Does President Obama play too much Golf? - Page 13  

So the people that can afford it pay for themselves and those that can't and those that choose not to.  Let's provide cars and cell phones too ...wait we already do provide cell phones. If Obamacare is so great, why aren't all public employees including elected officials covered by it?

What's the incentive to work if all this great stuff is free?

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52 

 

Of course, Romney's recently stated solution for the 50 million or so Americans without healthcare is to go to the emergency room, the least efficient and most expensive option available. At least Obamacare is trying to address the two biggest issues, making people pay who can afford it and covering working people who can't.

Can you play too much golf?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond 

See, another individual who doesn't know the facts!...

Indeed! More lies from the party of hatred, fear, and ignorance! 

Yes, polls, seriously. I know they're often unscientific and can be skewed based on how the questions were asked, but I was asked for an explanation as to why I thought Obamacare was unpopular, and I don't know how else to quantify that other than polls. I noticed you picked a current poll, which helps your case since support for the plan increased after the Supreme Court ruling, but my original statement of its unpopularity was in the context of Obama getting it passed prior to that. During that time frame a Reuters poll showed more registered voters opposing the bill, 57 to 43. After the ruling it went to 52-48, but as you can see the majority still opposed it. (Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/01/us-usa-campaign-healthcare-idUSBRE85S14820120701)

And here's an extensive list of current polls, most of which show the opposition still being greater: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/30/healthplan_n_725503.html

The health care bill is a system of *government* policies, mandates, regulations and subsidies. So yes, it's not a national health care provider (I never said it was), but if its not a "government health care system" then I don't know what is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond 

The idea is to get the free loaders into the system who can afford insurance but don't get it - and then go to a hospital when they need it and get it for free...

Yeah, and that's one of the few things I like about it. But I don't think it does what it needs to do in terms of reforming the insurance industry - I think it could've if it were more fully baked but Obama wanted to push it through ASAP.

Quote:

Originally Posted by misty_mountainhop 

Can you play too much golf?

I've heard too much can make you go blind...

Care to share any of those studies? I have yet to see a single study that ranks the US in the top 10 of health care overall. We have a very good high end but our middle and low end are sub par. And it sure isn't very efficient. It is over 2x as expense as the countries in western/northern europe. There is a reason why medicare  is a lot more cost efficient than private insurance. And when you look at european health systems don't stop at the NHS. You can look at Germany, Switzerland or France for models that work better.

I would also love to see 1 documented case where a treatment was denied because of Obamacare. It sounds like an urban legend. If it was documented, I would expect that it would be all over Romney's ads by now.

Health insurance in the US doesn't work because the people using the service are not the ones buying it (HR is) or paying for the services( insurance companies).  If you need an MRI as a patient figuring out if you should go to clinic a (1500 dollars) or clinic b (500 dollars) is impossible and it doesn't matter to you because you just pay your 20 buck copay.  And the health insurance company has no incentive to give you 500 bucks to improve your health (which would save them 1500 over the next 5 years) because it is likely that you will not be their patient in 5 years. 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill 

 

I'm sure anything I say that contradicts your chosen world-view will be categorized as "right wing echo chamber", but the fact is polls have always shown the majority of Americans opposing it.

 

 

That's what I love about the left vs right debates in this country - everything can be boiled down so simply, can't it?

 

Based on every study I've seen, health care in the U.S. (before Obamacare, at least) is far better in almost every respect than health care in countries with nationalized programs. I'm talking cancer survival rates, access to preventive screening, overall health of low-income persons, wait times in the ER, or to see a specialist - you name it, it's better here. The problem has never been the quality of care as much as the cost of that quality. And the cost of that quality can only go up once its managed by an entity as inefficient and wasteful as our government has proven to be in every other enterprise it's been involved with. The effects of Obamacare are just now kicking in - my doctor told me recently that patients are now more often being denied treatment based on new, stricter Medicare admittance criteria. Good luck with *that*.

 

The solution is not a government health care system, it's reform of the insurance company system.  Did you know that most medical tests, treatments and supplies have a much higher cost if they are billed to the insurance company than if the same tests, treatments and supplies are billed directly to the patient? That's one of the many ridiculous aspects of our current system, which Obamacare does nothing to reform as far as I can tell from reading the bill.

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf 

So the people that can afford it pay for themselves and those that can't and those that choose not to.  Let's provide cars and cell phones too ...wait we already do provide cell phones. If Obamacare is so great, why aren't all public employees including elected officials covered by it?

 

What's the incentive to work if all this great stuff is free?

