obama health care speech comments

The new health reform is defiantly impacting way more than just our wallets. The mortgage companies and banks are also getting hit really hard. I am really glad that I found a great Vermont reverse mortgage that can really fit my budget.

who in turn paid tribute to Lucifer as "the greatest community organizer of all time" is taking the moral high ground. How about the morality of using force or the threat of force to take money from people and give it to your favorite cause? The mafia does it, the drug cartels do it, and the government does it. None of them have any moral guidance to offer.
saúde | alimentação | massagem |
academia | clínicas | estética
relaxamento | massagista

I think that Obama needs to keep his ideas to himself. He said that we need a stimulus package, but on Fox News there were studies done which proved that if we didn't have a stimulus package implemented upon the economy, we would've recovered faster than we would have without it. He's also trying to pass a law that will grant all illegal immigrants "legalized" status, then they will have things like free health care, free insurance, the whole shebang! That f***ing sucks man! He doesn't understand economics either, I mean come one man. I was able to develop my own solution the problem with the economy: lower ther taxes on the people and the small businesses, and then the economy will bounce back up in no time. Instead, he creates more taxes for the middle-class, and basically makes it a crime to be rich.

The real underlying issue here is the absolute failure of the FDA and USDA with it's non-existant protection of America's diet. How can any organization approve this so called food that is completely adulterated resulting in no nutritional value.

People our diets are the real problem and where the reform should occur. Our diets are the main reason so many people have cancer, heart disease, diabetes, etc...

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure/care.

Healthcare would not be where it is today if people took responsibility of their diets.

Do the research people! Don't eat junk that you know will cause problems in the end.

If half the money spent on the healthcare debate was used to clean up Americas food, you would see a decline in disease and the need for so many drugs and doctor visits.

But who am I kidding, the drug companies are behind our politicians and their decisions.

John - if the government can operate a healthcare program efficiently, why are both Medicare and Medicaid going broke? I think you forget that free interprise is what has made America strong. With government intervention to regulate profits of insurance companies or any other for profit company, the very premise of free interprise would be destroyed. If you will do some research on medical insurance company profits, I think you will find these to be minimal and much lower than other industries. Profit is NOT a dirty word and without it America would collapse. Frivilous lawsuits by trial lawyers have driven up costs of healthcare insurance by the greatest margin. The cost for doctors and medical facilities to protect themselves from greedy "ambulance chasers" has further exacerbated this.

The president gave lip service to the subject of tort reform. Unless the trial lawyer's association is regulated with caps and limitations on litigation, defensive costs for medical malpractice will continue to soar. For fear of being sued it is fully understood why doctors request uneeded tests because they fear lawsuits. When neurosurgeons must pay $200,000 to $300,000 per year for malpractice insurance to protect themselves it is easy to see why some are changing careers. Many billions of dollars could be saved if comprehensive tort reform was enacted into law. Of course, since a great many members of the Senate and House of Representatives are attorneys themselves, they are loathe to "cut off the hand that feeds them". Secondly, if President Obama would have mentioned the need to make existing medical coverage portable and freely sold across state lines, the greater competition thereby provided would greatly help reduce costs. He also said that some states only had one or as few as 5 insurers and that kept costs high. To correct this problem, Congress only would need to change or repeal existing laws to allow commonality of coverage and open markets in all states.

I don't understand why so many things have to be wrapped up in one bill. I am talking about both government parties.

We are faced to pick a side, all or nothing, democrat or republican. How many of us have actually read the bill versus repeating the statistics we have heard. I started reading the bill but must admit that the volume and legal speak overwhelmed me.

I do believe that both sides aceept a lot of things in these bills to get what the things they do want. It is hard to say whose interest they are serving. Why can't we break it down and do a little at a time.

I agree that it seems that everyone should have health care but who pays for it? We never really get the basic information as you would if you were managing a household,

For example - OK we have x dollars per year to spend. We have to figure out how to spend it and set some aside for emergencies. We talk about what everyone should have as if the government has an endless supply of money.

