Obama Discussion Thread

[stephenhawkings]

one day and three pages, don't we have anything more important?

[Deanh]

one day and three pages, don't we have anything more important?

most definitely...but watching blind passion, mis-construed beleifs and blatant bashing is always entertaining, hell this is "soap"like....so relax Steve, sit back, pop a cold one and enjoy....

[RangerM]

but ranger...they deserve i after all they pay 99.9% of the taxes remember?

The point (Deanh) is to show that when something is perceived to be free, as it is with the people in the video, it is taken with enthusiasm regardless of consequence.

 

The Medicare Trust Fund is expected to suffer a $20 Billion shortfall in 2009. The amount of fraud is estimated to be $60 Billion per year.; and we're only talking about Medicare.

 

If you expand this system to include all people, you can expect to multiply both those figures.

Edited August 13, 2009 by RangerM

[Ralph Greene]

That's not what the video says at all. It never says the government pays for their houses. The video shows people who live in multi-hundred thousand dollar houses enthusiastically consuming "free" healthcare, referring to it as their "social life", meanwhile the rest of us are paying for it, when they are perfectly capable of paying for it themselves.

 

Do yourself a favor, watch it again starting at 0:40. I've transcribed it for you.......

 

If these people are happy to take (for free) what they could easily pay for, then what do you believe will happen when you give it away at no cost to the consumer, any consumer?

 

Demand will skyrocket, and supply will be spread thinner, and the likelihood of someone being left out, even greater than now.

 

In real life....Old people don't like going to the Doc any more than you do. Most are also very aware of the burden they place on society from their medicare payments. I know where my mother lives, most would prefer to pay their way if they can afford to, but there is an on going discussion from them about since they have or are paying for this, why can't they benefit from medicare just like poor people or the homeless do?

 

I do agree with you on the subject of waste. Since I pay her bills, I am constantly amazed at what medicare will pay for. If a homeless person falls in the street, an ambulance is called (about $500 usually), and that person is carted off to the ER at taxpayer expense. When my mother fell last fall, and ambulance was called, her medicare didn't pay (almost a $600 bill) because she was transported from a private facility. However, it did pay to bring her back (pinned leg....she couldn't get in my car). If she had fell at a medicade facility, it would have paid both ways. So in many ways, because she pays a lot of her own way, she gets discriminated against. Most state laws require that folks on assisted care or skilled care get a Doctor visit every 30 days. So whether in an expensive private retirement home or a medicade facility for the poor, Doctors line up all the patients and see them in one day usually. The words "gold mine" come to mind. For that, medicare usually pays 80% of that bill, and I write a check for the rest.

 

I do admit I get a rant about the lies of all this stuff. However....the Doctors, the emergency responders, the ER people and all the speciality services that bill you for months after an event....all have their hand out to you for payment, or they are sucking on the public tit. The more I think about this, the madder i get. I think the whole dang thing needs reform.

[NickF1011]

That's not what the video says at all. It never says the government pays for their houses. The video shows people who live in multi-hundred thousand dollar houses enthusiastically consuming "free" healthcare, referring to it as their "social life", meanwhile the rest of us are paying for it, when they are perfectly capable of paying for it themselves.

 

I would hardly call it "free". After all, they had been paying deductions for it too from their paychecks for years prior to actually receiving any of the benefits from it.

[Deanh]

In real life....Old people don't like going to the Doc any more than you do. Most are also very aware of the burden they place on society from their medicare payments. I know where my mother lives, most would prefer to pay their way if they can afford to, but there is an on going discussion from them about since they have or are paying for this, why can't they benefit from medicare just like poor people or the homeless do?

 

I do agree with you on the subject of waste. Since I pay her bills, I am constantly amazed at what medicare will pay for. If a homeless person falls in the street, an ambulance is called (about $500 usually), and that person is carted off to the ER at taxpayer expense. When my mother fell last fall, and ambulance was called, her medicare didn't pay (almost a $600 bill) because she was transported from a private facility. However, it did pay to bring her back (pinned leg....she couldn't get in my car). If she had fell at a medicade facility, it would have paid both ways. So in many ways, because she pays a lot of her own way, she gets discriminated against. Most state laws require that folks on assisted care or skilled care get a Doctor visit every 30 days. So whether in an expensive private retirement home or a medicade facility for the poor, Doctors line up all the patients and see them in one day usually. The words "gold mine" come to mind. For that, medicare usually pays 80% of that bill, and I write a check for the rest.

 

I do admit I get a rant about the lies of all this stuff. However....the Doctors, the emergency responders, the ER people and all the speciality services that bill you for months after an event....all have their hand out to you for payment, or they are sucking on the public tit. The more I think about this, the madder i get. I think the whole dang thing needs reform.

