| Author | Comment | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
KC |
Health Care obama Style |
Lead | ||
|
|
||||
sylveena |
Well... | #1 | ||
|
From what I've read and heard over the years, Bush tried to do very similar cuts during his Reign as well, and not only to the health care for vets but other benefits as well - I guess you don't remember that? I'm still very optimistic about the plan - one thing I read that I liked was that health insurance per se may not be the answer to all the ills; Biden
and others are saying there may be other ways to cut health costs for Americans, and one thing they really want to push for is preventive health care. I am
all for preventive health care because I think it will lower the costs in the long run. I think it's just plain wrong that we live in this country that is
so rich, yet have citizens that cannot get basic preventive tests, and elderly people cutting back on their medication just to be able to afford it.
|
||||
|
|
||||
OOF |
#2 | |||
sylveena wrote:I'm not sure where you get your information but from the document on the VA site containing historical budget information it shows that the VA budget went from 50.902B in 2002 to 72.820B in 2007 with an estimate of 86.6B in 2008. And just for comparisons sake.. The VA budget went from 35.487B in 1993 to 45.044B in 2001. |
||||
|
|
||||
ToddZilla6 |
#3 | |||
sylveena wrote:So the Next Big Thing is nothing more than a rehashing of the two previous Next Big Things (Medicaid and HMOs) that sought the same end via the same means? Here's the deep dark flaw of such an idea (which does work, at least in theory): few people seek regular, routine preventative care, even when it's covered by Medicaid or HMO coverage. They can push all they want, but it won't reduce the cost of providing treatment, preventative or otherwise. I think it's just plain wrong that we live in this country that is so rich, yet have citizens that cannot get basic preventive tests, and elderly people cutting back on their medication just to be able to afford it.I think it's just plain wrong that the people who complain the loudest about high healthcare costs are the same people who actively work to make them higher. I also like that they will be having more public forums on this topic - great idea! Will anything come out of it? I don't know, but as I said in the previous post, the fact that we are even discussing it gives me hope. At least his team acts like it wants to hear what Americans think versus the past administration who loved to utter the words.... "So?"We'll get some anecdotes that will be presented as data. Yeah, that's productive. Busy-work to placate the masses. |
||||
|
|
||||
ToddZilla6 |
#4 | |||
OOF wrote: Probably a reduced rate of spending increases. Increase funding, but not as much as you'd planned, and the opposition swoops in and calls it a "cut." Kinda like the guy who plans on getting a raise of $10,000, but only gets one of $8000 and says he took a paycut of 20%. |
||||
|
|
||||
OOF |
#5 | |||
ToddZilla6 wrote:Well it was on the internet that "Bush cut VA spending" so it must be true! |
||||
|
|
||||
sylveena |
I didn't say he cut benefits, I said he TRIED to cut benefits - | #6 | ||
|
C'mon, surely you remember the hoopla just a year or two ago? Kerry went public regarding Bush threatening to veto the bill which increased benefits for
surviving spouses and increased pay for current military because the bill didn't contain the tax cuts. I'll research further, but I'm pretty sure
I'm remembering this correctly.
|
||||
|
|
||||
sylveena |
Toddzilla - | #7 | ||
|
Are you willing to try anything? I mean, really, can you say without a doubt that people wouldn't take advantage of preventive health care if it's offered? Sure, there are those that wouldn't, but there are those that would. And if a plan was in place that offered something of the sort, and was a plan that endured year after year, don't you think people would start using it? Or that enough people would start using it to make a difference? I guess I just don't understand the negativity surrounding this health care issue - I'm willing to learn more, give it the benefit of the doubt and
see what happens. But then there are those, like you, that will shoot down any plan, it seems. And good grief, you even pooh-pooh having public forums.