Good care will cost money. I can't believe that cutting waste from Medicare, 500 billion, will cover it. I can't believe that we have been that wasteful. If so it is very sad. I think first and foremost, before we give the government more money we should get a detailed explanation of the wastefulness. How did we waste 500 billion a year. This is not a new problem. Let's back up and spend some time looking at what we are doing wrong before starting something new.

Bigger is more inefficient. I don't care which side of the government is running it, I don't want the government to run health care.

When the government starting telling people they had to make loans more affordable - the Credit Reinvestment Act, look what happened to the mortgage companies and banks. Now they are suggesting that the insurance companies shoudl be regulated as well to make insurance mroe affordable because everyone should have insurance. We should learn from our own history.

Obamas approach to health care is like blowing Hiroshma off the map and making up a government replacement ...just stop the thievery and overcharges and have more competition and get tort reform and everything will be fine----if it takes throwing all the bums out then let us do it!..we have a great country and we should not turn it over to fascists and communists...to put unworkable plans into law---throw em out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The same plan as Congress and the President have? Talk about ballooning the deficit. The country couldn't afford what those no-accounts have put into place for themselves!
How about we get the same pension as they've set up for themselves? Serve two years and get 100% of your salary for life!!! Term limits would be a step in the right direction toward fixing more than a few of our federal government issues.

Well said Connie. It is simple and straightforward.
Anything that government employees, including the President, congressman and senators vote for for themselves, should be equally shared by us all. If it is good enough for them, it is good enough for us all and vice versa.

I DO know that whenever insurance companies did not have the control that they have now over our healthcare in the 70's and 80's, costs were MUCH cheaper and the average American paid for their doctors and their medicines themselves. Not everyone had the same care, perhaps, but they had the care that they could afford. Many folks now CAN afford to have insurance, but choose to put their resources elsewhere. Whenever doctors directly dealt with their patients (without the interference of insurance companies and lawyers), patients were happy with their care for the most part, doctors had time to spend with patients and insurance was only for "GOD forbid" hospitals stays.

Given the power, the consumer will shop and bring down insurance costs IF their insurance is chosen by them and NOT their employers or the government. Insurance companies will have to get lean and mean much like other companies who have had their business go overseas with current Federal mandates and have become successful despite government interference.
Patients need to be able to vote for which healthcare they want with their pocketbooks. When has our federal government EVER been able to SAVE our money? Does it live within its budget? I do not support giving the government even more power over our lives.
Healthcare is not broken. The insurance companies have reached a level of astronomical premiums that cannot be supported by our populace. Let the market rule and the costs will come down on their own. Look at the price of gasoline....It goes up AND goes down with the market. Look at the price of a postage stamp.....Has NEVER gone down! Give the power to the people and they will change things for the better.

I agree with Connie. If all the government employees, including the President and his family will take up this plan and like it then it is good enough for me. Isn't that how we are supposed to lead? By example?

We all know there are problems with our existing health care system. We need to stop the name calling and finger pointing and work toward middle ground.
I think everyone should have to have medical insurance. I like the abolishing of "pre-existing conditions". I think insurance companies dropping high risk people and jacking up individual rates to force them to drop out is unconscionable. I think dental and vision should be covered. I think prevention is vital. Regular office visits should be covered.
I think people should have to help pay the medical bill.
I dislike a huge government bureaucracy managing our health almost as much as huge insurance company bureaucracies; I like the idea of more competition among insurance companies with a government option for the uninsured. Tort reform must be done. Abolish the state line barriers to create more competition.
I think employer paid fringe benefit (paid health ins) and self paid health ins should be taxed the same. Why should one person have to pay for his insurance with pre-tax dollars and the next person with after-tax dollars?
WE CAN AND WE MUST TACKLE THIS PROBLEM AND SOLVE IT!

