until those companies are nationalized too
Sha-na-na-na-hey-hey-hey-goodbye
- Thread starter the producer
- Start date
until those companies are nationalized too
G
Guest
Guest
From Barack Obama.com
I will address only the first point on their list:
If they don't make money, how will they stay in business!?!?!??!
And I say this based on these statistics:
1. Smokers: 45.3 million of U.S. adults are current smokers (as of 2006, up over 1 million from 2004)
Potential health problems?
Potential health problems?
Cancer treatment accounted for an estimated $72.1 billion in 2004—just under 5 percent of U.S. spending for all medical treatment. Between 1995 and 2004, the overall costs of treating cancer increased by 75 percent.
If you insure everyone, how will it work without crippling itself?!?!??!?!
Sources: National Cancer Institute & Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
I will address only the first point on their list:
- Require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions so all Americans regardless of their health status or history can get comprehensive benefits at fair and stable premiums.
If they don't make money, how will they stay in business!?!?!??!
And I say this based on these statistics:
1. Smokers: 45.3 million of U.S. adults are current smokers (as of 2006, up over 1 million from 2004)
Potential health problems?
- Cancers (lung, esophageal, laryngeal, stomach)
- Heart disease
- Stroke
- Emphysema
Potential health problems?
- Hypertension
- Dyslipidemia (for example, high total cholesterol or high levels of triglycerides)
- Type 2 diabetes
- Coronary heart disease
- Stroke
- Gallbladder disease
- Osteoarthritis
- Sleep apnea and respiratory problems
- Some cancers (endometrial, breast, and colon)
Cancer treatment accounted for an estimated $72.1 billion in 2004—just under 5 percent of U.S. spending for all medical treatment. Between 1995 and 2004, the overall costs of treating cancer increased by 75 percent.
If you insure everyone, how will it work without crippling itself?!?!??!?!
Sources: National Cancer Institute & Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
If you think covering everyone is no big deal, just look at the GI states.
If you think encouraging a healthier lifestyle works, then why is it that 80% of illness is self inflicted and treated by medication?
Our business may change but won't go away or be nationalized. There are too many other problems more pressing. Things that are already here and those on the horizon.
This election was mostly a referendum on Bush. He made a lot of mistakes but you can't put the blame for all the problems solely on Bush. In 2 months when Bush leaves and O takes over things will continue to deteriorate.
The economy will teeter as more banks and large companies fail. Unemployment will rise and keep a close eye on the middle east, especially Israel.
If we pull out of Iraq it will create a void and an opportunity for Iran and/or Russia to add to their real estate holdings.
With all this going on there is no way to manage all these issues and dismantle the health care delivery and reimbursement system.
If you think encouraging a healthier lifestyle works, then why is it that 80% of illness is self inflicted and treated by medication?
Our business may change but won't go away or be nationalized. There are too many other problems more pressing. Things that are already here and those on the horizon.
This election was mostly a referendum on Bush. He made a lot of mistakes but you can't put the blame for all the problems solely on Bush. In 2 months when Bush leaves and O takes over things will continue to deteriorate.
The economy will teeter as more banks and large companies fail. Unemployment will rise and keep a close eye on the middle east, especially Israel.
If we pull out of Iraq it will create a void and an opportunity for Iran and/or Russia to add to their real estate holdings.
With all this going on there is no way to manage all these issues and dismantle the health care delivery and reimbursement system.
- 14,808
I believe we have 5 GI states - why don't we have 50 GI states? What? GI states don't offer a successful model?
A lot of people are singing about the success of the Mass. plan. Funny, I don't see any states attempting to duplicate it.
If I moved my family to Mass. since I earn over 52K I would have to pay for health insurance by law - cheapest plan I can find it $750 per month. Right now I pay $212.
A lot of people are singing about the success of the Mass. plan. Funny, I don't see any states attempting to duplicate it.
If I moved my family to Mass. since I earn over 52K I would have to pay for health insurance by law - cheapest plan I can find it $750 per month. Right now I pay $212.
life911
Expert
- 37
That'll be like the food - sure tastes good going down but going out is another story...
