Same ol same ol, as far as I'm concerned. He did not substantively address the question of how the Democrats' bill would be paid for and what the consequences will be for our already gigantic debt. He laid out some very flaky reasons for why things have gone far enough and now we need their bill. He did not provide many details of how precisely their bill is going to accomplish his "hoped for results."
One of the reasons given for the need for change now -- and somehow big bad insurance companies were kind of identified as being to blame for this, I don't know why -- is the increasing cost of healthcare. I guess healthcare and/or health insurance premiums have doubled over the last decade. Well, that's about an 8% increase per year. Considering that 2010 healthcare is not the same as 2000 healthcare -- we have many more procedures which are done now than were done in 2000 -- I guess that isn't surprising. Hey, if you want 1960's healthcare prices and insurance premiums, maybe all we have to do is settle for 1960's kind of healthcare -- no open heart surgery, no colonoscopy, no amniocentesis, etc. The point was never made cogently that health insurance companies were making excessive profits. I would not think first of investing my 401K money in Blue Cross Blue Shield or in Aetna: am I missing an investment gold mine? Another issue . . . I suppose the costs of healthcare have also been impacted by inflation like everything else. Do you suppose the energy costs of hospitals has gone up over the last decade? Have the costs of food for hospitals gone up over the last decade? Have the salaries of medical staff and doctors been magically frozen over this period of time? What, are union laborers turning out crappy Detroit vehicles deserving of annual cost of living increases but not healthcare workers?
Some anecdotes were provided for people who were screwed around by health insurance companies. Wouldn't a natural solution be to address those specific issues rather than turning the system topsy-turvy? Am I supposed to believe the government is going to be more responsive, less rules-driven, more able to apply common sense?
As far as how to pay for this thing, Obama says they're going to pay for this by cutting costs. Like the government has an established track record in financial efficiency and cost containment, riiiiiiggghhhttt.
No motion on medical liability reform, other than the offer to roll some trial programs.
The main thing to bear in mind is that what Obama was talking about was the Democratic bill which still sits in the House of Representatives. All he talked about last night were hoped for results and not about what the language of the bill contains. Nothing has changed. Again, he offers bi-partisan relations. We have already learned what this means to the Obama white house: you can do it our way.
Good assessment. I agree. It was short on substance, but that's become par for the course in the health care debate, hasn't it? Let's see some frank talk, with straight up projections about the costs and what it will mean for the government's purse strings and you and I as taxpayers.
I have long been a proponent for some sort of health care reform and I blame Republicans as much as anyone for where we are today, because they had a stranglehold on Washington for six years and did nothing to address health care (which is why it's more than a little funny now that Republicans are complaining that they have a plan, too, and the Democrats are refusing to listen to it). But the plan that has been proposed by this administration and this Congress could very well turn into a nightmare.
If the Blue Dogs don't cave (though I still expect that they will), this may very well come down to whether Obama wants to pander to his liberal base and stick to his guns on the public option, or whether he wants to risk offending liberals for the sake of his legacy as the president who brought about health care reform.
__________________
Politics, it seems to me, all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong. ~Richard Armour
I would also add how he continued to put all the blame on Republicans for not 'working' together. If I'm not mistaking, haven't the republicans produced something like 800 amendments to their bill, which were all denied?
Go Joe Wilson.
__________________
"Impartiality is a pompous name for indifference, which is an elegant name for ignorance." G.K. Chesterton
The fact that Insurance companies can effectively drop coverage on anyone at anytime for whatever fine print reason they can come up with is something that needs to be dealt with. Also, one reason costs have skyrocketed is exactly because of those folks who are uninsured and then can't pay for the emergency care they end up getting for minor and severe illnesses. The hospitals charge more to paying customers and insurers to make up the difference, then insurers pass along that cost to the policy holder in the form of higher premiums. Essentially, the insured and pay-as-you go crowd (most of us) are already paying for the uninsured and delinquents, and the destitute. Reform is simply a way to control that cycle, and channel it into a more cost efficient system. The details you say? Write a 1000 page post and you'll be on your way to a good start given the legalease that will be nec.
We already have health care for the people who refuse to get off their ass and get a job! Its called welfare! Medicaid the new program should be pay to play! Im sick of taking concessions for the lazy! If all handouts stopped! It would be a non issue! Our economy would be alot better off if you actually had to earn what u have!
__________________
"WELCOME TO THE HOUSE OF ILL REPUTE"
The fact that Insurance companies can effectively drop coverage on anyone at anytime for whatever fine print reason they can come up with is something that needs to be dealt with.
I'ts interesting how you are so well versed on all the insurance policies from every insurance company. From your post, and correct me if I'm wrong, you are indicating that the insurance companies wait until you need them, and then they drop you. If this is what you're indicating, can you give me a scenario where this has happened to you or someone you know?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not indicating that this hasn't happened. I'm just asking if it has happened to you or anyone you know.
__________________
"Impartiality is a pompous name for indifference, which is an elegant name for ignorance." G.K. Chesterton
Location: land of the Lilliputians, In the state of insanity
Posts: 24,186
I agree Alsatain. Well presented speech, with little substance. Very much a campaign speech. I wanted questions answered, just as you, but did not get it. Same old same old.
And man, how long was that speech anyway. I think he went too long.
__________________
kaafir mushrik
Unintended consequences and God have one thing in common: Liberals don’t believe in either of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasGulf3
The fact that Insurance companies can effectively drop coverage on anyone at anytime for whatever fine print reason they can come up with is something that needs to be dealt with.
I'ts interesting how you are so well versed on all the insurance policies from every insurance company. From your post, and correct me if I'm wrong, you are indicating that the insurance companies wait until you need them, and then they drop you. If this is what you're indicating, can you give me a scenario where this has happened to you or someone you know?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not indicating that this hasn't happened. I'm just asking if it has happened to you or anyone you know.
Note the highlighted word. Yes, my father and my uncle, and many many others across the nation. Ask around. Yes, insurers most often act ethicly, as do most legitimate businesses, but there are times when they don't, far too often it seems, and these loopholes need to be closed where ever they exist, no matter which company. What of the rest of my post you chose to edit out?
The fact that Insurance companies can effectively drop coverage on anyone at anytime for whatever fine print reason they can come up with is something that needs to be dealt with.
This suggests that insurance companies commonly do this, but I don't observe this to be the case. I work with a number of people who have chronic health problems for which they receive medical treatment which is paid by their healthcare insurance. According to your characterization of the insurance companies, why haven't these insurers dumped these sick people? It really challenges my expectations that insurance companies do this on a regular basis. There are, in most states, insurance oversight boards authorized by the government to regulate and investigate insurance companies. I think this is a BS problem which is not likely supported by statistical evidence. Does it happen in 1% of cases? Maybe. Does it happen in 10% of cases? Not bloody likely. If the incidence of this problem is low, why are we revamping the entire system? Is there a less disruptive legal measure for addressing this particular problem? I would expect there would be. Further, if the incidence of this problem is low, why do you expect that similar problems will not exist with a government run system? Has the government ever run anything poorly? Cash for clunkers maybe? Has the government ever made any mistakes in its "do not fly list" program -- people excluded incorrectly?
Obama Speech