I also work for a very large health insurance. I can see your point. But tell me why the upper managements are getting very large pay and bonus, and then they send all their employees letters to help contribute to those who don't have insurance. It is hard to swallon when they are getting very large raises,and we get a very small raise. There are so many in our insurance that are getting Medicaid Insurance. They have better coverage than I do. Either your dirt poor and get Medicaid or you can't afford the preiums. I think everyone should be able to get affordable basic insurance. If they can do routine care, eventually the cost of claims will go down, because it will be cheaper to keep everyone in shape, then has to put out alot because they couldn't afford it,and their health really got bad.
I hope all the people will listen to what is going on in their district,and if those who are suppose to represent the people are listening to special groups and not their area, it is time to vote them out! Get someone who will represent your district and the people of the district needs!

I also work for a health insurance company, and would like to address a few of the comments I've read in reaction to the President's speech last night. The gentleman from Canyon Ranch refers to holding health insurers accountable and cutting their profits. The irony in this is that health insurance companies, on average, have a profit margin of from 1 - 3%, which is significantly lower than most for-profit companies in the U.S. So, if someone is making a lot of money on healthcare in the U.S., I have a hard time concluding that it is the insurers. Canyon Ranch probably has a much higher profit margin than the health insurance companies, and are any of you offended by that?

A second point is in regards to the public plan option. Here's the issue with the public plan: if it is structured similarly to Medicare and Medicaid, there is a real problem inherent in this. Medicare and Medicaid actually set the prices that medical providers receive for the services performed, and in general they are paying way, way less than what private health insurance companies are charged by the same doctors and hospitals for the same services. If the government repeated this practice with a "public option," the government-sponsored plan would have a very real cost-of-goods-sold advantage over private health plans, unless the private health plans were to be charged the same prices for services their plan members received. What is the ultimate result of this? Private plans would progressively become more and more expensive relative to the public plan, and eventually the government plan would probably become the only plan.

In addition, many doctors and hospitals find it difficult to cover their expenses at the rates that Medicare and Medicaid pay, and rely upon private health insurers' payments to make up the difference (this is the cost-shifting that the Republicans have talked about). If the government plan became the only option, they would probably have to take over the entire medical delivery system in order to guarantee that good medical care is accessible to all Americans, because otherwise some doctors and hospitals would have to close their doors. Welcome to Canada or the United Kingdom, where good basic care is available to all, but heaven help you if you need cancer treatments or a surgery.

I know that some of you will probably think that I'm parroting the opposition's party line, but I will tell you that, working in this industry, I firmly believe that this could be our future. All of the western nations are struggling with rising health care costs, and having government take over the system has not fixed that problem. It's true that they spend less as a percent of GDP, but they are not any more successful than we are at controlling the cost increases, other than by rationing the number of procedures that are performed and sticking to their annual budgets by "rationing." Just last week, a panel of physicians in the UK have filed a formal action against the National Health Service challenging the protocols that control who gets treatment vs. who gets palliative care for serious conditions. Even their doctors are uncomfortable with how the government decides who gets treatment/surgery vs. who doesn't.

We need health reform in the U.S., but I don't believe that actions which will lead to a government takeover is going to solve our problems. And make no mistake about it - there is an old-line faction within the Democratic party that would like to have a healthcare system like Canada, the UK, and France. That won't solve our healthcare crisis, it will just create a different one.

This comment, by far, is the best suggestion I have read from all the comments.

Carolyn- Based on your comment, even after the President's speech, you still don't understand the plan. It is disappointing to hear all the DISJOINTED rhetoric. The same tired inaccuracies we listened to all summer.
The issue isn't only that all the people in your state are being treated (which I am inclined to doubt) but how much it is costing them. That's one of those "facts" that "everyone" agrees on.
Your idea of eliminating the employer based system is great and there is some support for that. I believe the concern is how dramatic the change would be for most people. Still need to contain the cost, stimulate competition and contain Ins. Co.
profits.