( Quote )I think the whole dang thing needs reform..................touche Mr Greene....touche, but we as the public are fearful of change, and the media barrage of "the end is nigh", does nothing but fester and feed the fear constantly......after all the system appaerntly is perfect as is...especially those that have NEVER experienced the weakness's first hand......anyone here ever had any "Free" Dental....now theres a laugh. Edited August 13, 2009 by Deanh

[RangerM]

I would hardly call it "free". After all, they had been paying deductions for it too from their paychecks for years prior to actually receiving any of the benefits from it.

 

Putting in $1 and getting back 3x that much may not (by definition) be "free", but if you let me invest money and take back however much I feel like, I'll happily take that deal.

 

I'd bet you would, too.

 

The point being, when there is no limit to what the consumer can take ("all-you-can-eat"), there is no reason to be responsible, or frugal.

 

( Quote )I think the whole dang thing needs reform..................touche Mr Greene....touche, but we as the public are fearful of change, and the media barrage of "the end is nigh", does nothing but fester and feed the fear constantly......after all the system appaerntly is perfect as is...especially those that have NEVER experienced the weakness's first hand......

Deanh, if a $34 Trillion unfunded liability isn't weak enough for you, then there isn't much left to say. You better get while the getting is good, I guess.

Edited August 13, 2009 by RangerM

[NickF1011]

Putting in $1 and getting back 3x that much may not (by definition) be "free", but if you let me invest money and take back however much I feel like, I'll happily take that deal.

 

That's all fine and dandy, but what do we give to the people who have already paid into the system? Do we just give them the finger and tell 'em, sorry, but thanks for paying for everyone before you?

[Deanh]

Putting in $1 and getting back 3x that much may not (by definition) be "free", but if you let me invest money and take back however much I feel like, I'll happily take that deal.

 

I'd bet you would, too.

 

The point being, when there is no limit to what the consumer can take ("all-you-can-eat"), there is no reason to be responsible, or frugal.

 

 

Deanh, if a $34 Trillion unfunded liability isn't weak enough for you, then there isn't much left to say. You better get while the getting is good, I guess.

so you are saying $34 trillion is the cost of the overhall....where did THAT ( SPECULATIVE ) # come from, what happened to the $1 trillion....friggen media I swear, FACT, the uninsured need help with CHEAPER premiums under a Govt controlled healthcare system...youwant to pay for perceived BETTER insurance go ahead, your choice is NOT going to be taken away, and the people BLEATING are the AMA ( WOW whata friggen surprize theya re jumping to the defense of their proponnets ) and INSURANCE companies that have been basking in profitable gluttoney and preying on peoples and companies bank accounts for WAY too long...and they are threatened by what THEY perceive as aloss of THEIR profitability...NOT, and I repeat NOT about yours and I's treatment...medfical insurance and treatment here is based on one thing and one thing only...money...cold hard cash...it is a business, so i say BRING ON THE COMPETITION! and let ME make the choice

[RangerM]

That's all fine and dandy, but what do we give to the people who have already paid into the system? Do we just give them the finger and tell 'em, sorry, but thanks for paying for everyone before you?

We are obligated to take care of the old, since that is the deal we made with them (Ralph, too). You cannot "just give them the finger".

 

BUT, you don't make a bad situation worse.

 

You are in your 30's right? Do you really expect the SS/M to be there (ie. solvent) when you retire? I certainly don't.

 

so you are saying $34 trillion is the cost of the overhall....where did THAT ( SPECULATIVE ) # come from, what happened to the $1 trillion

Not the cost to overhaul; just the cost to maintain the current system (as is). The $34 Trillion (that we don't have) is the number provided by the U.S. Government.

[Deanh]

We are obligated to take care of the old, since that is the deal we made with them (Ralph, too). You cannot "just give them the finger".

 

BUT, you don't make a bad situation worse.

 

You are in your 30's right? Do you really expect the SS/M to be there (ie. solvent) when you retire? I certainly don't.

 

 

Not the cost to overhaul; just the cost to maintain the current system (as is). The $34 Trillion (that we don't have) is the number provided by the U.S. Government.

so , correct me if I'm wrong....its PERFECT right now and doesn't need any adjustments?................hmmm, first paragraph.........Fortune Magazine) -- Twice I have asked Alan Greenspan what he considers the greatest threat to the U.S. economy, and both times he has answered immediately with a single word: Medicare. He isn't so worried about the trade deficit and the housing crash; he figures market forces will sort them out. But Medicare is something else - a multitrillion-dollar problem that's about to get dramatically worse, and one that nobody wants to talk about. You'd think that the greatest threat to America's economy would be Topic A for the presidential candidates. But it's actually a topic they hate to touch.

( Quote ) ITS A MESS AND IS ABOUT TO GET WORSE...so lets just let it go and implode right?........

