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

tartyhighheels,

The French/Canadian system is also free at the point of delivery - only thing is that the government do not run the instruments of delivery (hospitals etc).

I agree that any reasonable health system needs to be free at the point of delivery. I see it as a litmus test of a civilised society.

I think rationing of expensive drugs is going to test health models to breaking point in the next few years though.

I object fundamentally to the creation of a new system which will not use the money I pay into it in the most efficient manner. Government ownership is not efficient. Some of the money will be wasted on red tape and not put into to the medical care where it is needed.

Insurance companies are also a problem in the US. But, the answer is not government ownership/control.

Obama's popularity is falling and I do think this healthcare plan will fail unless he employs some really dirty tactics to push it through before Brown takes office.

The NHS also has some inefficiency problems. But the people of the UK are generally supportive of a socialised medical system and I think that therefore it should remain as such in the UK.

Americans, on the other hand, are rtather less tolerant of Socialism. IT won't work out there.

Tigga, yes absolutely right

but still why wouldn't everyone want every man woman and child to be able to get the help they need

The money thing is coming up of course and it is expensive and will cost more but on a personal level please can someone explain to me what is wrong with the ideal in principle

There is nothing wrong with the idea in principle. The problem is in the reality of paying the bill.

Americans, on the other hand, are rtather less tolerant of Socialism. IT won't work out there

no shit!

Are you saying that Americans are inherantly less generous to one another as a nation? Is that why it wouldn't work out?

I don't understand

Surely raising taxes to raise the health and well-being of a nation is absolutely the right thing to do. As someone else here has said, these kind of things are markers of civilisation.

The problem is that Obama has done a piss-poor job of selling what is a very mediocre package.

He hasn't countered the Republican attack points forcefully enough, he hasn't used the Presidency as a bully pulpit to set out his vision of what health reform should look like, delegating far far too much to the Washington establishment in Congress. His moral authority isn't exactly helped by the fact that he has broken campaign promises left, right and centre to try to scramble together any sort of deal.

No, I am not saying that. Americans are less tolerant of being told what to do by the nanny state. Freedom of speech, religeon, etc. And they don't want big government telling them what medical care they allowed to have.

They are also much more demanding about getting a return for parting with their hard earned money. American style customer service exists because the American customer expects it.

But you can still go private - private heathcare will not be outlawed..

I think this is bullshit - I think it is about some kind of feeling of superiority for those who can over those who cannot.

Not being told what to do by a nanny state? Freedom of speach?? High ideals when some people cannot even access the basics.

You are not American cutomers, you are American people and it just ebggards belief that people are not absoluely insensed by this terrible system. Of course those most affected have the least say but this is a moral blindspot in such a rich country

'I object fundamentally to the creation of a new system which will not use the money I pay into it in the most efficient manner. Government ownership is not efficient. Some of the money will be wasted on red tape and not put into to the medical care where it is needed.'

I imagine private hospitals need to make profits
therefore all the money being paid to them for treatment etc is not being put into medical care

is that alright, then? if so, why?

And genuinely I fail to see the contradiction between freedom of speech and socialism (just to be clear it isnt the same as communism)

While I doubt that anyone has literally said as I posted above that 'poor people shouldn't have healthcare' I think there is a bit of that in it. If it is truly a bad idea them I assume as many poor people are fighting it as well off people?

It's always assumed that if the government runs it then it will be more expensive. Now I agree that this often happen here, but have reservations about the real reasons and wonder if it's actually avoidable. Generally speaking the same people are doing the actual running of it as before.

A big part of it of course is an illusion. When a state owned public service is privatised it generally means laying off many of the staff and doing a really crap job to save money. So the private company is then doing much less for a little less money.

This is celebrated as 'more efficient'

Anyone been on a train lately?

Private insurance in the UK is not available to say the average middle class person because it is sooooo expensive. So I don't think you really can go private.

Private insurance in the US is available to most people with a job or studying for a degree or through a whole host of trade organisations, etc. At least it was when I last lived there 10 years ago.