The healthcare system needs to be reformed. Everyone knows that. But having issues with the President's "plan" does not mean support of the status quo.
What did the President offer to support his assertion that only 5% of the population would sign up for a public option?
What did the President offer to support his assertion that the $900B can mostly be funded by cleaning up fraud and waste in current government run healthcare programs? And why haven't we cleaned that house already?
Why won't there be fraud and waste in whatever new plan is adopted? Is the $900B number what we can expect from a perfectly pristine and efficient new system?
Why so tepid about tort reform?
And why should we believe that it will only cost $900B? The CBO certainly did not agree with that optimistic opinion. Nor that it would not have a negative impact on the deficit.
What the President offered, that can be measured in any objective way, is absolutely nothing. Certainly nothing new.
Losing my job, and along with it my healthcare, scares me (I'm the sole breadwinner of a family of five).
Coming down with a disease that will drive me into debt by battling scares me. But putting the government in charge of another 16% of our economy because a very talented speaker says it's our only option scares me even more.
To suggest, as one of your commenter’s did, that I'm a racist (from you know what part of the country) for questioning the President and believing there is a better way to get to the reform that is needed, is completely obscene. I hope that type of rhetoric does not sway anyone into falling into line with what the President is proposing. Isn't it convenient to play the race card when you can't come up with anything more compelling?

I work in the health care industry and all people who need care are being treated in my state. There are no "poor souls" languishing outside of the hospitals bleeding to death.

Insurance is a privilege not a right. Our country provides the ability for all to work and pay for their health care and there are avenues in place for the truly indigent.

Why not make our healthcare truly consumer oriented taking it out of the hands of employers and let the citizens choose their own individual polcies? If you are healthy, you can choose the "Wal Mart plan" which may be cheaper or if you want to devote more of your resources to insurance you can choose the "Neiman Marcus" plan. OR....expand the Medicare program that is already in place and let folks buy into it with the intent of making it more efficient, thereby limited more government expansion.

Also, President Obama has NEVER indicated that the "government plan" would be a good enough plan that his own family would gladly participate. AND if its good enough for the citizens, it should be good enough for ALL government employees, ALL of Congress and every President, past and present AND their families.

As usual the President makes himself very clear, seems the Republicans sit there with deafen ears. The last eight years havent they had time to come up with a health reform plan that works for all? Guess Not... and they call the kettle black

So the man who praises Saul Alinsky, who in turn paid tribute to Lucifer as "the greatest community organizer of all time" is taking the moral high ground. How about the morality of using force or the threat of force to take money from people and give it to your favorite cause? The mafia does it, the drug cartels do it, and the government does it. None of them have any moral guidance to offer.

I really enjoy these email article updates. I was very dissappointed on the big democratic stand that was obviously taken and exploited as far as commentary and comments. It was obviously very biased and hand picked. Some real diversity and a true mixture of opinions would have been appreciated and also helps in letting everyone make their own opinions. It is always beneficial to everyone to be informed on both sides of issues.

I suggest that whatever Health Care Plan is approved, that all government employees have the same plans, this way, I know the government would then approve what's good for all.

The Republican Party needs to get over it!! They have a voice and the door is open for them to participate in the formation of Health Care Reform. Take a look at where most of the resistance is coming from. What part of the country? Think there is more there than meets the eye and someone is not being honest and up front. President Obama has to fight many demons that are a negative part of our countries history and there are those who will not let go and move on. I just hope the younger generation will be wiser and reject the old and outdated hangups of their parents and anyone else who fits the description!!

The door is open Guys & Girls. Time to hop on board and help make a difference!!!

I thought Obama's speech was straightforward and to the point--and as always inspiring. It helped me get a better grasp of the points of contention and also made me curious to dig a little deeper to understand the reasons for Republican resistance.
However, it seems to me that the job of the government is to rein in companies/organizations that get too powerful and end up doing more harm than good to too many individuals. (Deregulation coupled with greed are what got us into the economic mess we are in) I think that the public option for health insurance is a very good way to move closer to that goal. It would force the big insurance companies to scale back their profits and lower costs to be competitive.
And if all government employees had that plan, that would be an even stronger force for competitition and would ensure good quality health care.