What's it hurt? Why is that a bad thing? At least it gives people a chance to speak, which they don't get very often.
|
||||
|
|
||||
OOF |
#8 | |||
sylveena wrote:Just a suggestion that you look into a program that you may not know about. I am not sure what the name of it but it is supported by those evil drug companies and it provides free medication to those who can not afford it. |
||||
|
|
||||
sylveena |
What program? | #9 | ||
|
Seriously, what program? I'm aware of programs offering discounts on certain drugs, and programs offering free prescriptions on certain drugs, but not programs flat out offering free medication. If you can remember the name I would appreciate it. |
||||
|
|
||||
OOF |
#10 | |||
sylveena wrote:Here is a place to start: http://www.rxassist.org/ |
||||
|
|
||||
KC |
#11 | |||
|
I love it, Bush tried to do this and that. The congress ask for a report every year before budget time. THEY did not ask for this report. Nobody did. The guy
who Obama plans to put in a position to advise HIS budget worked it up. Wonder why it was about Vets. Yanno if you are not brain dead at least read.
|
||||
|
|
||||
sylveena |
Thanks - | #12 | ||
|
I'll see what I can find out from this site. But I'm pretty sure the lady I was overhearing (and those like her) don't have internet access and
wouldn't know what to do with it even if they did - which is a problem in itself. How are they supposed to know about these programs?
|
||||
|
|
||||
OOF |
#13 | |||
KC wrote:Ah, but reading and trying to understand something that is not praise for the messiah or condemnation of Bush makes some people's head hurt too much. |
||||
|
|
||||
OOF |
#14 | |||
sylveena wrote:First things first. That is one of the major problems with a discussion about health care. And is even more so in a town hall type meeting that you think will be good. Statements are made as if they are the absolute truth when in fact they may not be. Your previous statements led me, and I believe many others, to think that it was more than just hearsay and that you understood that person's situation. But now you are saying it is only hearsay and may or may not be true. I would tell you about someone I know who scrimps on their medication because it is too expensive. That someone is also worth over a million dollars with a lot of it simply setting in CDs in the bank. I would tell you that and expect you to accept it as fact but as far as you know it is only hearsay. Most people who identify as conservative can deal with an issue, like health care, much better with facts and not just hearsay. Next, these programs are not only on the internet. They are advertised quite often on TV and I am surprised that you are unaware of them. |
||||
|
|
||||
ToddZilla6 |
#15 | |||
sylveena wrote:No I don't, because that type of preventive coverage is not only already offered, but it's encouraged. It's not exactly expensive.
I guess I just don't understand the negativity surrounding this health care issue - I'm willing to learn more, give it the benefit of the doubt and see what happens. But then there are those, like you, that will shoot down any plan, it seems. And good grief, you even pooh-pooh having public forums. What's it hurt? Why is that a bad thing? At least it gives people a chance to speak, which they don't get very often. I'm not fond of dog and pony shows that exist simply to "involve the people." Here's exactly what "the people" will say:
"I want more stuff covered and I want to pay less for it" and "I'm paying too much for stuff that I don't want." Discussion for
the sake of discussion is not productive.
And I know I must be a strange bird compared to the rest of you, but I'll say it again - I'll pay higher premiums if it means everyone can get the coverage they need. I do volunteer work, and just a couple of weeks ago I was listening to an elderly person talking abou they were going to have to stop taking their medication. They had already done the 'cut in half' but as other costs were rising, they had to make the choice between food, heat and medicine. They chose heat and food. Silly old people, they should just be glad the emergency room is there for them, shouldn't they?Let me point out that after 40 years of federal government reforming, tweaking, streamlining, and regulating, insurance is more expensive and bureaucratic than it ever was, and ditto for healthcare in general. I don't think that the next government solution (ie, more reforming, tweaking, streamlining, and regulating) is going to make things any better. Or look at it this way: after more than 4 decades of "fixing" healthcare, the government managed to create what many deem a "crisis." |
||||
|
|
||||
sylveena |
Oof - Hearsay? | #16 | ||
|
I'm not sure why you are calling it hearsay - I overheard her speaking, which is not the same as hearsay. She was telling the man next to me that she
was going to have to stop taking her medication because she couldn't afford it anymore, and she was going to leave her health in God's hands. And I DO
know she's low-income, because she wouldn't have been where she was if not. Now, I reckon she may have been lying, but that's still not hearsay.
