Not sure I trust anyone in Washington that wants to reform anything based on "projections". They really haven't done too well "projecting" things.

Sorry, But I understood the proposal quite well... Maybe it was some other posters who didn't understand it...

 

Really? Then explain in more detail belief that this will be "govt run healthcare." I may have assumed you meant something you did not.

LABS, I fall into a third faction, probably a very small one. I simply do not believe that having affordable health care coverage is a fundamental right held by every American. I just don't.

 

Forget government-run health care, forget death panels and all that mess. This whole debate, the entire thing, boils down to two things: 1) Americans do not take care of themselves and expect more of their bodies than their bodies can take; and 2) Bad stuff happens to people and we want the government to take care of it. It really is as simple as that.

 

The current system is fouled up already by regulation and all the focus on the current proposals is going to do is to even further cement the type of regulation that exists. I hate to be elitist but its as if 98% of America misses the forest for the trees.

 

 

No shock that I will disagree. I'm in the camp that healthcare is a right and its a moral obligation.

 

However, lets get past that for a minute.

 

In your world, what happens to those who do not have healthcare when they are in a car wreck or they have cancer or their child has leukemia?

The way I understand Obama's proposal is that everyone has to have/take insurance.

I may be wrong...

 

While auto insurance has been brought up...why can't we just allow people to purchase health insurance across state lines like they do with auto insurance.

 

 

To be honest, I never realized that going across state lines was a no-no for insurance companies. Has the POTUS addressed that issue?

No, the CBO has estimated that what is in the current writing nearly 30 million would lose coverage simply because the employer would stop offering it or close. It'd be simpler to just pay the bill.

 

I seem to remember a CBO report that said the # of people under a private plan would INCREASE under a House plan with the public option.

 

Where are the 30M people you mention going?

No shock that I will disagree. I'm in the camp that healthcare is a right and its a moral obligation.

 

However, lets get past that for a minute.

 

In your world, what happens to those who do not have healthcare when they are in a car wreck or they have cancer or their child has leukemia?

 

Let's turn the tables and answer me this...What happens in your world when the country goes bankrupt and the best doctors go elsewhere to eearn better wages?

Folks, have at it. I have a long day in the car. I look forward to catching up tonight from my hotel.

 

Carry on.

Let's turn the tables and answer me this...What happens in your world when the country goes bankrupt and the best doctors go elsewhere to eearn better wages?

 

Why do you think we'll go bankrupt?

 

Decisions and priorities will have to be made. I think most Americans place a high value on healthcare. Thus, to pay for this (and I'm not as optimistic as the POTUS) spending cuts will have to happen.

 

Are you going to try to tell me that we can't cut spending?

Obama has said that affordable healthcare is a "fundamental right."

 

What you say is absolutely correct. However, where I part ways is on the manner of enforcement. If you want to have coverage for the uninsured, fine. Have the stones to say, I'm going to raise your taxes. But that's not what he's doing. He is saying, you MUST have insurance coverage, and if you don't, I'm going to punish you. He is saying, the government can eliminate fraud and waste in the system better than private industry, so I want you to pay us for creation of an exchange. I have fundamental differences with both of those opinions, and believe they are wrong.

 

 

I agree with much of what you say. However, what I believe differs here: I believe that there IS much waste and fraud within the current governmental setup of current programs. I believe that streamlining and consolidation of administration CAN reduce/eliminate much of that. I believe that if governmental programs were run like those in many (not all) private industries, that would accomplish the task. When I hear Obama speak of such, that's what I think his intent is. I don't see him saying that government can do it better, just that it can be done.

 

I heard him mention two different systems, one in PA, and the other in UT, I think, that could be models for what he wants to accomplish. I think that regardless of the eventual plan, that to say it CAN'T be done is extraordinarily fatalistic. To say it CAN'T work before it's even tried is extraordinarily shortsighted. To say something COULDN'T be done, based on what MIGHT happen, isn't prudent. Some of the most impressive successes in history have been achieved by taking risk...heck almost all have. We can't be so afraid of what might happen, that we don't move toward what can happen. That's a paralyzing attitude, and one that only ensures that the current quagmire is unending.

 

I guess you can put me down as an idealist. However, without risk, there is no reward. (I'm just full of cliches today. )

No shock that I will disagree. I'm in the camp that healthcare is a right and its a moral obligation.

 

However, lets get past that for a minute.

 

In your world, what happens to those who do not have healthcare when they are in a car wreck or they have cancer or their child has leukemia?

 

They have health care, they just don't have insurance. I will not get into they "why" they don't have insurance.

 

They get the treatment and they pay for it themselves. Or they turn to charity or churches to help pay for it. Or they solicit fundraisers and auctions for assistance. Or they borrow from relatives. Or, if worse comes to worse, they bankrupt the expenses.

 

Now, that may come across as cruel and heartless, but bad stuff happens, and bankrupting an entire country for the principle of combating systemic poverty is not good policy.

That congressman was way out of line. However, both Bush and Clinton had to put up with booing and shout outs during some of their speeches to congress. Disrespect has a long term history in Washington.

 

Here is a fact check article from Yahoo:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090910/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_care_fact_check

I seem to remember a CBO report that said the # of people under a private plan would INCREASE under a House plan with the public option.

 

Where are the 30M people you mention going?

 

Sorry, 23 million lost under existing plans, with a net total loss of 16-17 million.

