Obama address to Congress

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Azure

Especially if Obama broke his promise regarding lobby groups.

When he said he would enforce that, I honestly figured something was going to change.

This is different from Bush, Clinton, et al?

turns out it was nothing more than a bunch of political pandering.

Yup, US politics strikes again, the first young/exciting leader emerges and we fail again.

Its not that he lied dude, its that he got into power and realized the reality of how things were.

[Azure]

So you're saying he was an idiot with limited experience?

Sounds a lot like Sarah Palin.

[Calgaryborn]

I do know that there are missionary societies who will not allow Americans into Canada without carrying American medical insurance. They have this policy even though their guys are eligible for Canadian coverage. Apparently the view is that the quality of care in Canada although high doesn't meet the standards they demand. Their view might be simply a matter of prejudice but, then our view of the Canadian system might be clouded as well. I do know that the Americans have us beat hands down when it comes to quick access to specialists and tests. The backlog here in Canada does cost lives.

As far as the States go the bottom line is that they are out of money. If there is currently waste in medicare and other government programs they should fix it. Tort reform and removing the competition barriers between States for insurance coverage would help. Tax incentives for companies who chose a high level of insurance coverage. Requiring an insurance company to cover an employee who has lost their job for say 6 months at the company's group rate would take 10 million uninsured off the total just by itself.There is a lot that could be done without spending borrowed money. And that is the biggest worry with Obama's plans. Nobody including Democrats believe it will be revenue neutral.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I do know that there are missionary societies who will not allow Americans into Canada without carrying American medical insurance. They have this policy even though their guys are eligible for Canadian coverage. Apparently the view is that the quality of care in Canada although high doesn't meet the standards they demand. Their view might be simply a matter of prejudice but, then our view of the Canadian system might be clouded as well. I do know that the Americans have us beat hands down when it comes to quick access to specialists and tests. The backlog here in Canada does cost lives.

As far as the States go the bottom line is that they are out of money. If there is currently waste in medicare and other government programs they should fix it. Tort reform and removing the competition barriers between States for insurance coverage would help. Tax incentives for companies who chose a high level of insurance coverage. Requiring an insurance company to cover an employee who has lost their job for say 6 months at the company's group rate would take 10 million uninsured off the total just by itself.There is a lot that could be done without spending borrowed money. And that is the biggest worry with Obama's plans. Nobody including Democrats believe it will be revenue neutral.

The medical technology in the US is phenomenal--Pittsburgh is an example of that, it's the main reason SW Pa hasn't been as destroyed by the current economic disaster as many other parts of the country.

The issue isn't the level of the care one receives. The issue is that in an emergency, someone is given excellent care, and then a month later the bill comes and the person's life is destroyed because they're in debt so deep they won't ever claw their way out of it.

And if it's not an emergency, the specialists are there, the tests are there, the technology is there--but most people can't afford to access it, and the insurance companies are all too happy to screw customers out of the coverage for it.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Azure

So you're saying he was an idiot with limited experience?

Sounds a lot like Sarah Palin.

Experience you could argue it, but intelligence, not a debate.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Looks like this speech came none too soon. A 14 point swing in approval for Obama's plan:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...mas-proposals/

These sorts of "snap polls" can be a little fickle, but it does show that Obama should be playing to his strengths--he's been trying to be above the fray a little too much. His forte is message-making, and he needs to be getting in there and using the bully pulpit as much as he can.

That's not to say that I love his health care plan--but at least he's standing up to the mountain of lies that the GOP has deployed against it.

[Calgaryborn]

Speaking of mountain of lies: Apparently according to Obama's speech the 45 million uninsured is now just at 30 million. With unemployment at record highs how did 15 million Americans all of a sudden get insured.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by T@T

Being a Canadian and don't fully understand US healthcare (other than it's somewhat ######ed costs) but can someone explain why the Canadian or British systems can't work there?

Canadian or British systems or Scandinavian systems for that matter could work in the US with very high taxes. But that's not what's bring proposed.

This bill is trying some kind of hybrid two-tiered system where a person or a business has a choice to go with either the private or public plan. It's like the two-tiered health care system that the old Reform party proposed once upon a time.


But think about it. Why are people who can afford their own private insurance going to pay a fortune in taxes for a system they're not even going to use?

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Looks like this speech came none too soon. A 14 point swing in approval for Obama's plan:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...mas-proposals/

I'm convinced Obama could read a shopping list and his approval rating would jump.

[nik-]

What I want to know is when is the American public going to realize that they aren't going to be able to continue their way of life without tax increases .... for everyone.

They can't seriously think that it's not coming eventually.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by T@T

A guy in Calgary had it done in Vegas after having a heart attact,he needed a pacemaker,defibrillator the whole bit. he didn't take out travel insurance (dummy) and the bill was 387k. that was about 10 years ago

Needless to say...the Americans never seen their money.

These cost are not just high, they are obsence. Anywhere else in the world, for that kind of money after the surgery you could take home the defibrillator, 5 extra pacemakers and both nurses.

The corporate and government cartel is working like a charm. Corporations make sick amounts of money and politicians can attract voters with vague promises of "steps forward." It's a win-win situation, really. Except for patients and taxpayers of course.

[starseed]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

But think about it. Why are people who can afford their own private insurance going to pay a fortune in taxes for a system they're not even going to use?