But I guess I'm done with the 'discussion,' as it seems quite obvious that no one really wants anything to change. So we'll just stick with the status quo of health care being a privilege in this country, one which only certain people should have. And as I stated before, thank goodness for emergency rooms, huh? |
||||
|
|
||||
KC |
#17 | |||
|
Well now that some of us have departed the discussion I guess it's OK to add this "right wing" link.
http://www.americanthinke...spirin_and_call_your.html |
||||
|
|
||||
OOF |
#18 | |||
sylveena wrote:Well see, that highlights what I have been saying about the inability to have any meaningful discussion. You don't like the parts of the discussion that disagree with your opinions so you will solve that by just not discussing it anymore. There are some things about our health care system that could stand a 'change'. But change just for the sake of change is not the way to do it. They needs to be some serious thought put into 'change' and improvements made instead of 'changes' made. Concerning the lady that you discussed you say that several low income don't have tv sets. That could be true but I would be willing to wager that someone in her family does. One of those someones should step up and assist her, either in educating her about available programs or providing financial assistance. Or a volunteer could step up and do that. But we have reached the point in our society where that someone says 'I don't want to do that. Let the government (taxpayer) do it.' If that lady is elderly you should also know that she is eligible for Part D of Medicare and if she falls below a certain income limit the Social Security will pay the premium. Some time ago I provided a link about uninsured in Massachewitz (or whatever). A significant percentage of the uninsured were because they didn't want to bother with applying for, or didn't know about, programs that were out there for them. Another significant percentage could afford insurance but 'had other priorities'. And finally I perused the link you provided some time ago about the Obama/Biden plan. It seemed to be a lot of pie in the sky rhetoric and it may have had something in there about educating people about the current programs but I don't remember it. It did have solutions for problems that are not problems. One was the price of prescription drugs in other countries and of course the blame was laid at the feet of the evil drug companies. I personally don't know but do doubt that the drug companies wholesale outside the country much, if any, cheaper than the do in the US. Perhaps part of the problem is the Federal bureaucracy that has to be dealt with in this country to get the drugs from the manufacturer to the drugstore. But that apparently is a non discussable issue. It did have a solution to the 'high cost of malpractice insurance'. The solution ignored the cause of the problem and instead focused on punishing the insurance companies that provide that insurance. It ignores the elephant in the room in that regard. That elephant is the frivolous malpractice lawsuits that make people like John Edwards multi-millionaires. In my opinion (notice I said opinion) those lawsuits are the biggest single factor in the increase we have seen in health care the last several years. And it is just not the cost of the insurance. It is also all the CYA medical procedures and tests that are a result. Addressing that issue is a no no because the trial lawyers who are getting rich are major contributors to the Democrats. Perhaps you could read the last link KC provided. And as a side note I think we saw a few years ago in Kentucky what happens when the government gets into the business of controlling the profits of insurance companies. If you remember all the health insurance companies except one fled the state and it got so bad the state had to set up an insurance company. The response to that insurance company was so underwhelming that the state mandated that local governments had to get insurance from there. And it seems to me that the cost was so much more than the local governments had been paying and caused financial hardships for many of them. |
||||
|
|
||||
KC |
#19 | |||
|
"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must
work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people
get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to
work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing
it."
~~~ The late Dr. Adrian Rogers , 1931 to 2005 ~~~ |
||||
|
|
||||
KC |
#20 | |||
|
Well I see "that one' has decided to attack entitlement spending. The only two things he mentioned were SS and Medicare which most people have paid
for all their working lives. Seems he forgot a few hundred "programs" where the recipients paid in exactly nothing.
|
||||
|
|
||||