Dude, you are insane. WORKING people can't afford healthcare as it exists today.  Cars and cell phones? WTF are you talking about?

And frankly, I don't understand your point about public employees and elected officials. What the hell does that have to do with Obamacare? YOU are already paying for them, and you always have. I won't hold my breathe waiting for our elected officials to play by the same rules as everybody else.

The whole market-driven/employer-based system is broken and totally out of control. The market needs to make a profit and employers have to make a choice between offering a living wage or healthcare benefits. If we go to a one payer system, we'll all have the same healthcare and we can cut out the middle man.

Personally, I think if you establish a semi-rational tax code and offer incentives for employing US workers, and do nothing else, the economy will turn around. It is already turning around, housing starts are up, unemployment decreasing, and more jobs are created each month. 

This may turn out to be a Bush 41 election, where Bush 41 put things in place for a Clinton Boom. If Romney is elected as Secretary of Commerce, I'm not certain if he will speed up any recovery, I think recovery will speed up over the next 4 years - but Romney will take credit. But if he is Secretary of Commerce, does that mean Ryan will act as President. And when he tells the Iranians that we will be there in 2 hours 50 minutes, does he really mean 3 hours 51 minutes? And will he make more boats so he can say we have more boats when we have the strongest Navy in the world and outspend the next 17 nations combined on military spending?

Thoughts to ponder.... people won't care about the deficit when they have a recovery. Americans are an ADD ridden people with a lack of patience and no sense of history -- at least that is how the GOP spin machine has treated them - with contempt.

And all of this makes as much sense as Romney/Ryan...

I own a small business, prior to Obamacare passing, a family health insurance plan cost $800 per month, today a family health care plan costs my employees $1290 with a higher deductible and co-pay. 

Public employees and elected officials have Cadillac health care plans, they don't want to give them up to participate in a one payer system because they know the quality of care will drop. 

Cell phones were discussed in another thread, the point being that the government shouldn't be giving away things that my money is paying for. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52 

Dude, you are insane. WORKING people can't afford healthcare as it exists today.  Cars and cell phones? WTF are you talking about?

 

And frankly, I don't understand your point about public employees and elected officials. What the hell does that have to do with Obamacare? YOU are already paying for them, and you always have. I won't hold my breathe waiting for our elected officials to play by the same rules as everybody else.

 

The whole market-driven/employer-based system is broken and totally out of control. The market needs to make a profit and employers have to make a choice between offering a living wage or healthcare benefits. If we go to a one payer system, we'll all have the same healthcare and we can cut out the middle man.

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf 

I own a small business, prior to Obamacare passing, a family health insurance plan cost $800 per month, today a family health care plan costs my employees $1290 with a higher deductible and co-pay. 

 

Public employees and elected officials have Cadillac health care plans, they don't want to give them up to participate in a one payer system because the know the quality of care will drop. 

 

Cell phones were discussed in another thread, the point being that the government should be giving away things that my money is paying for. 

 

Quote:

Well, much of ObamaCare is not implemented until 2014, so my guess it's the free market that has raised all of our premiums. But I did receive a refund when the insurance company did not use the minimum 80% (or 85%) of the premiums on health care.

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/

Holding Insurance Companies Accountable for Unreasonable Rate Hikes

Grants will be awarded beginning in 2010

The law allows states that have, or plan to implement, measures that require insurance companies to justify their premium increases to be eligible for $250 million in new grants. Insurance companies with excessive or unjustified premium increases may not be able to participate in the new Affordable Insurance Exchanges in 2014.

Quote:

Originally Posted by x129 

Care to share any of those studies? I have yet to see a single study that ranks the US in the top 10 of health care overall. We have a very good high end but our middle and low end are sub par. And it sure isn't very efficient. It is over 2x as expense as the countries in western/northern europe. There is a reason why medicare  is a lot more cost efficient than private insurance. And when you look at european health systems don't stop at the NHS. You can look at Germany, Switzerland or France for models that work better.

 

I would also love to see 1 documented case where a treatment was denied because of Obamacare. It sounds like an urban legend. If it was documented, I would expect that it would be all over Romney's ads by now.

 

Health insurance in the US doesn't work because the people using the service are not the ones buying it (HR is) or paying for the services( insurance companies).  If you need an MRI as a patient figuring out if you should go to clinic a (1500 dollars) or clinic b (500 dollars) is impossible and it doesn't matter to you because you just pay your 20 buck copay.  And the health insurance company has no incentive to give you 500 bucks to improve your health (which would save them 1500 over the next 5 years) because it is likely that you will not be their patient in 5 years. 

