Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Obama in trouble

155 replies

Strix · 20/01/2010 13:42

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

OP posts:
Juls · 21/01/2010 18:02

Carmen - sorry to hear of you situation. That is horrible, unfair, scary and wrong. Good luck to your dh in the job hunt.

The thing that bugs me most about the proposed health care reform is is doesn't refrom the medical industry. What is on the table is getting more people into the current system with the government paying the bill ... ultimately the tax payers.

The whole industry needs regulating and insurance companies and lawyers should not be dictating the system (as it now stands). They really do stand to profit from the whole thing (insurance stocks skyrocketed after the house/senate passed their bills). BTW, where are the banking reforms that were promised? That is what people are pissed off about as it leaves the taxpayer lining the pockets of the insurance companes, bankers and lawyers and only smaller percentage of the population are better off and the rest are worse off. That is the impression anyway.

Juls · 21/01/2010 18:04

BTW: I do agree with most posters on this board, everyone should have health care. It's the only decent and humane thing for a civilized society to have.

Strix · 21/01/2010 18:13

I think all of the posters have agreed everyone should have health care. I was accused of not wanting it, but that was false.

And yes yes yes, insurance comapnies have way too much power. Something should be done there.

OP posts:
Strix · 21/01/2010 18:14

And I also agree that your situation stinks carmen. Medical coverage should be accessible. $800 per month is outrageous.

OP posts:
edam · 21/01/2010 20:53

yy to Obama's bill being too limited in terms of taking on the providers and insurance companies. But that's not his fault. It's the fault of vested interests and ideologues making it impossible to get the right policies through.

$800 a month is what you get in a market system where the providers dominate.
Sometimes there has to be a regulator or state provision because markets fail or are incapable of providing a social good at a reasonable price to everyone who needs it.

If you choose to run a system that leaves some people without the healthcare they need - and it's not just the uninsured, it's people who are insured but whose insurers won't cover X or Y - we all suffer. Not only because it's uncivilised and inhumane, but because communicable diseases are dangerous, because you end with someone being permanently disabled or chronically sick or dead, which carries consequences for society as well as avoidable suffering to them. That includes economic consequences.

Btw, Kaiser Permanante is rated over here, don't have the details immediately to hand but they are certainly thought of as a 'good' healthcare provider and one that has some lessons the NHS could learn from. But they don't cover everyone.

edam · 21/01/2010 20:58

This international comparison shows some of the issues with US healthcare. That's not to say that every other country is perfect, or that the UK is perfect, far from it. But the US, the richest nation on earth at the moment, is astoundingly poor and spends the most.

mateykatie · 21/01/2010 21:03

edam,

You are making a fundamental mistake.

In the US, the overwhelming question isn't "what is the state of OUR healthcare?". It is "what is the state of MY healthcare?".

It is really a very, very different society over there.

Thus, "public health policy" is almost a contradiction in terms over there. If they have decent insurance, then Americans, by and large, don't care if the country as a whole lags on the healthcare indicators you've mentioned.

ItsGrimUpNorth · 21/01/2010 21:05

By Strix, the OP:

"I think all of the posters have agreed everyone should have health care. I was accused of not wanting it, but that was false.

And yes yes yes, insurance comapnies have way too much power. Something should be done there."

Have I missed something?

So, if these are your opinions, Strix, why on earth are you glad Obama got a bloody nose, so to speak? You reckon the Republicans are going to do anything about the issues of everyone having healthcare and the insurance companies having too much power?

If these are your opinions, then you surely should be very worried about the Republican gain........

edam · 21/01/2010 21:12

Oh quite, Matey, I get that many/some Americans appear not to give a toss about anybody but themselves on this issue. Don't understand it, but agree it does seem to be the case.

Odd because many Americans are patriotic, you'd think they'd want to be able to be proud of how their country does in terms of healthcare as much as on any other issue.

ilovemydogandmrobama · 21/01/2010 21:19

Absoutely untrue that the government is not efficient. Medicare/medicaid has an administration charge of around 2% whereas the private sector runs between 10% - 25%

Same doctors. Same nurses.

Was in the US last week and we were discussing health care and someone commented, 'I don't want the government interfering in my Medicare...'

ilovemydogandmrobama · 21/01/2010 21:20

What's wrong with Kaiser?

edam · 21/01/2010 21:28

Nowt wrong with Kaiser as far as I know, that was my point. They are a rare example of a good healthcare system in the US as far as I am aware.

ilovemydogandmrobama · 21/01/2010 21:37

Oh good! My mom works at Kaiser and I've always gotten good treatment there.