 

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=293

Obama has said that affordable healthcare is a "fundamental right."

 

What you say is absolutely correct. However, where I part ways is on the manner of enforcement. If you want to have coverage for the uninsured, fine. Have the stones to say, I'm going to raise your taxes. But that's not what he's doing. He is saying, you MUST have insurance coverage, and if you don't, I'm going to punish you. He is saying, the government can eliminate fraud and waste in the system better than private industry, so I want you to pay us for creation of an exchange. I have fundamental differences with both of those opinions, and believe they are wrong.

 

Agreed. I wish Obama would be more honest, more candid or whatever word you want to use. I'd respect him more. If he believes that health insurance coverage is such a fundamental right for everyone, he should just come out and say taxes should be and will be raised if necessary to provide such coverage. Does any one really believe that the costs of such coverage can be covered by making the system more efficient and by the elimination of waste and fraud? For that matter, does any one really believe that any govt ran program can be ran efficiently and eliminate waste and fraud? If so, what existing govt program can you point to in order to give you such confidence?

 

Of course Obama, Pelosi and the rest of the crowd realize that stating it will be necessary to raise taxes to pay for the plan means the reform will go no where and thus they aren't being so direct. They wouldn't be in the positions they are if they weren't politically savvy. So they try to pull the wool over Americans eyes in my opinion. I disagreed with Ted Kennedy on almost every issue, but I respected him for being brutally honest in his beliefs and positions. I had great hopes that the same would be true with Obama. I truly did. He has dashed my hopes. Others may disagree with me on that and that's fine. But it's the way I feel.

 

Clyde, I admire your optimism about Congress being willing in the future to make the cuts needed if cuts are required to pay for the health insurance reform. I truly do. I don't share that optimism. If there are unneeded plans and programs and wasteful spending that can afford to be cut in the future if needed, why haven't those cuts already been made? Isn't what Obama really is saying is that we will be able to afford the health insurance reforms by eliminating the wasteful govt spending currently going on that we (Congress and the WH) haven't had the courage in the past to cut? If there are cuts that can be cut in the future, why haven't they already been cut? Doesn't that tell you something about the ability of our govt to efficiently manage and spend our (and by our, I mean those of us that actually pay taxes) money? If he's in effect admitting that they haven't efficiently managed in the past the money we've already given them, why should we have any optimism that the federal govt will be able to efficiently manage health insurance? You acknwledge that there is substantial wasteful spending already in the federal govt; why do you have any optimism that greater federal involvement in the health insurance business will create greater effeciency and less waste? Does the govt's past management of Medicare and Medicaid provide any evidence of how well the govt can manage any thing?

 

You're a smart guy and not politically naive. You know there is a very small chance that there will be any real cuts of wasteful spending in the future if needed. It's way too easy to raise taxes on the wealthy than it is to cut programs and eliminate waste, because waste to me is pork to someone else, and pork is what is used by politicians to get re-elected. Looking at just the military for a moment (but it is not alone amongst federal agencies in its ability to waste money; not by a long shot). It should be easy, shouldn't it, to close an unneeded military base? But we all know how difficult that is. It should be easy, shouldn't it, to stop the development of unneeded military weapons? But we all know how difficult that is. It should be easy to do those things but it isn't. Why? Because powerful politicians are prostitutes to lobbyists for campaign contributions and to constituients for votes. If they don't have the courage to cut the wasteful spending now, why should a rationale person believe that they will have the courage to do it in the future?

 

Asking the question another way: if you owned a business and you were talking to your Chief Operations Officer about how you were going to afford to pay for an business expansion that he was proposing if the expansion did not pay for itself, and he told you not to worry because he knew where the company had so much existing wasteful spending that could be cut if needed, you'd probably fire him on the spot for not already having taken action to eliminate the waste, wouldn't you? I can guarantee you that I would. And that in a nutshell is what Obama is saying, isn't it?

 

Help me out. Maybe I've misunderstood things and my impressions are wrong. I'll change my thoughts if you can help me understand why those impressions are wrong. I truly will.

Really? Then explain in more detail belief that this will be "govt run healthcare." I may have assumed you meant something you did not.

Maybe I misunderstood your question... If not the government, then who would manage the public option???

I agree with much of what you say. However, what I believe differs here: I believe that there IS much waste and fraud within the current governmental setup of current programs. I believe that streamlining and consolidation of administration CAN reduce/eliminate much of that. I believe that if governmental programs were run like those in many (not all) private industries, that would accomplish the task. When I hear Obama speak of such, that's what I think his intent is. I don't see him saying that government can do it better, just that it can be done.

 

I heard him mention two different systems, one in PA, and the other in UT, I think, that could be models for what he wants to accomplish. I think that regardless of the eventual plan, that to say it CAN'T be done is extraordinarily fatalistic. To say it CAN'T work before it's even tried is extraordinarily shortsighted. To say something COULDN'T be done, based on what MIGHT happen, isn't prudent. Some of the most impressive successes in history have been achieved by taking risk...heck almost all have. We can't be so afraid of what might happen, that we don't move toward what can happen. That's a paralyzing attitude, and one that only ensures that the current quagmire is unending.

 

I guess you can put me down as an idealist. However, without risk, there is no reward. (I'm just full of cliches today. )

 

Can you name one example, in the history of the United States, where the government has been efficient at eliminating fraud, waste, and abuse as well as private industry?

 

All evidence, and I mean all of it, points to the government screwing this up.