Health Care Speech to CongressFollow

"And if you take one from three hundred and sixty-five what remains?"

"Three hundred and sixty-four, of course."

Humpty Dumpty looked doubtful, "I'd rather see that done on paper," he said.

heh

Nexa

I rather enjoyed the speech last night. I was glad to hear some form of "public option" remains, but I wish it was more available. I honestly don't think that having reform without a widespread public option will do as much good as everyone hopes. But I'm glad to see it's not completely gone, and I love that it's a non-profit option. I only wish that people could choose it without meeting some financial criteria where they can't afford anything else.

My husband had a problem with the "everyone has to get health insurance or you'll be in trouble" part. Personally, I agree whole heartedly that it should be mandatory. I tried to find last night what percentage of our healthcare costs were from people who chose not to have insurance and ended up needing an expensive hospital stay, but that was a little too narrow to pin down. I tried to explain to my husband that not having health insurance, even when you're young and "healthy," is irresponsible and ends up costing taxpayers more money in the long run. He was stuck on the "we should have a choice" point, though, and I know that some of the posters here feel the same way. I just don't think it makes sense to try to have reform without tackling an obvious problem, which is people who can afford insurance but don't bother and then end up costing the tax payers more money in the long run.

All in all, I found the speech encouraging, but I'm not sure how it's going to work. Making it illegal for any insurance company to turn down anyone for a pre-existing condition is a start, sure. And maybe I missed it, but how are we going to make sure that the premiums are not outrageous?

ETA: Oh, and as for the illegal immigrants part, I have no problem with giving them insurance coverage. Again, it will only end up costing the tax payers more money if an illegal immigrant ends up in the emergency room for an extended and expensive stay, then cannot afford to foot the bill. Not to mention, of course, that illegal immigrants are still human beings who should still be entitled to medical care...

Edited, Sep 10th 2009 9:49am by Belkira

That just about goes for any president.

Insurance rates are risk-based in a for-profit system. If the purpose of the system is to keep everyone healthy, as it should be, then that **** wouldn't matter.

[citation needed]

Also, Cheney had direct ties to Halliburton, the private security company that got massive, largely-undocumented government subsidies through the vague war funding to act as a surrogate military force in Iraq. Can you say "profiteering?"

D

Are you trying to be purposefully hypocritical here?



Well yeah. That's the problem with mandatory insurance: if you can't afford the insurance already, then making it mandatory is counterproductive unless through making it mandatory you reduce costs to where anyone could pay it. Anything more than a few hundred per year and it's just trading one cause of hardship for another, if you already have little money.



If the slope is really starting to get that slippery, and you start losing substantial freedoms, then ******* revolt. You're a republican right? You like the idea of the people standing up for themselves against corrupt government right? That doesnt' mean you can't trust your government; it means that you can be prepared to punish it if it ***** up.

I still don't get this argument. Are you saying that it was okay for the Democrats to do that or not? Because you're defending this guy doing it.

I'm not out to string the guy up or anything... I'm perfectly happy with him making the Republicans look like asses on live TV. Even better was when the GOP all sat, glared and moped during the line "No one should have to go broke from a medical emergency" while the Democrats applauded. That's golden television right there.

That's it. Per last night's speech, if you're below certain thresholds, you would qualify for assistance and/or entry into a public option of some sort. If you're above a certain threshold, you'd be expected to have your own insurance. I assume there's overlap between the assistance threshold and the public option threshold.

You're right. According to the speech, it'd be funded by the premiums it charged so it obviously couldn't be free.

Edited, Sep 10th 2009 10:28am by Jophiel