Obama in trouble

[Strix]

I know that virtually no one here will agree with me, but I just want to say YIPPEE!!!!!
And in Massachusettes no less. Who'd have guessed?

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8470187.stm

man looks like a right nobber tbh.

Oh just another of those "poor people shouldn't HAVE healthcare" things.

Who said that then?

Oh are you AN, strix?

can I ask you why you think this is so great, especially knowing many of us disagree fundamentally? It is bothering me!

I am. Do you like my new owl persona?

I just don't think government should run heathcare. I do, however, think healthcare should be reasonable affordable for everyone. Just not through government meddling. So, I would very very very very much rejoice in seeing Obama's plan on a fast train to Hell.

why do you think that's the answer, in particular?

I can immediately think of two small children who wouldn't have access to healthcare if we had to pay for it.

...maybe poor people should just die..

so how does this help the cause of affordable healthcare for US citizens exactly? just means the current crappy situation won't change, doesn't it? am not sure I see any cause for celebration here

I did say that I tink healthcare should be reasonably accessible/affordable for everyone. I just don't think that government ownership is the answer.

Can you explain how your plan would work strix? I am genuinely interested! For us 'affordable' would mean free.

I can't afford dental bills and they are supposed to be affordable.

Hasn't the US private sector already had an awfully long time of failing to provide accessible/affordable for everyone?

One of the reasons government ownership is not the anser is because it will increase and not decrease the cost of healthcare for everyone. Surely, the sensible thing is to work toward reducing the costs.

I am not saying the current system is perfect. It needs fixing. But, not through government meddling.

Insurance should be available across state lines for starters.

And obviously, people who are unable to work should have insurance, especially children. Of course they should!

Genuinely I cannot understand why so many people in America really hate the idea of free medical care for everyone - This bloke is a arse and a trial for style over substance.

The right wing dress this up in all sorts of guises but honestly I wonder do they not want poor people to have care because being able to buy it as they do makes them feel superior???

I disagree completely with Strix, but Obama has made a complete pig's ear of the way he has handled the process.

Massachussetts swung 30% away from the Democrats for a reason. People vote the way they do for a reason.

Obama promised he would do everything in public, with no backroom deals, yet the whole vote-grubbing process to get to 60 has been an exercise in pork-barrel politics.

He promised no new taxes on those earning under $250000 - but has broken that pledge by taxing health insurance plans.

He has left too much in the hands of the spineless Harry Reid, and shown a complete lack of leadership. His dithering meant that the process was controlled by the likes of Lieberman, Nelson and Stupak - instead of by people who really wanted to see health reform. He didn't push at all for the things his supporters really wanted, like a public option.

Now health reform is pretty much dead, and it can be laid squarely at Obama's door.

He should make the best of a bad job, and at least try to stop insurance companies discriminating on the basis of pre-existing conditions.

well said Grimma

Grimm I am not arguing for the current system.

'Hasn't the US private sector already had an awfully long time of failing to provide accessible/affordable for everyone?' well quite, grimma

obama has had a hard time, he inherited a huge number of problems.
Yes he hasn't worked miracles but who could?

I am sad about his stance on the war, also allowing for state by state votes on same sex marriage but he has bigger fish to fry as it were.

Can someone please explain to me what is wrong with free healthcare for all?

I agree that pre-existing conditions should not stop you from changing jobs/insurance.

I am not in favour of outlawing same sex marriage.

The problem with "free healthcare for all" is that there is no such thing.

Someone must pay for it. And whoever that is will have to pay more for it if the goverment gets to control it.

In the abstract, I prefer a French/Canadian healthcare system to the NHS model. There, taxes pay for care, but there is no monopoly on healthcare providers. They seem to achieve much better outcomes there.

Part of the reason is just funding of course - but a lot is also structural.

Not that we should change. To move healthcare models would be too disruptive and expensive. But if we were starting again from scratch, we wouldn't (or shouldn't) have an NHS model.

Yes I understand it has to be paid for but surely you cannot have an objection to paying into a fund so that everyone can access what then need when they need it.

This is what I do in the uk, I think it is right an proper if I have more then I should add more. Access to vital health care should not be based on an ability to pay. Surely that is not civilised.

If you don't like what you are offered, go private, pay the extra, like the uk

katie agree with you in a sense but remember the NHS is also about socio-political theory and at the heart of the NHS is the philosophy that we should all be able to gain access without the ability to pay. I agree in it's implementation its all got a bit buggered up.

It is always good to aspire to high ideals as a society and show benevolence to those less fortunate.

It's not free health care - it's free at the point of delivery. There is nothing wrong with this. Americans have quite a large cultural shift to see this though.

WouldTypeMoreButHaveABabyTryingTo'Help'Tiggaxx