Disturbia, fiction, family, friends, and everything else between the lions.
Published on September 10, 2009 By Tova7 In Politics

I slept on it. 

Haven't read any commentary, rebuttals or supporters yet.

So as an average American who believes the current health care situation needs reform I woke up this morning with a few questions.

1.  Can I trust Obama's numbers?

The reason I ask is twofold.  First, last night he said 30 million are uninsured but in the previous weeks it was 45 million.  When I looked up the research (Census 2000) I found that the measuring instrument was faulty.  The uninsured questions covered people who were without insurance for even a single day.  So if someone changed jobs, went out of the country and their personal policy lapsed, etc..they were included in the numbers.  Not to mention the data is 10 years old.

Second, Obama said the public option does not affect my insurance or add "one dime" to the deficit.  However, the CBO said in June 2009....

"Likely Effects of the Proposal
The proposal would have significant effects on the number of people who
are enrolled in health insurance plans, the sources of that coverage, and the
federal budget." 
Read the entire report here.

2.  Obama said we could clean up medicare/medicaid and use that waste to fund health care, but then turned around and said the public option must be self-sustaining and run by a not for profit instead of the gov.  I understand how not for profits operate, and also understand a large portion of them get some sort of government or private grants.  Is the money savings from medicare/medicaid in the form of grants?

3.  I don't mean to harp on this "savings" with the medis...but if we KNOW there is waste, they why are we just now getting around to fixing it?  Can I as an average American hear my gov knows about waste but has done nothing about it yet, believe it will be any different with yet another gov program involving health care?  Even children understand the concept that the best indicator of future behavior is past behavior.

4.  Obama said that the public option would (especially) benefit people in states that only have one choice for Insurance.  Doesn't that violate the going outside of state lines law?  For instance, if the not for profit running the public option isn't in Alabama, and someone from Alabama signs up for that insurance, doesn't that violate the law?  Or are we going to set up state agencies to administer this option?  Why can't we allow people to shop outside their states for Insurance?  If competition is REALLY the goal?

5.  Could we get some paper on this please?  Right now there seems to be a difference between what Obama said last night, and the actual bill that passed committee over the summer.  Obama thinks people are mis-informed by talk show hosts etc, but I haven't seen a get out the information campaign from the supporters of this bill.  Not every town hall was disrupted.  And the congressmen who talked about the bill (that I heard) weren't discussing the same things as Obama last night.  It's almost like they were talking about different bills entirely.

6.  Illegals won't be covered?  How can we make sure?  What is the plan since some studies show up to 40% of the number of uninsured (45 million last week, 30 last night) are illegals.  Can a system be outlined to the American people to prove illegals will be omitted?

 

That's all I can think of at the moment.

 

The speech last night was the best one I've ever seen Obama give.  He was eloquent and sincere.  But after letting it percolate over-night I have to ask myself if he has seriously looked at the numbers, at the potential issues, or is he just reading what he's been fed?  Sometimes I wonder who is really running the White House.

I do believe not for profits can handle the uninsured in this country.  Dayton Ohio has a host of them to provide health care, mental and dental, to people who can not pay for insurance.  They charge by income and its free to people with no income.  No one in the city has to be without health care or dental.  Yes, they get grants from the government, but so do most public universities, hospitals, etc.  Some people believe the free clinics are substandard, but in Dayton they are not.  They operate from state of the art buildings, with state of the art equipment, and the salaries are comparable to public hospitals.  My point is, there are successful models already in place.  Studying them and adapting best practices at the local and state level might benefit Americans in the long run, and essentially make this issue moot.

 

 

 


Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Sep 10, 2009

I'm curious, when those who agree with Obama admit the Gov't fails to do it's work while at the same time wanting the Gov't do have some control over something, I can't help but wonder why they believe so much in the Gov't "ability" to do anything right? On one hand Arty points to not-for-profit hospitals cheating the system which would indicate the Gvo't is failing to catch this while on the other hand Obama admits the Gov't can not catch all thr fraud going on in Medicare and Medicaid. And how exactly are we to believe the Gov't will be capable of contolling yet another Gov't run program when they can't even hanld ethe ones that already exist?

on Sep 10, 2009

So, to argue that -all- government run organizations are incompetent by default, is simply not true. If managed poorly, yes absolutely. If managed properly, then the reverse is true.

I'm certainly not making that argument.  There are multiple government agencies that perform both effectively and efficiently.  People don't know about them because they aren't in the news with one scandal after another. 