The only one I have a link to right now is this one: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649 Yes, it's from a conservative website, and furthermore - just like polls that show support for Obamacare, for every study I find showing one thing, I'm sure you can find one showing the opposite. Every study is going to pick and choose how they report the data. (The one I link to doesn't say anything about obesity rates for example, and I'm sure the US is one of the leaders there.)  But also remember, my point was that we have it good in the US compared specifically to countries with nationalized programs -  I'm sure that if you include all countries (i.e., including those with no nationalized elements to their health systems), our ranking would slip quite a but.

Regarding Obamacare affecting treatment denials, I just heard it from my doctor - for all I know he hates Obama. I had no reason not to believe him though. I also know this: The Obamacare bill cuts Medicare spending by $500 billion over the next ten years. I don't find it that hard to believe that that will result in difficulty for Medicare patients.

Regarding your last paragraph, I agree 100%. If Obamacare actually ends up helping solve that problem, I'll come back here and eat crow.

Nationally insurance rates didn't not change at all when obamacare passes. There was one high year and one low year. The high year wasn't any worse than the highest increase under Bush. Obviously I can't speak to your case but I can say in my state my individual insurance didn't change. It went up the same 3-7% it has done for the past 20 years. Given the Obamacare hasn't even started, blaming it for the rate increases seems like scapegoating to me.

Yes the obamaphones thing has been covered. It started doing cell phones under Bush and landlines under Reagan. It may or may not be funded by public money (I lean towards yes) depending on you view the UCF,

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf 

I own a small business, prior to Obamacare passing, a family health insurance plan cost $800 per month, today a family health care plan costs my employees $1290 with a higher deductible and co-pay. 

 

Public employees and elected officials have Cadillac health care plans, they don't want to give them up to participate in a one payer system because they know the quality of care will drop. 

 

Cell phones were discussed in another thread, the point being that the government shouldn't be giving away things that my money is paying for. 

 

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by x129 

Given the Obamacare hasn't even started, blaming it for the rate increases seems like scapegoating to me.

Not at all. First, plenty of elements of Obamacare have already been enacted:

• 2.1 Effective at enactment
• 2.2 Effective June 21, 2010
• 2.3 Effective July 1, 2010
• 2.4 Effective September 23, 2010
• 2.5 Effective January 1, 2011
• 2.6 Effective September 1, 2011
• 2.7 Effective January 1, 2012
• 2.8 Effective August 1, 2012

Second, insurance companies could be raising rates in anticipation of what the future enactments are going to cost them:

• 2.9 Effective by January 1, 2013
• 2.10 Effective by August 1, 2013
• 2.11 Effective by January 1, 2014
• 2.12 Effective by October 1, 2014
• 2.13 Effective by January 1, 2015
• 2.14 Effective by October 1, 2015
• 2.15 Effective by January 1, 2016
• 2.16 Effective by January 1, 2017
• 2.17 Effective by January 1, 2018
• 2.18 Effective by January 1, 2019
• 2.19 Effective by January 1, 2020

I agree that it's possible any rate increases would've happened even without Obamacare, but they didn't happen in a vacuum.

I also own a small business. For what it's worth my health insurance premium is the lowest it's been in many years and I switched carriers post Obamacare. My coverage is better as well, still on an 80/20 plan but with lower deductables and more freebies. Single, 44, nonsmoker, healthy BMI range, $128 per month. According to my broker the post Obamacare changes benefit me. Coming from a guy that's an admitted conservative I have no reason to doubt him. I was paying almost double that at one time.

I'm in NY State, so it is possible that the increases are state related but the rates have gone up as I stated.  Additionally providers like Anthem (BC/BS) made their plans so unattractive that our insurance broker believes they are looking to exit the small business market in NY. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by x129 

Nationally insurance rates didn't not change at all when obamacare passes. There was one high year and one low year. The high year wasn't any worse than the highest increase under Bush. Obviously I can't speak to your case but I can say in my state my individual insurance didn't change. It went up the same 3-7% it has done for the past 20 years. Given the Obamacare hasn't even started, blaming it for the rate increases seems like scapegoating to me.