[NickF1011]

We are obligated to take care of the old, since that is the deal we made with them (Ralph, too). You cannot "just give them the finger".

 

Someone gets the finger somewhere. Someone is going to spend a lifetime paying into a system that gives them nothing in return.

 

You are in your 30's right? Do you really expect the SS/M to be there (ie. solvent) when you retire? I certainly don't.

 

Yes. To finish my first though, I think those who are going to get the finger will be people my age. I sure as heck am not counting on SS/M to still be there, which is why I've taken significant steps to avoid having to rely on them.

[Ron W.]

I sure as heck am not counting on SS/M to still be there, which is why I've taken significant steps to avoid having to rely on them.

 

 

Not counting on Social Security is a smart move on your part, as far as taking " significant steps to avoid having to rely on them" from your previous posts I figure you're making a better than average wage. Some people don't have that option and will have to live on what's left of S.S.

Now trying to keep this on topic, does anyone here think Obama will do anything to ensure the health of the social security / medicare programs?

[NickF1011]

Not counting on Social Security is a smart move on your part, as far as taking " significant steps to avoid having to rely on them" from your previous posts I figure you're making a better than average wage. Some people don't have that option and will have to live on what's left of S.S.

Now trying to keep this on topic, does anyone here think Obama will do anything to ensure the health of the social security / medicare programs?

 

The biggest thing that can be done to ensure that people have a dime to live off of when they retire, whether SS or Medicare still exist is to pay down the national debt. Servicing that debt is the biggest waste of government spending there is, even taking SS/M into account. Do I think Obama is going to protect those programs? Based on how quickly spending is increasing, not a chance in hell.

 

And yes, I do consider myself fortunate for the opportunities I have been given to better my situation.

Edited August 13, 2009 by NickF1011

[Ralph Greene]

The only change that makes sense to me is to adjust upward the age you qualify for SS and medicare. Disability could still be looked at the same way for those who can't work. When SS was first started, most retirees died within a couple years of retirement, and didn't collect so much. Now 65 year olds are still running marathons and doing cross country bicycle rides. The eligibility age needs to go up as our life expectancy goes up. I suggest normal retirement benefits be upped at least 5 years ASAP...and even higher as time goes on....maybe taking a few years to work up to that. Most seniors (and AARP) would support that, especially if given a chance to plan for that. That would fix the system. Most of you younger folks should support that also, because you will use SS.

 

When I retired 11 years ago, I thought I had enough money to live two life times, now I'm not so confidant I have enough for this life....the way our investments fluctuate around, and the way health care costs escalate. My SS check helps me not draw so much from invesrtments, giving them a chance to recover. So you younger folks will be needing that monthly check....your own money coming back to you.

 

I hope Obama and crew addresses this.

[NickF1011]

The only change that makes sense to me is to adjust upward the age you qualify for SS and medicare. Disability could still be looked at the same way for those who can't work. When SS was first started, most retirees died within a couple years of retirement, and didn't collect so much. Now 65 year olds are still running marathons and doing cross country bicycle rides. The eligibility age needs to go up as our life expectancy goes up. I suggest normal retirement benefits be upped at least 5 years ASAP...and even higher as time goes on....maybe taking a few years to work up to that. Most seniors (and AARP) would support that, especially if given a chance to plan for that. That would fix the system. Most of you younger folks should support that also, because you will use SS.

 

Sounds like a logical step to me.

[Ron W.]

The biggest thing that can be done to ensure that people have a dime to live off of when they retire, whether SS or Medicare still exist is to pay down the national debt.....................snip.................................. Based on how quickly spending is increasing, not a chance in hell.

 

 

We're thinking along the same lines on both counts.

[RangerM]

so , correct me if I'm wrong....its PERFECT right now and doesn't need any adjustments?................hmmm, first paragraph......

( Quote ) ITS A MESS AND IS ABOUT TO GET WORSE...so lets just let it go and implode right?........

Deanh, do you understand that when the politicians say "universal insurance coverage" and "public option" that what they mean is "universal medicare coverage"?

 

In other words, they want to expand (make larger) a system that is already underfunded by $34 Trillion.

 

How is expanding this system (to cover everyone) NOT going to make it implode faster?

Edited August 13, 2009 by RangerM

[Deanh]

Deanh, do you understand that when the politicians say "universal insurance coverage" and "public option" that what they mean is "universal medicare coverage"?

 

In other words, they want to expand (make larger) a system that is already underfunded by $34 Trillion?

 

How is expanding this system (to cover everyone) NOT going to make it implode faster?

Ranger, don't you understand that they are fully aware of the issues as well? Do you REALLY think they are aware and DELIBERATLY ignoring obvious signs just for their own agenda and are PURPOSELY trying to make things worse??????????? come on man.....thats naive.

