Jump to content

President Obama


Recommended Posts

Doesn't that amount to rich people paying more for everyone's services?

No, what that amounts to is anyone who can afford private health insurance having the option to pay more to get added perks, but not better treatment.  It's an option, not a requirement.  Don't want to pay your $200 deductible?  Don't, use the public system instead.  If you choose to have private insurance and choose to use it in order to have your own bedroom when you don't medically need one, I don't see that as the rich paying more for others care - I see it as the rich (or, in this case, anyone lower middle class and higher) choosing to spend a little extra money to be more comfortable. Isn't that why people like to have more money than is neccesary to begin with?  To spend it on unneccessary things that make one and ones family more comfortable?

Amazingly enough, I'd say only a very few people with private health insurance opted not to use it.  Even more impressive, since where I worked they likely would not even get the private rooms due to them being filled with people who needed them for medical reason, the reason they gave was "I'm going to be in this hospital for 6 months, I can easily afford my deductable, no point in the public paying my medical bills when I have private insurance."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That system in New South Wales sounds like a good idea economically, but I think it's a bad idea for social and psychological reasons. If rich people get better treatment - even if it's just some extra non-medical perks that they don't need - that promotes the idea that rich people deserve better treatment. I don't want anything that might give rich people a sense of entitlement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

''If there's a private room available, and it's not needed by anyone else, people with private insurance get first crack at it''

This is at first didn't seem to make sense... you get first crack if no one else wants it? Well, that makes sense but it doesn't exactly seem noteworthy...

but then...

''Even more impressive, since where I worked they likely would not even get the private rooms due to them being filled with people who needed them for medical reason''

So are you speaking about them getting first dibs on private rooms when medical reasons are not involved? But why would somebody go to a hospital if they were healthy?

''No, what that amounts to is anyone who can afford private health insurance having the option to pay more to get added perks, but not better treatment.  ''

Well, you made it sound like they were paying a lot for very little, and the extra income as a result of this is used by the hospital for public and private treatment. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not quite sure what's going on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

''If there's a private room available, and it's not needed by anyone else, people with private insurance get first crack at it''

This is at first didn't seem to make sense... you get first crack if no one else wants it? Well, that makes sense but it doesn't exactly seem noteworthy...

I said "not needed" not "not wanted".  Who goes to a hospital wanting to share a room with four sick strangers?

''Even more impressive, since where I worked they likely would not even get the private rooms due to them being filled with people who needed them for medical reason''

So are you speaking about them getting first dibs on private rooms when medical reasons are not involved? But why would somebody go to a hospital if they were healthy?

Seriously Sneakgab?  Have you ever been to a hospital?  Just because you are ill/injured doesn't mean your illness/injury requires you to be in a private room.  Some do, some do not.

''No, what that amounts to is anyone who can afford private health insurance having the option to pay more to get added perks, but not better treatment.  ''

Well, you made it sound like they were paying a lot for very little, and the extra income as a result of this is used by the hospital for public and private treatment. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not quite sure what's going on.

Value is realitive.  You may not find it worthwhile to pay a $200 deductible to have a private room for as much of your 6 month stay in a hospital as possible, but, me?  I think it'd be more than worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've dealt with the whole rich insurance thing in sort of the same way.

Friend of mine was  doing inoculations for the military. Huge line of enlisted down the corridor.

Major skips to the front of the line in front of everyone else. Why? because he was a major and was so much more important then everyone else. (Just like the rich skipping in front of the poor, many of those troops were getting deployed and actually needed the shots. Major was just in for a yearly check up)

She told him to get in the back of the line with everyone else, he pulled rank. He came in, handed her his paper for two shots. He got them and she sent him on his way.

Then she promptly shredded his paperwork. Major gets to the check out line, smug that he managed to get in and out so fast. Only to have the clerk tell him that she didn't have any record of his shots. Asshole Major goes from only needing two shots, to getting 8.

Why? Because he thought he had some god given right over everyone else because he has a shiny leaf on his chest and gets paid a little more.

Moral of the story, don't fuck with medics or our lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Saw this and had to post it.

outrageous.jpg

Of course healthcare is supposed to cost $1 trillion, but it could actually turn out to be many trillions. Originally Iraq war was supposed to cost a couple billion.

Good old government estimates always underestimate costs, so the people vote for it, and then oops, price has gone way up, behind schedule and doesn't deliver what was originally promised. It happens in private businesses too, but in private businesses someone gets the axe, or sued etc. With government barely anyone has to pay for mistakes (other than taxpayers and a few calculated resignations).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

There is one other thing. It seems the Republicans have successfully convinced most of the American public that Obama's health plan is an actual nationalization of health care, rather than the wishy-washy liberal crap that Obama is actually pushing.

The Democrats are taking this as a reason to back down, but I think they should instead by charging forward. If everyone already believes they will nationalize health care, why not go ahead and do it? The correct response to an opponent who won't stop claiming you are radical is to actually become radical - because you have nothing left to lose. If they want war, give them war. If everyone thinks you're a socialist anyway, why not just go ahead and take real socialist measures? It's not like they'll alienate any more people than have already been alienated.

Unfortunately, I don't expect Obama or any of the Senate Democrats to understand this. And even if they did understand it, they still wouldn't do it, because they are all capitalists at heart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The roles have completely reversed in past 8 years. We had people marching against the war in Iraq when Bush was president. Now we have the opposite people marching against healthcare...