Sorry if being over sensitive, but don't like threads that gloat in a President's failure. Whatever the political party. Tacky and terrible manners imho

I didn't like George Bush's policies, but wouldn't gloat about the party losing a seat, especially if it was lost due to someone's death.

Pathetic.

BadgersPaws · 22/01/2010 09:48

"Oh quite, Matey, I get that many/some Americans appear not to give a toss about anybody but themselves on this issue. Don't understand it, but agree it does seem to be the case.

Odd because many Americans are patriotic, you'd think they'd want to be able to be proud of how their country does in terms of healthcare as much as on any other issue."

We need to be a bit careful here....

Just because someone doesn't believe in socially provided health care doesn't mean that they either don't care or aren't patriotic.

I've mentioned this before but it took something of the scale and impact of WW2 to shake this country into a state where it wanted to provide a "cradle to grave" NHS.

Were our grandparents inhumane or unpatriotic?

That's not how people who don't believe in social health care think and to label them as such is akin to right wing American's labelling social health care as "socialism and one step away from communism".

Applying those labels also kind of breaks the argument as it's saying that anyone who disagrees with social health care is an inhumane unpatriotic individual with no regard for human rights. How is someone meant to come back from that?

It might take something with as major an impact on US Society as WW2 was on our to make such a radical change.

edam · 22/01/2010 12:28

My point was lots of people have been saying Americans are not interested in how they do as a nation on healthcare, or what provision other people have. I think there is something cultural about Americans believing theirs is the land of opportunity and it's up to you to make the best of your lot ? if you struggle it's your own fault. Whereas most British people believe there should be a safety net.

America was pretty heavily involved in WW2 as well, albeit two years later than us and never on their own. Maybe the difference is it was only their troops who had direct experience, unlike British civilians who were being bombed and suffering food and other shortages and living with the threat of invasion?

dittany · 22/01/2010 12:43

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BadgersPaws · 22/01/2010 12:57

"I think there is something cultural about Americans believing theirs is the land of opportunity and it's up to you to make the best of your lot – if you struggle it's your own fault."

Well in part I think it is the whole "American Dream" thing. People do seem to be willing to put up with hardships because they believe that they too can make it.

In part it is also a deeply rooted cultural thing about "Big Government" and it's "evils".

In part it's something that our society also had until the end of WW2.

"America was pretty heavily involved in WW2 as well, albeit two years later than us and never on their own. Maybe the difference is it was only their troops who had direct experience, unlike British civilians who were being bombed and suffering food and other shortages and living with the threat of invasion?"

Yes it's that latter part that I meant.

The British people suffered throughout the way and the country emerged on the verge of bankruptcy.

America's military contributions cannot be questioned or doubted.

But on a social front life was very different. Through the war average household incomes and the complete national income soared.

US Industry and it's economy ended the war in a very healthy state, arguably healthier than they were going in and many people "credit" the war with finally ending the great recession in the US.

So the British people wanted change and I think in part we wanted a "reward". Other European countries seem to have also thought the same way.

The American's didn't have that, so I don't think that they underwent the shift that we did that lead to us wanting state provisioned health care for all.

If WW2 hadn't have had the effects on the country that it did then perhaps we'd have a similar system to the US.

If WW2 had had have those effects on the US then perhaps it would have a system similar to ours.

ilovemydogandmrobama · 22/01/2010 13:02

Martha Coakley didn't lose her seat. It was Ted Kennedy's seat until he died which is why there was an election.

dittany · 22/01/2010 13:15

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

zazizoma · 22/01/2010 16:10

dittany, if you don't mind me asking, are you American? I don't believe the US President participates in the congressional portion of law making until the very end, when he either signs a bill into law or vetos it. This is very different from the UK way, where the PM participates more in the making of laws. I'm unclear as to why you think what has happened to healthcare in Congress is the fault of the President.

dittany · 22/01/2010 17:17

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

sayanything · 22/01/2010 17:30

Yes, but it was the Congressional and Senatorial legislative process that killed the public option, which would have made the reform truly meaningful. And the 60-Senators majority included people like Lieberman, who has been a huge obstacle to the Democrats' agenda, especially on healthcare.

dittany · 22/01/2010 17:30

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

sayanything · 22/01/2010 17:39

Or maybe you could contact the White House directly and tell them that they should start acting like Obama is the dictator you obviously think he is. He should just sign the thing into law tomorrow. Congress, Senate, pfff .

dittany · 22/01/2010 17:41

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Swipe left for the next trending thread