[RangerM]

Ranger, don't you understand that they are fully aware of the issues as well? Do you REALLY think they are aware and DELIBERATLY ignoring obvious signs just for their own agenda and are PURPOSELY trying to make things worse??????????? come on man.....thats naive.

I honestly can't answer that question.

 

On the one hand, if you expand the system to cover all persons in a manner similar to Medicare (publicly financed, privately administered health insurance), you have few choices (that I know of) to avoid the implosion you speak of.

 

You can.......

 

Increase taxes to pay for it;

Ration the amount of healthcare that the system will provide (this can be based on age, monitary, or some other basis); or

Freeze prices to keep them fixed.

 

On the other hand, none of these options will eliminate the fact that there will always be those who cannot get care (due to long wait times or availability), because none address the problem of the supply.

 

There is a better way.

Edited August 13, 2009 by RangerM

[napfirst]

I honestly can't answer that question.

 

On the one hand, if you expand the system to cover all persons in a manner similar to Medicare (publicly financed, privately administered health insurance), you have few choices (that I know of) to avoid the implosion you speak of.

 

You can.......

 

Increase taxes to pay for it;

Ration the amount of healthcare that the system will provide (this can be based on age, monitary, or some other basis); or

Freeze prices to keep them fixed.

 

On the other hand, none of these options will eliminate the fact that there will always be those who cannot get care (due to long wait times or availability), because none address the problem of the supply.

 

There is a better way.

 

 

You're a very patient man Ranger.....

[Deanh]

I honestly can't answer that question.

 

On the one hand, if you expand the system to cover all persons in a manner similar to Medicare (publicly financed, privately administered health insurance), you have few choices (that I know of) to avoid the implosion you speak of.

 

You can.......

 

Increase taxes to pay for it;

Ration the amount of healthcare that the system will provide (this can be based on age, monitary, or some other basis); or

Freeze prices to keep them fixed.

 

On the other hand, none of these options will eliminate the fact that there will always be those who cannot get care (due to long wait times or availability), because none address the problem of the supply.

 

There is a better way.

hey, i'll be one to raise my hand and say i have NO idea how to fix the issue....but I have had first hand experience with my gal and her issues, and can say the system here can raise eyebrows. As much as I love this country its weird that all of a sudden the shite seems to hit the fan when the new sherrif attempts to fix issues the gunslinger seemingly ignored and left in his wake. My angst comes from paying thru the damn nose and personally AVOIDING certain treatments due to the disgust of the $ REQUIRED for myself to get the treatment as an ADDITIONAL deductible....( I am aiming at Dentistry right now ) I also walk into a Hospital to fill out screeds of paperwork to be APPROVED for issues ( was an X-ray of all things...put the bike down ) to witness screeds of NON ENGLISH SPEAKING ( and OBVIOUSLY un-insured, dare i say illegal ) eating their free meal with 6 kids milking the system for all its worth and not paying a dime....why am I paying when they do-not, why did my Father go to Mexico to save $5200 on having lower teeth removed ( 4 of them ) and getting a bridge ( was hilarious when they were removed, the lisp was priceless and I kept making him repeat himself ) FACT is, for most the system is inadequate and OVERLY pricey, i say give choices, and it seems this is the avenue being pursued, you shop cars, why not health insurance....without CHOICES there is monopoly, with monopoly comes pricing one has no choice over...they can write their own ticket....and then BAM....along comes Walmart.....as much as I loathe that place, one cannot question the results that THAT choice has acheived.

[Deanh]

You're a very patient man Ranger.....

good post Mr Pedestal, was wondering when you would pipe up with words of infinite wisdom....at least he bothers to offer an alternate opinion I can respect and doesn't profess to know all....I bow to thee..

Edited August 14, 2009 by Deanh

[Deanh]

I honestly can't answer that question.

 

On the one hand, if you expand the system to cover all persons in a manner similar to Medicare (publicly financed, privately administered health insurance), you have few choices (that I know of) to avoid the implosion you speak of.

 

You can.......

 

Increase taxes to pay for it;

Ration the amount of healthcare that the system will provide (this can be based on age, monitary, or some other basis); or

Freeze prices to keep them fixed.

 

On the other hand, none of these options will eliminate the fact that there will always be those who cannot get care (due to long wait times or availability), because none address the problem of the supply.

 

There is a better way.

liked the article...some good veiws....but who is to say the Gum-mint hasn't had similar ideas.....I haven't read ANY of the bill, but i dare say most here haven't, they are too busy basing their ideals on media musings and witch-hunts,....but i would be EXTREMELY surprized if there are not parallels....

[napfirst]

Thirty-five percent (35%) of likely voters now say the United States is heading in the right direction, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.............

 

Most voters (60%) continue to believe the nation is heading down the wrong track, although that number is unchanged from a week ago. But it's down three points from the third week in January.

 

 

This HC issue is causing people to wakeup!