Watch the Daily Show episode last night (back from 3 week vacation). People protesting on 9/12 were calling obama a socialist, communist, Hitler, if this health reform goes through old people will die etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interestingly enough, it occurs to me there was less outrage when people took to calling Bush Hitler. And then, I recall particularly offensive images such as swastikas painted on US Marines--by Americans, no less. Have both sides' standards changed with the flip in party power--the people who decried the Nazi imagery when Bush was president now using Nazi imagery against Obama, and the people who used Nazi imagery against Bush now decrying its use against Obama--or have we simply because less civilized, on the whole?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interestingly enough, it occurs to me there was less outrage when people took to calling Bush Hitler. And then, I recall particularly offensive images such as swastikas painted on US Marines--by Americans, no less. Have both sides' standards changed with the flip in party power--the people who decried the Nazi imagery when Bush was president now using Nazi imagery against Obama, and the people who used Nazi imagery against Bush now decrying its use against Obama--or have we simply because less civilized, on the whole?

Well, Bush invaded two countries 1/2 way around the world, nowheres near USA (but near USA interests). Iraq was based upon lies or false intel (hitler used propaganda to get germans to invade countries). If you read the Iraq thread, or Bush worst president ever thread, there are lots of sources as to why Bush admin sucked. Illegally wiretapped American citizens, then gave immunity to Telecommunication agencies for going along with it. Or what about Kidnapping and Torturing people from various countries (such as Canada). Massive deficits to finance a pointless war (which could have oddly enough paid for nationalized healthcare, but instead Americans got to bomb tens of thousands of Muslims, dead American soldiers, bomb Canadian soldiers etc). And when Countries were againt invading Iraq they were looked at as bad countries. Remember the whole French toast being renamed American(freedom?) toast?

Obama wants to introduce healthcare. OH NOES HEALTHCARE! OBAMA IS A NAZI! BYE BYE GRANDMA!

Where do they get that from? Socialized healthcare works (no worse than USA healthcare) in every other western country. If USA wants similar healthcare as other western nations, this means USA have a chance of doing it better than other countries as they can learn from their mistakes over past 40 years.

Did you know that Obama is not even an American? That he is a secret Jewish Muslim from Indonesia?

Apparently people think the congressman who said "you lie" to obama during speech is being a racist. People think anti obama people are racist. And anti obama people think obama is racist...

It's a circle jerk so real problems can be avoided. With two party system in USA you have to be for or against a party, which makes it easy to get nothing done and much propaganda on both sides.

Also very humorous that Democrats are being painted as "Socialists". Sorry but the Conservative Party in Canada, is more socialist than Democrats. And that is our supposed least socialist party.

Obama should do what Bush did. Whatever the hell he wants. :P Dems have the power, so introduce socialism. Republicans will get over it.

Obama thinks Kanye is a jackass fro the publicity stunt at MVA this weekend. Perfect publicity stunt for Kanye.

Also the protests over the weekend were pointless. They will do just as much as the anti Iraq war protests. Absolutely nothing.

Obama has been in power for less than a year, and already getting nazi/racist/socialist treatment. Bush didn't get as much treatment until Iraq war was about to start (although really got bad afterwards). Maybe swine flu will become really bad and Obama can push through Healthcare really fast, just like September 11 2001, allowed Bush to invade two countries and take away freedoms from Americans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't commenting on the actual validity of "Argumentum ad Hitleram" comments. That is both infantile and insane, for Bush and Obama. I was commenting on the hypocrisy inherent in the rhetoric of dedicated liberals and conservatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess people don't worry too much about hypocrisy when they're spouting rhetoric. :D

Well, the ones who were spouting the ''hitler'' garbage before are not neccessarily the ones bemoaning it now. The Democrats and Replubicans are not some singe-mind like entities. I mean, has anyone observed that these are the same people or ''sort of crowds'' as before? Of course in situations like these people from one party will be spouting cr@p and the others will criticize them for their cr@p spouting (although evidently, the cr@p spouting is MUCH stronger in America than in most countries).

Btw, for the record I DON'T see the Americans as a bunch of morons and go on all day about those ''stupid Americans''. After all, I mentioned that the turnout for these ''tea parties'' seemed quite low, and that these tea parties are not just about health care reform. If you take only the people protesting about health care reform (as one of their issues) on the grounds that it is ''socialism'' what % would that be of the population? Probably even less than 0.1% of the population. Obviously I would not condemn all Americans just because of them. Every country has their stupid and/or extremely gullible people. Somehow they just seem to get noticed more in America. Maybe it's because of the poor impression that already exists with most people in America. Maybe the two-party system in America means that the parties are more enthusiastic than most to put a spot light on these kinds of people. Maybe it's just because since America is the most powerful country, more attention is paid to it and thus to it's idiots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong. This is not what happens in countries that have a public option. Quite the contrary: the government constantly tries to push more people into the private system.

There are many countries with both public and private health insurance options, including France and the UK. What tends to happen is that the great majority of people choose the public system, but the rich choose the private one. And governments are always trying to find excuses to reduce funding for the public system and kick people onto the private one. See, you're operating under the assumption that governments would want to expand the public option. But they don't, because politicians are paid lots of money by medical companies to do the exact opposite.

My point was that in the countries that you mentioned, private insurance, as a major competitor to the government option, ceases to exist.  Sure it can be obtained by the rich or in the case with France, it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just upset that what I thought was an irrational fear that anyone who disagreed with the Obama Administration would be called a racist is rapidly being realized. It's the only question any major media outlet keeps asking [whether or not Tea Partiers are racist, whether racism played a role in Joe Wilson's outburst, etc.], which not only manages to skirt the actual, valid debate that could be happening--as the media always does--but also manages to color (pardon the pun) any opposition to the President as a fringe group of gun-waving, genocidal sociopaths. I think we need health care reform, but I do not think a country 10, now 12 trillion USD in debt can responsibly consider a public health care option. This, of course, makes me a racist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...