertion of "scare tactics" and then have him deliver a speech filled with "scare tactics"?

Nice post. Just shot your whole "OREGON has teh death panels" argument in the foot though.

Seriously, can't we just re-ban zen?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: retrospootythanks for the laugh though - I always enjoy watching idiots like you posting thier idiocy. As if anything will bring America down. This country is great and its a BIT stronger than you think. We will be fine, and you will still have your house with which to park your beat up old truck on the front lawn, you freegin appalachian nazi.

Is that what the Romans said shortly before the fall of the Roman Empire? Could that be what the French Aristocracy said before the French Revolution?

Our nation has much bigger problems than health care, such as the state of the overall economy. Right now the United States is in the process of transforming itself into a third world nation as a result of efforts and lack of effort on both sides of the aisle. We're shipping our jobs overseas, displacing Americans locally with foreigners on work visas, and importing millions of impoverished immigrants which also causes population explosion and a resulting increase on the costs for land and resources along with decreasing quality of life through higher population density.

Even if Obama pulled a rabbit out of his hat and was able to enact real socialized medicine tomorrow, we'd still have a great many problems.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Sclamoz
Your right, we do have death panels in this country.

http://www.reuters.com/article...2-Sep-2009+PRN20090902

Excellent first post, welcome aboard the crazy train that is Anandtech P&N. :beer:

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Lemon law
What we saw tonight is the nice President Obama, but he still layed it out, Obama is not going to back down no matter what the republirats do.

Were it me, I would put to the opposition in no uncertain terms, either you get on the reform bandwagon, or I am going to force you to embrace the current system which stinks. No more getting away with simple torpedoes, I am going to force you to embrace and love the stinking system we have which is undefinable. And unless you are prepared to compare an either or plan, you are only making noises that shed heat but no light.

Its not really clear what Obama said in tonight's speech, like I say, we saw the nice Obama, but if some are so delusional as to think they can keep up obstructionist ism business as usual, why should Obama feel obligated to warn the GOP that they may be crusin for a brusin. If Obama starts playing hard ball, its a guarantee that the GOP will really not like it, but many American voters would be pleased to see more beanballed GOP idiots get what they richly deserve.

As it is, even the blue dog democrats are getting ready to move towards a final version, and if the GOP wants to contribute and take some credit, all well and fine, but if the GOP wants to only obstruct, the train to contribute will leave the station very soon, and if the GOP does not climb aboard, the Darwin award of final extinction may well be their reward.

Gop response

Funny how none of the major networks carried it live.

Funny how I watched it live on a major network. Funnier still that it was given by a birther, and a co-sponsor of the Life Sustaining Treatment Preferences Act of 2009 which mandates that Medicare pay for the so called Death Panels. Hilarious irony.

Yeah, you'll get a shitload of crickets on this one. Just like when it was pointed out that Palin's own state did just what her alleged "death panels" in 3200 do ... bunch of idiots.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: PatranusNow, to respond to your hypothetical situation (I know I shouldn't respond to your trolling as you want me to respond) I am advocating reading the policy before you sign up for it so that you know what is and is not covered. If the policy doesn't meet your needs than you should not agree to it and shop for another policy.

How are non-physicians and non-lawyers supposed to understand the importance of what is and what is not covered? Even lawyers would need to be experienced in the field to understand it all. Also, you're assuming that other insurance companies offer better coverage or different coverage and that people will be able to find coverage for exactly what they want without shelling out $50,000/year for a fully comprehensive policy.

There are laws in the Unites State that require hospitals to provide life saving treatments regardless of (among other things) age, sex, religion, gender, or ability to pay.

...and if you can get the treatment you need in time you might be able to survive (if you don't starve to death as a result of illness-induced poverty). Good luck with all of that.

The argument that it will cost more to get insurance if you have a pre existing condition is based on emotions and is intellectually void. The risk to the insurance pool is higher if you have a pre existing condition and the odds of you as an individual will require more dollars than someone else in the insurance pool is significantly higher. Thus, to offset that risk, you are charge higher premiums if you have a pre existing conditions. The same argument is used to justify higher rates for those with poor driving records.

The real issue is: Do we, as a society, want to help the sick and the indigent, who could be ourselves, potentially, or do we want to let them die in the streets? Americans have already more or less decided to help the poor and the sick; we already have socialized medicine in this country. The next issue is whether we'll have a bloated and highly inefficient market-based system or an efficient and less expensive national health care system which has proven to work in other first world nations.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: PatranusIncorrect. Those people can easily get coverage if they are willing to pay significantly the premiums. They have higher costs, they pay higher premiums....not really sure what the problem is here....

Anyone can obtain health insurance if they're willing to pay enough money. However, in reality, for 95% of the population, if the premium were $40,000/year then it is the same as if the coverage were not available at all at any cost.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Gop response

Funny how none of the major networks carried it live.

It's like you have the opposite of Jim Carrey's affliction in Liar Liar.

 

[Xellos2099]

The idea sound good. but accord to Principle of Equivalent Trade, we can't gain something without paying the price. The price of the insurance premium WILL go up, there is no way around it.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
The idea sound good. but accord to Principle of Equivalent Trade, we can't gain something without paying the price. The price of the insurance premium WILL go up, there is no way around it.

Then that's an argument against the republican ideas too, and they say premiums will not go up under their plan. Either competition will lower premiums or it won't. Both reps and dems want competition and expanded coverage, just disagree on how to do it.