I was waiting for Godwin's law to rear its ugly head.
I've covered this before. The Commander in Chief automatically has the right to do so. It is one of two powers also granted to the congress which at the time, such a body did not have the power to. Nowhere does the cons ution claim that the congress is the sole power to declare war.
Ignorance on what, him wanting to tax the oblivion out of me?
okiedoke whatever
Ask any Englishman about how ed up socialized medicine is.
Keep the ing inefficent government away from my doctors thank you.
Goody, then all those corporations pass the cost down to the consumer.
Brilliant
You mean the costs they're already passing down?Goody, then all those corporations pass the cost down to the consumer.
Brilliant
I have a small business; the new Texas franchise tax (yes, Tx now has an income tax - but it's only levied at corps) just dinged us for a pretty nice penny.You mean the costs they're already passing down?
Damn straight prices are going up.
There's no way you can say these stats are "directly attributable" to US lifestyle habits and choices.
It's highly, highly debatable that your assertion is accurate. American lifestyle's actually score quite well in many areas like smoking. And we obviously have more aggregate wealth than any other nation in the world, which is a hugely offsetting factor.
And there's also a very, very high correlation between going to your general doctor regularly and acquiring the knowledge necessary to make positive health related lifestyle changes. Limited access absolutely makes that much, much more difficult. The stat you always hear about 15% of our country having no health care access also never seems to take into account the millions of underinsured Americans. Millions of Americans simply have catastrophic health care insurance to protect themselves from major expenses but many of these plans aren't designed to promote preventive medicine.
What lifestyle habits and choices are infants making in our country to make them have the highest infant mortality rates amongst developed countries?
I don't disagree that simply improving access will not solve everything. But it is a necessary step in the right direction.
The next steps include: cost containment of bloated administrative costs (both govt and private) as well as figuring out a way to minimize or eliminate the incentives of greedy doctors in this country from ripping off unknowledgable patients with unnecessary, expensive surgeries and drugs which have limited to possibly even negative actual remedial value.
Thanks to the extremist positions of the far right on stem cell research, we are also falling way behind on the innovation to deal with many of the world's worst and most challenging diseases relative to the rest of the world, which is much more progressive on this issue.
Lack of primary care physicians is also a huge problem, because med school students want to chase the big bucks of specialization. Great for them but a terrible overall outcome for the USA. This also needs to be addressed, which I completely agree that "universal health care" will not address.
It's a multipronged problem and will take a long time to address. But it's clear the status quo has failed in a gross manner.
It also needs to be said that Obama's plan is essentially a tax on businesses to force them to provide healthcare. In no way, will it limit choices and freedoms of people in this country to choose what doctors they want to see and what insurance companies they want to contract with. In no way should this have any impact on reducing the innovation produced by drug companies. It's still a free market system, but essentially amounts to an expansion of Medicare to cover a lot more people.
The burden will be bore by businesses and the govt. Temporarily this should have an adverse impact on the deficit and corporate profits, but long term it's a sound investment in America.
Older people getting pregnant, infertility treatments, smoking, drug and alcohol use, diet.
Enlightened. You are right. I have never heard Obama, however, criticize doctor's charges, and Rx writing practices. Good luck with that whole "containing bloated government costs" thing. Let me know how that works out.I don't disagree that simply improving access will not solve everything. But it is a necessary step in the right direction.
The next steps include: cost containment of bloated administrative costs (both govt and private) as well as figuring out a way to minimize or eliminate the incentives of greedy doctors in this country from ripping off unknowledgable patients with unnecessary, expensive surgeries and drugs which have limited to possibly even negative actual remedial value.
Fail. There is plenty of govt. funded Stem Cell research occurring right now; from cells harvested from umbilical chords, as well as adult stem cells; which have shown and are showing much more promise than Embryonic stem cells. A red meat issue, but not a real one.Thanks to the extremist positions of the far right on stem cell research, we are also falling way behind on the innovation to deal with many of the world's worst and most challenging diseases relative to the rest of the world, which is much more progressive on this issue.
We have a greater supply of PC docs than other countries; we're obviously doing something right. The docs have been following the 'boomers for years; lots of money to be made with that group (not a coincidence that Viagra was created right as the earliest Boomers reached 50, after all). It will, to a certain extent, start to correct when the Boomers start to kick...of course the cost increases will slow then, as well. Old people get sick; sick people cost money until they die; the older the population, the more (exponentially) healthcare costs.Lack of primary care physicians is also a huge problem, because med school students want to chase the big bucks of specialization. Great for them but a terrible overall outcome for the USA. This also needs to be addressed, which I completely agree that "universal health care" will not address.
Over the top rhetoric. "In a Gross Manner". By what standard? The VERY best care in the world is available IN THIS COUNTRY. Most great advances in medicine occur IN THIS COUNTRY. Because of the salaries they receive we have the best doctors IN THIS COUNTRY. I could go on. I'm not arguing that the system is perfect, in fact, I would say it is far from it, but to say the system is completely horrible, and hasn't achieved some of the most remarkable advances mankind has ever seen, is head in the sand denial.It's a multipronged problem and will take a long time to address. But it's clear the status quo has failed in a gross manner.