As for the quality of the medical care, the US in my experience (although admittedly I have never been among the poor and disadvantaged -- however I am also not rich) offers a far superior quality and I would not like to see it dragged dow to the level that I know and have no choice but to tolerate on the NHS.

tartyhighheels,

A politician should ALWAYS be aware of public opinion. He or she might not go with it, but they should know where it stands.

In the US, your argument simply doesn't hold. People generally do NOT want to pay for other people's healthcare. I find that rather bizarre, but that's the way it is. It's a different, more individualistic, society.

That's partly why Obama played it so wrong.

The extension of healthcare to the uninsured should have been downplayed - it's simply not a big issue to most people. He should have gone much more with benefits to the majority who already have insurance: lower copayments, no denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions, a cap on profits as a percentage of premiums, making lifetime coverage limits illegal, and the like.

What really pissed me off about this election was that Mass. already has universal health coverage (which Brown voted for fgs) so Mass. voters couldn't care less about the rest of the country. And it also means that the vote wasn't about healthcare at all.

Anyway, the Senate has already voted for a health care bill, so if the Dems are clever, they'll get the House to approve the Senate plan and it won't have to go back to the Senate to be fillibustered.

Strix - I'm fascinated by this American attitude that private healthcare is somehow 'more efficient' than state healthcare. Because what America proves is the reverse. America spends a damn sight more than any other Western nation and gets worse healthcare and worse outcomes.

Why are Americans so blind to the actual facts staring them in the face? Why are you so wedded to a particular ideology you would rather see people die than admit the facts might not actually prove it to be true?

The is a huge uptake of private policies in this country - are you suggesting it is only affordable by the upper classes??

It is easy for you to say when you can afford it - i can afford private healthcare here too but it doesn't make me think that i should not contribute so others have the ability to access this kind of help. It is part of being a member of society, we ar eall measured by how we treat the most vulnerable amongst us (massively overused i know but completely right)

mateykatie, yes i find it extraordinary too the lack of care for each other as a nation - blows me away in fact, I agree that Obama got that wrong, perhaps he believed that people were more benificent than they actually were. I think it is that lack of care for one
another I am questioning.

sayanything,

I think it is very hard to say it wasn't a proxy referendum on Obama's healthcare plan when the winning candidate, who achieved a record swing in a Democrat stronghold, spent all his time saying exactly that.

It would be political suicide to push ahead with the existing Senate healthcare plan using procedural techniques. It would lose at least 7 or 8 more senators, maybe more, in the mid-terms, and lose control of the House too.

Not to mention, almost everyone in the House hates the Senate plan, and has said they won't vote for it.

edam,

Americans, by and large, don't care about national outcomes. They care about personal outcomes.

If you actually have decent insurance, the American system can be far better than any other in the world.

Too many people have bought into the myth that their own medical coverage will deteriorate as a result of the mooted healthcare reforms. Obama and the Democrats have been terrible at countering the myths.

Talking to American friends, the most decisive factor in turning public opinion is Obama breaking the campaign promise not to increase taxes on "ordinary" Americans in order to fund the healthcare reforms.

"This bloke is a arse and a trial for style over substance."
Who's this in reference to because it could apply equally to both politicians being mentioned?

Take your point matey, was just responding to Strix's claim that state healthcare 'will increase and not decrease the cost of healthcare for everyone'. When actually America demonstrates very clearly that private healthcare is hugely expensive for the nation, let alone for employers or individuals.

I listened to this chap talking about health care reforms. And apparently as well as the usual stuff about costing too much and bringing about the end of the world etc he also mentioned it would cost jobs? Eh? How?

It's funny. If the UK decided to revamp it's medical system, I bet hardly anyone in America would care.

and your point is? The US is (currently) the most powerful nation on the earth, of course people are interested in the big issues there. Of course that will all change with the rise of China, India, Brazil etc. etc. etc. it'll be interesting to see how the Yanks deal with it.