- 2,908
Obama will appoint a Health Care Czar within weeks, even before the inauguaration. I agee that we will not see a dismantling and replacement with a national system but I dont think for a minute that that means that it will be tabled or stalled. Lack of funding will only cause Congress to try to achieve some gains by regulating, mandating, tinkering, and experimentation on someone else's nickel. Keep in mind that both Hillary and Obama have said that they will fix the problem with premiums by simply telling carriers what they can charge. Yeh, it is dumb. And yes it is true that guaranteed issue has been a disaster. I see no sign that that will serve as a deterrent.
Congress will start looking at nationwide guaranteed issue. On top of that there will be a requirement that more carriers and drug companies bid to do business with whatever government sponsored or subsidized programs there will be. Carriers dont care about independent agents so will squeeze commissions to be competitive on bidding and to drive more and more of their business through their captives and telesales.
Some folks here continue to look at it as though a national system is either coming or it is not and "how long do I have before it comes." I dont see it happenig that way. It is going to be more like flying in a plane that has a rivet pop out every six months. Some agents will get queezy right off. Others will get out only after many rivets have popped. Still others believe that the carriers will always have a place for them and would not let them go down the tubes so will keep adapting and looking for the best around the next corner. It is almost exactly analagous to the MA situation. Some got out last year, some this year, some are saying this is the last year, some are saying they will just continue to adapt to CMS and it will ge okay.
Obama was elected with a mandate and health care reform was part of that and Congress is all on his side now.
My view only. Most likely I am wrong. But I dont see Obama stepping back from the health care thing. If anything, as I mentioned, I think the lack of funding will just cause them to meddle with the existing system more as a substitute for implementing a truly new system with new funding.
Last edited:
- 924
FDR tinkered a rivet at a time once some of his sweeping "reforms" were either rejected by Congress or overturned by the Supreme Court.
Of course his answer to the Supreme Court problem was simply to try and pack the court with an additional 3 judges in order to get the necessary votes by having a majority out of a total of 12 judges.
I think Obama will operate the same way. He and Congress will see the election as a mandate, as Winter says, and there will be attempts at big changes as soon as possible and then a fall-back position of chipping away at whatever can't be done quickly.
Of course his answer to the Supreme Court problem was simply to try and pack the court with an additional 3 judges in order to get the necessary votes by having a majority out of a total of 12 judges.
I think Obama will operate the same way. He and Congress will see the election as a mandate, as Winter says, and there will be attempts at big changes as soon as possible and then a fall-back position of chipping away at whatever can't be done quickly.
When Franklin D. Roosevelt won his second term for president in 1936, the defeated Republican candidate, Gov. Alf Landon of Kansas, won only two states, Maine and Vermont, and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress by wide margins.
But Obama's win was nothing like that. He may have opened the door to enactment of the long-deferred liberal agenda, but he neither received a broad mandate from the public nor the needed large congressional majorities.
The Democrats fell several votes short of the 60-vote filibuster-proof Senate that they were seeking and also failed to get rid of a key Senate target: Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
Republicans, though discouraged by the election's outcome, believe Obama will be hard-pressed not so much to enact his agenda but to keep his popular majority, which he considers centrist, as he moves to enact ultra-liberal legislation, particularly the demands of organized labor.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/novak/1260688,CST-NWS-novak05.article
House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio congratulated Obama, but made it clear to the victor that he faced tough times on Capitol Hill.
Boehner charged that Obama "has sketched a troubling policy roadmap that will be run through a Congress that was purchased by powerful liberal special interests."
Riding an anti-Republican wave generated largely by the unpopularity of President George W. Bush, and a crush of enthusiasm created by the charismatic Obama, Democrats had one of their best elections in more than a decade.
In fact, it was the first time since 1992 that Democrats won both chambers of Congress as well as the White House when Bill Clinton led their ticket.
Democrats won the Senate and House two years ago, but Republicans routinely blocked legislation on matters from withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq and additional economic stimulus to health care and energy.
http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed2/idUSN0550953820081105
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
When Franklin D. Roosevelt won his second term for president in 1936, the defeated Republican candidate, Gov. Alf Landon of Kansas, won only two states, Maine and Vermont, and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress by wide margins.