But, in the area of health care, the gov has proven with the two systems already in place that CURRENTLY our gov is not ABLE to manage that particular area efficiently or effectively.

I don't know anything about the milk issue, so I will defer to you on that.  And the other issues I will leave for another thread, or others here if they're so inclined.

But on the topic of health care, correct me if I am wrong, but don't Canadians pay 50% and more in total accumulated taxes?  And I know your average prices (gas, shopping, eating out etc) are more expensive than it is here.  So technically your health care isn't free.  Not even close.

Despite what Obama said,, the current bill in Congress will lead to ONLY the gov option eventually.

To pay for it, we will have to carry a tax burden like France (50% and more) and Canada.  If Americans are forced to hand over half their paychecks to the gov it will devastate the middle class and weaken our republic.  Imo, Our Republic can not thrive without a viable (and large) middle class.

I am not saying there isn't a solution.  I believe America has the opportunity to use successful case studies from all over the world and cherry pick the best parts, put it all together and develop something unique to our culture.   

Unfortunately we are being forced into an either/or position.  No, that's not correct.  Our elected officials have put themselves in that position and we'll be the ones paying the consequences (one way or another) no matter how it turns out.

on Sep 10, 2009

He wasn't "eloquent" or "sincere" He was a defiant, hyper partisan finger pointer. Besides facing bankruptcy, this nation is experiencing record home foreclosures and unemployment.  We can hardly afford to nationalize the health care system. Obama is slashing benefits for the elderly and thats undeniable. For the next 2 years there will be no cost of living adjustment for the elderly, and if Obamaacare goes into effect billions more will be slashed from Medicare. Of course there will be rationing, how couldnt there be? Then we get a lecture on morality. Obama is a liar and a fearmonger

on Sep 10, 2009

Enough fearmongering; more people will die if we don't act now!

Who writes these jokes?

on Sep 10, 2009

WOW.  Talk about lies.

on Sep 10, 2009

I had to laugh reading his bit on tort reform, too.  I guess he felt like that would be his version of 'compromise' - but what he really said was, "That's a bunch of bullshit - I'll pretend I'm willing to put some guys to work twiddling thumbs for awhile on the off chance you'll think I'm reasonable, but there's no effin way that's gonna happen."

on Sep 10, 2009

I had to laugh reading his bit on tort reform, too. I guess he felt like that would be his version of 'compromise' - but what he really said was, "That's a bunch of bullshit - I'll pretend I'm willing to put some guys to work twiddling thumbs for awhile on the off chance you'll think I'm reasonable, but there's no effin way that's gonna happen."

Yeah, and it made me nauseous when McCain stood up with his rediculous "my friend" grin to aknowledge Oliars fake bipartisanship.

on Sep 10, 2009

Thomas Sowell, with his adroit directness, nails our Con-Man-in-Chief.

on Sep 11, 2009

I can't help but wonder why they believe so much in the Gov't "ability" to do anything right?

I was going to give a flip response Charles, a one-liner...but then I thought about it.  I think the reason is because as "bad" as the gov may be, it is made up of individuals...and on some level Americans hope (BO doesn't own the word), people will buck up and do the right thing.  I do believe most people get into gov service for just that, to serve.

But we're human and vulnerable to corruption, and bad choices, and a host of other maladies.

It is likely safest to leave as many choices as possible in the hands of the people they affect, that way when it gets screwed up..heh...we have only ourselves to blame.

on Sep 11, 2009

He wasn't "eloquent" or "sincere"

It read that way to me.  I didn't say he wasn't acting, but then I can't read him mind so have to go on what I see.

In the end I don't think it matters if he was sincere or flip.  The Dems have enough votes to push this through and they may well do it.

on Sep 11, 2009

but there's no effin way that's gonna happen."

I'm trying to picture that in my head.  Now THAT would be a speech to go down in history as the most crass and most honest!

 

on Sep 13, 2009

Illegals won't be covered? How can we make sure

Good question. Simple answer. Twice Republicans introduced amendments to the bill to clarify this. Twice it was shot down bu Democrats. The question should be: If they are sincere, why not put it in writing? As long as a majority of Hispanic citizens try to give illegals the same rights as citizens, by way of supporting the Democrat party, the Democrat leadership will pander to them to keep the votes coming, whether it is good for the country or not.

2 Pages1 2