Forcing a business owner to spend money on something isn't limiting his freedoms? It also doesn't control any of those costs you were concerned about, does it. Doesn't address doctor compensation at all, or their prescribing practices.It also needs to be said that Obama's plan is essentially a tax on businesses to force them to provide healthcare. In no way, will it limit choices and freedoms of people in this country to choose what doctors they want to see and what insurance companies they want to contract with. In no way should this have any impact on reducing the innovation produced by drug companies. It's still a free market system, but essentially amounts to an expansion of Medicare to cover a lot more people.
Who is the government? I thought Obama was giving us all a tax break (or at least 95% of us)? Where is that money gonna come from?The burden will be bore by businesses and the govt. Temporarily this should have an adverse impact on the deficit and corporate profits, but long term it's a sound investment in America.
This lifestyle argument is very weak. First off, problems with poor diet, smoking, drug use, etc are not exclusive to America. In the majority of other nations, marijuana use is either legal or much more common than it is in America because it is not cracked down as heavily as it is here.
Drug use and smoking in the USA have actually been declining heavily over the past 10years. Meanwhile, health care costs are growing by anywhere from 3 to 5 times the rate of inflation over that same time period.
Another factor you completely ignore is that the "overtreatment" phenomenon engaged in by greedy American doctors causes and how this perpetuates a great deal of the drug abuse taht goes on in America today. Doctors frequently prescribe medicines such as painkillers and antianxiety meds which are abused recreationally by those that dont need them. As of yet, the medical profession and US government have failed in developing a system to limit and punish Dr. shopping amongst the portion of the public who hopes to absue drugs.
You also completely and erroneously discount the strong link between access to health care and acquisition of the knowledge necessary for a person to modify lifestyle habits which may be injurious to their health.
How does increasing access to healthcare decrease costs through "universal health care" in the long run? It's pretty simple, really. The more people who have access to healthcare, the more that visit doctors more frequently. The more this happens, the earlier health problems and disorders are diagnosed. The earlier in the cycle you catch problems, generally the lower the cost of treatment and thus lower costs for the overall system. The more knowledgable you are about why certain lifestyles you are engaging in are potentially harmful to you, the less likely you are to engage in them. It's worked in countries like Taiwan which at one point had 40% of it's citizens uninsured and now has 3% with lower aggregate costs. They pulled this off in 10 years.
None of this even mentions the tremendous amount of benefit America would have in terms of worker productivity if quality and affordable health care were available to all Americans. Healthier people are more productive than unhealthy people. They have less absenteeism from work, are able to focus on tasks better, and more upbeat and efficient. No doubt in my mind this would positively influence the long term US economy. As is stands right now, there's arguably no greater threat to the long term vitality of the US economy than health care costs as a % of GDP.
You mention that you are a small business owner. As am I. Any good small business owner knows that there's a difference between an "expense" and an "investment". IMO, there's no doubt that healthcare is an investment in America. Like any investment, there will be a high upfront cost. The question is whether the projected return on investment is sufficient to justify the initial costs. Based on the empirical data we see from other countries who rank much better in key health quality metrics, there's no doubt in my mind the opportunity for a system with much better ROI than the current one exists.
I see many on the far right of our politics who erroneously look at healthcare expansion and reform as merely an expense and not an investment. This is very shortsighted.
You simply can't do much worse than spending 2-3 X what other nations do on healthcare and still ranking near the bottom of every major health metric. Explaining it away with the "lifestyle" argument is disingenuous.
I've never argued that Obama's plan is the cureall. As I've stated, this is just step 1. There are many other left and not all have very clearcut or simple solutions. As I said previously, I still maintain that the #1 problem is overtreatment: doctors prescribing unnecessary surgeries, drugs, and exams with very limited and dubious medical utility due to sheer greed and the common practice of "defensive medicine" which impose avoidable and bloated costs to the entire system, which are then passed down to consumers.
Neither political party has recommended an adequate strategy to combat this issue. The incentive for doctor's to rip off patients to make a few extra bucks to pay for that vacation house payment or that Mercedes payment needs to be stripped and replaced with compensation packages which reward positive outcomes to health issues. "Defensive Medicine" needs to be attacked through tort reform.
america will not really on oil in 10 years is a big lie
all he wants is a bigger goverment
goverment will fix all your problems
do not worry goverment will make a retirement plan
do not worry goverment will fix health care
do not worry about it goverment will fix house loans since you are dumb enough to sign internest free loans
big big big goverment and taxes
and taking bush tax breaks is a take increase!
Are interest-free loans a bad idea? I thought the problem with mortgages was that you have to pay interest on them and if you have an adjustable rate, you can be priced out of your own home.
I actually think an interest-free loan is a great idea. Take the loan and put it in a CD and keep the interest that's earned.
I think he meant interest-only loans.
Or perhaps he was really referring to 0% down loans.
If he abhors big government so much, I sure hope he didnt vote for W in 04 or 08. Our government has NEVER been as big or spendful as it is today...
It's funny because this was my exact reaction as well. He pretty much promised everything I would ever want out of my country in one speech. At least he tried to explain how he'd pay for it all.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