He claims that not one dime would be added to the deficit. He also says the public insurance plan would be 100% self-sufficient and funded by premiums.

[Pastiche]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

Did I just hear that the public option is still on the table?

http://www.economist.com/world/unite...=features_box1

Will this speech be enough to get the president’s reform agenda back on track? It just might be. One reason to think so is the deft way Mr Obama signalled a willingness to compromise on the “public option” this week. The left has insisted on a government-run insurance scheme, but this ill-founded idea is strongly opposed by the health-care industry and by Republicans. It also has no hope of passing the Senate, as Max Baucus, the head of its Finance Committee, confirmed this week. Mr Obama voiced theoretical support for the idea, but by also supporting other options—including, crucially, the idea that such a plan could be triggered only if necessary later—he has, in effect, dealt it a death blow.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Canadian or British systems or Scandinavian systems for that matter could work in the US with very high taxes. But that's not what's bring proposed.

I agree with most of your post about what is being proposed--but this statement about costs is simply wrong. The U.S. system, as it is right now--is far more expensive than the Canadian system, costing 16% of GDP as opposed to around 8.

In fact, the U.S. spends MORE per capita on Medicare and Medicaid--two non-universal government health care insurance programs ("public options", for those who are paying attention) than Canada does on its entire health care system from top to bottom.

The notion that a publically funded system is more expensive than the hybrid system that the U.S. currently has is simply nonsense. In fact, the most potent argument for universal health care is this: it's cheaper.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by nik-

What I want to know is when is the American public going to realize that they aren't going to be able to continue their way of life without tax increases .... for everyone.

They can't seriously think that it's not coming eventually.

Actually, I can understand why they don't want more taxes, having lived there for 11 years. Americans pay a lot of tax, especially the middle class. The highest earners pay considerably less than they do here, but the vast majority of people are being taken to the cleaners by a government that doesn't even give them basic entitlements.

To me, there are two possible models for taxation and governance: very low taxes, low entitlements and higher taxes and more generous social programs. The U.S. has high taxes and no social safety net to speak of. They're getting screwed.

[moon]

Originally Posted by T@T

Have you ever been seriously sick and in dire need? to say it doesn't work is just not right, I broke my leg twice (which isn't even considered serious really) but in the states those would have cost me $10000.00, here? gas to get to therapy.

I wasn't seriously sick but when I lived in the States I did have to go into the hospital and it cost me zero.

I was treated very quickly as well which was nice for a change.

[moon]

Originally Posted by T@T

And there are far worst stories, A friend of the family who lives in florida lost their house because their 9 year old girl got cancer, thankfully Megan is now ok but the family has to completely rebuild all they worked for including a 30g loan they got from the grandparents to buy their first house.

And there are a ton of better stories where this doesn't happen.

I know a lot of people living in America that have had emergency situations and major illnesses and have had no financial concerns at all because of it.

But I guess these stories aren't sexy and therefore the minority of tough situations are the ones held up to be the norm.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by moon

And there are a ton of better stories where this doesn't happen.

I know a lot of people living in America that have had emergency situations and major illnesses and have had no financial concerns at all because of it.

But I guess these stories aren't sexy and therefore the minority of tough situations are the ones held up to be the norm.

So, on the basis of your anecdotal evidence that everything is fine, we're to conclude that all of the other evidence (soaring costs, higher premiums, rising uninsured, rising bankruptcies due to medical costs) is just a media conspiracy to show only the "sexy" situations where people lose their house due to medical expenses?

Isn't that sort of like saying "hey, I jaywalked yesterday and didn't get hit by a car. Jaywalking is safe! It's a media conspiracy to show you only the sexy stories where people get creamed by a Dodge Ram."

[icarus]

Originally Posted by moon

I wasn't seriously sick but when I lived in the States I did have to go into the hospital and it cost me zero.

I was treated very quickly as well which was nice for a change.

Originally Posted by moon

And there are a ton of better stories where this doesn't happen.

I know a lot of people living in America that have had emergency situations and major illnesses and have had no financial concerns at all because of it.

But I guess these stories aren't sexy and therefore the minority of tough situations are the ones held up to be the norm.

I take it you and these people you know had private health care? Otherwise I don't see how it would have cost you zero.

What were your premiums? Did you pay yourself or were you on a company health plan?

[moon]

Originally Posted by icarus

I take it you and these people you know had private health care? Otherwise I don't see how it would have cost you zero.

What were your premiums? Did you pay yourself or were you on a company health plan?

Company Health plan.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

So, on the basis of your anecdotal evidence that everything is fine, we're to conclude that all of the other evidence (soaring costs, higher premiums, rising uninsured, rising bankruptcies due to medical costs) is just a media conspiracy to show only the "sexy" situations where people lose their house due to medical expenses?

Isn't that sort of like saying "hey, I jaywalked yesterday and didn't get hit by a car. Jaywalking is safe! It's a media conspiracy to show you only the sexy stories where people get creamed by a Dodge Ram."

When did I say that everything was fine?

I used my anecdotal evidence to counter anecdotal evidence from others to show that it isn't all terrible or as bad as it is often portrayed.

I never once said that the US system worked, just that the Canadian system didn't and that the Americans, if they are going to make a change, should use a better model than the Canadian Health care system.