But Obama's win was nothing like that. He may have opened the door to enactment of the long-deferred liberal agenda, but he neither received a broad mandate from the public nor the needed large congressional majorities.
The Democrats fell several votes short of the 60-vote filibuster-proof Senate that they were seeking and also failed to get rid of a key Senate target: Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
Republicans, though discouraged by the election's outcome, believe Obama will be hard-pressed not so much to enact his agenda but to keep his popular majority, which he considers centrist, as he moves to enact ultra-liberal legislation, particularly the demands of organized labor.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/novak/1260688,CST-NWS-novak05.article
House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio congratulated Obama, but made it clear to the victor that he faced tough times on Capitol Hill.
Boehner charged that Obama "has sketched a troubling policy roadmap that will be run through a Congress that was purchased by powerful liberal special interests."
Riding an anti-Republican wave generated largely by the unpopularity of President George W. Bush, and a crush of enthusiasm created by the charismatic Obama, Democrats had one of their best elections in more than a decade.
In fact, it was the first time since 1992 that Democrats won both chambers of Congress as well as the White House when Bill Clinton led their ticket.
Democrats won the Senate and House two years ago, but Republicans routinely blocked legislation on matters from withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq and additional economic stimulus to health care and energy.
Obama's Democrats expand majorities in Congress | Reuters
But Obama's win was nothing like that. He may have opened the door to enactment of the long-deferred liberal agenda, but he neither received a broad mandate from the public nor the needed large congressional majorities.
The Democrats fell several votes short of the 60-vote filibuster-proof Senate that they were seeking and also failed to get rid of a key Senate target: Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
Republicans, though discouraged by the election's outcome, believe Obama will be hard-pressed not so much to enact his agenda but to keep his popular majority, which he considers centrist, as he moves to enact ultra-liberal legislation, particularly the demands of organized labor.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/novak/1260688,CST-NWS-novak05.article
House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio congratulated Obama, but made it clear to the victor that he faced tough times on Capitol Hill.
Boehner charged that Obama "has sketched a troubling policy roadmap that will be run through a Congress that was purchased by powerful liberal special interests."
Riding an anti-Republican wave generated largely by the unpopularity of President George W. Bush, and a crush of enthusiasm created by the charismatic Obama, Democrats had one of their best elections in more than a decade.
In fact, it was the first time since 1992 that Democrats won both chambers of Congress as well as the White House when Bill Clinton led their ticket.
Democrats won the Senate and House two years ago, but Republicans routinely blocked legislation on matters from withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq and additional economic stimulus to health care and energy.
http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed2/idUSN0550953820081105
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
When Franklin D. Roosevelt won his second term for president in 1936, the defeated Republican candidate, Gov. Alf Landon of Kansas, won only two states, Maine and Vermont, and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress by wide margins.
But Obama's win was nothing like that. He may have opened the door to enactment of the long-deferred liberal agenda, but he neither received a broad mandate from the public nor the needed large congressional majorities.
The Democrats fell several votes short of the 60-vote filibuster-proof Senate that they were seeking and also failed to get rid of a key Senate target: Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
Republicans, though discouraged by the election's outcome, believe Obama will be hard-pressed not so much to enact his agenda but to keep his popular majority, which he considers centrist, as he moves to enact ultra-liberal legislation, particularly the demands of organized labor.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/novak/1260688,CST-NWS-novak05.article
House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio congratulated Obama, but made it clear to the victor that he faced tough times on Capitol Hill.
Boehner charged that Obama "has sketched a troubling policy roadmap that will be run through a Congress that was purchased by powerful liberal special interests."
Riding an anti-Republican wave generated largely by the unpopularity of President George W. Bush, and a crush of enthusiasm created by the charismatic Obama, Democrats had one of their best elections in more than a decade.
In fact, it was the first time since 1992 that Democrats won both chambers of Congress as well as the White House when Bill Clinton led their ticket.
Democrats won the Senate and House two years ago, but Republicans routinely blocked legislation on matters from withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq and additional economic stimulus to health care and energy.
Obama's Democrats expand majorities in Congress | Reuters
Last edited:
Similar threads