 

Yes the obamaphones thing has been covered. It started doing cell phones under Bush and landlines under Reagan. It may or may not be funded by public money (I lean towards yes) depending on you view the UCF,

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill 

 

Not at all. First, plenty of elements of Obamacare have already been enacted:

 

• 2.1 Effective at enactment
• 2.2 Effective June 21, 2010
• 2.3 Effective July 1, 2010
• 2.4 Effective September 23, 2010
• 2.5 Effective January 1, 2011
• 2.6 Effective September 1, 2011
• 2.7 Effective January 1, 2012
• 2.8 Effective August 1, 2012

 

Second, insurance companies could be raising rates in anticipation of what the future enactments are going to cost them:

 

• 2.9 Effective by January 1, 2013
• 2.10 Effective by August 1, 2013
• 2.11 Effective by January 1, 2014
• 2.12 Effective by October 1, 2014
• 2.13 Effective by January 1, 2015
• 2.14 Effective by October 1, 2015
• 2.15 Effective by January 1, 2016
• 2.16 Effective by January 1, 2017
• 2.17 Effective by January 1, 2018
• 2.18 Effective by January 1, 2019
• 2.19 Effective by January 1, 2020

 

I agree that it's possible any rate increases would've happened even without Obamacare, but they didn't happen in a vacuum.

So what are people supposed to do? Go without healthcare? Insurance Companies won't cover people.

Do we want hospitals to go out of business? ERs will fill up even more.

The fact is - we have a law, it was tried first in Massachusetts, and they are improving on the law and attempting to reduce costs. I've read articles where hospitals and insurance companies are finding ways to work together to reduce costs.

The market will find a way if you pressure it to do so.

Find a way.

Personally, I'm tired of four years of the blame game. Tired of the hate, the spin, the lies. It is negative, and frankly, solves nothing.

We have become a nation of whiners. Where is the nation of problem solvers? Get to work. Get positive. Quit blaming and start resolving.

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf 

I own a small business, prior to Obamacare passing, a family health insurance plan cost $800 per month, today a family health care plan costs my employees $1290 with a higher deductible and co-pay. 

 

Public employees and elected officials have Cadillac health care plans, they don't want to give them up to participate in a one payer system because they know the quality of care will drop. 

 

Cell phones were discussed in another thread, the point being that the government shouldn't be giving away things that my money is paying for. 

 

Quote:

Yet, the guts of Obamacare doesn't kick in until 2014.

Dude, why don't you go back and check what the premiums were ten years ago. Ot twenty years ago. Or better yet, 35 years ago when healthcare plans were non-profits. Costs have been going up for years and it has nothing to do with Obamacare.

Quote:

Originally Posted by x129 

Yep reduced causality rate.  You can decide if relative or absolute numbers matter more to you. You can also decide if escalating the war was worth it. Personally I think any time you have been fighting for 10+ years, you are doing something wrong.

 

Why couldn't they engage? What part of the ROE prevented them? If I had to guess it is the one that stated that you don't engage when it will result in civilian deaths. As I said you can decide where on the fence you sit with regard to that. And as I said, it leads to sucky no win situations.  Other than avoiding these wars, there isn't much you can do about it.

 

 

Being relatively nice didn't work for the british but alternatives don't work a lot better. Vietnam wasn't a smashing success.  On the other hand being brutual worked pretty well for the Romans. I am guessing though that not many of  us have the heart to  kill every male over 12 in a village that attacks us though.

 

 

Quote:

My personal opinion always has been that we should not have gone into Iraq in the first place.    When it became apparent we were going to do so, I told my wife I had a bad feeling about it.   That said, once the decision was made to go in, I was (and am) in favor of doing what it takes to win.  I would also agree that anytime you are at war for 10 years, you need to reassess what you are doing and make some adjustments.  

As to why they could not engage, according to him (and I can only rely on what he is telling me, since I was not there) it had nothing to do with potential civilian casualties.   They knew where the enemy was, had clear shots at them and (again, according to him) no civilians in the area but orders given by their General said they could not engage.   The why of that order was not explained and as you can imagine, led to frustration on the part of the soldiers being attacked.    That frustration is still with him today, a full year + since he returned.    

"Total war" typically works because the brutality of it destroys the morale of the enemy's civilian population.  Once the folks back home are no longer behind it, the army in the field cannot win.  Vietnam was a glaring example of that as well.   But you are right, I doubt we (or any civilized nation) have the stomach to conduct "total war" in this day and age and with a situation like this one, I am not sure it would work, even if we tried it.      That said, given the results we have seen so far, I am not sure we can call "COIN" a successful strategy either.     In one variant or another, we have been using it since 2006 and the results are dubious at best.

Regarding Obama's level of responsibility, I don't blame him directly for the strategies being employed.   He is not a military guy, so he has to rely on his military advisors.  His decisions on military actions are (I hope) based on advice given to him by those advisors.   But ultimately, as Commander in Chief, he has to assume the responsibility for every military failure, just as he claims credit for every military success (such as the killing of Bin Laden).